lol, seems like I touched a nerve
I wish that I had time to address each of the raised issues, much less respond to the character assasination, but here are some final thoughts prompted by the attack on my posting
the amount of farmland in Japan under cultivation could easily double if needed (this is an observation, since I live in the countryside and have had at least 5 years to physically look at farmland over a wide area).
The question was posed: What about nutrient (re)cycling and distribution?
answer: the rich top soil in Japan (and Asia generally as far as I know, and in contrast to the US situation) has been increasing for centuries without fossil fuel. We take seaweed (high K and P) and put it on our gardens. Works for me and my neighbors. A comment: human waste after brief detoxification has been recycled as fertilizer for many years in fields both IN (yes, inside) and around large cities. This may be a reason for continuously increasing rich top soil in the absence of a big fossil fuel input.
The world is much more complicated than merely measuring "how many calories of energy are PRESENTLY used now to eat, " particularly when decisions are made based on what is easiest at the time. In fact, the number of calories fuel to move food vs food calories can be cut in half with a few purchase contracts virtually instantaneously based on cost competition, as there is a thriving market in food, and in the case of Japan, a tremendous amount of very local food is available if the price rose (for example due to difficulty in transportation from the US). This elasticity is not presented in the economics science. Without taking in account the real world, such economic “science” fails. There are so many problems with the assumptions here, and I have other challenges to my time and energy. No one is rewarding me for my time and I am very busy. Any thoughtful person can consider alternatives to high transportation of food and this is already a thing (look up “slow food”) in America.
When making a snap judgement about a civiliation or country and broadly saying that it “cant” do something, it is entirely appropriate to point out that the civilization or country has ALREADY done that thing, and thus can do it again. Taking the American Way of doing and assuming that Japanese are the same (farming practices for example) leads into a brick wall.
The character assasination and denigration of my comments based on an overly simplistic analysis (calories to move food in 2017 vs energy content of food without considering alternatives) is not helping anyone and is demeaning.
A large number of issues are presented and each could benefit from hours of analysis and writing. I merely point out basic facts that are overlooked and which could drastically change the superficial analysis provided (ie how many calories to move food vs food content!!!).
The amount of worked farmland could double instantly.
Farms are all very small and worked not by large combines.
Farms are not far away.
Topsoil inputs are non-fossil fueled and topsoil has drastically increased. (again dont assume that what America does is done everywhere else)
Japanese have a culture of rapid change in behavior to these kinds of problems. Is this factored into the alleged economic science presented at this web site? Economists cannot see these basic facts. Isnt this the real reason for the back and forth between CM the economic science guy with (calories transit vs calories food content) and Mots (5 years living in the farming culture of which CM is making definitive authoritarian conclusions) about?..
Mots-
sounds like you and your neighbors would do just fine. Does the average city-dwelling Japanese citizen have the know/how to convert themselves into a farmer in a quick pinch? Will they simply come to your farms in the event of a crash and politely wait for you to dole out extra food to them? Judging by the histories of Japan I’ve read, they are humans too and will react in quite predictable ways during a rapid collapse. Will Japan be more resilient in the long run? Probably. But just because the Japanese of previous ages could do it doesn’t mean the Japanese today can.
I agree that Americans are probably more screwed though, but that’s just my gut speaking.
Snyde man
even now there is no dole culture here. People keep account if even mentally of who helps. And yes, the people of today are just as resilient and helpful as long ago. After the Kobe earthquake people qued (sp) in front of wrecked convenience store fronts and someone inside carefully wrote down the items that each person needed and took, to be paid for later. Many people would like to farm even now but the low prices created by American mining practices do not allow that. And yes, there is much room in the countryside for millions of people to move there.
