Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 90
view profile
History
The Greatest World ProblemsPage 4 of 26    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26)
Apparently reading links is not your forte jay...
The studies cited ARE currently deployed GM frankenfoods. And "heavily" modified? Like partially pregnant? Studies have refuted the "more crops per acre" claims.
Jorge Fernandez-Cornejo and William D. McBride, 2002. The adoption of bioengineered crops. US Department of Agriculture Report, May. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer810/aer810.pdf
R.W. Elmore et al., 2001. Glyphosate-resistant soyabean cultivar yields compared with sister lines. Agronomy Journal 93, 2001: 408–412.
Doug Gurian-Sherman, 2009. Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops. Union of Concerned Scientists. http://tiny.cc/eqZST

GM crops are less nutritious, tend to be more water intensive, more susceptable to pestilence and disease, and really only benefit Monsanto and the rest of the Food Chain Gang. Roundup Ready soy and corn are meant to survive MORE pesticides, yet have only suceeded in producing super weeds, pushing farmers backwards in productivity and labor intensiveness.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/energy-environment/04weed.html?pagewanted=all

Here are a few studies on health effects of CURRENTLY deployed food crops.
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers/65-health-risks/1notes

While you may not be a Monsanto troll, I would love to see your studies on the long term effects of GM foods that show that they are without risk or harm.

And while global warming enthusiasts tout the "benefits" of more land unencumbered by ice and dream an idealic future, the reality is coming home to roost as natural disasters are decreasing food supplies with increasing frequency all over the globe.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/05/science/earth/05harvest.html?_r=1&hp
 jay.m83
Joined: 5/18/2011
Msg: 91
view profile
History
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 6/6/2011 9:05:26 AM
Apparently Propaganda is your Forte.

He who laughs last, Laughs best.
 jay.m83
Joined: 5/18/2011
Msg: 92
view profile
History
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 6/6/2011 10:13:28 AM
FYI, you can find evidence that Organic Foods are also dangerous, are equally susceptible to diseases, just different ones, Like E-Coli, Salmonella. There is absolutely no evidence that shows your chances of living are worse eating GM foods, Your chances increase to get this here, and get that there, But the exact same arguments can be made against organic crops too. You are just more likely to die from something different. You are just digging on the internet to find claims that support your predisposed opinion.


<div class="quote">According to recent data compiled by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control CDC), people who eat organic and "natural" foods are eight times as likely as the rest of the population to be attacked by a deadly new strain of E. coli bacteria (0157: H7)

http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=1196

http://www.nutraingredients.com/Regulation/Organic-food-trend-increases-pathogen-risk

http://www.biblelife.org/organic.htm

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4019

http://postharvest.ucdavis.edu/datastorefiles/234-208.pdf

You aren't the only one who can Copy/Paste random internet links. Are mine any more conclusive? No, they aren't. They aren't any less conclusive either. But if you want to play the who can find more articles on the internet game, well, actually no I don't want to play, This illustrates the point easily enough.

Me personally, I have no predisposed opinion. I look at the evidence on both sides and right now. The research is important. The current GM crops available are important

No Matter what, you are going to die someday, living in fear is always a terrible idea, and you can change it anytime. Its just a choice you make my friend.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 93
view profile
History
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 6/6/2011 11:21:32 AM
Citing hacks like Avery hardly makes your case.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Trashing_organic_foods

When veggies, organic or pesticide-dependent become contaminated with e coli, it is from handling issues or from the use of water sources contaminated by animal CAFOs or human waste mismanagement upstrem.

However, GM tech has long been using e coli as a medium to grow it's frankengenes.
then grown into transgenic crops such as those bearing the label “Roundup Ready.”


‘Genetic engineering’ or genetic manipulation as it should properly be called, relies essentially on the ability to manipulate molecules in vitro. Most biomolecules exist in low concentrations & as complex, mixed populations which it is not possible to work with effectively. This problem was solved in 1970 using the molecular biologist’s favourite bug, Escherichia coli , a normally innocuous commensal occupant of the human gut. By inserting a piece of DNA of interest into a vector molecule, i.e. a molecule with a bacterial origin of replication, when the whole recombinant construction is introduced into a bacterial host cell, a large number of identical copies is produced. Together with the rapid growth of bacterial colonies all derived from a single original cell bearing the recombinant vector, in a short time (e.g. a few hours) a large amount of the DNA of interest is produced. This can be purified from contaminating bacterial DNA easily & the resulting product is said to have been ‘cloned’.

