Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Would you eat...

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 3
 [ 52 posts ] 
Would you eat...
Author Message
Aught3ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 4290Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:36 amLocation: New Zealand Gender: Male

Post Re: Would you eat...

Well I tend to try and avoid added cane sugar anyway.

A product with high fructose corn syrup has become a signal to me that the food is highly processed and probably totally rubbish. Not worth the energy to eat.
Wanderer, there is no path, the path is made by walking.
Mon Apr 06, 2009 11:17 pm
WWW
SpasePosts: 135Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 12:25 amLocation: California, USA

Post Re: Would you eat...

A good policy. Sugar consumption is pretty ridiculous these days. The amount of sugar in just about any prepared food is pretty amazing.

I think in the case of HFCS the process is no more complete than the processing of cane sugar. I know some vegetarians won't eat most white sugar because it's processed with bone char to filter it.

It only makes me twitch when someone tries to tell me that HFCS is unnatural and is dangerous to put in your body... since it's just fructose and glucose subunits.. which your body breaks Sucrose into anyway. The number of websites out there that make outrageous claims about the stuff is disturbing. It makes me wonder if it's part of a buisness strategy by sugar companies since a lot of products these days (in the US) are now being sold with sucrose instead of HFCS because people are afraid of it.
Tue Apr 07, 2009 12:03 am
Aught3ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 4290Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:36 amLocation: New Zealand Gender: Male

Post Re: Would you eat...

People can be irrational and conspiracy theories are usually built out of nothing.
I doubt it was a business strategy, think of CFCs, asbestos, cigarettes where the companies claimed even in the face of evidence that there was nothing wrong with their products. Although we are now moving into the age of CSR, maybe their just removing the product because they know consumers don't want it.

The other thing about HFCS is that it takes a perfectly good product and turns it into empty calories. It's my form of protest not to buy the stupid. Same goes for white bread btw.
Wanderer, there is no path, the path is made by walking.
Tue Apr 07, 2009 12:15 am
WWW
RestrictedAccessUser avatarPosts: 209Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 1:08 amLocation: The Great State of Texas Gender: Cake

Post Re: Would you eat...

As long as it tastes good and won't kill me, I'll eat it. So, in answer to all of your questions, yes I would eat that.
Tue Apr 07, 2009 3:52 am
YIM
OrsboreUser avatarPosts: 27Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 7:43 pm

Post Re: Would you eat...

Aught3 wrote:Hi everyone,
Would you eat...
1. through 12.

I'd eat 'em all.

I'd even eat genetically modified gummi worms.
Tue Apr 07, 2009 4:56 am
GoodKatUser avatarPosts: 776Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 11:07 pmLocation: Hell (South Carolina)

Post Re: Would you eat...

Spase wrote:A good policy. Sugar consumption is pretty ridiculous these days. The amount of sugar in just about any prepared food is pretty amazing.

I think in the case of HFCS the process is no more complete than the processing of cane sugar. I know some vegetarians won't eat most white sugar because it's processed with bone char to filter it.

It only makes me twitch when someone tries to tell me that HFCS is unnatural and is dangerous to put in your body... since it's just fructose and glucose subunits.. which your body breaks Sucrose into anyway. The number of websites out there that make outrageous claims about the stuff is disturbing. It makes me wonder if it's part of a buisness strategy by sugar companies since a lot of products these days (in the US) are now being sold with sucrose instead of HFCS because people are afraid of it.

The only decent complaint against HFCS I have ever heard is that your body can only produce so much of the compound that breaks down sucrose at a time, so calories consumed in the form of cane sugar are spread over a greater amount of time than those of HFCS, giving you a greater opportunity to burn fat reserves and diminishing your level of fat absorption. I haven't seen any papers on it yet though.
My discussions are a search for truth, and for that search to be honest, all parties involved must be open to the prospect of being wrong.
What is there to gain in guessing about that which cannot be known?
Tue Apr 07, 2009 5:30 am
XulldUser avatarPosts: 55Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 4:11 pm

Post Re: Would you eat...

Yup, I would eat it all without hesitation.
Tue Apr 07, 2009 10:19 pm
irmerkUser avatarPosts: 351Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:42 amLocation: California, USA Gender: Male

Post Re: Would you eat...

Honestly, I would not eat any GM products if given a choice. I'm sure there's a possibility I already have without knowing it. It seems doubtful any thoroughly scientifically tested GMOs would harm me; however, I did a minor research project on GMOs in my English class recently and was forced to make an opinion.

