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 3 of 3
 [ 52 posts ] 
Would you eat...
Author Message
irmerkUser avatarPosts: 351Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:42 amLocation: California, USA Gender: Male

Post Re: Would you eat...

Population is not growing in the West? Census predictions, I think, indicate there will be a larger population tomorrow than yesterday, next year than last yer, etc. But again, it is just a simple rule of ecology - it happens.

Overcrowded does not entirely mean there is no more space for farmland, homes and businesses. It includes screwing the ecosystem, the food chain and nature. It includes becoming unsustainable: Not being able to provide for the present without being detrimental the future. By this I mean, again, ecosystem, habitats, food chain, exhausting resources, etc.

No, resources are not exhausted yet. Continuing to exhaust them, though, will result in pollution, wiping out wildlife and more of nature, and just plain ruining the human habitat.
Fri Apr 10, 2009 8:45 pm
WWW
OzymandyusUser avatarPosts: 986Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:02 pm

Post Re: Would you eat...

irmerk wrote:Population is not growing in the West? Census predictions, I think, indicate there will be a larger population tomorrow than yesterday, next year than last yer, etc. But again, it is just a simple rule of ecology - it happens.

Overcrowded does not entirely mean there is no more space for farmland, homes and businesses. It includes screwing the ecosystem, the food chain and nature. It includes becoming unsustainable: Not being able to provide for the present without being detrimental the future. By this I mean, again, ecosystem, habitats, food chain, exhausting resources, etc.

No, resources are not exhausted yet. Continuing to exhaust them, though, will result in pollution, wiping out wildlife and more of nature, and just plain ruining the human habitat.

Actually, without immigration U.S. population is actually going down. Even with the large effect of immigration, our population growth is a massive 0.88% - more than sustainable for the next few thousands years until we can populate other planets.

The truth of the matter is, whether you give people excess food from the west, or allow them to grow new GM crops that make use of land that was previously unusable, you will be stopping starving people from dying. This will result in population growth. You may think otherwise, but people have children whether they can feed them or not. Food does not directly affect reproductive rates, just death from starvation rates. The U.S. and every other well fed nation shows very low population growth. If anything, lack of food CAUSES unsustainable population growth, or at least that's what we see evidence of here in the real world.

Again, the 'screwing up the ecosystem' can be fixed and averted by looking at our effects on the planet and addressing each issue. We've been doing this already for thousands of years, and it works. We already know a great deal about what we can do to lower our impact on the environment, and new technologies are being made every day to lower impact even more. One of those things that lowers our ecological impact is GM crops, that require less pesticides, allow us to get a lot more food out of a lot less space, and allow us to grow food in areas where nothing could grow, near the populations that will be using them. This lowers shipping, and its associated ecological impact, decreases the amount of clear-cutting in other parts of the world, and all sorts of associated ecological benefits.

In short, you are trying to destroy the world.
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 10:41 pm
irmerkUser avatarPosts: 351Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:42 amLocation: California, USA Gender: Male

Post Re: Would you eat...

Ozymandyus wrote:Actually, without immigration U.S. population is actually going down. Even with the large effect of immigration, our population growth is a massive 0.88% - more than sustainable for the next few thousands years until we can populate other planets.


I would not know, I was making an educated guess. However, I am trying to keep other factors in play here, and it seems you are trying to make it oversimplified. Education might be a reason for this? Was this not something I suggested? Yes, it was.

Ozymandyus wrote:The truth of the matter is, whether you give people excess food from the west, or allow them to grow new GM crops that make use of land that was previously unusable, you will be stopping starving people from dying.


Yes, I know this. If you read what I have been saying this whole time, you would know that I am making the distinction between the two. Using GM crops and trying to make more food to feed them has dire long term effects. The idea is a good one if you only look at it in a time scope of five years or something. It perpetuates the problem rather than fixing it. So your prior option, along with my other proposals, is the better option - explain in my prior posts.

Ozymandyus wrote:You may think otherwise, but people have children whether they can feed them or not.


Uhhh, I know? Education.

Ozymandyus wrote:The U.S. and every other well fed nation shows very low population growth.


Education.

Ozymandyus wrote:If anything, lack of food CAUSES unsustainable population growth, or at least that's what we see evidence of here in the real world.


I honestly do not know how to approach this... I doubt there is any truth in it.

Ozymandyus wrote:Again, the 'screwing up the ecosystem' can be fixed and averted by looking at our effects on the planet and addressing each issue. We've been doing this already for thousands of years, and it works. We already know a great deal about what we can do to lower our impact on the environment, and new technologies are being made every day to lower impact even more.


Yes, and this is where we continue the trend by not escalating a problem but rather mediating it.


Ozymandyus wrote:One of those things that lowers our ecological impact is GM crops, that require less pesticides, allow us to get a lot more food out of a lot less space, and allow us to grow food in areas where nothing could grow, near the populations that will be using them. This lowers shipping, and its associated ecological impact, decreases the amount of clear-cutting in other parts of the world, and all sorts of associated ecological benefits.