(http://www.microbiologybytes.com/introduction/GeneticEngineering.html)

According to Dr. Susan Bardocz, Phd during a recent conversation,

The E.coli is used as a recombinant DNA factory to produce large quantities of the transgene DNA to be used by the gene gun inserting the novel DNA into the genome of the new host, or to be inserted, as you rightly say, to Aggie [See Aggie the Traveling Agrobacterium at http://farmwars.info/?page_id=4202].


The first step is to open a plasmid in the E.coli with a molecular scizzor (Plasmids are circular geneteic elements present in bacteria) paste the transgenic DNA into the plasmid, put it back to the E.coli.


The E.coli grows in culture medium quickly, multiplies usually in every 20 mins. They harvest the DNA from the E.coli in large quantities and purify it. This purified transgenic DNA is then ready to be used for transformation.



The reason e-coli, or Escherichia coli, are used is because, like agrobacteria, which is used to insert the transgenic DNA into the plant cell during the genetic modification procedure, e-coli is highly prolific. It is also able to transfer DNA via horizontal, or lateral transfer to and from other species.

How is this significant?

New strains of E. coli evolve through the natural biological process of mutation and through horizontal gene transfer. Some strains develop traits that can be harmful to a host animal.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escherichia_coli)

It is possible that a mutated form of e-coli resulting from the cloning process used in creating GMOs could get into the gut of a person or animal that eats a transgenic plant.


Could this be why DuPont, the company that produces Pioneer Hi-Bred GMO animal feed, and proud proponent of GMO technology, has jumped into partnership with the USDA in identifying hard-to-identify strains of e-coli?

A new joint project between DuPont Qualicon and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) aims to develop testing to detect hard-to-identify strains of E.coli that are not regulated and have been causing increasing instances of food contamination.

(http://ppjg.wordpress.com/2010/08/05/somebody-save-us-the-usda-is-partnering-with-dupont/#more-10972)


Looking forward to viable, peer-reviewed studies that show how safe GM foods are over the long haul.
 jay.m83
Joined: 5/18/2011
Msg: 94
view profile
History
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 6/6/2011 11:55:27 AM
Hurray, more internet links... :/

You know how I know your a hack? You use terms like Frankengenes. Fear Mongering at its most pathetic.
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 96
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 6/6/2011 1:26:11 PM
Its been a interesting read regarding GM, technology etc, I can admit im not a expert on the subject and I think our young Jay has some good and valid points, definitely worth exploring and Im sure im going to learn something new
 happybunny8
Joined: 4/16/2010
Msg: 97
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 6/6/2011 1:38:04 PM

FYI, you can find evidence that Organic Foods are also dangerous, are equally susceptible to diseases, just different ones, Like E-Coli, Salmonella. There is absolutely no evidence that shows your chances of living are worse eating GM foods, Your chances increase to get this here, and get that there, But the exact same arguments can be made against organic crops too.


This is really quite interesting. I had a conversation with a man I was dating about organic foods. He was saying they were much better for you. While I had no clear opinion, I had not seen research to substantiate his claim. He couldn't offer proof and dropped the conversation rather than debate.

Like CdnIce, I'm unfamiliar with this, however I do believe that organics are fairly new. Have we seen a lifespan of an individual solely eating organic vs. non?

Anyone?
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 98
view profile
History
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 6/6/2011 2:47:43 PM
Organic agriculture has been around for around 10,000 years. Mine was the first generation to begin to get exposed to post WW II intensive chemical farming and poisoned foods. WW II set up the infrastructure for the chemical industry and they had to retool to get rid of excess stocks of nitrates used in munitions or in the case of IG Farbin maker of death camp Zyglon B, it's remaining subsidiaries Bayer and BASF ramped up the pesticide and fertilizer businesses.

Annecdotally, my father as with generations before, stayed organic on our farm, outliving all his chemically farming peers by a decade or two. In his retirement town, the widow to widower rations was around 200 to 1 at age 70 most cancer related. Many of his relatives, all farmers, all organic, lived to their 90s. There was Silent Spring, that served as a wake up call back then as well. My dad would poke around in the soils of his chemical neighbors to find them devoid of earthworms, and no meadowlarks on their fencerows.

Like many little towns in the chemical farming belt, the one nearest us is now going bankrupt, trying to dig their 3 municipal well in hopes that pesticide levels will be low enough to even wash dishes, or shower or bathe in. Cancer and birth defect clusters are quite common in farm communities. I've lost a number of cousins and dear friends from cancers well before the age of 50. My mother passed away from a systemic e coli infection, possibly from the water supply. (CAFO lagoons are emptied onto fields in the spring including fields adjacent to wells.)

