Population, r-selection, food supply and famine

I wanted to throw you some further data that doesn’t quite fit in the UK-specific economic post I’ve planned. It does, however, affect our economy, especially our local (European) food supply and costs. It squeezes our own development by virtue of a see-saw, either they command these resources (our landmass and its fruits) or we do.

Previous: https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2018/01/07/update-to-population-point-in-automation/
Originally: https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2018/01/06/what-is-automation/

Premise: R-selection, to breed beyond the resources of your land, is suicidal in the long-run but also reduces standard of living in the short.

https://population.org.au/articles/2011-09-16/population-growth-damages-standard-living

“Those states with the highest rates of population growth suffered the largest reduction in standard of living”, said Dr John Coulter, Vice President of Sustainable Population Australia commenting on the latest ABS population data released yesterday.”

This could easily be predicted because, as resources are constant and finite, by increasing the demand, there will be less per head, or a lower standard of living. We can also see this in food prices, with extra-European over-population, beyond locally sustainable levels, basic costs go up, primarily the most fundamental cost being foodstuffs themselves.

If you complain about data volume, here is some going back to 1264.
https://ourworldindata.org/food-prices/

Why would food be important in discussions of population? /sarc
You’re sustainable or you’re dead. The system, ecosystem, is efficient and supportive of its lifeforms, or else it fails. There is no wiggle room for error or data concealment.

http://www.worldwatch.org/global-food-prices-continue-rise-0

“As both climate change and population growth continue to increase, there is reason to believe that food commodity prices will be both higher and more volatile in the decades to come.”

https://www.ft.com/content/84807466-c91d-11e7-ab18-7a9fb7d6163e
We in Britain currently eat from food banks so some Chinese parvenu can eat a roast chicken and feel successful and vote Hammer & Sickle. Where is the social justice outrage? [proof at end]
Petrol has gone down in the same time so no, you can’t blame oil.
To go from this century’s statistics.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/315418/foodpocketbook-2013update-29may14.pdf
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130124042648/http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/files/defra-stats-foodfarm-food-pocketbook-2012-130104.pdf

In a report from 2012: “Food prices have risen 12% in real terms over the last five years taking us back to 1997 in terms of cost of food relative to other goods.” “In May 2012 the main food issue of concern to respondents was food prices at 63%, an increase from 60% in November 2011.”
Sounds vaguely like hyperinflation. I’m sure that has no political consequences whatsoever.

Caring is not a choice. We’re producing more food than before, but it’s going out, away to greedy nations like China. [see end]
https://www.trusselltrust.org/2017/04/25/uk-foodbank-use-continues-rise/

Yes, it affects me.
https://foodfoundation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/FoodInsecurityBriefing-May-2016-FINAL.pdf
It affects my people.
“The survey found that 28% of adults skimped on their own food in the last year so that others in their households could eat”
Back to the rest of the world:

“Between 2000 and 2012, the World Bank global food price index increased 104.5 percent, at an average annual rate of 6.5 percent.”

“Food prices will also likely be driven up by population growth, increasing global affluence, stronger linkages between agriculture and energy markets, and natural resource constraints. According to the FAO, although high food prices tend to aggravate poverty, food insecurity, and malnutrition, they also represent an opportunity to catalyze long-term investment in agriculture, which could boost resilience to climate change and augment global food security.”

That is one loud canary, isn’t it?

That growth is not possible, the planet is not infinite, infinite growth is impossible. Soil erosion, for instance, is making it so there is LESS arable land in the world over time and this change appears permanent, caused by over-farming….
Britain figured out its business with an Agricultural Revolution, places like China try to outsource their inability to feed their population (Commies) instead of farming responsibly and denying its population the luxuries they purchase on credit and continue to demand.

Here’s a good article that goes into erosion.
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/nov/26/why-seed-banks-arent-the-only-answer-to-food-security

The technology they need won’t exist, it’s magical what they’d expect of it.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/U3550t/u3550t02.htm

Consider that China is actually land-poor, this fits like a glove.