From the research I have seen, while researching this topic, GM industry claims of less pesticide use needs is wrong, and yields are also not up to claims. If it were what you said, then fine. Coupled with what I said about alternative methods, the problem would be fixed. What I am saying is that trying to make more food with a new technology so that you can flood hungry areas and people with food would not fix the problem, merely subdue it for a little bit, yet end up inflaming it.

Ozymandyus wrote:In short, you are trying to destroy the world.


Mmmm... Nope. I cannot see how feeding the poor while educating them and implementing a population control, as well as surely other ideas, is an attempt to destroy the world. Especially when the proposed idea seems to be growing as much food as possible to feed the poor and uneducated people and allow them to populate even more and cause yet another food crisis all whilst overpopulating the world more and more.
Fri Apr 10, 2009 11:04 pm
WWW
OzymandyusUser avatarPosts: 986Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:02 pm

Post Re: Would you eat...

Ever heard of the hierarchy of needs? You have to be fed to be educated - food IS the solution to lack of education. People need to be fed and not be worrying constantly about food before they can be educated. Which is why we need to solve the food crisis before we solve the education crisis.

Anyway, I'm trying to trace this argument back to its roots... and am terribly confused about your position... Could you simply state why it is you are against GM foods again? Your original statement was "If we were to feed everyone that is hungry, more babies will be produced and thus another food crisis." Which is true only in that more babies and adults will die of starvation. When that was pointed out you suggested sending our own surplus food over there... not really sure how that changes your original problem that made you avoid GM foods.

So I'm back at my original claim - the only thing that can slow overpopulation is Killing people, letting them die, enforcing birthcontrol methods or educating them. GM foods only get in the way of one of these things.

People that use overpopulation as an argument scare the crap out of me- I've heard people use it to justify cutting the human population by 5.5 BILLION. They never say the means of course.... guess starvation would be a good one. Also, its the root of forced sterilizations, ecoterroism... all sorts of great things.

Now if you want to argue that GM foods aren't as effective as they claim... fine. It's a fledgling science and has had some seriously awesome results so far by most people's standards, and will only get better. If you want to claim it will have serious ecological consequences - they may well be very GOOD and positive ecological consequences.

I'm a big fan of controlling my environment with science and always will be, and the result of it so far has been - medicine, agriculture, every modern amenity. If you want to stand in the way of the very thing that allowed you to be here at all... thats up to you I guess.
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 11:49 pm
ebbixxUser avatarPosts: 227Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 5:33 amLocation: Nüå Jøïzæð

Post Re: Would you eat...

I agree with those who say they would eat all of the above.

But any concerns I have about GM foods have to do with the potential impact of altered species on the environment, not palatability. I don't think there are credible risks for eating them, for reasons others have already described well enough. The issues are more concerns about unintended consequences, should GM species have some unforeseen impact on other species, and ultimately on the food web as a whole, not limited to humans. As such, perhaps you're asking the wrong question, unless this is strictly a market research exercise?

I'm still trying to understand clearly, though, that piece in New Scientist about how genetic material has naturally migrated (seemingly laterally) from one species genome to that of often very distant species, so quite possibly my concerns on the ecological risks are also greater than they should be.
Mon Apr 13, 2009 3:02 am
WWW
irmerkUser avatarPosts: 351Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:42 amLocation: California, USA Gender: Male

Post Re: Would you eat...

Ozymandyus wrote:Ever heard of the hierarchy of needs? You have to be fed to be educated - food IS the solution to lack of education. People need to be fed and not be worrying constantly about food before they can be educated. Which is why we need to solve the food crisis before we solve the education crisis.


Well, I simply suggested a coupling of the two, so no real disagreements so far...

Ozymandyus wrote:Anyway, I'm trying to trace this argument back to its roots... and am terribly confused about your position... Could you simply state why it is you are against GM foods again?


Yes, the general premise for GM foods seems harmful to me. Trying to fix a hunger problem with just throwing food at it does not really fix it...

Ozymandyus wrote:Your original statement was "If we were to feed everyone that is hungry, more babies will be produced and thus another food crisis." Which is true only in that more babies and adults will die of starvation. When that was pointed out you suggested sending our own surplus food over there... not really sure how that changes your original problem that made you avoid GM foods.


I do not think this is entirely accurate, because I was for education and population control.

Ozymandyus wrote:So I'm back at my original claim - the only thing that can slow overpopulation is Killing people, letting them die, enforcing birthcontrol methods or educating them. GM foods only get in the way of one of these things.


No killing people, no 'letting them die,' but rather enforcing birth control methods and education. GM foods do not, I guess, necessarily get in the way of any of these; the premise for GM food support seems to be exclusive to the technology itself. This means, again, it seems people want to solve the whole problem with only GM foods.

Ozymandyus wrote:People that use overpopulation as an argument scare the crap out of me- I've heard people use it to justify cutting the human population by 5.5 BILLION. They never say the means of course.... guess starvation would be a good one. Also, its the root of forced sterilizations, ecoterroism... all sorts of great things.


