U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-31-2012, 08:52 PM
 
15,924 posts, read 17,418,902 times
Reputation: 7641

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Submariner View Post
'Round-up ready' allows farming using slightly less pesticides, however production levels are not up due to GMO.

The same exact number of people are fed today with or without GMO.
Then I wonder what is being done with all the additional GM crop acreage that is now being produced, turning it into chemtrails?

Although most GM crops are grown in North America, in recent years there has been rapid growth in the area sown in developing countries. A total of 29 countries worldwide grew GM crops in 2011 by approximately 16.7 million farmers and 50% of GM crops grown worldwide were grown in developing countries. For example, the largest increase in crop area planted to GM crops in 2011 was in Brazil (303,000 km2 versus 254,000 km2 in 2010). There has also been rapid and continuing expansion of GM cotton varieties in India since 2002 (Cotton is a major source of vegetable cooking oil and animal feed) with 106,000 km2 of GM cotton harvested in India in 2011.[5] In 2011, countries that grew the most transgenic crops were the United States, Brazil, Argentina, India, Canada, China, Paraguay, Pakistan, South Africa, Uruguay, Bolivia, Australia, Philippines, Myanmar, Burkino Faso, Mexico and Spain.[5]



Genetically modified crops - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
Old 08-31-2012, 10:07 PM
 
15,924 posts, read 17,418,902 times
Reputation: 7641
Side effects of GM paranoia....

Quote:
Likewise, the banana industry in Uganda finds itself at such a crossroads. Thirty percent of its banana crop has been infected with banana Xanthomonas wilt (BXW), a disease that is wiping out entire plantations — and that’s not okay for a country that is the second largest producer of bananas in the world. But scientists from the National Banana Research Program have found an answer to a problem that conventional methods were unable to solve. Using genes from a sweet pepper plant, they created bananas resistant to BXW, which sounds great — except that GM crops are illegal in Uganda, even though 95 percent of farmers are willing to grow them.
Biodiversity doesn’t feed people, but GM crops do > Facts & Fears > ACSH

BTW, if it weren't for GM modifications the pineapple would now be extinct in Hawaii due to diseases.....
 
Old 09-01-2012, 12:03 PM
 
4,984 posts, read 5,064,362 times
Reputation: 6322
Quote:
Originally Posted by plwhit View Post
Saves the use of toxic chemicals. GM crops can be made resistant to pests, so pesticides do not need to be sprayed on them. This is also better on the environment!
It's been discussed a few pages back, GMOs boost consumption of all kinds of poisons (according to USDA data, 10%-20% boost per acre in less than 10 years) because major use for GMOs is to make crops resistant to PESTICIDES etc., #1 GMO use is to make crops more suitable for economy of scale and global corporate capitalism in other words.

Quote:
Prevents wasted crops. If pests cannot eat the crops, nothing goes to waste. Therefore, farmers make more money!
It's just common sense, if pests do not want to eat something it's STUPID, really STUPID for you to eat that, leave that bounty to major GMO shareholders to enjoy, it's my friendly advice to believers.

Quote:
It could potentially solve hunger. Many people agree that there is not enough food in the world to feed everybody. As genetically modified foods increase the yields of crops, more food is produced by farmers. Of course, others argue that there is enough food to feed everyone, but it is unequally distributed. Others argue the GM crops do not produce higher yields.
Major cause of hunger are economic and political systems of ours. It's not crops. Yup, agri biz will drop prices of their cancer giving goodies to the levels affordable to the poorest of the poorest in 1st and 3rd world slums. You got to be kidding, green revolution my hairy arse.

Capitalist economies are sustained by scarcity, actually they create scarcity out of abundance in order to sustain itself. Abundant resource (only air remains) is of no interest to Capital.

Quote:
We can begin to grow foods in different conditions. For instance, strawberries can be genetically engineered to grow in frosts. Other foods that grow in cold climates could be engineered to grow in hot climates (such as Africa where much of the continent does not have enough food).
We can substitute water in plants cells for antifreeze, we can do all kind of things to plants and animals that our bodies are not designed to handle. Only true believers think that a plant that can kill an insect will never ever do anything to their health.

Actually, destroying indigenous economies, society and agriculture in order to grow commodity monoculture crops for the global markets (under tight supervision of World Bank, CIA etc.) is the root of African hunger. "Bounty" of GMO Iowa corn will make African hunger only worse because it will make insanely suicidal global economic system even more absurd.

Quote:
Some foods can be genetically modifies to contain higher amounts of important vitamins and minerals. Vitamin A deficiencies cause blindness. In Africa, 500,000 go blind each year. If rice can be modified to contain more vitamin A, the amount of people going blind will decrease.
Some food can be genetically modified to interfere with your kidney function, just a small example. Some GMO may have unexpected side effect. You have to 200% naive to believe that US government is not funding research on food weapons as we speak. Besides, USA has proud eugenic tradition. GMO gave boost of hope to the select few "philanthropic" organizations that no longer consider it to be beneficial to brandish "eugenic" in their statutes. Yet, bright perspectives of the selective sterilization using nothing but food did not escape their attention.

