The Ultimate Resource

[tractatus]

It can be easily shown with some simple mathematical methods that World can feed more billions than now. I totally agree with this. Besides, I can see that, how little has been done when these theoretical explanations made.

I think this article is written about advantages of communism/without knowing what he say. Obvious that the main problem is distribution, so what's your solution? Play Robin Hood?

- It is a simple economic rule for today's world; If I have 1 million $ and you have 0 million $;
I win another 1 m.$ faster and easier than you. And thus it goes. How do you change this?
- If we add 1 more billion to population, see their future life : % 10 of them will be in wealth,
% 40 will be very poor/misery. How to change?
Change taxes, giving aids. etc is not not not enough. Clearly you have to behave totalitarian
in order to balance between rich and poor. Nothing else, for today's world.

[Virgil]

It can be easily shown with some simple mathematical methods that World can feed more billions than now. I totally agree with this. Besides, I can see that, how little has been done when these theoretical explanations made.

While I agree with you that we can feed billions more, I wonder what mathematical formula you are thnking of that can show that. What formula?

I think this article is written about advantages of communism/without knowing what he say. Obvious that the main problem is distribution, so what's your solution? Play Robin Hood?

If you thinnk this is about the advantages of communism, I'm sorry tractatus, you are definitely wrong. Prof. Williams is a libertarian, which means he believes in complete laissez-faire. That's pretty much the opposite of communism. In his last paragraph he says, "The greatest threat to mankind's prosperity is government." Communism is the enforcement of government into every aspect of our lives.

- It is a simple economic rule for today's world; If I have 1 million $ and you have 0 million $;
I win another 1 m.$ faster and easier than you. And thus it goes. How do you change this?
- If we add 1 more billion to population, see their future life : % 10 of them will be in wealth,
% 40 will be very poor/misery. How to change?
Change taxes, giving aids. etc is not not not enough. Clearly you have to behave totalitarian
in order to balance between rich and poor. Nothing else, for today's world.

I think Prof. Williams is saying just the opposite. Let people earn the living freely and there will be less poor. But perhaps that's off topic.

I've found an interesting article, which deals with the two sides of the cost of livestock, and the author who is against keeping meat as a primary source of food, Raj Patel, pointed out to the fact that although the world is not going to starve due to lack of food, we are investing more and more resources on feeding the animals that we then eat.

To quote a few facts presented in this article:

Quote:
A University of Chicago study argued that the average meat eater in the US produces about 1.5 tonnes more of CO2 than a vegetarian per year. That's because animals are hungry and the grain they eat takes energy, usually fossil fuel energy to produce a single calorie of plant protein, according to Cornell University. And lots of that plant protein is required to make animal protein. For chicken, the ration of energy in to protein out is4:1. For pork it's 17:1. For lamb, 50:1. For beef 54:1

I don't understand. If you're vegetarrian aren't you also eating grain or some other vegetables? And while a cow is 54:1, it also can feed many more people than a single chicken. But this is off topic. With a larger population we would probably have to make certain adjustments. I concede that. Though what they may be are inconcievable from our perspective right now.

It raises the question though as to whether the way in which we are managing agriculture and food nowadays is the right one.

Actually it's incredible the amount of productivity we have in farming today as compared to a hundred or even fifty years ago. I bet we could still do better. We haven't even begun to explore genetic engineering of vegetation.

So maybe, overpopulation is a problem due to the fact that it seems impossible to provide enough food to everyone, and that everyone, is a high number. There are many people out there who are not even remotely happy and are struggling to survive a day, let alone a whole life.

This is where we disagree. I bet in 1600 (ok if you don't want to go back to the 11th century) when Europe's population was 100M could anyone concieve how Europe would feed 700M in 2000? My argument (and Prof. William's argument of course) is that we continue to figure out solutions to a growing population and we will do so in the future. Where that ultimately ends who knows. But we have not reached the end yet.

I still can't compare 21st with 11th, I find them completely unrelated for the topic we are discussing. They didn't have the technology we have now for one. It was harder to grow food and mantain livestock than it is now.
And they had diseases to deal with, which we can now cure, and lower life expectancy.

But that's the point. We continue to solve these problems and the world's population continues to grow.

I'd compare the 21st to the 20th and the 19th, but no more than that.

ok.

