+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 56

Thread: Stop Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth

  1. #31
    Senior Contributor Castellano's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 Apr 08
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    826
    Country: Spain
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    You should look at birth rate and death rate of each specific region. Just because the absolute number of people increased doesn't mean there's overpopulation. There's something called population momentum. European nations are riding on the tails of this momentum, and if not corrected, Europe will suffer decades of aging population, lack of labor, crushing welfare cost, and eventually, disintegration.

    Europe suffers from lack of replacement population.
    Yes, but that is a different issue. In all those countries food supply is ample, and actually relatively cheap.

    So why would you want to introduce GM crops?

    Why would you run the commercial, environmental and health risks associated?

    so that farmers have better margins?

    what is the rationale here?

    I'm actually not dogmatically against GM food in any time or circumstance, but it has to be very, very well justified.


    Africa MIGHT suffer from overpopulation. But this overpopulation is not a result of insufficient land but of warfare and corruption.
    Let's forget for a minute the cause of overpopulation.

    I cited Ethiopia. I'm talking by memory but I believe this data to be aprox. correct:

    During the 80s famine the population in Ethiopia was around 40 million. In only 20 years, and even with a large emigration out of the country, the population doubled to 80 million.

    With this kind of numbers you can bet a famine is eventually coming like Christmas.

    Sure enough, there were severe food shortages last year due to a combination of high oil prices and a drought. Wait a minute...due to?...you cannot really say it was caused by the drought, which is a natural event every x-years in the area.

    The real cause of the famine is overpopulation, and it can only get worse, the more population there is. The environment is a finite resource, and ultimately, the solution will have to tackle the root cause.

    GM food can perhaps artificially stretch the margin and buy some time, I say perhaps because GM food is troublesome on several levels; but even assuming everything goes smoothly (:P private joke) with GM food, until when can it be stretched?

    Until 40 years from now when Ethiopia could have maybe a population of 320 million?

    Is that reasonable?

    If the root cause is not tackled, and even assuming GM food does not create foreseen or unforeseen problems, a Malthusian catastrophe sooner or later is unavoidable.

    Moreover, and returning to the cause of overpopulation, I would submit that overpopulation is not a consequence, but very often a cause of War.

    The cause of overpopulation itself is mainly cultural. That's why a self-imposed restriction on procreation seems to be ultimate taboo.

  2. #32
    Senior Contributor Castellano's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 Apr 08
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    826
    Country: Spain
    Quote Originally Posted by Parihaka View Post
    Yes, unfortunately agent Smiths script writers don't know shit about mammals. Or marsupials.
    Well, I think it is the "instinctively" that the script got wrong.

    Other than that, Snow Leopards and Mice don't reproduce at the same rate, and there are reasons for that.

    On the other hand, Humans are supposed to be a least partly rational, and in fact can calculate some consequences of their actions, yet way too often we behave like the most predatory kind of parasites. Like Viruses.

    Because of the hurry I cited more than I needed. What I really wanted to express is simply:

    you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area.
    In the World today, overpopulation is the root cause of famines, and all kinds of environmental issues, and quite a few social problems; it could even be argued that overpopulation is the root cause of most global problems.

    Instead of fighting symptoms, changing that viral mentality would be the only true solution to Malthusian crisis, which is what seems to worry GM apologists, but then again: a self-imposed restriction on procreation seems to be the ultimate taboo.
    Last edited by Castellano; 24 Apr 09, at 01:43.

  3. #33
    Senior Contributor Castellano's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 Apr 08
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    826
    Country: Spain
    Quote Originally Posted by Oscar View Post
    And what are your suggestions to get rid of these viruses?
    You don't need to get rid of viruses, just pop out less of them

  4. #34
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    29 Mar 08
    Posts
    999
    Malthusianism has been proven wrong. Unlike viruses humans can create resources to sustain their current level of population and follow its curb ad infinitum until the earth falls "because we're too many".... In fact food prices fell, plus I'm sure you heard of demographic transitions.

  5. #35
    Senior Contributor chakos's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Apr 08
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    1,117
    Country: Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by Parihaka View Post
    Yes, unfortunately agent Smiths script writers don't know shit about mammals. Or marsupials.
    Dont get me started on F**king marsupials... Africa gets the strong proud interesting apex predators and we get glorified demi rats that can tear apart a backpack for the food it contains in seconds and then go and live in your roof and are impossible to remove... and to top it off its illegal to kill the bastards...

    Rant: OFF
    The best part of repentance is the sin

  6. #36
    Senior Contributor Castellano's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 Apr 08
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    826
    Country: Spain
    Quote Originally Posted by Oscar View Post
    Malthusianism has been proven wrong.

    Famines are generally nothing more than Malthusian checks

    Unlike viruses humans can create resources to sustain their current level of population and follow its curb ad infinitum until the earth falls "because we're too many"
    That's a Malthusian catastrophe

    .... In fact food prices fell, plus I'm sure you heard of demographic transitions.
    Let's try to hurry them up, we would avoid suffering.

  7. #37
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    29 Mar 08
    Posts
    999
    Quote Originally Posted by Castellano View Post
    Famines are generally nothing more than Malthusian checks
    Famines are becoming increasingly rare. In fact they may be about to disappear while in the same time, world population has quadrupled.

    That's a Malthusian catastrophe
    Neither do current agricultural practices cause a more substantial damage to the environement than the older ones. They are more efficient and sometimes less polluting in fact.

    Let's try to hurry them up, we would avoid suffering.
    A world where everyone would be over 50 would be such a fantastic world indeed. Unless you suggest that people at a certain age should be obliged to take the magic pill.