Quote:
As more research is done the technology is bound to improve. Scientists are already considering genetic modification to make fish, nuts and plants grow faster.
Nothing is wrong with that as long as scientists would flock GMO food shops stocked with their Frankenstein fishes and nuts. Let me look in my crystal ball, I see most of scientists using their 30 pieces of silver to buy more natural products.
 
Old 09-01-2012, 12:48 PM
 
4,984 posts, read 5,064,362 times
Reputation: 6322
If you seek a poster child for Industrial Agriculture & Food Processing, GMOs, Economy of Scale, Science, Medical Advances etc. look no further than American working/serving/disposed classes. What a sorry lot, generally speaking. Overweight, markedly unhealthy, very likely to be on psychotropic drugs (geez, most of them grew up on Ritalin). I wouldn't use the word "dumb" but they are definitely limited (by design) in their knowledge and imagination. But they work hard under penalty of joblessness, keep it calm if discarded, susceptible to primitive manipulation and propaganda, docile and compliant.

If you want to know what Science and GMO can do for your country, look no further than American working class. If you don't trust me take an educational trip, pay special attention to the wage units in their 30th and 40th that's when food, social deprivations and drugs impose heavy toll on worker' bodies and brain cells. Increasingly, even wage units in their 20th look like walking wrecks hooked to gadgets.
 
Old 09-01-2012, 08:58 PM
 
15,924 posts, read 17,418,902 times
Reputation: 7641
It sounds like some units have a huge anti-technology phobia....
 
Old 09-01-2012, 09:46 PM
 
4,984 posts, read 5,064,362 times
Reputation: 6322
Quote:
Originally Posted by plwhit View Post
It sounds like some units have a huge anti-technology phobia....
Just yesterday I had an opportunity to observe a fracking crew enjoying R&R and McD bounty in PA. Those are very well paid wage units as of 2012 but apparently well above average wages don't do your body, health and appearance any good as long as you gorge yourself on the bounty of technological innovations and whatever crap they inhale at drill sites.

That's why I used working class folks to illustrate my point. Due to lack of income, and/or cultural tradition, social clout & power, education, and frequently common sense they cannot escape over-consumption of technological innovations. At the same time, upper middle and upper classes don't spare $ to insulate themselves (personally) from cutting edge research in GMOs and food processing, for example. It's perfectly OK to make a big buck on feeding technological bounty to the lower classes though.

I'll remember that fracking crew for quite some time. Unfortunately I didn't have a camera, that would be a perfect "educational" picture showing what wage labor and technological innovations in food etc. industries can do to human beings these days.

Last edited by RememberMee; 09-01-2012 at 10:10 PM..
 
Old 09-02-2012, 12:30 AM
 
15,924 posts, read 17,418,902 times
Reputation: 7641
to be fair you should also travel around the world documenting how many millions of people are dying from malnutrition because some elitist units have spread fear about GM crops so their countries won't plant them.

As I posted earlier, GM crop planting is rising all over the world, FACT.

I see you have taken advantage of this bounty of technological innovations and as the usual elitist you pass judgement on others who partake in different ways these bounty of technological innovations.....

The world would be so much better off if you people just MYOB.....
 
Old 09-02-2012, 07:38 AM
 
2,737 posts, read 4,343,694 times
Reputation: 1785
Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee View Post
Just yesterday I had an opportunity to observe a fracking crew enjoying R&R and McD bounty in PA. Those are very well paid wage units as of 2012 but apparently well above average wages don't do your body, health and appearance any good as long as you gorge yourself on the bounty of technological innovations and whatever crap they inhale at drill sites.

That's why I used working class folks to illustrate my point. Due to lack of income, and/or cultural tradition, social clout & power, education, and frequently common sense they cannot escape over-consumption of technological innovations. At the same time, upper middle and upper classes don't spare $ to insulate themselves (personally) from cutting edge research in GMOs and food processing, for example. It's perfectly OK to make a big buck on feeding technological bounty to the lower classes though.

I'll remember that fracking crew for quite some time. Unfortunately I didn't have a camera, that would be a perfect "educational" picture showing what wage labor and technological innovations in food etc. industries can do to human beings these days.
I know you're not intending to be, but dang, you are FUNNY!
 
Old 09-02-2012, 08:43 AM
 
4,984 posts, read 5,064,362 times
Reputation: 6322
Quote:
Originally Posted by plwhit View Post
to be fair you should also travel around the world documenting how many millions of people are dying from malnutrition because some elitist units have spread fear about GM crops so their countries won't plant them.