We tend to forget what the American mining experience has done to distort agriculture around the world. Americans mine topsoil, mine oil, mine water, mine fertilizer/minerals and combine the mined stuffs to make very cheap food to export and drive people off the farms in other countries. meanwhile, American water tables in central plains/Texas etc. are falling drastically, topsoil is vanishing, cheap fertilizer is running out. When finally the American agribusiness hits the wall, us farmers in other countries can resume and double down on our more resilient farming practices. The short term profit based farming in America is based on low cost topsoil depletion, mined oil and water and unfairly outcompetes on price due to the topsoil, oil and mined water used. THIS is primarily an American problem. We do NOT do this in Japan.
Although only 40% of Japanese calories are locally grown that 40% is fairly close to resilient, coming from small individual operated farms not far away without using up topsoil, mining water and lower fuel costs. In this respect, Japan is already much closer to adapting to a world where oil and water are no longer mined to grow food. To the extent petrol is used, alternatives generally can reduce to the extent price rises (of course, this is one of the basic tenets of economics I think, but maybe the economics scientist wants to comment on this point). Is it possible or expected that as fossil fuel runs out alternative methods and energies are used, particularly in small area scattered farms where solar electric can be applied without having to replace gigantic combines in thousand acre fields? I regularly use solar electric for rototilling but will not be able to compete with a mining based US agribusiness until that agribusiness fails due to lack of petrol etc.
People outside N America, and especially in Asia, and most particularly in Japan, act and think very differently than Americans. I dont agree with CM that people everywhere react the same way to sudden deprivations or that his alleged science of economics can predict how people will eat based on a simple formula of calories used to move food last year vs food calorie content, and that someone who does not focus on this ridiculously simple arithmetic should be banned from conversation. There are so many flawed assumptions in this economic science, such as a marketplace that quickly shifts to producers near to home once transport costs increase enough. This subject is not addressed by a simple writing.
OK so here are some basic numbers for discussion. If anyone disagrees with any of them they are welcome to provide alternative references.
Average biological production of temperate forest: ~ 5000 Cal/m2/yr. Reference
Sustainable production of biomass that can be harvested and removed from the site for food consumption: 2000 Cal/m2/yr. Reference: I don’t have one yet but this seems a reasonable amount assuming they take care of the land and send some of that material back onto the farmland afterwards as compost. Generally the “stover” ratio is 50%, meaning that of the crops that are grown, only 50% is actually edible food; the rest is inedible stalks and roots that are left behind.
Proportion of food that is wasted in processing before going in our mouths: 50%.
Therefore, the amount of final food product available per kg/year in this idealized simplistic analysis: 1000 Cal/m2/yr.
Number of people in Japan: 126 million.
Proportion of meat in Japanese diet: I will assume 25% which is typical for modern societies. I have this data to back it up, just not quickly at my fingertips.
Trophic efficiency factor in meat production: 10. It is typically 6-10. I will assume 10.
Calories eaten per person per day: 2500. This will be 625 Cal meat and 1825 Cal plant. I will now apply the trophic efficency factor to meat and sum them up: 1825 + 10*625 = 8075 Cal/day/person.
Total food required per person per year: 3 million Calories.
Multiply by the agricultural inefficiencies in the first few bullets to get total Calories required from the farm: 3,000,000 *(5000/1000) = 15,000,000 Cal/person/year.
Land area required to support average Japanese diet: 15 million / 5000 = 3000 m2 (or, 0.3 hectares)
Total land area required to support all Japanese: 38,000 km2.
Land Area of Japan: 378,000 km2.
% of land area this agriculture represents: 10%.
% of land area that is arable: 12% Source.
Well this all seems pretty tight to me. 12% of Japan is arable but they would need 10% of it to grow their food, and my estimate is pretty generous since I allowed for no biomass use of the land which would become much more important when fossil fuels run out.
I also didn’t account for fisheries. Japan accounts for a huge 15% of the global catch. This is not sustainable.
Overall, I don’t think it’s possible that the population could be sustained when fossil fuels run out.