A country’s ability to feed itself very much depends on three factors: availability of arable land, accessible water and population pressures. The more people there are, especially in poor countries with limited amounts of land and water, the fewer resources there are to meet basic needs. If basic needs cannot be met, development stalls and economies begin to unravel. In some poor countries, attempts to increase food production and consumption are undermined by rapid population growth; migration from rural to urban areas; unequal land distribution; shrinking landholdings; deepening rural poverty; and widespread land degradation. Lower birth rates, along with better management of land and water resources, are necessary to avert chronic food shortages.”

Famine. This dude.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Apocalypse#Black_Horse
https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/the-horsemen-of-revelation/the-horsemen-of-revelation-the-black-horse-of
All these natural disasters are written up as Acts of God.

This is what happens when men run everything, it fails from bureaucracy. You need a blend of influences in society to thrive. They’re too busy competing with one another to provide for the future, nurturing is the female ability.

“By formally recognizing women’s pivotal role, governments will be taking a big step toward safeguarding food production”

They won’t do that, they’re dumb enough to think women are only baby machines and the brain is a coincidence.

At current levels, to support these parasites, the world must somehow pull an additional 70% out of its backside.
https://www.populationinstitute.org/resources/populationonline/issue/1/8/

http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2083276,00.html
“Population Growth Has Driven Up the Food Price to Alarming Levels”
It opens with Malthus. They know.

I’m not picking on China, they are genuinely that thick. It’s a case study in What Never To Do.

https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995

I am by no stretch the first person to note these facts. It’s glaring.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-15/why-we-should-worry-about-china

Recently. That’s just recently.

End.

China is literally taking British food out of the hands of British people.

I’m not making this up. It’s on the official websites. e.g.
http://www.china.doingbusinessguide.co.uk/the-guide/selling-food-to-china/
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/huge-export-win-to-china-for-uk-food-producers
China is in the top 10 markets for our food and drink.
https://www.fdf.org.uk/exports/ukexports.aspx
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exporting-to-china
“growth ensured by Chinese monetary policy” lol
Yes, Communists can be trusted with your money.
https://www.marketingtochina.com/golden-age-british-food-beverage-china/
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/may/20/chinese-middle-class-snap-up-western-goods
https://www.ft.com/content/2166f9ec-b128-11e3-bbd4-00144feab7de
https://themarketmogul.com/chinese-hungry-for-the-british-food-industry/
How many do you NEED?
https://www.globalmeatnews.com/Article/2017/08/14/UK-and-China-sign-200m-pork-export-deal
https://www.express.co.uk/finance/city/841369/Brexit-export-deal-UK-China-food-agreement-British-pork-farming
http://www.cbbc.org/sectors/food-and-drink/

“China will become the world’s largest market for imported foods by 2018, predicts the country’s National Bureau of Statistics of China. China is already the largest grocery market in the world with an estimated value of £1 trillion, according to grocery industry researchers IGD. In 2016 UK food and drink exports to China increased by 49% with particularly strong growth in pork, beer and seafood. As a result China entered the UK’s top 10 food and drink export markets for the first time.”

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/british-food-exports-will-be-engine-for-growth

Let’s grow by preferentially selling the food our own people need to foreigners with more cash!

Great plan!


Not more valuable cash, more pieces of paper.

Why didn’t this happen to Japan? It’s an island.

Selling to outsiders only from the surplus would be anti-libertarian, anti-globalist.
Wanting to feed our children is racist.

Update:

Just let the white babies starve in the name of Marx. /s

Here’s what is actually going on:

Britain wants to strengthen its industry but needs foreign buyers in the mean time.

