Growing food for fuel is a crime against humanity, plain & simple. If it isn't stopped a lot of people are going to die hungry, murdered by everyone who drives a vehicle powered by biofuels. Stop buying gasoline blended with ethanol or diesel fuel blended with vegetable oils, or stand guilty of genocide.

Why are WE obligated to feed the world? Why do they not grow their own food and distribute it fairly. When you feed starving people who don't grow their own food...they breed and then later when the food is inevitably cut off the people starve. By continually subsidizing the poor peoples of the world with grain we are insuring a point in the future where they starve. And even if we stop buying biofuels others won't these fuels displace the conventional. I would think a darwin moniker would want those who can't provide for themselves to starve.

Keep the disagreements civil, folks.

Sure but who will answer their pressing question.

Why are WE obligated to feed the world?

Tell them, that it is because others already reached highly "cooperative societies", where those who have the food are not slaves to rotten capitalistic incentives to distribute it.

I guess my opponents elegant writing was deleted LOL. I am against food to fuel for the record, we need to export food to help with trade deficit, and I'm glad food is finally being priced in a reasonable range. The good thing about biofuels is we are still learning what works. Brasil has a great model I toured two sugar cane plants while I lived there. The whole gulf coast could farm the cane fairly easily although the labor is not is cheap. (Prison chain gangs perhaps? Anyway if we are wanting to end poverty, handouts locally and globally are not the way. We would be better off with infrastructure and education to bring a group up to the point where they can fend for themselves. Obviously acute famines like burma should be handled compassionately but consistently dumping cheap food into the world market hurts world farmers.

MAtt

The whole gulf coast could farm the cane fairly easily although the labor is not is cheap. (Prison chain gangs perhaps?

Sure why not? And aftetr we've run out of forced prison labour maybe we can round up few drug users or anyone remotely suspected of ever having used drugs and press them into salvery. And then there are the homeless who will be better off in forced servitude anyway, at least we'll feed them (maybe) and what about those homosexuals, they don't breed so of what use are they anyway. Illegal immigrants should be on the list (oh thats right, we already have a salve labour program for them), but there's plenty of white tras around, anyone with a tattoo or facial metalwork should qualify? And then we can segregate people by race.....

You have just proved Mr Zeiglers points about how biofuel leads to fascim. And it it did't even hurt did it?

WOW what a logical progression you made from taking away cable from prisoners and having them work to oppressing all non WASPs. As for proving anything about fascism I did not attempt to and you clearly were not successful. I personally am in favor of oppressing people with facial metal work. I have always hated them. Those lip piercings make them dribble when they drink the Koolaid. Dragon....whats wrong with you?

Yeah Dragon - don't you know the old saying "Arbeit Macht Frei" ? It would be good for them !

Mr Medic - I'd recommend studying a little history if you want to understand the natural progression from using prisoners for cheap labour to using all sorts of other people who the state doesn't regard as fully-fledged citizens.

It would be very easy to start with prisoners and then move on to illegal immigrants, for example - make them "earn" their way back home - what could be fairer than that ? And on it goes.

Changing tack, I think tagging the "Natural Capitalism" people as being synonymous with "environmental nationalism" (why not just call them ecofascists) and being supporters of first generation biofuels is just wrong - I;d guess most cleantech people don't support food to fuel at all (Vinod Khosla excepted), though they are more gung ho about cellulosic ethanol etc.

So in the cool hand luke days of chain gangs the guys had to ask permission to wipe sweat off their forehead. Now our paid road workers stand in large groups while one or two work. Why are all those marginal citizens mentioned above not slaving away? Maybe its not a natural progression? Show me an example of prisoner labor shifting to enslaving all non WASPS in a moder democracy with a constitution.

I would, but it would be a clear violation of Godwin's Law

Apparently he isn't aware of that example, no matter how many hints are dropped.

As far as I'm aware, the idea of using prisoners for forced labour is a barbaric one that is unknown in the developed world (I simply can't image prisoners doing roadwork in European countries, or Australia, or Japan etc etc).

China does it of course - so maybe its just a natural thing for totalitarian states with a disregard for civil liberties...

Last I checked Germany was in Europe. I said MODERN democracy though and I disagree with your premise that if we force prisoners to work instead of watch cable then that slippery slope will lead to oppression of all. Sorry its a huge stretch. An we have so many idle prisoners (useless mouths if you will ;) ) that could be working. You could even credit nonviolent offenders with double time served if they work.

