> America grows so many crops that we actually pay farmers billions of dollars
> a year NOT to grow them. We are also the largest exporter of grains in the world.
> If we closed our borders and told all the farmers to grow crops, we would have
> five times as much food as we do now.
True. But if those farmers could not get gasoline to power their farm equipment, they wouldn’t be able to grow even 1% of their current produce.
> Additionally, it takes ten pounds of grains to produce one pound of beef. If
> Americans cut back their meat consumption by say 33% (one meatless meal
> a day), we would have enough crops for food and to fuel our cars (ethanol).
And if everyone would just be nice and fair to one another, we wouldn’t need lawyers.
But that’s not going to happen either.
> Additionally, there are at least a hundred animals in America for every
> person- bison, deer, bears, birds, pigs, cows, rabbits and so on and they
> procreate much faster than humans do.
True, but if an economic crisis shut down long-distance trucking, all such farm animals would never be processed into meat and delivered to the massive populations living in the cities. Without the farms producing crops, their would be no food for farm animals, and without the trucking industry, there would be no medicine for them either. The crops would die in the fields, and the livestock in their pens.
And as for animals living in the wild, they would prove of no value to America's teeming city masses. Most city dwellers would not have the first clue where to look for wild meat, nor would they have any transportation to such hunting areas, nor would they have the necessary skills to find and kill any wild animals even if they could get there. Most city dwellers would die in city riots long before they even had a chance to think about going off into the countryside to hunt for food. The cities would go up in flames like stacks of cordwood. Without gasoline, the fire departments would be powerless to stop fires, and a single fire would be free to spread as far as the wind allowed. Without gasoline, the police would be powerless to stop rioting, and with no law to counter them, the hungry and desperate poor, who always relied on society to provide all their needs, would be out for revenge. There would be killings. There would be fires. Armed gangs would roam unopposed, looking for food, or, lacking that, anything else they happened to find.
> There is also one store selling foodstuffs for every 16 people in America.
> If all food deliveries stopped, all told there is at least a three month supply
> of food sitting on shelves everywhere across America ripe for looting.
Not nowadays. Modern business has embraced JIT marketing (Just-In-Time. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_In_Time_%28business%29). It is estimated that most cities contain just a three or four-day supply of food at any given moment. If all the semis stopped coming in over those expressways, in less than a week most people would be starving.
> Saying America can't or in the future won't grow crops or saying Americans
> will starve to death in some dismal future is simply nonsense. As any non-American
> can plainly see by looking at the waistline of any American, we are overflowing with food.
Sure, we’re fat now. The system is working now. But if the system stops working?
> So you're saying that people will die from lack of salt even though they know an
> infinite supply of salt is only 500 miles away? You're saying farmers would rather
> kill and eat their livestock than start a "cattle salt drive"?
I’m saying that no one can successfully walk 500 miles without salt, especially through hostile terrain filled with hoards of starving and desperate people.
> Do you know how much salt would be worth if everyone ran out of it?
> An awful lot.
Yes. In fact, some of the earliest forms of money were cakes of salt. When you don’t have any, it becomes priceless.
> There'd be tons of people making trips to SALT LAKE City and distributing
it throughout the country for a huge profit, not to mention the 1.2 million
> residents of SLC who would all go into the salt business.
There would be people who would try. Salt Lake City is in the middle of some pretty desolate countryside, isn’t it?. How long could you walk out there? I believe you’d have to be carrying your own water a good portion of the trip, and your own guns, and your own food. And everyone you met along the way would covet your treasure enough to be at risk of killing you for it..
It’s not easy to engage in mass distribution on foot. You could try to ride a horse, but you’d only keep it until you met someone hungry enough to kill you for it. You could try to ride a bicycle, but how much salt could you transport on a bike, and would it be worth risking your life to attempt it?
> And I haven't even mentioned the Federal Government stepping in to distribute salt
> no less the billions of tons of salt already sitting in millions of salt houses in every
> little town across America waiting for the snow.
The scariest words in the English language are “I’m from the government and I’m here to helpâ€. We saw how helpful and efficient and reliable the government was with Katrina last year, didn’t we? You think the government would know better than you how to mass-distribute salt via foot or bicycle or horseback? [censored], they have all the tools in the world now and they still can’t find their asses with both hands. Without gasoline, the government would be even more crippled than the individual.
> There is absolutely no validity to any claim that we will ever run out of salt,
> in fact it's much harder to get rid of the billions of tons of salt we already have
> than to imagine a saltless America.
Of course we will not run out. The problem is not one of availability but distribution.
But in a city full of empty gas tanks, supplies 500 miles away might as well be five million. Did you know that before the advent of cars and trains and suchlike, the average person never traveled more than 20 miles from his home
in his entire life?
- Peter