[sofia82]

Thanks Sofia. I don't want to get involved in the specifics of your government, but we understand that governments can have terrible effects on the lives and prosperty of its people.

Thank you Virgil. I never bother myself to talk about such matters as it goes no where just mentioned as an example! Overpopulation is good just an ideal and developed countries else it is a disaster

[kasie]

I can't help wondering if Mr Williams (and you, Virgil,) would hold the same opinions of the relationship between high populations and economic despair if he (or you) lived in Mumbai or Dafur or rural China - or even worked in a sweat shop or tried to work in a depressed rural community in USA or Europe. The human brain is indeed a wonderfully inventive organ - I'm not sure the human soul/conscience/heart is keeping up with it.

[Jozanny]

Billions more, on top of the 6 billion of our species already here, simply isn't sustainable. The human animal is a fairly large ape, mostly made up of water. We'll never reach 10 billion because of the limited amount of fresh water available to make a body.

Sorry Virgil. The math is against you and your professor, as is:

1. The rampant decline in bio-diversity and habitat. There have been unusual die-offs in less than exotic species: ash trees, bats, colony collapse disorder in pollinating bees. African lions, which had been holding steady for years at about 100,000, are now in a spiraling decline. And, more importantly perhaps, we have depleted fish, mere ocean fish, by 90%. I am sure you can Google any number of articles on the collapse of the industrial fishing industry worldwide.

We cannot survive as a species ourselves with just cockroaches, ants, termites, corn, poultry and cattle--and those cattle, by the way, aren't sustainable being force-fed in metal cages. Corn is killing them, killing the working class in the States, and rapidly killing off people in other countries where McDonald's has become established.

There are probably *too many* of us for climate change to eliminate us all, but I would bet you my last dollar that the world my sister's children inherit will be plagued by water, environmental, and energy crisises which will significantly reduce specie number and longevity.

[Virgil]

I can't help wondering if Mr Williams (and you, Virgil,) would hold the same opinions of the relationship between high populations and economic despair if he (or you) lived in Mumbai or Dafur or rural China - or even worked in a sweat shop or tried to work in a depressed rural community in USA or Europe. The human brain is indeed a wonderfully inventive organ - I'm not sure the human soul/conscience/heart is keeping up with it.

The human soul will be the same whether for a large or small global population. I've said such above. The very fact that Europe went from 36M in 1000 AD to 100M in 1600 to 450M in 1900 to 700M in 2000 shows that it can be done. Are you saying that if Munbai or Dafur had Euorpean style governments and industry that they would not be similar to Europe? Are you saying that those people are genetically incabable of modernizaton?

Billions more, on top of the 6 billion of our species already here, simply isn't sustainable.

How do you know what isn't sustainable? I bet you would have said you would have said the same when the earth's population was 3B. You or anyone doesn't have a clue. There is no mathematical formula that tells us.

The human animal is a fairly large ape, mostly made up of water. We'll never reach 10 billion because of the limited amount of fresh water available to make a body.

Have you ever heard of desalination? Can you not conceive of new technolgies that will sustain more people? Why do you think the population of the world has exploded over time? The ultimate resource (the human brain) continues to solve technological problems.

Sorry Virgil. The math is against you and your professor, as is:

1. The rampant decline in bio-diversity and habitat. There have been unusual die-offs in less than exotic species: ash trees, bats, colony collapse disorder in pollinating bees. African lions, which had been holding steady for years at about 100,000, are now in a spiraling decline. And, more importantly perhaps, we have depleted fish, mere ocean fish, by 90%. I am sure you can Google any number of articles on the collapse of the industrial fishing industry worldwide.

We may have to adjust our diet. Bio engineering hasn't fully developed as an industry. I see no reason why we lack food. In fact I've said we have an obesity problem not a starvation problem. We have more food than we know what to do with. As to the lions and such, we need to establish more parks for wild life. If every building that exists in the world now had just one extra floor of living space, do you realize how many more people would be housed without taking up a single square mm of land?

We cannot survive as a species ourselves with just cockroaches, ants, termites, corn, poultry and cattle--and those cattle, by the way, aren't sustainable being force-fed in metal cages. Corn is killing them, killing the working class in the States, and rapidly killing off people in other countries where McDonald's has become established.

Cattle are dying? Corn is killing people? What? I just had corn last night with my beef steak. What are you talking about?