Rivers and the Gulf of Mexico, Pugot Sound, Chesapeake Bay and other waters are dying from hypoxia from chemical fracking fertilizer runoff. Nitrates in groundwater are increasingly common as well.

Those with all the faith in the world in the chemical industry and the US regulatory agencies, might wish to do a little more homework before embracing GM as a savior, and tearing down a 10,000 year proven organic farming history.
 jay.m83
Joined: 5/18/2011
Msg: 99
view profile
History
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 6/6/2011 5:55:16 PM
I'm sorry but your story just doesn't line up with what is happening and has happened for people. Organic food has been around for 10,000 years, but so has Hemlock. I fail to see how the age of something is relevant.

I'm sorry but Synthetic fertilizers are proven safer than animal feces, Synthetic pesticides are also safer than Organic pesticides. Shit has changed since the 60s Pops. OH and while we are on it, though you and your family may have benefited from Not using pesticides back then, the ban on DDT killed 10s of MILLIONS. The worst kind of death imaginable. You ask what kind of life they may have lived with DDT, and I say a hell of a lot better than they did without it! And you show me a farmer that says he doesn't use any form of pesticide, and I will show you a liar. There are all sorts of organic ways for farmers to control pests on their farms. But they are not as safe. Just because its natural doesn't mean it is good for you. Nature makes all sorts of things that can kill you.

And no I'm not defending Monsanto, or unfair business practices, but there really has to be common ground. using only organic farming methods, is just not feasible. Sorry to hit you with that big dose of reality duuude, but any solution you come up with seem to have people starve. The Technology has improved a lot of things about agriculture, you mention horror stories of technology gone bad, but you never for a second consider the benefits we now see for learning from early mistakes. Your opinion is biased, and you have an axe to grind.

Look at Norman Borlaug, he is one of the greatest men in human history. At the time of his death it is estimated that he saved a billion people from starvation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug

If you want to have a nice organic farm on your property, and eat that and take your chances fine go ahead, Then you can really laugh when the rest of us die from cancer like you claim. At least that way we do not have to condemn people to brutal torture, and certain death. At least that way people can choose for themselves.

We are still making mistakes. We shouldn't be publicly producing food that has not been proven safe, but we can not abandon the research. Who knows what we may uncover. All science is really in the most basic sense is messing around with stuff so you can see how it works. That is how all science is derived. Anytime you get the chance to screw with stuff to see how it works, you should take it. Except a rocket launcher don't be stupid. And don't feed the rocket launcher to your friends.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 100
view profile
History
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 6/6/2011 6:51:19 PM
Norm was also apparently a Malthusian, appreciating the limits of over-copulation.

According to Borlaug, "Africa, the former Soviet republics, and the cerrado are the last frontiers. After they are in use, the world will have no additional sizable blocks of arable land left to put into production, unless you are willing to level whole forests, which you should not do. So, future food-production increases will have to come from higher yields. And though I have no doubt yields will keep going up, whether they can go up enough to feed the population monster is another matter. Unless progress with agricultural yields remains very strong, the next century will experience sheer human misery that, on a numerical scale, will exceed the worst of everything that has come before".[22]

Besides increasing the worldwide food supply, early in his career Borlaug stated that taking steps to decrease the rate of population growth will also be necessary to prevent food shortages. In his Nobel Lecture of 1970, Borlaug stated, "Most people still fail to comprehend the magnitude and menace of the 'Population Monster' ... If it continues to increase at the estimated present rate of two percent a year, the world population will reach 6.5 billion by the year 2000. Currently, with each second, or tick of the clock, about 2.2 additional people are added to the world population. The rhythm of increase will accelerate to 2.7, 3.3, and 4.0 for each tick of the clock by 1980, 1990, and 2000, respectively, unless man becomes more realistic and preoccupied about this impending doom. The tick-tock of the clock will continually grow louder and more menacing each decade. Where will it all end?"[23] However, some observers have suggested that by the 1990s Borlaug had changed his position on population control. They point to a quote from the year 2000 in which he stated: "I now say that the world has the technology — either available or well advanced in the research pipeline — to feed on a sustainable basis a population of 10 billion people. The more pertinent question today is whether farmers and ranchers will be permitted to use this new technology? While the affluent nations can certainly afford to adopt ultra low-risk positions, and pay more for food produced by the so-called 'organic' methods, the one billion chronically undernourished people of the low income, food-deficit nations cannot." [38] However, Borlaug remained on the advisory board of Population Media Center, an organization working to stabilize world population, until his death.[39]
 jay.m83
Joined: 5/18/2011
Msg: 101
view profile
History
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 6/6/2011 7:52:31 PM
He used to be. If you read the quote you posted it says in his later years he stated that we have the technology to be able to feed upwards of 10 billion. The time clock is still ticking, but doom is not so imminent. There really is no need to let people die right now.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 102
view profile
History
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 6/6/2011 8:39:41 PM
Jay, I'm not opposed to technology. It's brought us many wonderful things, including the ability for us to have this discussion in this forum, and my ability to participate via my iPhone. But just as I'm limited in my ability to provide you with links and copy the portions of your text I'd like to focus on, technology on the macro level has it's limits as well.