Prior to said project, I never really knew about GMOs. During and after, I completely disagree with them on principle. In no way can I agree at this point that GMOs would solve the food crisis. In fact, it would escalate it further. A simple rule of ecology, as I know it, is a food surplus causes a population growth. If we were to feed everyone that is hungry, more babies will be produced and thus another food crisis. Sounds like a self destructive path to me.

Furthermore, some have said already about the unexpected environmental impacts. Well, including that I would also take into account the weed mutation, increased herbicide dependency and lack of increase to crop yields. Of course, as technology progresses, this probably will not be a problem.

Again, the main problem for me is trying to tamper with naturalistic processes; yes, I lump selective breeding in with naturalistic process because it is change over a long period of time. All just to try to obtain the shortest route to fixing the hunger crisis. I think there are perfectly plausible alternatives to GMOs, and, again, disagree with their proposal's premise.
Tue Apr 07, 2009 10:43 pm
WWW
BrunksUser avatarPosts: 51Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 4:01 am

Post Re: Would you eat...

irmerk wrote:A simple rule of ecology, as I know it, is a food surplus causes a population growth. If we were to feed everyone that is hungry, more babies will be produced and thus another food crisis. Sounds like a self destructive path to me.

so we should just let them starve? We'll face those challenges when we get to them, there is just no justification to let children suffer. Also, looking at western countries, where food is in abundance we don't see an explosive rise in population (I know there a big diffrences in lifestyle and culture between 3rd world and western countries. But this illustrates that overpopulation can be controlled.)
Wed Apr 08, 2009 8:38 am
irmerkUser avatarPosts: 351Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:42 amLocation: California, USA Gender: Male

Post Re: Would you eat...

Brunks wrote:so we should just let them starve? We'll face those challenges when we get to them, there is just no justification to let children suffer. Also, looking at western countries, where food is in abundance we don't see an explosive rise in population (I know there a big diffrences in lifestyle and culture between 3rd world and western countries. But this illustrates that overpopulation can be controlled.)


That kind of sounds like a false dichotomy. It is not either get a whole surplus of food and send it to them or just let them starve. As you said, there is an abundance of food in western countries; solutions could come from this. Send food we do not need over there, and still deal with the problem.

The point I said remains true: Surplus in food causes population growth. Any reasonable method of dealing with a food or hunger crisis does not stop at merely growing as much food as possible and throwing it at them. There should probably be things like population control, education and a regulated supply of food. What I was saying was just looking at the hunger crisis and saying, "Hey, we obviously need more food for those people. Let's grow it and give it to them so we have enough food!" does not fix the problem unless you are looking at the problem in a scope of a few months. After the problem is 'fixed,' it would reoccur because no further action was taken.
Wed Apr 08, 2009 4:52 pm
WWW
ArmondikovUser avatarPosts: 6Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:18 am

Post Re: Would you eat...

irmerk wrote:Again, the main problem for me is trying to tamper with naturalistic processes; yes, I lump selective breeding in with naturalistic process because it is change over a long period of time. All just to try to obtain the shortest route to fixing the hunger crisis. I think there are perfectly plausible alternatives to GMOs, and, again, disagree with their proposal's premise.


While I completely respect that GMOs may not solve world hunger, and indeed, to say that a food shortage is the only cause is simplistic, I can't quite gather how you conclude that selective breeding is natural but GMOs are somehow less natural. In both cases, it's human need that's driving the end results and both are, technically, hideous freaks of (un)nature. Would you say that there was a difference between two bottles of (purified to 99+% ) ethanol because one was produced via fermentation (by all accounts, a natural method) and ther other was produced by either hydration or homologation? The point is, the end results that you see and consume is identical and short of believing in some magical difference that's somehow unobservable but still affects you, there is no actual difference.

We're still tampering with "nature" either way so I'm just curious as to why one is fine but the other isn't.
Wed Apr 08, 2009 5:24 pm
irmerkUser avatarPosts: 351Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:42 amLocation: California, USA Gender: Male

Post Re: Would you eat...

Armondikov wrote:... I can't quite gather how you conclude that selective breeding is natural but GMOs are somehow less natural. In both cases, it's human need that's driving the end results and both are, technically, hideous freaks of (un)nature ... We're still tampering with "nature" either way so I'm just curious as to why one is fine but the other isn't.


I lack a clear thought out conclusion - I still run on partial thought processes. Although, I generally think the less tampering with nature, be it agriculture or mining, the better. I think these 'solutions' are too short term and completely profit driven.

