Fuels vs. food - Page 3

ba1025 · 05-01-2008, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunnut

I still don't see what the big deal is with the rain forest. It's a very recent development in earth's history, 25, maybe 30 million years. The earth was doing just fine before that. I'm sure the earth will do just fine if we chop it all down to grow food or make places to live. Most of the critters in there are dangerous anyways. More people probably die from the rain forest than gun fire every year.

The earth will do fine if we push the button and nuke ourselves into extinction too. i would hazard that the rain forest hasn't killed as many people as gunfore has in iraq. The rainforest sucks for growing food. The soil is poor and is spent in a few seasons. It's one of the reasons they keep slash and burning through.

Corn Ethanol is about getting the votes of Farmers
Ethanol from sources like switch grass or Corn husks would be an entirely different animal and actually accomplish some good.
The best thing we could do to aid world hunger is end farm subsidies.

**Parihaka** · 05-01-2008, 11:07 AM

I still contend that if we taught the subsistence farmers to use the land they have cleared properly, there would be no need to clear more, and no need to constantly fight them doing it. Crop rotation really is that simple.

gunnut · 05-01-2008, 13:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tiskew

Good question. My assumption will be there were also climate change or other enviromental or big changes so that the Human Beings had to come down the tree and try another way of living. And since Humans' muscle is really not an advantage, we had to delop team work and brain using to ensure survival. This is only my assumption though.

So the earth had this "climate change" thing in the past without our help. And you're surprised that there is this "climate change" thing right now simply because we're here?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tiskew

Actually we asked too much from the nature such as Oil, Water, Air and etc. The ten T-Shirts, 15 Jeans, 10 Shoes, 2 computers, cellphones, Xboxes, Toyota and Gms are not coming from no where. And none of these will go back to nature in a proper way. Mostly in highly concentrated form which you don't find so much in nature. And the birds only breath some air, drink some water and some worms, the waste? will be good for plants. And plants is food for worms

One man's waste is another man's treasure. The earth will reclaim everything that we have used. With or without our help.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tiskew

Human is not the center of the universe, food chain itself is a very complicated system, once is broken, it will harm ourselves sooner or later. And I don't think anyone here would like to live in a world that only has human , right

It is impossible to have a planet with only humans. Some creatures may die because of us, but others thrive with us. Dogs, cows, and mice are just a few that come to mind.

gunnut · 05-01-2008, 13:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ba1025

The earth will do fine if we push the button and nuke ourselves into extinction too. i would hazard that the rain forest hasn't killed as many people as gunfore has in iraq. The rainforest sucks for growing food. The soil is poor and is spent in a few seasons. It's one of the reasons they keep slash and burning through.

I bet the rain forest has killed tens of thousands more people than the war in Iraq has. Nature has killed more humans than humans have killed humans. Nature is cruel, unforgiving, and emotionless. We're just trying to eek out a living, like any other creatures on this planet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ba1025

Corn Ethanol is about getting the votes of Farmers
Ethanol from sources like switch grass or Corn husks would be an entirely different animal and actually accomplish some good.
The best thing we could do to aid world hunger is end farm subsidies.

Actually I'm for corn ethanol now. It raise food prices which adversely affects poor nations, usually the ones with the highest population growth rate. It's a way to stunt the growth of future polluters.

ba1025 · 05-01-2008, 13:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunnut

We all know all "typical white" people are racists (Obama).

Can you source that? I will send you a fat check if you can...or did someone else say it and well some folks all sound alike(Duke)

ba1025 · 05-01-2008, 13:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunnut

Actually I'm for corn ethanol now. It raise food prices which adversely affects poor nations, usually the ones with the highest population growth rate. It's a way to stunt the growth of future polluters.

Famine is your solution to pollution? IMO seems like out of the frying pan and into the fire.

7thsfsniper · 05-01-2008, 13:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ba1025

Can you source that? I will send you a fat check if you can...or did someone else say it and well some folks all sound alike(Duke)

How much would the check be for? seriously.

ba1025 · 05-01-2008, 14:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 7thsfsniper

How much would the check be for? seriously.

it would be very wide. So Obama did say that....when? i am sure David Duke really said they all sound alike too

7thsfsniper · 05-01-2008, 14:28 PM

Ok, I'm not trying to delay here but I have a couple questions.

1.How much would the check be?