Your point by point rebuttal of what I wrote failed on all three points.

We can send all the missionaries you like to impoverished areas. Just at the same time provide easy access to all for birth control and voluntary sterilization. Societies that already have such easy access have shown they will limit their own population growth without mandates.

Even if for the moment I grant you the difficult to defend position that replacing traditional crops with sterile gm monocultures will have no negative consequences, we're losing arable land and available irrigation water at an alarming rate. Merely cutting down forests or utilizing thawing regions from the warming you don't believe in does not mean the soil will be fertile. Suitable soil for forest is NOT often suitable soil for food crops, however they are engineered. And in a short period we've gone from using a sixth of the planets fesh water supply to half, with many aquifers in key farm regions shrinking at an alarming rate.

As for climate change, if you want to challenge my assertion that every national science organization with any connection to the climate has affirmed the human role in a warming planet, why don't you start by naming one that hasn't. I'm not talking some denialist organization. I'm talking about the national organizations that exist for every branch of science, ALL of whom, to the best of my knowledge, have released statements affirming the concept of anthropogenic climate change. No, of course there isn't full agreement from every scientist on every detail. That's not what I said.

You seem to be a smart guy, but one who is overly eager to embrace simple answers to complex problems. If I might suggest, I think you would fnd it interesting to save copies of what you write now and compare them with your thoughts once you've had anther 27 years to refine your thoughts.

Dave
 jay.m83
Joined: 5/18/2011
Msg: 103
view profile
History
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 6/7/2011 6:10:01 AM
Dave, I believe I clearly said all climate scientist are in agreement that the climate is changing. The only international organization however that is calling for alarm is the IPCC, All other ones take a more reserved approach. I do not see how a shift in global climate by a few degrees will bring about catastrophic consequences. We have seen a couple of instances in the last 5000 years where the global climate was much much higher than it is now, and much higher than what climate scientists are projecting for us in the next 100 years. We are still here. You mention we are losing fresh water, and arable land, but you fail to look at very modern history. This exact same hysteria happened within the last 40 years. Your side was wrong then, and I have seen no further proof that it is right now. Climate debate has turned too political. Its has become an argument of socialist vs. capitalistic behavior, and not about how the planet, and humanity will be effected by increase in temperature. It has become big business, and the scientific method is being abandoned for quick solutions and easy answers, in an attempt to acquire government funds from tax payers scared of Cataclysm.

People also point to an increase of damages from a dollar point perspective, but that is merely a reflection of the wealth that we created. Couple of Points from the Cato intitute.

"It's false. There is absolutely no evidence that extreme weather events are on the increase. None. The argument that more and more dollar damages accrue is a reflection of the greater amount of wealth we've created."

"No known mechanism can stop global warming in the near term. International agreements, such as the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, would have no detectable effect on average temperature within any reasonable policy time frame (i.e., 50 years or so), even with full compliance"

Do I think we shouldn't be concerned? Absolutely not. Of course we need to be concerned. We need to explore scientific possibilities on all fronts. But I do not support any policy based on fear. And I do not support any policy that WILL kill billions, especially since we do not know if it will work.

I guess its ok if you don't think a person is as good as a tree, I do not agree with it, but at the very least you shouldn't think of people as scum that need to die. Love > Fear. And that is really the only point I'm trying to make.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 105
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 6/7/2011 8:12:58 AM
I do not see how a shift in global climate by a few degrees will bring about catastrophic consequences.