BTW I don't think the US is totalitarian and we do have civil liberties.

Also working prisoners are less violent than idle prisoners. So my personal opinion is if you screw up you should have a hard time in jail not just three hots and a cot.

I don't disagree that prison should be a place where prisoners work to redeem themselves, but viewing them as a source of labour for profit is a fascist idea that can be expanded to include other groups of non citizens. Welfare recipients come to mind foremeost as the logical target group.

Democracy is a precious gift but it does not live in a constitution but in the actions and thougths of it's participants every day. Your civil liberties are only as guaranteed as your preparedness to defend the rights of others as a matter of principle. Otherwise democracy is a cheap label that anyone can flash around (e.g. Democratic Peoples Repblic of Korea).

First world politics and globalization are among the main reasons why those countries are in their food predicaments in the first place.
[i.e. food companies forcing expensive proprietary chemicals and seeds (that the poor can ill afford), the U.S. government handing out monstrous subsidies to US crop markets, undercutting global prices and thus running farmers in poor countries out of business because they simply cannot compete with the heavily subsidized US food products.]

The forced economic terms mainly benefit first world mega corporations that make local markets unsustainable and drive previously self-sustaining farmers to slums outside their cities because they can no longer afford to grow their own crops.

Of course we don't HAVE TO feed the poor of the world but much of the current food crisis is because of the mess we caused. Ultimately, we are still dependent on these countries for providing cheap resources and labor that perpetuate our current lifestyle. Neither food riots nor political instability in these countries is in our best interest.

In any case, climate change and decreasing resources is going to present the ENTIRE WORLD with unprecedented levels of famine and scarcity. The first world itself has abused the limits of earth and still continues to try and stretch it. Like the third world, we are guilty of the folly of overpopulating the planet and at this point, it is doubtful that we can even provide for our own.

Hello ORM long time no hear.

Malthus. – An Essay on the Principles of Population. 2nd Edition.

>>"A man who is born into a world already possessed, if he cannot get subsistence from his parents on whom he has a just demand, and if the society do not want his labour, has no claim of right to the smallest portion of food, and, in fact, has no business to be where he is. At nature's mighty feast there is no vacant cover for him. She tells him to be gone, and will quickly execute her own orders, if he does not work upon the compassion of some of her guests. If these guests get up and make room for him, other intruders immediately appear demanding the same favour. The report of a provision for all that come, fills the hall with numerous claimants. The order and harmony of the feast is disturbed, the plenty that before reigned is changed into scarcity; and the happiness of the guests is destroyed by the spectacle of misery and dependence in every part of the hall, and by the clamorous importunity of those, who are justly enraged at not finding the provision which they had been taught to expect. The guests learn too late their error, in counter-acting those strict orders to all intruders, issued by the great mistress of the feast, who, wishing that all guests should have plenty, and knowing she could not provide for unlimited numbers, humanely refused to admit fresh comers when her table was already full."<<

Why are WE obligated to feed the world?

I agree. Everyone must be able to feed themselves from local resources. If they can't then they are over carrying capacity and must be allowed to starve. Provided food aid leads to an enormous overshoot which is what we have now. Biofuels are a dumb idea though anyway due to EROEI.

"Everyone must be able to feed themselves from local resources."

Does that mean we in the US don't get Blood Diamonds and Cheap Cocoa Beans any more?

It is a global marketplace, and the US and EU for their part have profited HUGELY from the raw resources of the 'Starving World' ... WE in the Industrial West are SO far over carrying capacity with the volume of energy and material we consume, frequently in bogus arrangements that is practically still stealing from these people.

Never mind how many Democratic and Grassroots social movements we've tripped up when they threatened to develop enough standing to bargain for fair prices..

Like fries with that?

It is interesting to try this same thought experiment within a nation.

Who will feed Las Vegas?

Oh, and even the big ag state California only has about 0.3 acres of cropland per person...who will feed San Diego?

Does sustainability require a redistribution of people to areas of quality soil and natural rainfall?

Growing food for fuel is a crime against humanity, plain & simple.

Of the various crimes VS humanity out there like genocide, DU, (insert favorite) - taking food to power a machine is less of an issue.

Photon to work/results paths should be calculated. Food is typically a poor path, but I don't see the best path of PV getting acceptance as most people seem to be hung up on the storage of 'energy'.

How about to power farm equipment?