This might not be the best analogy, but I think of it like investing in oil rather than renewable energy. Renewable energy is less profitable because it would take a lot of investment, so people want the easy way out - in terms of very short time spans - and want oil until it is all gone. Well, oil pollutes and GMOs seem like they will only cause more overpopulation.
Wed Apr 08, 2009 6:33 pm
WWW
XulldUser avatarPosts: 55Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 4:11 pm

Post Re: Would you eat...

Its a matter of ignorance.

Selective breeding IS genetic modification, only different tools are being used to accomplish the same outcomes.

I used to feel the same way with the same less then conclusive thoughts.
Fri Apr 10, 2009 5:49 pm
irmerkUser avatarPosts: 351Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:42 amLocation: California, USA Gender: Male

Post Re: Would you eat...

Xulld wrote:Its a matter of ignorance.

Selective breeding IS genetic modification, only different tools are being used to accomplish the same outcomes.

I used to feel the same way with the same less then conclusive thoughts.


They are the same but different? No, they are not, especially when considering the reasoning and premises, as I said before.

When you question my objectivity and assert I am being emotionally biased, try to not spend so much effort portraying my ideas and thoughts as naive and immature. Also, try not to make subjective issues sound like anything other than objective is irrelevant, especially when you yourself seem to bring subjective bias into a situation.

You're getting really annoying.
Fri Apr 10, 2009 6:38 pm
WWW
OzymandyusUser avatarPosts: 986Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:02 pm

Post Re: Would you eat...

Whoa, that is one crazy argument irmerk.

We shouldn't do something because it saves lives, and allows for more people to live?

Are you against medicine too? Antibiotics? Are you for killing sprees, People dying of AIDS? I mean, where the hell does an argument based on overpopulation take you?

I mean, its almost certainly true that these things contribute to more population - but more population also leads to more ingenuity and capability of solving the problems that overpopulation creates.

The whole term overpopulation is subject to a huge amount of debate, and it certainly isn't a reason to not do anything.
And in an instant all progress towards the sublime, the great and enduring in man fell away and became a monkey's trick.
Fri Apr 10, 2009 6:56 pm
irmerkUser avatarPosts: 351Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:42 amLocation: California, USA Gender: Male

Post Re: Would you eat...

Ozymandyus wrote:We shouldn't do something because it saves lives, and allows for more people to live?

Are you against medicine too? Antibiotics? Are you for killing sprees, People dying of AIDS? I mean, where the hell does an argument based on overpopulation take you?

I mean, its almost certainly true that these things contribute to more population - but more population also leads to more ingenuity and capability of solving the problems that overpopulation creates.

The whole term overpopulation is subject to a huge amount of debate, and it certainly isn't a reason to not do anything.


What? I thought I clearly laid out how saving lives in the short term and dooming civilization from overpopulation and over the limit of Earth's carrying capacity < alternatively fixing the problem and fixing it. Population control, education, spreading the food around, etc. This sounds better than just making as much food as possible and throwing it at hungry people only to have the same problem come again with more population.

No, I am not against medicine and antibiotics or for death and killing sprees and I do not see how there is a connection to what I have been saying.

More population provides capability to solve overpopulation problems? I suppose there might be, but I really cannot think of anything like that. There is a carrying capacity and humans do have to live within natures boundaries and stop trying to exempt themselves.

I never said not do anything. In fact, I suggested alternative action. Furthermore I think I explained why throwing food at the problem will only perpetuate it.
Fri Apr 10, 2009 7:04 pm
WWW
OzymandyusUser avatarPosts: 986Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:02 pm

Post Re: Would you eat...

It's a ridiculous argument that DOES justify stopping medical research into AIDS, or anything that saves lives. If you do not see how using overpopulation as a reason not to create genetically modified foods doesn't imply that the same reasoning could be used to not create medicines that save lives, not promote prenatal care that increases birth rates, or not just set a cap on the number of people allowed to live in the world and violently kill the extras then you are not thinking clearly.

As far as I can tell, your statement is - people starving to death because of a shortage of food supply is a necessary natural cap to population growth. So stopping people from starving to death is a bad thing. Why isn't stopping people from dying from bacterial infection (Probably the biggest contributor to overpopulation in the last 5 centuries) a bad thing? In the end, they will be more likely to procreate and contribute to your overpopulation problem. Why isn't prenatal care, which increases birth success rates by 30-40% a bad thing?