A few degrees is a lot when you're talking about a global average. Here is one article on the effects of global temperatures on rice production, published by the National Academy of Science:

http://www.pnas.org/content/101/27/9971.full

You'll find links to other articles that correlate grain production, pastureland and food production to global temperatures at the bottom. Here's an article relating temperature to insect polpulation:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.170.935&rep=rep1&type=pdf

We have seen a couple of instances in the last 5000 years where the global climate was much much higher than it is now, and much higher than what climate scientists are projecting for us in the next 100 years.

In the last 5000 years, there were far fewer people and their lifestyles were considerably different than ours.

We are still here.

The fact that ``we're still here'' only means that enough humans survived to ensure that humans didn't become extinct.

Couple of Points from the Cato intitute.

The Cato institute is hardly an unbiased source. In particular, they are essentially apologists for corporate malfeasance who misapply the term ``libertarian'' to describe themelves, although they have little in common with libertarian philosophy.

"It's false. There is absolutely no evidence that extreme weather events are on the increase. None. The argument that more and more dollar damages accrue is a reflection of the greater amount of wealth we've created."

That is not true. (Check the links in the article above for a paper on this, which does not base any analysis on dollar figures.) What would have been true is to say that at the 95% confidence level, you could conclude either that extreme weather events are on the rise or are not on the rise, depending on which hypothesis you're trying to falsify. (Falsification of an hypothesis is the way science is done.) What is typically done is to assume that extreme weather events are not increasing and look for a difference which shows that hypothesis wrong at the 95% confidence level. At that level, you can't show that extreme weather events are increasing, On the other hand, if you start with the hypothesis that extreme weather events are increasing, you can't say that they aren't increasing at the 95% confidence level, thus you would have to accept the hypothesis that they are increasing. When the Cato institute makes that statement, they are essentially manipulating the statistics by omitting the details which would indicate how tenuous their position is.

"No known mechanism can stop global warming in the near term. International agreements, such as the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, would have no detectable effect on average temperature within any reasonable policy time frame (i.e., 50 years or so), even with full compliance"

Why is it important to limit a solution to 50 years? Any reduction is better than none, even if the best you can do is avoid a runaway condition which cannot be fixed, period. We can't completely stop armed robbery either, but that doesn't mean we do nothing.

And I do not support any policy that WILL kill billions, especially since we do not know if it will work.

What policy to reduce CO2 emissions and other pollutants will kill billions?

I guess its ok if you don't think a person is as good as a tree, I do not agree with it,

That is a non-sequitur. Humans have built civilization around an ecosystem which is relatively stable. If the ecosystem changes, even a little, that will kill lots of people. That doesn't include the indirect effect of pharmaceuticals that may be derived from plants that might become extinct before their chemical properties are discovered. Currently, pharmaceutical companies and research institutions like the NIH test thousands of compounds at a time, taken straight from plants in the rainforests for potential use in curing diseases, mainly cancer. The rain forests are very diverse. They can test many thousands of random compounds in less time than it would take to gamble on developing a single compound synthesized from scratch based on a guess of how it might work. As those plants become extinct, so does any medicine that might have been developed from them.

Almost all medicines are derived from plants because the base compounds were first discovered in plants and starting from scratch instead of the base compound would be very expensive and complex. Without opium poppies, we would have no anesthesia for surgery and pain control. The novacaine and other -caine derivatives were developed as alternatives to cocaine (which is still used for eye surgery). The only place coca leaves grow is in the Andes.

So it makes no sense to say humans are more or less important than trees. If the ecosystem changes enough to kill off lots of trees, the direct and indirect effects will kill of lots of people. If you look up mathematical ``predator prey'' models, you'll find that even for a highly contrived ecosystem of two species, the effect of one population on the other is not straight forward to predict because of the non-linearity. A small, apparently insignificant change to the system can result in drastic changes, like the extinction of both species. Regardless of any speculation either way about climate change, the best course of action is for humans to reduce their impact to as little as possible. Having zero effect on the climate will not hurt. The human population depends on the climate remaining pretty much as it is. Civilization is built around that (implicit) assumption.
 jay.m83
Joined: 5/18/2011
Msg: 106
view profile
History
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 6/7/2011 10:11:21 AM

What policy to reduce CO2 emissions and other pollutants will kill billions?


Any policy to try and reduce CO2 will increase the global price of fuel. For example carbon taxes. You increase the global fuel costs, and people in the 3rd world will die. They are the ones that need it the most right now. And though us here in the west may have the option to try and be greener, us being green will effect their way of life. And Laws banning GM crops will also devastate the 3rd world countries as well. I would like to see some of these organic nuts go over and talk to a 3rd world family and explain to them why you are fighting the technology that could feed their children.

