Originally Posted by LTGuy

Originally Posted by paddyempowered

it's not obvious at all that Ireland is grossly overpopulated. It has a smaller population than other similarly climatic and economic, wealthy first world countries, but maybe we have a sustainable amount and they're bursting at the seams and ready to 'pop'? If anything were to happen(heaven forbid!!), I think you'd be glad of the extra space here to grow some spuds.

Your Malthusian approach has been discredited several centuries ago. You perceive agricultural production as only linear, extensive development. In the dark days of Middle Ages you had only as much crop as you had arable land, and if there was a crop failure - famine ensued. That is why Malthus in the 17th century (?) predicted total collapse of humanity because amount of arable land on the planet was fixed and population kept on growing. His (and yours by extension) wrong assumption was that the yields are constant, and God knows they are not. With ever improving agriscience the amount of crops from the same acre keeps on growing. Granted, you need fertilizers for that - but let's face it, the bulk of fertilizers like nitrate of ammonia is produced of the air as we are literally bathing in an ocean of azote around us.

Now re Ireland - while stating that Ireland certainly is not "overpopulated" , i did not imply I wish for Ireland to become as crowded as the central Amsterdam. But even in such overpopulated country as the Netherlands they still have some amazingly pristin nature (primarily on the islands) and some (relatively) empty spaces [with a lot of sheep though ]

Malthus was never discredited. Some lovers of science and technology however seem to think that using our brains we can grow unlimited amounts of food out of nothing and feed everyone. Rubbish. Fertiliser can give barren soil a kickstart into production but incessant over fertilisation using non-organic fertiliser will inevitably leave heavy metal deposits that will damage soil structure. Also, most fertilisers are now oil by-products - not sustainable. In fact almost all non organic fertiliser production is unsustainable. Also, organic farming has been shown to have higher yields than intensive agriscience based farming. So, all in all, fertilisation of soil is not going to allow us to keep feeding more and more people from the same acre. It's the same ever hopeful technophile attitude that now accompanies GM farming. We can use and abuse Nature all we want but at the end of the day we'll suffer the consequences. Even when we do think we've got all the answers, something as simple as the recent bee colony collapse can ruin our ever productive yields. All we can ever count on is the traditional farming methods. These have kept humans going for millennia and theoretically could do for many more. The recent agriscience methods that you extoll will help, but will not be our saving grace. The Green Revolution saved many from famine and starvation but has depended on the high use of fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides. Despite being unsustainable, when these inevitably have found their way back into the human bloodstream, cancer becomes the new killer. Also, the Green revolution hasn't taken into account the ever expanding population growth outstripping any productivity growth possible through agriscience.
Not to mention the fact that agriscience looks only to increasing food production on arable land - replacing wilderness at an astonishing rate. Wilderness is needed for our survival too. It's not just all about food. Rainforests, biodiversity, ecosystems, flora and fauna are all needed to maintain this fragile living arrangement we're in. Keep farming to feed more and more mouths, keep spraying and fertilising and slashing and burning and gorging and belching until the whole thing collapses. Malthus may yet be proven right.

Originally Posted by paddyempowered

Malthus was never discredited.

Well, he WAS. According to Malthus, humanity should have become extinct by now because of incessant wars caused by the lack of food. And he made that prediction when there were 0,5 bn people on the planet. Now we have 6,5 bn and it does not seem there is any problem with food. I know you will start fingering the recent food price hikes - but be reasonable. On any measure food stuff price now is approx 1/2 of what it was even in the beginning of the 20th century; the recent price rises are just a blip on a century-long trend of falling prices. And yes, there is ENOUGH food to feed everyone. The fact that not everybody can afford to eat enough does not prove there is a lack of food, the problem is unemployment and /or wages in certain countries, not a lack of food per se. Malthus was claiming there will be NOT ENOUGH food at all, no matter what price.So he was very, very wrong.

Originally Posted by paddyempowered

Fertiliser can give barren soil a kickstart into production but incessant over fertilisation using non-organic fertiliser will inevitably leave heavy metal deposits that will damage soil structure. Also, most fertilisers are now oil by-products - not sustainable. In fact almost all non organic fertiliser production is unsustainable.