There are probably *too many* of us for climate change to eliminate us all, but I would bet you my last dollar that the world my sister's children inherit will be plagued by water, environmental, and energy crisises which will significantly reduce specie number and longevity.

I'll bet you the global population at the time of your sister's children's old age will be greater than it is now. And they will be thriving and living excellent lives. And there still will be the apocalyptic crowd calling for doomsday. I bet you.

Sorry Jozy, your math isn't based on anything.

[Jozanny]

View the documentary King Corn. Cattle are grass eaters. In the US we torture them, force feeding them corn in penned cages. If we didn't slaughter them first, the frutcose diet alone would do it, just not as quickly.

I respect your intelligence Virgil, but on demographics we simply disagree. The CIA has NIE's which suggest future military conflicts will be fought over water. We cannot simply drain the oceans and take the salt out. Our bodies process about 5 liters a day. Add in what has to go to sustain agriculture. Add the fresh water necessary for healthy aquatic populations. Water is a recycled planetary resource, but it is not an unlimited one, and we cannot restore ground water supply, which takes years to become a resource in itself.

The casuality numbers from the tsunami disaster in 05 and the recent cyclone disaster in Burma may not be statistically significant, but such figures will be as storms become larger and more powerful with climate disruption.

And a minor point. Both Britain and the US were the most powerful empires of the 19th and 20th centuries, with small populations when compared to the Third World. It is technological distribution, not the number of people, which has made the modern quality of life.

And no, in general I am not species optimistic: We are a remarkable animal, one that got lucky and evolved in intelligence fairly rapidly, but we are too driven by self-interest to act as a collective whole to modify our excesses. Nuclear proliferation is a great example of this. Neither the US, Russia, nor China are going to scour the world to destroy the knowledge necessary to keep creating nuclear powers, and the more powers there are with nuclear capacity, the higher the risk of a new disaster.

[kasie]

The human soul will be the same whether for a large or small global population. I've said such above. The very fact that Europe went from 36M in 1000 AD to 100M in 1600 to 450M in 1900 to 700M in 2000 shows that it can be done. Are you saying that if Munbai or Dafur had Euorpean style governments and industry that they would not be similar to Europe? Are you saying that those people are genetically incabable of modernizaton?......

I'm not at all sure how to answer you, Virgil - I'd like to think that your clever responses are ironic, that you are being merely provocative and arguing for the sake of arguing, that you are deliberately misinterpreting the replies to your apparently blinkered posts but I fear you are all too serious and truly believe over-population is a 'good thing'.

You are of course quite right that the human soul will be the same regardless of population size: people always have been and probably always will be selfish, avaricious and power-hungry. They never have and probably never will ensure that the goodies are fairly divided. They don't often look to the future and ask themselves if the fish will always be in the sea, the soil there to grow the crops, the grass be sufficient to pasture the herds, the buffalo (or the woolly mammoths) roaming the plains to be hunted, the oil there to be drilled. The 'modernisation' that you regard so highly might have come about through the application of brain power but those clever people didn't look very far ahead to consider the sustainability of the life-style they were changing. The question should be not 'Can it be done?' but 'Should it be done?'

Yes, of course homo sapiens will think his way out of problems - it's just a pity that he created many of them in the first place.

And no, I didn't say the people in Mumbai etc were genetically incapable of 'modernising' themselves - you know very well I didn't! But it may surprise you to know that no one can 'think' themselves out of the poverty trap: it takes determination, application, concentration, and a lot of other '-tions' as well as health and strength, which surprisingly are enhanced by physical well-being, brought about by food, security, cleanliness, somewhere safe to sleep and raise your children. Education is quite high up the pyramid of basic needs, Culture (the sort with the capital C) is even higher. The poor didn't ask to be poor, they would haul themselves out of it if only they could - what we in the so-called 'civilised' West need to ask ourselves is why are they still poor and what can we do to help them.

I do hope you are being provocative. If you are, would you please ask yourself if your 'stirring' is on an appropriate subject? If you are not but are seriously suggesting that all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds, will you at least consider the possibility that you may be being a tad selective in your appraisal of the world situation? Am I saddened by this thread? Yes, I am, more than a little. Am I angered by its assumptions and its sophistry? You bet your life I am!

[Virgil]

View the documentary King Corn. Cattle are grass eaters. In the US we torture them, force feeding them corn in penned cages. If we didn't slaughter them first, the frutcose diet alone would do it, just not as quickly.