But IMO it will be a long time before fossil fuels run out to the extent that agricultural production would be affected since it is so important. But in the meantime, if there is some other economic catastrophe that happens that prevents Japan from importing food or fishing the far reaches of the oceans, I think Japan would have a very hard time feeding itself. They might be able to do it, but would need to be highly organized and dedicated.
Here on the east coast, so I don’t have energy or brainpower for a full-fledged response, but I will ask this simple question: What happened the last time an industrial, import dependent Japan was starved of the necessary resources to run its modern society?
You can be damned sure the Koreans, Chinese, etc know the answer to that question. Are you willing to guarantee that when shit hits the fan, Japan will simply float into a new non-industrial mode, sans violence, militarism, internal conflict and external expansion? I’m not.
Multiply by the agricultural inefficiencies in the first few bullets to get total Calories required from the farm: 3,000,000 *(5000/1000) = 15,000,000 Cal/person/year.
Land area required to support average Japanese diet: 15 million / 5000 = 3000 m2 (or, 0.3 hectares)
Total land area required to support all Japanese: 38,000 km2.
Land Area of Japan: 378,000 km2.
% of land area this agriculture represents: 10%.
% of land area that is arable: 12% Source.
The minimum amount of agricultural land necessary for sustainable food security, with a diversified diet similar to those of North America and Western Europe (hence including meat), is 0.5 of a hectare per person. This does not allow for any land degradation such as soil erosion, and it assumes adequate water supplies. Very few populous countries have more than an average of 0.25 of a hectare. It is realistic to suppose that the absolute minimum of arable land to support one person is a mere 0.07 of a hectare–and this assumes a largely vegetarian diet, no land degradation or water shortages, virtually no post-harvest waste, and farmers who know precisely when and how to plant, fertilize, irrigate, etc. [FAO, 1993]In practice it will be a larger number than 0.07 hectares (a garden patch roughly 87 feet on a side) because, on average, people will be inept at it for several generations until all the details are worked out (see that final list of assumptions in the above quote). For us folks saddled with the imperial system, that's 0.19 acres. [Note: I'm a pretty good gardener but I seriously doubt I could sustainably feed a family of 5 on an acre...time to up my game?] A "diversified diet" (meaning one with meat and fun things like blueberries) bumps that up to 0.5 hectares per person. Somewhere between those two extremes is where a country in crisis will end up. Mark's derived 0.3 hectare figure seems like a reasonable near-term compromise/target for a temperate climate with ample rainfall. By these measures, as given, Japan is anywhere from 57% overpopulated at the 0.07 hectare/capita end of the spectrum to 94% overpopulated at the 0.5 hectare/capita figure. Assuming the oceans can provide sustainably (a big if these days), as you rightly point out then Japan can supplement its land-based nutrition and support a (slightly? significantly?) larger population. Alternatively, we might note that compared to 1850 the oceans are virtually strip mined bare while agricultural practices and plant varieties have been enhanced dramatically. So the see-saw tips both ways, but I'd assume that the agricultural side has improved far more than the oceans have lost out...so I might assume that Japan could carry the 1850 population of 30 million plus some factor (once all the land was safely back in optimum production). So...40 million? 50? At any rate, these calculations are the reason that I've steered clear from most islands, desert areas, and subtropical/tropical climates that do not support soil formation. The carrying capacities of these areas as compared to current population is a quite dismal ratio. It's something to consider...
If a country produces 40% of its food, then 60% gotsta go.
there is an old book that’s quite applicable, “5 acres and Independence “.
If I’m not putting words in your mouth here, then let me say that I don’t disagree. U.S. large-scale agricultural practices probably do mean that we will experience a much harder “crash” than people in Japan will. It follows, logically, that if dependence on fossil-fuel-based agriculture is the primary flaw in today’s agricultural systems around the world, then yes, nations which are more reliant on large-scale machine-driven agriculture will have a much harder transtion off of it. No argument from me there. But if you look back at pre-industrial Japan, the numbers don’t support the idea that Japan could support over 100 million Japanese without the support of modern industrial systems in place.