As I posted earlier, GM crop planting is rising all over the world, FACT.

I see you have taken advantage of this bounty of technological innovations and as the usual elitist you pass judgement on others who partake in different ways these bounty of technological innovations.....

The world would be so much better off if you people just MYOB.....
Recently, I dug up a vintage Soviet newscast, 1987. Exactly 25 years ago a delegation of Soviet Supreme Council was touring USA. Monsanto headquarters in Saint Louis attracted special attention from the Soviet comrades. It was dawn of GMO era and Soviets did not display any squeamishness about unstoppable pace of progress. USSR bought seeds etc. from Monsanto 25 years ago, tens of thousands of soviet acres were planted with Monsanto seeds. So what does it prove? I guess it doesn't really matter who owns big agro, state or transnational investor class. Regardless of ownership status, big agro has identical needs and GMOs are uniquely suited to fill those needs. What question remains outstanding? Is big globalized agro uniquely suited to feed the world or it virtually ensures future mega famine and deprivations not speaking of other "issues".

If developing world (including ex USSR) embraces neoliberalism as its economic ideology, big agro wins by default, victorious agribiz wants GMOs and poisons, lots of them. Victorious agri biz has plenty of cash on its hands to buy politicians and lobby for favorable laws. There is no mystery behind mushrooming use of GMOs in the developing world.

OK, let's just put pondering about good and evil potential of GMO and look what are major applications for GMO today? Despite marketing pitch about feeding the world and such, GMOs are used mostly to increase scale of agricultural production, concentrate ownership and to decrease amount of labor per acre. Those reasons have nothing to do with feeding the world (quite to the contrary) and they have everything to do with maximizing shareholder's profits.

Let's for the sake of argument forget about ecological impact of big agro and think pure science and economics (no spins) of agriculture. Human agriculture applies energy (muscle or fossils) to simplify naturally occurring bio-systems in order to grow useful plants/animals. The greater degree of simplification, the greater crop yields are desired, the more energy inputs are required. It's simple non-negotiable thermodynamics. What could be more simple than a sterile field of GMO corn, an apotheosis of human agriculture? Question: do we have energy to keep industrial simplification going for 100 years more? If energy supply is uncertain, isn't it common sense not to encourage (at least) agricultural models that maximizes profits of owners with biggest tractors, largest stash of fertilizers and poisons, largest numbers of acres under plow, the most fertilizer hungry/poison resistant seeds and the least number of workers? Are we collectively suicidal to promote agri biz as we know it today?

Second piece of agricultural economics. Regardless of whether GMOs are good or evil, buying patented seeds is an additional input for a producer. In economy of scale, the cost of additional inputs are recouped by increasing the scale of production a.k.a. concentration of ownership. This is true for USA, but agriculture is already quite monopolized here so it's not as obvious for the untrained eyes. However, for the developing world big agro and GMOs are nothing short of human disaster. Because as land ownership concentrates, subsistence economies disintegrates, jobs in rural areas evaporates, dispossessed rural population is herded to the third world slums to provide cheap labor for the transnationals (if very lucky) or just live and die in squalor. Yes, it's nothing new, West did experience something like that in the past. It's very unfortunate, but it doesn't look like Earth has enough of energy and resources to lead third world slum dwellers to McProsperity, American way. So, in essence, third worlders (under watchful eye of World Bank etc.) trash their subsistence economies and environment and trade them for absolute hopelessness of sweatshop economies. Guess what? In "free" market economy a slum dweller (who used to be a subsistence villager) has no right to eat GMOs or exist unless he sells his arse to employers. Thus, more GMOs = more hunger, thus the "need" for Frankenstein rice with vitamin A because slum dwellers were robbed of their land to grow carrots etc.

There are pesky externalities of GMOs like extinction of crop (and animal) genetic diversity and the need (literal) for more fertilizers. Since the 1900s, 75 percent of crop genetic diversity has been lost as farmers have abandoned their local crops in favor of genetically uniform, high-yielding varieties. Big agro armed with GMOs will make sure that remaining crop diversity will cease to exist. Besides, new crop varieties produce squat without generous applications of chemical fertilizers (it takes lots of energy to manufacture), while old varieties could keep one alive with no or minimum of fertilizer inputs.

To end the rant. By looking at developments in agriculture in the face of looming survival challenges, I think mankind went suicidal.

Last edited by RememberMee; 09-02-2012 at 09:05 AM..
 