Your atrocious ignorance of basic chemistry discredits your beliefs even more than clinging to outdated and proven-wrong theories of Malthus. Fertilizers don't "kick-start" soil, they pretty much replace the soil. It seems you are blissfully unaware of the reality that majority of vegetables are nowadays grown in totally artificial fibres drip-fed with balanced fertilizers, and yes those are not "organic", and shouldn't be as plants need certain elements like phosphorus, potassium and azote which generally are not associated with organic matter. The organic fertilizers are not as good as you seem to think - they become usable only after decomposition - a long and inefficient process, that is why modern agriculture has moved on since the time of pigsty's refuse.

Heavy metals in fertilizers? Do you know what fertilizers are made of? And they are CERTAINLY not produced of "oil", it seems you are confusing fertilizers with plastics. The "non-organic" fertilizer Nr 1 - ammonium nitrate is very much sustainable as it is produced of air and water. Just for your benefit some base-school chemistry:

N2 + 3H2 -> 2 NH3 Azote makes 78% of atmosphere, and hydrogene can be produced by numerous processes like electrolysis or reformation of coal with water vapour

The same ammonia can be used to produce nitric acid (I will omit the details, you can find them as "Ostwald process" on internet). Finally:

NH3 + HNO3 -> NH4NO3 - and you have ammonia nitrate. Apart from heavy energy usage, there is NOTHING unsustainable about this process.

Originally Posted by LTGuy

Originally Posted by DaBrow

I think the biggest hint is that we have such similar: Native Tongues, Scenerary, Culture (Shinty, Whiskey and Dancing are big examples) and attitudes toward the english.

You mean: native tongue = English, passion for English trashmags (like Hello!), English kitchen (fish'n'chips) and generally sycophantic (at times servile) attitudes towards anything English? And yes, those crying ladies with napkins when Her Majesty Queen graced Dublin couple of years ago? Many "things in common", indeed!

p.s. I find your zeal for preserving "purity of blood" troubling, to say the least. There was one country in Europe already, bent on "preserving the purity of blood". The result - 60 years on, still a relatively high incidence of mentally retarded children and those suffering from Down's syndrome. This is the future you wish for Ireland?

I could very possibly on the Autistic Spectrum! Don't accuse me of that Aryan Supremacy crap......... I don't believe in that ideology as you falsely imply "Purity of Blood"...... Don't twist the idea of Monoculturalism with that of National Socialism as they are completely different and the latter believes in eugenic superiority ....... there isn't and never will be such a thing.

I don't see why you need to mention the Handicapped in this discussion, Downs Syndrome is due to a faulty Chromosone and can develop in the offspring of very healthy people...... it has nothing with this discussion and it has no direct result to Inbreeding. The Irish Identity is a mixture of Norman, Viking and Celtic descent ....... meaning that we are all watered down through the centuries due to intermarriage with the celtic people.... my ancestors did back in 1170.

I don't believe see how long ago, the scattered tribes across this country over the centuries has lead to inbreeding, especially when a man would be from one side of the nation in point A and their spouse was far away in point B....... also if their generations kept branching out vice versa and then kept intermarrying with other people distant from their location and the family too add!

I see you have an axe to grind against the Scots! English isn't their native language, Gaelic is ....... you'll find it in big fat bold writing on their Parliament!

They had the english language rammed down their throats like we did! Ask any scot in Glasgow or Edinburgh if they see themselves as British..... they'll say Scots not British!

Wether you acknowledge it of not! Compare to us any other people in the world the scots are the closest group to us.

Finally I'd mention Fish & chips is actually portuguese in origin, we eat them over here too

DaBrow:

" Don't accuse me of that Aryan Supremacy crap......... I don't believe in that ideology as you falsely imply "Purity of Blood"...... Don't twist the idea of Monoculturalism with that of National Socialism as they are completely different and the latter believes in eugenic superiority ....... there isn't and never will be such a thing."