I think what Chris is getting at is that the current population of Japan isn’t sustainable (especially those 30 million or so in Tokyo, to mention but one large Japanese city) even with the savvy and smart techniques of farming you are describing, and he’s approaching the issue with math whereas you are clarifying with experiential evidence that supports the notion that not all collapses will proceed along the same trajectory. I see no reason both statements can’t be true.
Now, if you are saying Japanese are more community-oriented and look out for their neighbors, that may indeed be true. If that is the case, collapse there would come at less devastating a cost to human life than it likely will here. But there will be loss on a fairly horrific scale, even in east Asia (especially South Korea and China, but also Japan), and that’s where the math is handy in helping us figure out roughly what that scale might be.
As for banning MK1, I’m generally not in support of wielding the ban stick either. He has a history of running counter to PeakProsperity’s “rules of engagement” a few times in the recent past, however, so please don’t take what he’s said here as his only potential transgression of our community norms. I’m being diplomatic when I say it this nicely, too.
Ultimately, though, I think your basic notion that not all cultures will collapse the same has strong merit, and it is true that the math will only take us so far and show us so much. Just don’t discount it either, I would caution.
http://www.calgary.ca.emb-japan.go.jp/itpr_ja/00_000422.html
JACOS was the first Japanese-owned company to work and invest in the oilsands, starting in 1978. The SAGD operation uses heated water to melt bitumen underground so it can be piped to the surface. This project is a joint venture between JACOS, which is owned by a consortium of Japanese companies, and Calgary-based Nexen.Giving "cultural" credit where credit is due is fine, but we can't ignore the facts. There is, really, no such thing as a free lunch!
After doing a little surfing, the truth seems to fall somewhere in the middle, as is usual.
I picked a few sources to focus my search;
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/japan-population/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Japan
https://tradingeconomics.com/japan/arable-land-percent-of-land-area-wb-d…
https://www.japanfs.org/en/news/archives/news_id027771.html
First, population in Japan has been decreasing at an increasing rate since about 2010. In 2018 the population is changing at about a -.23% rate. In 2010 the population was something over 128,000,000. It’s now a little over 127,000,000. Projections based on current trends suggest that the population in 2050 will be around 108,000,000. That’s about a 15% drop in 40 years. Of course, over 90% of that population is urban, placing greater emphasis on urban gardening and agriculture to feed the population. I’m curious how much of the urban land used for agricultural and gardening purposes is added to the governmental stats for arable and agricultural land. The potential for growing food in urban areas is huge and developing rapidly.
Of course, a key factor that accompanies population decline is that the aging population increases as a proportion of the whole. In Japan the over 65 population has increased from 4.7% in 1935 to 27.8% in 2017. The 0-14 age demo unsurprisingly decreased from 36.9% to 12.3% last year. There is an interesting aspect to the aging population that surprised me. The 15-64 demo (the productive years) stayed relatively stable, changing from 58.5% to 59.9% during the same period. I’m not quite sure how that plays out over time, but it doesn’t appear catastrophic. I assume the death rate will rise as the older demo ages even more. Also, I’m sure that planned population policies, which Japan seems to adapt well to, could ameliorate those changes to some degree.
As pointed out above Japan has a little over .033 ha of arable land per capita. However, with the projected population decline, that should increase to over .035 ha per capita by 2050 and continue to increase thereafter assuming the absolute arable land remains stable.
After noodling over the numbers for a little while, I tend to agree with Chris’s numbers for population overshoot. But, there is another factor here. Approximately 67% of Japan is forest covered. That is very high compared to most of the world which averages about 29%. The US has about 33% forest cover. 40% of Japan’s forest is in plantation conifers. The rest is old growth and regenerated natural forest. The absolute amount of forested land has remained unchanged for 30 years. Japan has experience in converting forestland to arable land. They did so on a large scale after WWII. They could do so again if needed. If completely clear cut and converted, Japan’s forests could add about .2 ha percapita to food production. Of course, clear cutting all the forests is unthinkable, but some fraction could be added to the agricultural land that would add to the food production of current agricultural land.