Old 09-02-2012, 09:21 AM
 
2,737 posts, read 4,343,694 times
Reputation: 1785
Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee View Post
Recently, I dug up a vintage Soviet newscast, 1987. Exactly 25 years ago a delegation of Soviet Supreme Council was touring USA. Monsanto headquarters in Saint Louis attracted special attention from the Soviet comrades. It was dawn of GMO era and Soviets did not display any squeamishness about unstoppable pace of progress. USSR bought seeds etc. from Monsanto 25 years ago, tens of thousands of soviet acres were planted with Monsanto seeds. So what does it prove? I guess it doesn't really matter who owns big agro, state or transnational investor class. Regardless of ownership status, big agro has identical needs and GMOs are uniquely suited to fill those needs. What question remains outstanding? Is big globalized agro uniquely suited to feed the world or it virtually ensures future mega famine and deprivations not speaking of other "issues".

If developing world (including ex USSR) embraces neoliberalism as its economic ideology, big agro wins by default, victorious agribiz wants GMOs and poisons, lots of them. Victorious agri biz has plenty of cash on its hands to buy politicians and lobby for favorable laws. There is no mystery behind mushrooming use of GMOs in the developing world.

OK, let's just put pondering about good and evil potential of GMO and look what are major applications for GMO today? Despite marketing pitch about feeding the world and such, GMOs are used mostly to increase scale of agricultural production, concentrate ownership and to decrease amount of labor per acre. Those reasons have nothing to do with feeding the world (quite to the contrary) and they have everything to do with maximizing shareholder's profits.

Let's for the sake of argument forget about ecological impact of big agro and think pure science and economics (no spins) of agriculture. Human agriculture applies energy (muscle or fossils) to simplify naturally occurring bio-systems in order to grow useful plants/animals. The greater degree of simplification, the greater crop yields are desired, the more energy inputs are required. It's simple non-negotiable thermodynamics. What could be more simple than a sterile field of GMO corn, an apotheosis of human agriculture? Question: do we have energy to keep industrial simplification going for 100 years more? If energy supply is uncertain, isn't it common sense not to encourage (at least) agricultural models that maximizes profits of owners with biggest tractors, largest stash of fertilizers and poisons, largest numbers of acres under plow, the most fertilizer hungry/poison resistant seeds and the least number of workers? Are we collectively suicidal to promote agri biz as we know it today?

Second piece of agricultural economics. Regardless of whether GMOs are good or evil, buying patented seeds is an additional input for a producer. In economy of scale, the cost of additional inputs are recouped by increasing the scale of production a.k.a. concentration of ownership. This is true for USA, but agriculture is already quite monopolized here so it's not as obvious for the untrained eyes. However, for the developing world big agro and GMOs are nothing short of human disaster. Because as land ownership concentrates, subsistence economies disintegrates, jobs in rural areas evaporates, dispossessed rural population is herded to the third world slums to provide cheap labor for the transnationals (if very lucky) or just live and die in squalor. Yes, it's nothing new, West did experience something like that in the past. It's very unfortunate, but it doesn't look like Earth has enough of energy and resources to lead third world slum dwellers to McProsperity, American way. So, in essence, third worlders (under watchful eye of World Bank etc.) trash their subsistence economies and environment and trade them for absolute hopelessness of sweatshop economies. Guess what? In "free" market economy a slum dweller (who used to be a subsistence villager) has no right to eat GMOs or exist unless he sells his arse to employers. Thus, more GMOs = more hunger, thus the "need" for Frankenstein rice with vitamin A because slum dwellers were robbed of their land to grow carrots etc.

There are pesky externalities of GMOs like extinction of crop (and animal) genetic diversity and the need (literal) for more fertilizers. Since the 1900s, 75 percent of crop genetic diversity has been lost as farmers have abandoned their local crops in favor of genetically uniform, high-yielding varieties. Big agro armed with GMOs will make sure that remaining crop diversity will cease to exist. Besides, new crop varieties produce squat without generous applications of chemical fertilizers (it takes lots of energy to manufacture), while old varieties could keep one alive with no or minimum of fertilizer inputs.

To end the rant. By looking at developments in agriculture in the face of looming survival challenges, I think mankind went suicidal.
So much BS, so little time.

1. It is the nature of business to try to make money. Small business, or big business. So sue them.
2. The fact that Monsanto sold seed to the USSR is no surprise, and is of no consequence in any way shape or form. It's called TRADE.
3. Since 1990, 75% of crop diversity has NOT been lost. And remaining crop diversity will NOT fail to exist. That is nothing but a flat-out, stupid LIE.
4. City people/slum dwellers were not "robbed of their land to grow carrots." Another straight-up lie. 99% of people who COULD grow gardens, CHOOSE NOT TO.
5. American crop-land is NOT "sterile." Yet another bold-faced, stupid LIE. If every acre of American farm ground was left un-tilled and un-planted next year, EVERY acre of it would be covered with vegetation BEFORE THE END OF THE MONTH OF MAY.
6. Today's drought & pest resistant crops do BY GENETICS what the previous generation's crops needed chemicals to do.

Hang it up.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 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, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top