When the entire world has enough food and energy I'll be happy to listen to what you have to say. But unless you and yours are starving then YOU NEED TO SHUT THE **** UP!
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 107
view profile
History
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 6/7/2011 10:40:03 AM
Again...there is no evidence that GM crops increase yields. Hybridization, forest clearing, natural gas fertilizers, and mined phosphorus account for nearly all of the green revolution. If you want to care about 3rd world children, help stop turning foodlands into biofuels plantations. Help stop pesticide poisoning and GMO contaminated foodstuffs. We are at peak fossil fuels, peak soils, peak water, and peak phosphorus. There might be 2 or 3 decades of phosphorus before it runs out and prices for it and natural gas based fertilizers will be priced beyond affordability for most of the world in the very near future. Food is already being priced above affordability because western people want to drive their SUVs on corn and soy.

First removing subsidies from fossil fuel producers, and then taxing the use of those fuels to more accurately reflect their true social and environmental costs, would immediately lead to rapid deployment of efficiency and conservation measures. The US consumers use twice as much energy as their EU peers with the same quality of life.
We waste more than most of the world uses. As the leaders of the planet eaters in the past century we have a moral obligation to be part of the solution and take the lead out of this boom bust cycle that will only end badly unless a kinder course is taken immediately.

Reapplying the wasted subsidies that make fossil fuel CEOs billionaires, instead, toward real renewables, sustainable agriculture, and proper water management will do far more to save 3 world children. Sustainable indigenous agriculture practices are being decimated by corporations, their seeds stolen and patented, seed savers punished, and waters being absconded by corporate interests.

Promoting things like the solar grandmothers initiative is another approach.
http://ddimick.typepad.com/dennis_dimicks_blog/2011/04/solar-grandmothers-generating-the-unlikeliest-of-heroes-via-nytimes-solarpower-1.html

By the way Jay...your "shut the fck up" approach to discourse is not charming in the least, and the mods will probably bannish you if you keep it up.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 108
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 6/7/2011 11:27:02 AM
When the entire world has enough food and energy I'll be happy to listen to what you have to say. But unless you and yours are starving then YOU NEED TO SHUT THE **** UP!

I guess you aren't really as open to scientific evidence as you made yourself out to be. Your ploy worked up until you had real refernces to read.

You increase the global fuel costs, and people in the 3rd world will die.

You apparetly didn't read the article linking rice and grain production to global temperature. If the temperature goes up 1 degree C, lots of people in 3rd world will die, too and that can't be fixed by money.

Again...there is no evidence that GM crops increase yields.

Actualy, that isn't true. There are lots of reasons to be suspect of GM foods, but ignoring or minimizing their benefits, one of which is better yields, is certain to give you no credibility.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 109
view profile
History
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 6/7/2011 12:59:09 PM
What small yield increases might be attributable to GM engineering, is far more offset by negative social, financial and environmental consequences. In India over a quarter million farmers have committed suicide, many by drinking pesticides because they got suckered into seed serfdom and suffered crop failures when the yields did not meet the promises. In the US, consumers are not allowed to know if their foods are contaminated with GM products. If we were allowed to know, consumers would quite possibly bankrupt the industry by refusing to knowingly be part of the experiment.

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/food_and_agriculture/failure-to-yield.pdf
“Failure to Yield is the first report to closely evaluate the overall effect genetic engineering has had on crop yields in relation to other agricultural technologies. It reviewed two dozen academic studies of corn and soybeans, the two primary genetically engineered food and feed crops grown in the United States. Based on those studies, the UCS report concluded that genetically engineering herbicide-tolerant soybeans and herbicide-tolerant corn has not increased yields. Insect-resistant corn, meanwhile, has improved yields only marginally. The increase in yields for both crops over the last 13 years, the report found, was largely due to traditional breeding or improvements in agricultural practices.”

http://www.stwr.org/food-security-agriculture/do-gm-crops-increase-yield-the-answer-is-no.html
http://www.ebfarm.com/whyorganic/PDFs/SeedsofDoubt.pdf
 jay.m83
Joined: 5/18/2011
Msg: 111
view profile
History
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 6/7/2011 2:47:42 PM
above is probably the smartest post I've read.


<div class='quote'>By the way Jay...your "shut the fck up" approach to discourse is not charming in the least, and the mods will probably bannish you if you keep it up.