It is ashame the poor lives they lead, but all farm animals lead miserable lives. That has been going on in one way or another from the beginning of animal domestication. Veal (baby calfs) goes back to ancient Rome at least, and I assume you know the poor lives they are forced to have. Of course if people are really disturbed by this a larger global world may need to have more vegetarian dishes in their diet.

I respect your intelligence Virgil, but on demographics we simply disagree.

I assume you mean we disgree on the what future demographics mean. Ok we disgree. I don't mean to be frustrating people discussing this with me.

The CIA has NIE's which suggest future military conflicts will be fought over water.

As if the CIA has never been wrong. Have you heard of weapons of mass destruction?

We cannot simply drain the oceans and take the salt out. Our bodies process about 5 liters a day. Add in what has to go to sustain agriculture. Add the fresh water necessary for healthy aquatic populations. Water is a recycled planetary resource, but it is not an unlimited one, and we cannot restore ground water supply, which takes years to become a resource in itself.

Well, we do disagree. We will have to find a solution, unless you intend euthanaisa. The population of the earth is growing and will continue to grow. Perhaps the question I should ask is if you think it is apocalyptic if the earth's population continues to grow, what do you advocate to reverse it?

The casuality numbers from the tsunami disaster in 05 and the recent cyclone disaster in Burma may not be statistically significant, but such figures will be as storms become larger and more powerful with climate disruption.

Can someone please show me where climate has gotten any worse historically? What evidence is there that storms have gotten any worse? With the information age we now know of every storm and its aftermath when in the past it went unnoticed by people thausands of miles away. Are you saying that this tsunami was the worst in history?

And a minor point. Both Britain and the US were the most powerful empires of the 19th and 20th centuries, with small populations when compared to the Third World. It is technological distribution, not the number of people, which has made the modern quality of life.

First, the US has never been an empire. Second it wasn't just the US and Britain but most European nations. Probably true on the population ratio. But European & US populations continued to grow for the past several centuries. I'm not sure about third world populations but I bet they didn't grow. At least not in recent years.

And no, in general I am not species optimistic: We are a remarkable animal, one that got lucky and evolved in intelligence fairly rapidly, but we are too driven by self-interest to act as a collective whole to modify our excesses. Nuclear proliferation is a great example of this. Neither the US, Russia, nor China are going to scour the world to destroy the knowledge necessary to keep creating nuclear powers, and the more powers there are with nuclear capacity, the higher the risk of a new disaster.

Well, I would catagorize myself as optimistic on human progress and standards of living, but neutral on man's capacity to degenerate against his fellow man. I wouldn't say I'm pessimistic, but certainly realistic. Look I don't know how old you are, but we've just come through a cold war where for decades nations had hundreds if not thousands of nuclear weapons aimed at each other. And nothing happened. Today a few more nations have nuclear weapons, but they probably have a few total not hundreds. Now even one can cause a lot of destruction and death, but the situation is far less severe than when the cold war was in full bloom. And wouldn't it be better if the world had a large population in the event a nuclear bomb was launched? More people would improve man's survival.

Well, we can keep discussing, but obviously we disagree. That's alright.

I'm not at all sure how to answer you, Virgil - I'd like to think that your clever responses are ironic, that you are being merely provocative and arguing for the sake of arguing, that you are deliberately misinterpreting the replies to your apparently blinkered posts but I fear you are all too serious and truly believe over-population is a 'good thing'.

Well, I'm being serious and provocative. Now I know how Socrates felt. And yes I do truely believe that a larger population is a good thing.

You are of course quite right that the human soul will be the same regardless of population size: people always have been and probably always will be selfish, avaricious and power-hungry. They never have and probably never will ensure that the goodies are fairly divided. They don't often look to the future and ask themselves if the fish will always be in the sea, the soil there to grow the crops, the grass be sufficient to pasture the herds, the buffalo (or the woolly mammoths) roaming the plains to be hunted, the oil there to be drilled. The 'modernisation' that you regard so highly might have come about through the application of brain power but those clever people didn't look very far ahead to consider the sustainability of the life-style they were changing.

But so far we have sustained it. I just looked it up. In 1750 the world had about 1B people. In 1900, 2B. Today 6.7B We have sustained it. Set aside the countries that don't have good food distribution (because that's a distribution problem not a lack of food problem) and you have greater and greater obesity problems. There is too much food.