That's well said. But note that the people who bring in foul notions of genetic improvement are invariably the apologists for Mass Immigration. They try to tell us that there was something deficient about the Irish, to the point where the Irish gene pool needed to be "improved" by an admixture of Poles, Letts, Lithuanians etc. Sounds crazy? Just look at some of their postings here --posters, assuming they're plural, such as Kev, Corkman, SligoMan, GalwayMan etc. etc. .
(On second thoughts, don't waste your time)

Originally Posted by LTGuy

Originally Posted by paddyempowered

Fertiliser can give barren soil a kickstart into production but incessant over fertilisation using non-organic fertiliser will inevitably leave heavy metal deposits that will damage soil structure. Also, most fertilisers are now oil by-products - not sustainable. In fact almost all non organic fertiliser production is unsustainable.

Your atrocious ignorance of basic chemistry discredits your beliefs even more than clinging to outdated and proven-wrong theories of Malthus. Fertilizers don't "kick-start" soil, they pretty much replace the soil. It seems you are blissfully unaware of the reality that majority of vegetables are nowadays grown in totally artificial fibres drip-fed with balanced fertilizers, and yes those are not "organic", and shouldn't be as plants need certain elements like phosphorus, potassium and azote which generally are not associated with organic matter. The organic fertilizers are not as good as you seem to think - they become usable only after decomposition - a long and inefficient process, that is why modern agriculture has moved on since the time of pigsty's refuse.

Heavy metals in fertilizers? Do you know what fertilizers are made of? And they are CERTAINLY not produced of "oil", it seems you are confusing fertilizers with plastics. The "non-organic" fertilizer Nr 1 - ammonium nitrate is very much sustainable as it is produced of air and water. Just for your benefit some base-school chemistry:

N2 + 3H2 -> 2 NH3 Azote makes 78% of atmosphere, and hydrogene can be produced by numerous processes like electrolysis or reformation of coal with water vapour

The same ammonia can be used to produce nitric acid (I will omit the details, you can find them as "Ostwald process" on internet). Finally:

NH3 + HNO3 -> NH4NO3 - and you have ammonia nitrate. Apart from heavy energy usage, there is NOTHING unsustainable about this process.

Sorry - meant to say that pesticides and herbicides are now mostly oil by-products. But while we're at it - unsustainable fertilisers?
The major raw materials for fertilizer manufacture are
hydrocarbon sources (mainly natural gas), unsustainable
sulfur, stripmining or hydrodesulphurization of fossil fuels, both unsustainable
phosphate rock, stripmined - unsustainable
potassium salts, stripmined or extracted from dying lakes/seas - unsustainable
micro-nutrients, water and air. sustainable
Also as you noted production involves heavy energy usage, acid treatment, and pollution.

So how long do you think fertiliser production can continue? Especially if oil starts running out? Y'know what the machines these days run on?

And in comparison to "decomposition - a long and inefficient process"? Inefficient? It happens 24 hours a day, all for free with no more effort than stacking your organic waste in a pile. How can you call that inefficient? Or is time worth too much these days?

This needn't end in a debate about how modern agriscience can feed all the world or not. Even if it could, it would be at the expense of our wildlife, our natural habitat, our rainforests, our biodiversity, all the things that make this earth tick.
Finally, while i certainly don't agree with all his beliefs, he is not dead
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-malthusianism
and we should learn a few things from him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability

Originally Posted by DaBrow

I could very possibly on the Autistic Spectrum!

How does this relate to the topic in general and the issue of alleged "overpopulation" in particular?

I don't believe in that ideology as you falsely imply "Purity of Blood"......

I reviewed your post I was answering to again. No, you did not proclaim that the Irish were übermenschen, yet you have repeatedly stressed the "blood" of planters while justifying their right to settle in Ireland. And this is something I find troubling. It seems you don't care about a common set of beliefs and values (which are clearly different between the republicans and planters); all you need - "pure blood" even if those people would slit your throat given a chance. You are not even racist as racist people prefer just skin color, you are worse - from eugenics camp.

Don't twist the idea of Monoculturalism with that of National Socialism as they are completely different and the latter believes in eugenic superiority .......

Monoculturalism implies a common culture. There is no common culture between planters and respublicans. If there were, there wouldn't be any need for the Partition. Period.