I think I can totally understand what you are saying here. I am not advocating reducing the population and civilization by billions and billions, merely trying to not let it get out of control. With more proper population control methods and education, I am sure forced sterilizations and other undesired routes can be avoided. I do not know what ecoterrorism is, so I cannot address it.

Ozymandyus wrote:Now if you want to argue that GM foods aren't as effective as they claim... fine. It's a fledgling science and has had some seriously awesome results so far by most people's standards, and will only get better. If you want to claim it will have serious ecological consequences - they may well be very GOOD and positive ecological consequences.


True, the technology, like others, will only get better. From all I have seen in research - and it may not be that much - of the technology, it does not live up to claims. This only acts as an addition to the original premise; if GM foods were applied adequately and still did not meet industry claims, they could be conceivably acceptable.

Ozymandyus wrote:I'm a big fan of controlling my environment with science and always will be, and the result of it so far has been - medicine, agriculture, every modern amenity. If you want to stand in the way of the very thing that allowed you to be here at all... thats up to you I guess.


Yes, as am I. The point I am really trying to get by here is that science needs to be applied to this issue more objectively and in a bigger time scope. Like I said, throwing food at a hunger crisis 'fixes' the problem for a while. It would almost definitely lead to yet another hunger crisis. This is why propositions by me sound like a better idea - they more directly attempt to fix the problem, and sound more promising.
Mon Apr 13, 2009 7:31 am
WWW
OzymandyusUser avatarPosts: 986Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:02 pm

Post Re: Would you eat...

irmerk wrote:Yes, the general premise for GM foods seems harmful to me. Trying to fix a hunger problem with just throwing food at it does not really fix it...

Where do you get this idea from? How does feeding people NOT fix hunger. No one is claiming it fixes all problems, but it certainly fixes the hunger one, and fixes hostile control of food sources that some militant groups use to control the population. Flooding the market with cheap food would fix a wide variety of problems, AND makes it possible to educate the population, because you can't learn if you are starving. It is the first problem that needs to be solved in a series of problems. Your 'just' thrown in there is a strawman that has nothing to do with the fundamental goodness of GM foods, I'll discuss below.

I do not think this is entirely accurate, because I was for education and population control.

First, as I mentioned, you cannot have true education without first addressing the hunger crisis. Second, what does 'population control' mean to you? If it means limiting food supply, that's called enforced starvation.

No killing people, no 'letting them die,' but rather enforcing birth control methods and education. GM foods do not, I guess, necessarily get in the way of any of these; the premise for GM food support seems to be exclusive to the technology itself. This means, again, it seems people want to solve the whole problem with only GM foods.


This is such a strawman. No one except you is suggesting such a thing. However, we can't solve many of the other problems until we take care of people's basic needs. Anyone that goes to a needy area in Africa (as I am next March) sees that it is nearly IMPOSSIBLE to educate the population because of the lack of food - brains barely operate at the level of nutrition some people are getting. So a sustainable local food supply is primary in fixing the rest of these problems, but the other problems will be addressed as well.
And in an instant all progress towards the sublime, the great and enduring in man fell away and became a monkey's trick.
Mon Apr 13, 2009 4:45 pm
irmerkUser avatarPosts: 351Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:42 amLocation: California, USA Gender: Male

Post Re: Would you eat...

Ozymandyus wrote:Where do you get this idea from... So a sustainable local food supply is primary in fixing the rest of these problems, but the other problems will be addressed as well.


Okay.

Edit: I wanted to clarify after thinking afterward... I said 'okay' because you ended up repeating what I had been saying but still thinking there is disagreement.
Last edited by irmerk on Wed Apr 15, 2009 10:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mon Apr 13, 2009 4:56 pm
WWW
COMMUNIST FLISKUser avatarPosts: 257Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:07 pmLocation: Birmingham , UK

Post Re: Would you eat...

all of them =]
ImageImage
Image
Wed Apr 15, 2009 12:46 am
WWW
Th1sWasATriumphLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 415Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 12:24 amLocation: About two feet behind AndromedasWake, with a brick in a sock

Post Re: Would you eat...

YES. Eat EVERYTHING.
An omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God would know exactly why I don't believe in him, but would send me to hell regardless. Have I just described your God?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwah_9O_4i4
Fri Apr 17, 2009 10:28 am
JRBendixenPosts: 34Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 9:20 amLocation: Copenhagen, Denmark

Post Re: Would you eat...

I would probably eat all of them.
Yours truly
JRBendixen
Tue Apr 21, 2009 11:19 am
SparkyUser avatarPosts: 148Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 2:17 amLocation: New Zealand Gender: Male

Post Re: Would you eat...

You want to know what the public thinks so you ask us? :lol: Its unlikely that we are representative of the general population :D Anyhow I don't have a problem with any of them.
Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.
~Andre Gide
Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:51 pm
Previous
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 3
 [ 52 posts ] 
Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
cron