The question should be not 'Can it be done?' but 'Should it be done?'

Well there we agree. I don't know whether it should be done. I certainly don't believe in euthanasia, or abortion for the sake of abortion. Are you going to advocate birth control laws like communist China? So how does one stop the population growth? I just fundementally disagree with all the people who think it's a problem.

Yes, of course homo sapiens will think his way out of problems - it's just a pity that he created many of them in the first place.

Well, you could choose not to live, if you think life is so bad. After studying what life was like for the average person in the middle ages I believe that life has essentially gotten better, and not just by a little, but by a lot. Sure there will always be problems. But let's keep them in perspective and see how much better life is now.

And no, I didn't say the people in Mumbai etc were genetically incapable of 'modernising' themselves - you know very well I didn't! But it may surprise you to know that no one can 'think' themselves out of the poverty trap: it takes determination, application, concentration, and a lot of other '-tions' as well as health and strength, which surprisingly are enhanced by physical well-being, brought about by food, security, cleanliness, somewhere safe to sleep and raise your children. Education is quite high up the pyramid of basic needs, Culture (the sort with the capital C) is even higher. The poor didn't ask to be poor, they would haul themselves out of it if only they could - what we in the so-called 'civilised' West need to ask ourselves is why are they still poor and what can we do to help them.

You may consider this another side note, but I don't. I believe that there is far less pverty today than at any time in human history. And yes, I attribute part of that to a larger population.

I do hope you are being provocative. If you are, would you please ask yourself if your 'stirring' is on an appropriate subject? If you are not but are seriously suggesting that all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds, will you at least consider the possibility that you may be being a tad selective in your appraisal of the world situation? Am I saddened by this thread? Yes, I am, more than a little. Am I angered by its assumptions and its sophistry? You bet your life I am!

Like I said, I'm a little tongue in cheek, but I do believe and stand by the positions I've put forward. I guess what irks me is that this new generaton has never been so pessimistic and apocalyptic than I've ever seen. I guess I'm fundementally a renaissance humanist, believing in the power of humanity. This generation seems to be more conscerned about the population of polar bears than of humans.

Peace Kasie. I don't mean to frustrate you.

[Jozanny]

As if the CIA has never been wrong. Have you heard of weapons of mass destruction?

Intelligence gathering and extrapolation is imperfect, but that does not mean intelligence is always wrong. At this moment, while we are typing, the lower 48 are gearing up to litigate water usage among themselves, and these are just the states of the union, which presumably aren't going to disintegrate into civil war anytime soon. CA already has a water emergency, and this is within the most powerful country on earth, which just cracked 300 million not too long ago. It is not too far a stretch to look at our situation and see a very real humanitarian crisis splintering Sudan, Chad, the weaker African states. Post-colonial borders in such regions (including the Middle East) already don't mean much, and they will mean less when access to drinking water becomes too precious. China is already in crisis because its water lanes are so polluted that party officials are the ones saying their economic growth isn't sustainable.

Well, we do disagree. We will have to find a solution, unless you intend euthanaisa. The population of the earth is growing and will continue to grow. Perhaps the question I should ask is if you think it is apocalyptic if the earth's population continues to grow, what do you advocate to reverse it?

6 billion people cannot reverse it in any humane reasonable way. We'll end up killing each other like we always do. China's one child policy doesn't work. The preference for male children over female has lead to a modern unintended consequence. Too many single aggressive men busy playing war games because they do not have wives. We could, perhaps, treat the elderly less aggressively and allow nature to take its course, but why debate slippery slopes endlessly?

First, the US has never been an empire.

That is debatable. *If it walks like a duck--*

[tractatus]

While I agree with you that we can feed billions more, I wonder what mathematical formula you are thnking of that can show that. What formula?

I am not talking about a definite formula, In the article he shows some calculations and says, in 4th paragraph. And surely there has been more, of these kind of calculations.

If you thinnk this is about the advantages of communism, I'm sorry tractatus, you are definitely wrong. Prof. Williams is a libertarian, which means he believes in complete laissez-faire.
I think Prof. Williams is saying just the opposite. Let people earn the living freely and there will be less poor. But perhaps that's off topic.

This is very clear, he is not talking about communism directly.