According to the stats at the arable land link, Japan has about 4,496,000 ha in agriculture, somewhat more than Mark found. They identified arabIe land as covering 4,201,000 ha. I found an interesting distinction between agricultural land and arable land.
"Japan is the worlds 5th largest economy with very little natural resources. "
Indeed, Japan’s economic model is to buy in fossil fuel resources, convert that into products that other Nations want to buy, then sell them at a profit. The profit enables them to buy in 60% of their food which in turn supports a population of 126 million.
All predicated on fossil fuel imports. Without fossil fuel imports their economic model collapses, as does their ability to feed their current population size.
"5 acres and Independence ".
5 acres is roughly 2 hectares. That means 5 acres would need to feed 60 people in Japan (@ 0.033 ha per capita, currently available).
"5 acres and Independence ".
5 acres is roughly 2 hectares. That means 5 acres would need to feed 60 people in Japan (@ 0.033 ha per capita, currently available).
0.07 ha per capita. By my calculations this is a strip of land of 700 m². (100m x 1m or 50m x 2m for example)
From my preliminary reading, this is far lower than the amount of land per capita in Britain during the middle ages.
I need to research this further myself.
Couldn’t help but think of permaculture following down this argument
“Modern” food production will never feed Japan (or the rest of the world)
Permaculture is part of the answer not only because it needs little input (outside the sun) but because it converts one acre to many in up to seven layers of perennial, nutritionally diverse, pesticide free edibles
it’s not the answer to everything…but it definitely beats the current game
But I completely disagree with the idea that, if necessary, Japan could change their big city ways immediately if necessary.I agree. I happen to frequently use a bus line that transports Japanese women who attend Mukogawa Fort Wright Institute to shopping areas that contain stores like Nordstroms, Walmart, Trader Joes, etc. While the women are here to ostensibly be exposed to an international culture and expand their English language ability, my observation after a couple of years of riding the bus with hundreds of them is that they are here to consume American products. They almost always have their hands full of packages on their return trip to the campus. I have yet to find one that is conversant in English. A transition to a scarce resource world will not be easy for them. On the other hand, I just got some new neighbors. A couple and their three late teen/early 20's kids. They brought 6 vehicles with them. (I wonder how long it will take them to figure out that my wife and I have none.) Most of them smoke. However, they appear to be hard workers and I would rather have them as neighbors in the decline than most people I know.
The discussion of Japan’s cultural resilience as a core resource is of interest to me, as we have many Japanese friends and have some first-hand and academic knowledge of Japan geography, culture and economy. What I keep returning to is a simple dynamic: phantom wealth = access to resources. So when a currency collapses, as in Venezuela currently (and many additional examples throughout history) and the phantom wealth evaporates, this doesn’t just impoverish households, it limits the nation’s purchasing power to whatever it can export of its primary surplus (output - all inputs and external costs) and reduces its ability to invest surplus capital in new production.
To follow this line of thinking, if Japan have high-value output it can trade for resources, that would be a plus. To the degree that output is dependent on fossil fuels / imported energy, that would be a minus.
To the degree the US will likely produce enough oil and natural gas to fuel its (fossil-fuel dependent) agricultural output (soybeans and grain), it will likely have a surplus of what will likely be in very short supply globally–easily transportable, stable-over-time high calorie food.
A vital group of young people in both Japan and the US are “going back to the land” and acquiring the skills needed to pursue permaculture/traditional sustainable agriculture. This is a big plus for both societies.
I would also note that China has a leg up when the phantom wealth evaporates globally–many of its city dwellers came from a village that they can always return to. In many cases, Grandpa and Grandma are still working the land in the village while all the younger people left to make their fortunes in factories and other urban jobs.