The Russians are simply using China to take down America, then pull a Littlefinger and doublecross them. Go to war against them. What are they gonna do? They have no food and no oil to import it with, it would be the easiest victory in military history. Why do you think the EU is helping China? To lessen their dependence on Russia. Russia is post-Communist and sees all the stupid shit China does, yet encourages it? Please. Communist countries like China always need to be rescued by the capitalist ones… who would rescue them? The people who would be calling in debts nobody could afford to pay? And they have well above a billion people, rescue yourself with your superior IQ.

Relevant fact: Soldiers would need even more food. China is doomed.

Advertising stole feminism & they’re STILL complaining + Women on Board lies

When this ad trend goes down, usually we see a buoy from the opposite e.g. Old Spice vs. Pyjama Boy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11727478/How-advertising-hijacked-feminism.-Big-time.html

Feminists know when something smells fishy.

….Welcome to the world of femvertising: where the hard sell has been ‘pinkwashed’ and replaced by something resembling a social conscience, and where advertisers are falling over each other to climb on board the feminist bandwagon.

…On the face of it, this might seem like a giant step forward for the industry. But is it as heartwarming as it seems? Aren’t we still just being sold to? Surely half the world’s population can’t be ‘having a moment’….

Meanwhile, Protein World is showing them how it’s done.
Who makes you more money long-term – a loud minority niche group ready to trigger on you eventually or a silent majority tired of their BS? They’re looking for proof, and something to calm down the stockholders at the meetings, who pay too much attention to Twitter because they’re too ancient to realise it’s a microcosm echo chamber without corporate relevance.

…It’s what women want. Last year, lifestyle website SheKnows surveyed more than 600 women about femvertising. A staggering 91 per cent believed that how women are portrayed in ads has a direct impact on girls’ self-esteem, and 94 per cent said that depicting women as sex symbols is harmful.

These women aren’t the sharpest tools in the box.
Note how they didn’t report how many, of those, actually purchased? Like the Dove campaign, it actually made sales plummet, because they got all their goodfeels from the Product (TM) advert – why would they need to spend more money on the product itself? (Original purpose for goodfeels marketing).

It also showed that femvertising can pay – half (52 per cent) had purchased a product because they liked how the ads potrayed women.

Did they say that unprompted?
How fickle is this 50% of your share?

Blackett suggests the move towards honesty in advertising is, in part, down to the recession. But I think the answer is much simpler: social media.

This girl is dumb.

Women have long held the spending power. Now, through social media, we’ve found a place to communicate that. We can hold advertisers – and anyone else perceived not to be meeting our needs – directly accountable (think Protein World’s ‘beach body ready’ billboards).

We can expose the realities of female life (#EverydaySexism) and rally behind causes via hashtag activism (think #bringbackourgirls #iammalala #yesallwomen). We can go into battle to see Jane Austen out on the tenner or to defend the victims of Gamergate.

oh no oh dear hides facepalm double
Blogs own your job, bitch. It’s over. MSM/Print is dead.
Bloggers do your shit for free and better.

Here is a place where the soft power – read influence – of women has never been more apparent.

False equivalence, most women are not feminists.
View at Medium.com

Our online presence is dominant (we use social media more, and we do 62 per cent of all online sharing).

Pictures of a druggie and stories about how much you hate yourselves don’t count.

We also have increasing power in the workplace – British boards now have 23.5 per cent women according to the latest Lord Davies report….

Actually in the FTSE250 in this report, as I said here;

FTSE250: 26% female MDs. Above the target of 25%.
YOU HAVE WHAT YOU WANTED ALREADY. THE DATA IS RIGHT THERE.

and

In the US, 40.2% of TEA was accounted for be women.

head desk blackadder give up
Strangely, this report has gone missing (cough sabotage cough). Thankfully we have a cache to the page: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:gQjjZsLE5u0J:www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06152.pd+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