2.If I attended every speech David Duke made, and didn't disagree with him, would you think me a racist by association?

bolo121 · 05-01-2008, 15:21 PM

Dang! its no longer worth it being the president of the USA. One has to wade through oceans of **** before even seeing glimmer of success
and here i was thinking indian politics was nasty!

gunnut · 05-01-2008, 16:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ba1025

Can you source that? I will send you a fat check if you can...or did someone else say it and well some folks all sound alike(Duke)

Notice the quotation marks are around "typical white" rather than the entire sentence.

Obama did mean that when he refered to his grandmother as a "typical white person" who's not comfortable with black people, even afraid of them (well...only one, on the bus).

gunnut · 05-01-2008, 16:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ba1025

Famine is your solution to pollution? IMO seems like out of the frying pan and into the fire.

No. Famine is nature's way of dealing with unsustainable population. A side benefit is lower pollution. When we hand out food aid we interfere with nature. I'm sure we don't want to do that.

Skywatcher · 05-02-2008, 01:18 AM

Wouldn't it be more practical just to teach everyone to have less children?

Anyways, a famine would probably cause more dislocation and trouble than just continuing the aid (an unpleasant situation not unlike the current Iraq war. It's certainly not an ideal situation, but we can't really jump off the train)

7thsfsniper · 05-02-2008, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skywatcher

Wouldn't it be more practical just to teach everyone to have less children?

China tried it, may still do it as far as I know. They had a "lottery" for couples to have kids and penalties for those who did not comply. The Chicoms knew one thing, "we can't sustain this many people" answer..........population control. Any Chinese members that can expound on this?

**Officer of Engineers** · 05-02-2008, 03:15 AM

The Chinese had a one child per family policy ... no longer enforced. There were financial penalties for those who do not wish to comply but no criminal charges for those who are willing to pay those penalties. In short, if you were rich enough, you can have more children.

However, the One Child policy had pretty well being abandoned. It did not work as families prefer boys to girls and a serious imbalance occurred.

05-01-2008, 11:07 AM	#32 (permalink)
Parihaka Moderator Join Date: 11-10-04 Location: Te Ika a Maui Posts: 9,466 Country:	I still contend that if we taught the subsistence farmers to use the land they have cleared properly, there would be no need to clear more, and no need to constantly fight them doing it. Crop rotation really is that simple. __________________ In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Last edited by Parihaka : 05-02-2008 at 05:10 AM. Reason: crap spelling and diction due to on-going head cold

05-02-2008, 03:15 AM	#45 (permalink)
Officer of Engineers *Military Professional* Moderator Scotch taster Join Date: 08-06-03 Posts: 15,918 Country:	The Chinese had a one child per family policy ... no longer enforced. There were financial penalties for those who do not wish to comply but no criminal charges for those who are willing to pay those penalties. In short, if you were rich enough, you can have more children. However, the One Child policy had pretty well being abandoned. It did not work as families prefer boys to girls and a serious imbalance occurred. __________________ Chimo

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
IMF chief warns of war over food	troung	Current Affairs	21	04-21-2008 19:17 PM
Vietnam next to cut rice exports	xrough	Current Affairs	1	03-31-2008 01:55 AM
Venezuelan troops seize food	Kansas Bear	Political Discussions	4	01-25-2008 06:00 AM
Neo-science and the elephant in the room	Parihaka	Science & Tech	15	11-26-2007 06:42 AM
One man's contribution to the Hurricane Katrina effort	Shek	Political Discussions	0	09-17-2005 19:43 PM

05-01-2008, 14:28 PM	#39 (permalink)
7thsfsniper DEVOUT BIKER *Military Professional* Join Date: 02-29-08 Location: Missouri, pron"misery" Posts: 873 Country:	Ok, I'm not trying to delay here but I have a couple questions. 1.How much would the check be? 2.If I attended every speech David Duke made, and didn't disagree with him, would you think me a racist by association?

05-01-2008, 15:21 PM	#40 (permalink)
bolo121 *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 12-19-07 Location: india Posts: 756 Country:	Dang! its no longer worth it being the president of the USA. One has to wade through oceans of **** before even seeing glimmer of success and here i was thinking indian politics was nasty!

05-02-2008, 01:18 AM	#43 (permalink)
Skywatcher Patron Join Date: 03-14-08 Posts: 247	Wouldn't it be more practical just to teach everyone to have less children? Anyways, a famine would probably cause more dislocation and trouble than just continuing the aid (an unpleasant situation not unlike the current Iraq war. It's certainly not an ideal situation, but we can't really jump off the train)

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)