I don't see why you need to mention the Handicapped in this discussion, Downs Syndrome is due to a faulty Chromosone and can develop in the offspring of very healthy people

Because the chances and odds of faulty chromosomes causing trouble rise stratospherically when inbreeding. Didn't they tell you that in your school of eugenics for "purely-breds"?
Majority of problems with mentally retarded in Germany is a sole legacy of Hitler's policies. You expressed indignation at the very idea of "non-pure-bloods" settling in Ireland, so it seems you are very fond of inbreeding, that is why I felt it was appropriate to mention the side-effects of your favourite approach to procreation.

The Irish Identity is a mixture of Norman, Viking and Celtic descent

Irish identity in vast majority of territories beyond the Pale is basically the same since the times of Neolite as proven by geneticists recently. Impact of invadors in the west of Ireland was negligible.

when a man would be from one side of the nation in point A and their spouse was far away in point B..

Besides the fact that any distance in Ireland is really ridiculous on any scale, your grasp of demographics is very contentious to say the least. How do you explain the fact that it is possible to say with a reasonable degree of certainty where an Irishman hails from by simply looking at his surname?

I see you have an axe to grind against the Scots!

I have neither an axe, nor grind anything. I just fail to see what makes the former colonial masters especially entitled to come and settle in Ireland. Simple as that. It looks like an eggregious example of lack of self-esteem in some circles.

English isn't their native language, Gaelic is

For a very small minority, just like in Ireland. You see I come from that part of Europe where the notion of "native language" means a little bit more than the ability to ask for directions towards the loo.

you'll find it in big fat bold writing on their Parliament!

One more sign of tokenism, just like "Is í an Ghaeilg príomh-theanga na hÉireann" (I quote from my memory, sorry if I get the formula not precisely right) in Bunreacht na hÉireann. You can make huge banners in bold-italic-caps all over "Dubh Linn" stating that - but it does not change the facts on the ground.

They had the english language rammed down their throats like we did!

Just like the Finns had Swedish, we had Polish, the Polish - Russian, the Czech - German, the Slovenians - German etc etc etc. And countless other nations around the world. Yet, it is only you who have achieved state independence and failed to revive your supposedly native language. You personally, cad 'na thaobh ná fuil aon Ghaelainn agat féin?

Ask any scot in Glasgow or Edinburgh if they see themselves as British.....

Just like blokes down in England view themselves "English" and not "British". So what was your point? Actually, I read a research which stated that only non-English residents of UK viewed themselves as "British" if they are ashamed of their own provenance. The English very rarely perceive themselves as "British".

Originally Posted by twtone

I had a good laugh at gnash (writing under this and other monikers --kev, sligoguy etc.,) whining about my objections to his racism. He continues with the stupid lie that I also post as someone called Dillon. (By the way, I have yet to see a post from this obviously formidable enemy that nash fears so much!). But the nub is that nash is a cheap labour fanatic, a Fianna Fail hack, in thrall to the capitalists and slum landlords who benefit from Mass Immigration.

I'll spell it out again for this twit. If you want to settle Ireland with foreigners, you're a racist. And if you want to settle Ireland with Lithuanians and Latvians, you're a fool.

As I've pointed out before, the joke is that the guy (is it one or several--I don't know) who preens himself on his multiculturalism speaks only one language , English--and writes it badly. He has never lived abroad (mostly hangs around Sligo) and knows little of the world outside of this island apart from what he sees as he views TV or peers at his computer screen. He's a monocultural moron!

My defense of Ireland's heritage stems from the fact that I have learned to value my own history and culture in the course of a cosmopolitan life. I have travelled widely, lived in a number of countries, speak several languages, and hope to learn more. When I see the influx of greedy outsiders threatening the culture and way of life of Amazonian Indians or Polynesians I shout stop--why would I not object to a similar foreign settlement of my own country?

Oh George. It's pretty clear that you can't distinguish between events and characters inside your head and those, like me, out in the real world. You're wrong about everything. Up the dose.

I find it quite interesting that this conversation degenerated into a debate on fertiliser. Hmm. How apt.

Originally Posted by Housewifey

I find it quite interesting that this conversation degenerated into a debate on fertiliser. Hmm. How apt.

Is it really surprising considering some people are sincerely stocking up awaiting An Gorta Mór again?