Not going to sit and listen to someone who has the option to turn down food bash technology that will help those who can't, so I stand by it. If only 1 person reads this and then actually decides to look into it on both sides without bias, then being banished is well worth it.

I have a challenge for the organics here. And it is the only way to give you credibility. I want every single organic supporter to sign a contract, stating that If the entire world goes completely organic, that they will not eat, until every other single human being on the planet is fed first. Lets see how much you truly believe in organic crops. Put your stomach where you're mouth is. If you push a policy, and that policy kills people, it is only fair that you be the first to starve.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 112
view profile
History
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 6/7/2011 3:07:31 PM
Being concerned about situations does not necessarily make people bitter. I've rarely found bitter people other than cynics who have given up. Knowledge is the first step in the small, incremental changes which lead to the big changes needed. There is the old tale of the survey asking "Which constitutes the biggest challenge in changing things..Ignorance or Apathy?" to which the most common response was "I don't Know and I don't Care!" There is really no excuse for ignorance in the age of modern communications and media options. Apathy, however, still remains a roadblock to combat ignorance.

There is also the ability to differenciate between the things you can change and cannot and at least start taking steps to be part of the solution instead of just whining about the situation. Having been around activists for the last 3 decades, most are just people minding their own business when some stupid human trick is proposed that will affect them or their loved ones. Empowerment is a wonderful thing and I have seen quite ordinary people do extremely extraordinary feats, thousand of times. We can all do the small incremental changes in our daily lives, that multiplied by millions or billions, have cummulative significant impacts. It's merely a matter of fighting apathy and just doing something.

You mentioned eating local. We did that just a few decades ago and it was wholesome, employed friends and neighbors, and kept communities intact. The local food movement is making a comeback, a roaring one around here with demand exceeding local growers. Community supported agriculture (CSAs) and urban and community gardens are popping up all over the area, particularly in low income urban food deserts. Just people seeing a bad situation and taking what steps they can take to rectify that.

On a larger scale, if we just generated the political will and elected honest politicians, policies could change rapidly to deploy sustainable solutions toward most woes we face. Readily available family planning could replace the current model of starving and poisoning the kids to keep population low.

We can also readily reduce our energy consumption using exisiting technology and mindful living. The University of Cambridge optimistically says by 85%.
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/89/i04/8904scene1.html

People bucked up in the past and worked together to stop other monsters, like the ones in WW II . Everybody kicked in. There was no apathy.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 114
view profile
History
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 6/7/2011 8:35:26 PM
Jay, you're confusing the heck out of me.

First, please read the following word, for the third time, only this time for comprehension: "NATIONAL".

I repeat: every national science organization with any connection to the climate has issued statements affirming the human role in a warming planet. Whenever I finally get back to a real computer I'll happily provide you with a long list of such organizations, which will NOT include the IPCC, an international organization. That means you'll see organizations from your country and mine and many, many others.

The only evidence at all of ANY warmer period in the past 5000 years is very skimpy evidence of what is called the midieval warm period, based on a single entry in a single journal covering a limited region. The best application of the scientific method indicate that some parts of Europe may have seen temperatures that may or may not have approached those we see today but there is no evidence that this was a global phenomenon.

I'd be very interested to hear about any time in the past forty years when there was greater concern than there is today about global loss of arable land and fresh water.

You're absolutely right that we can't completely halt global warming in the short term. Nor can we cure cancer or end violence or remove many of the problems we face. But we sure can make significant progress and minimize risk.

You don't support any policy based on fear? I'm hard pressed to think of ANY policy that isn't based on fear of something. What policies DO you support?

Kill billions? Assuming your plural implies at least two billion, how do you make the leap that improving energy efficiency, shrinking our dependence on finite fossil fuels, and generally making more efficient use of and assuring continued availability of the many natural systems we depend on will kill at least a third of the six billion people on the planet? And you accuse those of us who favor more sustainable practices of using hysteria tactics?

Nobody here thinks of people as scum who deserve to die, nor have any of us even remotely suggested such a thing. We may differ on what we perceive our greatest problems to be and the best solutions for them, but we all want the best possible future for our species.

Let's build on the values we share, not presume differences that don't exist.

Dave
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 115
view profile
History
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 6/8/2011 4:39:54 AM
Just Jim...I referred to media options that we have today. Most of the best investigative journalism is being done outside of the MSM. I agree that network dependent viewers are the most entertained and least informed humans in our culture.