And it does link to a very recent briefing paper: http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06152/SN06152.pdf
Which edits out the FTSE250 data and gives the 100 ONLY. That isn’t dodgy at all
This paper, yes, EU>our Government, snidely implies all-male boards will be banned in the top FTSE (I’m pretty sure this flouts corporate law and the rights of the stockholders with veto power), and since they’re publicly traded this can be regulated to an extent. On the economic losses, they have hidden their coverup of a lie in footnote 20 in this document, man I love the footnotes, protip always read those first: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldselect/ldeucom/58/58.pdf which reads;

It should be stressed that we reject any suggestion that improved diversity would be to the detriment of company performance, as was argued in some submissions we received.44 As the Employment Lawyers’ Association (ELA) stated, “it is difficult to see what disadvantages companies could suffer by reason of a higher representation of women on boards”.45 However, as the Minister said, “causality is probably impossible to prove one way or the other … ”.46 If this express link to financial performance cannot be proven more robustly, then it should be discarded from the argument. To do otherwise would put a case that cannot be proven at the centre of an argument for policy change. We urge the Government to argue forthrightly the case for improved gender diversity based on the “whole range of different advantages” that balance can bring,47 rather than on the direct financial impact of increased female board representation.

It cannot be proven if you suppress the evidence.
Notice they never outright lie? I love that about EU shills.
I’d sue or demand insurance that if the law forces them to take on bad hires, either they get the right to sack them and take on whomever they want or they get a massive payout greater than the loss. I did a little digging, for those who want to contact the people telling the truth on this.
The evidence to support this hatefact was submitted by Ray Russell, Michael Klein, and as ‘Campaign for Merit in Business’ and you can see the links here: https://c4mb.wordpress.com/2012/07/26/house-of-lords-select-committe-inquiry-on-women-on-boards-written-evidence-submitted/ who added “We’ve been in touch with most of these groups, and none has offered a shred of evidence of a positive causal relationship between more women on boards and enhanced corporate performance.

It doesn’t exist, dawg. Technically, the law was brought through on a known lie, making it invalid and a breach of NGO power (you know they’re the ones pushing this). These companies could hustle together and file a class-action lawsuit. I mean, if they read silly little blogs like mine…
In Europe, recent legal changes allowed this if it’s in civilian benefit (they can be stockholders of the PLC structure) – just a thought….

Back to the dumb girl…

…. It’s a powerful message and one that’s also had plenty of ad-world back slapping (along with #LikeAGirl it won a coveted glass lion at the Cannes Lion ad awards earlier this month).

The starting point for the campaign was research: through talking to women came the realisation that they weren’t doing sport out of fear of being judged, even though 75 per cent wanted to…..

All the prestige and $$$$.
They must be hitting up against the original idea wall soon, like Hollywood. Scraping out the last of their credibility could be funny. We should mock them mercilessly when that day arrives.

…It smacked of a company adopting feminism because it seemed trendy; out of self interest. That’s where brands like Sport England and Always have got it right – they’re turning the mirror back on us. The moment those women in the first #LikeAGirl ad understood they’d been fed a cliche about their own gender was powerful, regardless of the motive. …

These people will never be happy.

…Indeed, femvertising is hugely popular with millennials who, recent studies show, value ethics over money. …

They have no money.

But this younger generation of women will see through such advertising strategies if they become too shallow. The more brands strive to appeal to them via ‘social movements’ or experiments, the more they risk becoming formulaic.

#Girls

…So where next for femvertising? Personally, I think we desperately need more diversity on our screens. …

Companies – They’re gonna destroy you. They only care about pushing their beliefs, they’re like the New Church Ladies.
Women don’t aspire to ugly. You will lose.


Go ahead, with my full blessing.
Do everything they say and when they drop you, the rest of us will let you go under.

…Plus, if femvertising is truly going to be real isn’t it about time we saw red, not blue, liquid used in ads for sanitary towels and tampons? (It’s a myth that ASA rules prohibit this). ..

See what I mean?

…”We need to normalise the experience of being a woman in advertising. If companies have any sense at all they will embrace it and future proof their business.” …

You made your bed, motherfuckers.