#2123: Re: #2099: Where are the numbers? Poincy comments

[Robert Corbett <bcorbett@netcom.com>]

From: Jean Poincy <caineve@idt.net>

I am afraid that Heinl is beating on a dead horse by begging for
numbers for two reasons: 1) how many hectares of land a country has does
not really matter anymore 2) more efficient techniques are available to
make small lots be very productive and feed a considerable chunk of a
population.

	Although the concern has some legitimacy when considering the land
population ratio, the second reason makes it irrelevant. The emergence
of these techniques had proven Matlthus' theory wrong in his dark
prediction regarding the survival of mankind. At the heart of his
theory, one will find that the arithmetical increase of the world food
production would not be sufficient enough to respond to the geometrical
increase of the world population. Meaning that while food production
increases, let's say, by 1, 2, 3, 4 units, the world population would by
2, 4, 8, 16 if not faster. 

	Since what mother Nature puts limitation on the existing quantity of
arable land, a continuing increase of the world population would be
devastating if nothing is done to halt such a progression. That made
world authorities worry. Had it been true what would life have be for us
right now as the world population keeps growing, really? Instead, we
find that world food production is more than sufficient to offset the
true geometrical increase of the world population. 

	Why is it so? This is not by making more arable areas available to
increase world food production; we already saw that this strategy would
not go too far. It is merely by improving techniques of food production
and a better allocation of resources or a better organization of factors
of production. This is to say that how many hectares of arable land that
Ayiti has at its disposal is insignificant. Whatever that Ayiti has is a
given, one can't add on it nor can't subtract from it. Rather, the point
is what is the best and more efficient way to make the little that Ayiti
has productive enough so everyone can eat. Ayiti can feed its people and
how the authorities and the people themselves plan to go about is the
true question.

	However, I doubt very much that Heinl is embracing the neomalthusian
approach, which refocuses the problem of increased world population on
environmental degradation rather. I don't think Heinl is concerned
neither with the efficiency aspect of agricultural production regarding
land-labor ratio where small areas can't absorb an abundant labor force.
I would be very content if the relevancy of quantity of hectares of land
is shown, then it would be worth digging in some twisted pilot projects
to provide the answer that Heinl is begging for.


Ayiti has lived, lives and will live
Mozeb