As for the "safety" issues on foods, Roundup Ready GMOs in particular, when there is a revolving door between corporate interests, regulators, lobbyists and politicians, "safety" becomes nothing more than a political issue, linguistics, and perception management winning out over science.

The most widely used herbicide in the world, Glyphosate, aka Roundup, has been "safe" for decades, even though regulators new 30 years ago that there were birth defect issues. It was only until two days ago that we are informed by independent investigators that the "safety" was utter BS perpetuated by the industry in all it's manifestations of regulators, lobbyists, and politicians.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/07/roundup-birth-defects-herbicide-regulators_n_872862.html
http://www.scribd.com/doc/57277946/RoundupandBirthDefectsv5
"The Commission has previously ignoredor dismissed many other findings from the independent scientific literature showing thatRoundup and glyphosate cause endocrine disruption, damage to DNA, reproductive and developmental toxicity, neurotoxicity, and cancer,as well as birth defects. Many of these effects are found at very low doses, comparable to levels of pesticide residues found in food and the environment."

RR GMOs come with some severe tradeoffs for a few extra bucks or pounds of food. And it is not just humans at risk from Monsanto, Bayer, DuPont, etc. We are losing our pollinators at alarming rates, Bayer implicated in colony collapse disorder, and amphibians populations have collapsed. We simply have no full idea of what the implications and will ultimately be of opening that pandoras box of chemicals and GMOs.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 116
view profile
History
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 6/8/2011 4:43:38 AM
Just Jim...I referred to media options that we have today. Most of the best investigative journalism is being done outside of the MSM. I agree that network dependent viewers are the most entertained and least informed humans in our culture.

As for the "safety" issues on foods, Roundup Ready GMOs in particular, when there is a revolving door between corporate interests, regulators, lobbyists and politicians, "safety" becomes nothing more than a political issue, linguistics, and perception management winning out over science.

The most widely used herbicide in the world, Glyphosate, aka Roundup, has been "safe" for decades, even though regulators new 30 years ago that there were birth defect issues. It was only until two days ago that we are informed by independent investigators that the "safety" was utter BS perpetuated by the industry in all it's manifestations of regulators, lobbyists, and politicians.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/07/roundup-birth-defects-herbicide-regulators_n_872862.html
http://www.scribd.com/doc/57277946/RoundupandBirthDefectsv5
"The Commission has previously ignored or dismissed many other findings from the independent scientific literature showing thatRoundup and glyphosate cause endocrine disruption, damage to DNA, reproductive and developmental toxicity, neurotoxicity, and cancer,as well as birth defects. Many of these effects are found at very low doses, comparable to levels of pesticide residues found in food and the environment."

RR GMOs come with some severe tradeoffs for a few extra bucks or pounds of food. And it is not just humans at risk from Monsanto, Bayer, DuPont, etc. We are losing our pollinators at alarming rates, Bayer implicated in colony collapse disorder, and amphibians populations have collapsed. We simply have no full idea of what the implications have been, and will ultimately be, of opening those pandoras boxes of chemicals and GMOs. The long list of previously" safe" pesticides would likely grow exponentially if honesty prevailed over corporate profits.
 jay.m83
Joined: 5/18/2011
Msg: 117
view profile
History
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 6/8/2011 5:31:49 AM

What policies DO you support?


The freedom of choice, as long as that choice doesn't step on the freedom of choice of another human being, is the "only" policy I support, and it isn't based on fear.

I'm done, I forgot that environmentalism is just another religion. Arguing about your faith is not going to get anywhere and I have said enough that If there is one objective mind out there that they will at least completely go through the thought exercise. If 1 person does that, then the world will be a slightly better place.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 118
view profile
History
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 6/8/2011 6:28:24 AM
And the policy of freedom of choice is based on fear of oppression.

We're a crisis driven species, not very good at making prudent choices not based on immediate concerns, even if long term implications make a strong case.

I'm disappointed that you've fallen back on the "environmentalism is a religion" mantra. It's no more a religion than promoting freedom of choice, democracy, or capitalism. In fact, I'd argue that everyone is an environmentalist to some degree or another, at least all of us who breathe and need water. Some of us are just more aware of how dependent we are on natural processes than others.

We are, after all, a part of nature, not some self contained species. We're for now the dominant species on the planet, a relatively new role for us compared to our overall history, and certainly in terms of the history of the planet. That puts us for now at the top of the global pyramid of life on the most vibrant known planet in the universe. It's up to us how well we handle that role. The planet will live on without us either way. It's our freedom to choose whether we want to play on the winning team.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  >