In many points throughout history, overcrowding was thought to be an insurmountable problem. Human waste flowed through the streets, so we created sewage systems. Disease ravaged cities, so we created antibiotics. Dirty runoff polluted nearby water sources, so we made laws prohibiting dumping and promoting proper waste disposal. Smog filled the airs of London, so we created cleaner industrial processes. This 'overpopulation' line is something created by unimaginative fools that doubt our ability to solve our problems.

Even if we SHOULD try to limit population, letting people starve to death is not the answer. Even forced birth control (implantable IUDs) is a much more humane answer... The real answer to limiting population is bringing people into prosperity - the most succesful way to limit population ever. You'll never do that by letting people starve to death.

Sorry, TL I know.
And in an instant all progress towards the sublime, the great and enduring in man fell away and became a monkey's trick.
Fri Apr 10, 2009 8:06 pm
irmerkUser avatarPosts: 351Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:42 amLocation: California, USA Gender: Male

Post Re: Would you eat...

Ozymandyus wrote:It's a ridiculous argument that DOES justify stopping medical research into AIDS, or anything that saves lives. If you do not see how using overpopulation as a reason not to create genetically modified foods doesn't imply that the same reasoning could be used to not create medicines that save lives, not promote prenatal care that increases birth rates, or not just set a cap on the number of people allowed to live in the world and violently kill the extras then you are not thinking clearly.

As far as I can tell, your statement is - people starving to death because of a shortage of food supply is a necessary natural cap to population growth. So stopping people from starving to death is a bad thing.


I suppose this means you did not read what I said a few posts earlier:

irmerk wrote:That kind of sounds like a false dichotomy. It is not either get a whole surplus of food and send it to them or just let them starve. As you said, there is an abundance of food in western countries; solutions could come from this. Send food we do not need over there, and still deal with the problem.

The point I said remains true: Surplus in food causes population growth. Any reasonable method of dealing with a food or hunger crisis does not stop at merely growing as much food as possible and throwing it at them. There should probably be things like population control, education and a regulated supply of food. What I was saying was just looking at the hunger crisis and saying, "Hey, we obviously need more food for those people. Let's grow it and give it to them so we have enough food!" does not fix the problem unless you are looking at the problem in a scope of a few months. After the problem is 'fixed,' it would reoccur because no further action was taken.


Ozymandyus wrote:In many points throughout history, overcrowding was thought to be an insurmountable problem. Human waste flowed through the streets, so we created sewage systems. Disease ravaged cities, so we created antibiotics. Dirty runoff polluted nearby water sources, so we made laws prohibiting dumping and promoting proper waste disposal. Smog filled the airs of London, so we created cleaner industrial processes.


Yep, and then comes the current problem which is overpopulation of the planet. Not a city, metropolitan area or something like that. The solution? Not to throw more food at them but rather cap population, educate, spread food around, etc. There is no claim to let them starve. The claim to grow as much food as possible to feed them only leads to more population and the same problem again. Capping population, mediating it, feeding the hungry and making sure there will not be further big hunger crisis is better.

Ozymandyus wrote:Even if we SHOULD try to limit population, letting people starve to death is not the answer. Even forced birth control (implantable IUDs) is a much more humane answer... The real answer to limiting population is bringing people into prosperity - the most succesful way to limit population ever. You'll never do that by letting people starve to death.


Maybe you just refused or were too lazy to read my earlier posts. The prior means you failed, the latter is understandable - I do that sometimes too.
Fri Apr 10, 2009 8:15 pm
WWW
OzymandyusUser avatarPosts: 986Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:02 pm

Post Re: Would you eat...

If we have a surplus in food in Western countries, and we are not seeing any population growth, isn't your whole claim completely unjustified?

Edit: Oh yes, and I did not read every word, sorry. I can be a bit lazy sometimes, and presumed to know your argument before reading some of the specifics. I still believe that your logic doesn't follow.
And in an instant all progress towards the sublime, the great and enduring in man fell away and became a monkey's trick.
Last edited by Ozymandyus on Fri Apr 10, 2009 8:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Fri Apr 10, 2009 8:23 pm
OzymandyusUser avatarPosts: 986Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:02 pm

Post Re: Would you eat...

I should add that the idea that the planet is overcrowded is also unsupported by real fact. We could still build under the oceans, we can build Upwards and downwards, we can reach out to other planets.

Overcrowding is merely a reference to limited resources, and we have not BEGUN to hit the limit of our resources. We just have not discovered most of them yet.
And in an instant all progress towards the sublime, the great and enduring in man fell away and became a monkey's trick.
Fri Apr 10, 2009 8:26 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 3
 [ 52 posts ] 
Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests