Chirac warns of 'African flood'

B Vaughan wrote:
On 14 Jul 2006 12:01:22 -0700, "Hooverphonic"
wrote:

I was under the impression the population of Africa was declining (Bob
Geldof), but JC thinks its increasing. Who is correct ??

You must have misunderstood. The population of Africa is certainly not
declining. The birth rate is declining, but it's still well above
replacement level. Maybe you heard birth rate and thought population?


You must have misunderstood.
always possible

but if I look at what is on the news about Africa its always doom and
gloom from a people / wildlife / environment perspective.

if the population is going up there will only be less to go round and
they will remain in poverty, with wildlife and environment suffering
the consequences.

On 15/07/06 9:59, in article
, "Hooverphonic"
wrote:

if the population is going up there will only be less to go round and
they will remain in poverty, with wildlife and environment suffering
the consequences.



The problem is world wide. The industrial world is currently
over exploiting the world's fisheries.

This was recently in the news with regard to tuna fishing in
the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean.

Ecotourism is on the rise in Africa, it remains to be seen
if it works but nobody is trying to control pirate fishing.
One is almost tempted to equip a group of ecoterrorists
with submarines and sent them out to sink large fishing
boats.


*****

llegal fishing threatens survival of Europe's tuna

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Illegal fishing has devastated Europe's stocks of the
highly prized bluefin tuna and threatens the species' survival in the
eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean, environmental campaign group WWF said on
Wednesday.

International quotas that aim to keep fish stocks viable were exceeded in
both 2004 and 2005 for bluefin tuna, it said.

"Fleets from the EU -- mainly France -- Libya and Turkey are the main
offenders," WWF said in a report. "These countries are greatly exceeding
their fishing quotas and deliberately failing to report much of their
massive catches."

Demand for bluefin tuna, one of the fastest fish in the sea, is always high
since it is particularly popular in sushi and sashimi dishes. Unlike most
tunas, bluefin grow slowly and mature late, making them more vulnerable to
intensive trawling.

"Unreported tuna catches are increasingly slaughtered and processed at sea
before being shipped out on board enormous vessels destined for the
lucrative Japanese market," WWF said.

WWF estimated that around 44,900 metric tons of bluefin tuna were caught in
2004, well beyond the 32,000-metric ton quota allowed by the International
Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). The catch was
even higher in 2005, it said.

The group demanded that trawling for the fish should stop immediately in
both Mediterranean and eastern Atlantic waters and said it would lobby EU
Fisheries Commissioner Joe Borg for the 25-nation European Union for make
sure this happened.

Environmental groups, particularly WWF, have long complained that bluefin
tuna fishing is out of control in Europe and repeatedly point to the
Mediterranean as the worst problem area.

With Atlantic fish numbers at dangerously low levels, fleets were moving to
Mediterranean waters to catch the fish there too, the report's author
Roberto Mielgo Bregazzi said.

"In the race to catch shrinking tuna stocks, industrial fleets are
switching from traditional grounds to the last breeding grounds in the
eastern Mediterranean and Libyan waters," he said in a statement.

Greenpeace warned in a recent report that bluefin tuna was nearing
commercial and ecological extinction in the Mediterranean.

Hooverphonic writes:

if the population is going up there will only be less to go round and
they will remain in poverty, with wildlife and environment suffering
the consequences.

Correct. That's the problem with overpopulation anywhere (including
on the planet as a whole).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 12:03:01 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Hooverphonic writes:

if the population is going up there will only be less to go round and
they will remain in poverty, with wildlife and environment suffering
the consequences.

Correct. That's the problem with overpopulation anywhere (including
on the planet as a whole).

Except that Africa as a whole (aside from certain cities) is not very
densely populated.

--
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup

B Vaughan writes:

Except that Africa as a whole (aside from certain cities) is not very
densely populated.

Large parts of Africa cannot support dense populations.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 00:13:26 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

Large parts of Africa cannot support dense populations.

You mean they cannot produce enough food for them?

Neither Hong Kong nor Singapore nor many other nice and wealthy
places can produce enough food for its inhabitants.

Nowadays, with world trade, to grow enough food is no longer a
requirement.

Hans-Georg

--
No mail, please.

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 16:20:36 +0200, Hans-Georg Michna
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 00:13:26 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

Large parts of Africa cannot support dense populations.

You mean they cannot produce enough food for them?

Neither Hong Kong nor Singapore nor many other nice and wealthy
places can produce enough food for its inhabitants.

Nowadays, with world trade, to grow enough food is no longer a
requirement.

While that's true it's not a good thing IMO. In parts of rural Kenya
(& the same may be said of many other places) there will be
undernourished people, especially during prolonged dry seasons. In my
local supermarket I can buy all year round, "fresh" Kenyan produce
like mange tout peas for example.
There is an inbalance somewhere in that. I'm sure that precious water
is being diverted for these export crops, water that many Kenyans
would rather use for their own crops or livestock. Big business, with
its connections to government officials can take liberties with the
rural poor which wouldn't be allowed elsewhere.
The other issue is "food miles". It's really crazy to fly fresh food
around the world, polluting the environment for short term gain, I
hope we'll see an end to this soon. It won't be taking jobs from
Africans really as the few jobs these businesses create are short
lived and unsustainable.

There are places in the world where the land can sustain a certain
local permanent population, the carrying capacity. In many cases in
Africa this has been exceeded and the consequences for people too poor
or otherwise unable to escape this are dire.

What a miserable thought. Who's got some fantastic photos to share
with us all this week???
--
.--~~,__
:-....,-------`~~'._.'
`-,,, ,_ ;'~U' Nearer my shed, to thee.
_,-' ,'`-__; '--.
(_/'~~ ''''(;

On 15 Jul 2006 00:59:51 -0700, Hooverphonic wrote:

but if I look at what is on the news about Africa its always doom and
gloom from a people / wildlife / environment perspective.

That's unrealistic. In Kenya, to give just one example, tourism
is alive and well. Lodges are expanding all over the place. This
is probably good for the wildlife.

if the population is going up there will only be less to go round and
they will remain in poverty, with wildlife and environment suffering
the consequences.

In the very long run you will be right, but in the medium term
this is not necessarily so. The point is that productivity can
rise along with the population. In other words, quality economic
growth can improve the economic situation even with moderate
population growth.

I think that new wealth cannot come from highly inefficient
agriculture on poor soils. Only industrialization can take the
economy forward. This is already happening at a large scale in
Kenya, where you now have a sizable middle class in the cities,
and most of the newly well-off don't get their wealth from
agriculture at all---people work in factories and offices.

Hans-Georg

--
No mail, please.

On 15 Jul 2006 00:59:51 -0700, "Hooverphonic"
wrote:

if the population is going up there will only be less to go round

Rubbish, whilst there is not an infinite amount of resources, there is
certainly more than enough for much larger population than the earth
has now.

Jim.

Jim Ley wrote:
On 15 Jul 2006 00:59:51 -0700, "Hooverphonic"
wrote:

if the population is going up there will only be less to go round

Rubbish, whilst there is not an infinite amount of resources, there is
certainly more than enough for much larger population than the earth
has now.

Jim.

reducing the population would resolve all the other worldly problems
that we face.