So, what he says;
- increase population,
- let liberal economy rules freely,
- let competition. (as a natural outcome of liberal economy)

So competition needs competitors. Competitors that wants prize. And usually, prizes are, for a very little people.
Very a few competitors win, and quite a big mass loses. This is a model of today's world. We always compete for somethings, few win, plenty of us lose.
Genius solves nothing, Not only Einstein genious but also Ted Bundy, not only Shakespeare is genious but also Nobel. Liberal economy is not a religion, not guides the people to the humanism. Every winner need losers, for every Switzerland* there is a Sudan, for every Usa there is an Indonesia, for every Shakespeare there is a Hitler/Ted Bundy .. etc.


* Countries just selected for economic comparison, then for nothing.

[Taliesin]

As an believer of an end-of-the-world coming right away, I shall give my two cents here.
First, we are running out of oil. We have been finding less new oil reserves as we are going on - and the oil consummation is rising- yes, we have used up about half the oil we have but the oil is much more difficult, expensive and energy-needing to get than the oil we have been getting.
The trouble with nuclear power is that it is not exactly infinite - we need certain special radioactive isotopes for that and they are running out too at some moment. Security isn't actually such an issue - the reactors nowadays are very secure, if I am not mistaken.
The trouble with renewable energies is that they actually need energy to get them going - sun panels and wind turbines need quite a lot energy to produce.
Secondly, food - the reason why we can harvest so much cheap food is simple - we have a lot of cheap energy. If the energy becomes more expensive, then good-bye, lots of cheap food. Then there will be a very serious food shortage.

(and we are actually running out of everything, google "peak everything" for such interesting theories)

Am not exactly saying we on the verge of a Malthusian catastrophe but it is quite a touch-and-go situation.

Apocalyptically yours,
your Panic-Monger and Eshatologer
Taliesin

[Jozanny]

Nice points about energy Talie.

Virgil asked me what I was talking about when I said corn was basically killing everyone.

I learned from King Corn about the pervasiveness of corn fructose, and quite simply, the stuff is bad for the human body, and it is not only bad for you, but the industrialization of crop and livestock which leads to junkfood and diabetes, this is also not sustainable in the long term.

It is not simply that farm animals are miserable; it is that we are hurting ourselves through the forcefeeding caged pen out put of poulty and domesticated livestock.

Here is a snippet:

FORT WORTH, Texas — High-fructose corn syrup isn't completely responsible for the nation's 6 million overweight children — but Dr. George Bray says it's a big part of the problem.

Nurture trumps nature in the current childhood-obesity epidemic, says Bray. It's the environment we're creating for our kids that's the problem, and that environment includes increasing numbers of products high in high-fructose corn syrup, or HFCS.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...thsyrup04.html

Google has plenty more.

[AimusSage]

There is such a thing as a point of diminishing returns. If you keep it up, you'll get to a saturation point, where more people actually have a detrimental affect on the total population. Technology can alleviate this to a point, but even so, the earth has a limited capacity, what that capacity is I do not know, it might be 6 billion, it might be 20, but the fact is, expansion of humans require other resources, and they will run out eventually...that is, unless technology finds a solution eg. expansion to other planets. Technology is driven by people, so more people move technology forward faster.

It's not an ethical issues we are debating. We don't look at people, we look at humans in total, as a species. the standard of living can increase, but the value of a life decreases, these are two different things.

For example, lets say it takes the lives of 100 people to improve the standard of living for a 1000 people by a factor of 1.11. That means that, taking into account the 100 people that died, the overall standard of living is still improved by about 0.01 percent. It would probably considered unethical by most, but that is not the issue, the fact is, the standard of living is improved.

And so on... Blabla.

[Virgil]

Nice points about energy Talie.

Virgil asked me what I was talking about when I said corn was basically killing everyone.

I learned from King Corn about the pervasiveness of corn fructose, and quite simply, the stuff is bad for the human body, and it is not only bad for you, but the industrialization of crop and livestock which leads to junkfood and diabetes, this is also not sustainable in the long term.

It is not simply that farm animals are miserable; it is that we are hurting ourselves through the forcefeeding caged pen out put of poulty and domesticated livestock.

Here is a snippet:



http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...thsyrup04.html

Google has plenty more.

Oh I didn't realize you were talking about high fructose corn syrup. That's a sugar. And while I don't think it's killing people (that's a bit of an exaggeration), it is contributing to obesity. I agree that's not good for you.