  8. #38
    Senior Contributor Castellano's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 Apr 08
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    826
    Country: Spain
    Quote Originally Posted by Oscar View Post
    Famines are becoming increasingly rare. In fact they may be about to disappear while in the same time, world population has quadrupled.
    There is some truth in that.

    Regardless, millions and millions of people around the world often go to sleep hungry.

    And I wouldn't discard future large scale famines at all.

    I'm no expert. But among other issues, it worries me the pressure on the Oceans.

    Like the Dwarfs in Moria, we might be digging too deep...so to speak. Same goes for GM food.


    Neither do current agricultural practices cause a more substantial damage to the environement than the older ones. They are more efficient and sometimes less polluting in fact.
    Conceded.


    A world where everyone would be over 50 would be such a fantastic world indeed. Unless you suggest that people at a certain age should be obliged to take the magic pill.
    2006 6.5 billion

    projected...

    2020 7.6 billion

    2030 8.2 billion

    .....

    To me that looks like a jammed highway to hell.

  9. #39
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    21,322
    Country: United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Castellano View Post
    Yes, but that is a different issue. In all those countries food supply is ample, and actually relatively cheap.

    So why would you want to introduce GM crops?
    Increase supply will decrease prices, and/or reduce land devoted to farming. More space toward other productive activities, or just open country side and living spaces.

    Another reason, more production has an impact on world prices. Look at the US ethanol debacle. We burned our food as fuel. Corn prices skyrocketed. It diverted other farm land to produce corn (increased prices for other food items) and affected those who can least afford food.

    Quote Originally Posted by Castellano View Post
    Why would you run the commercial, environmental and health risks associated?
    Who has died from GM food? I have no idea why euros are so paranoid about GM food.

    Quote Originally Posted by Castellano View Post
    so that farmers have better margins?
    If anything, GM food reduces the margin for farmers because it increase production.

    Quote Originally Posted by Castellano View Post
    what is the rationale here?
    Efficiency. Why pay more for less? I understand environmentalists love to pay more for less. That just doesn't make sense to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Castellano View Post
    I'm actually not dogmatically against GM food in any time or circumstance, but it has to be very, very well justified.
    I think efficiency is a pretty good reason. Fewer people and less land need to work to produce food. Less chemicals used to control pests and fertilize the soil = good for the environment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Castellano View Post
    Let's forget for a minute the cause of overpopulation.

    I cited Ethiopia. I'm talking by memory but I believe this data to be aprox. correct:

    During the 80s famine the population in Ethiopia was around 40 million. In only 20 years, and even with a large emigration out of the country, the population doubled to 80 million.

    With this kind of numbers you can bet a famine is eventually coming like Christmas.

    Sure enough, there were severe food shortages last year due to a combination of high oil prices and a drought. Wait a minute...due to?...you cannot really say it was caused by the drought, which is a natural event every x-years in the area.

    The real cause of the famine is overpopulation, and it can only get worse, the more population there is. The environment is a finite resource, and ultimately, the solution will have to tackle the root cause.
    Easy, stop helping them. There won't be overpopulation if a huge chunk of the population die off.

    Quote Originally Posted by Castellano View Post
    GM food can perhaps artificially stretch the margin and buy some time, I say perhaps because GM food is troublesome on several levels; but even assuming everything goes smoothly (:P private joke) with GM food, until when can it be stretched?
    You assume technology makes zero progress.

    Quote Originally Posted by Castellano View Post
    Until 40 years from now when Ethiopia could have maybe a population of 320 million?

    Is that reasonable?
    Of course not. There are other constraints than food.

    Quote Originally Posted by Castellano View Post
    If the root cause is not tackled, and even assuming GM food does not create foreseen or unforeseen problems, a Malthusian catastrophe sooner or later is unavoidable.

    Moreover, and returning to the cause of overpopulation, I would submit that overpopulation is not a consequence, but very often a cause of War.

    The cause of overpopulation itself is mainly cultural. That's why a self-imposed restriction on procreation seems to be ultimate taboo.
    It seems to me your fear of overpopulation and the Malthusian theory wants you to reduce food supply and starve the excess population to death.

    You are still not looking at the "overpopulation" problem by region.

    Europe DOES NOT have an overpopulation problem.

    Japan DOES NOT have an overpopulation problem.

    All the industrialized nations DO NOT have an overpopulation problem.

    You somehow want to curb overpopulation in Africa by stop having children in Europe.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  10. #40
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    21,322
    Country: United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Castellano View Post
    There is some truth in that.

    Regardless, millions and millions of people around the world often go to sleep hungry.
    Yet you want to decrease food supply.

    Quote Originally Posted by Castellano View Post
    And I wouldn't discard future large scale famines at all.
    Yet you want to decrease food supply.

    Quote Originally Posted by Castellano View Post
    I'm no expert. But among other issues, it worries me the pressure on the Oceans.
    Yet you want to decrease food supply.

    Quote Originally Posted by Castellano View Post
    Like the Dwarfs in Moria, we might be digging too deep...so to speak. Same goes for GM food.
    I don't get this reference.

    Quote Originally Posted by Castellano View Post
    2006 6.5 billion

    projected...

    2020 7.6 billion

    2030 8.2 billion

    .....

    To me that looks like a jammed highway to hell.
    Where is this growth projected? I can tell you it's not in Japan. Japan is losing people. It won't be in western Europe. Western European women birth rate is way below the replacement ratio, although not as bad as Japanese. You can wipe out the entire European continent and the total human population of the planet will still increase.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  11. #41
    Contributor Doomarias's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 May 08
    Location
    Bronx, NY
    Posts
    426
    Country: United States
    Like the Dwarfs in Moria, we might be digging too deep...so to speak. Same goes for GM food.
    I don't get this reference
    Its Lord Of The Rings, The dwarfs got greedy kept digging and unearthed their own doom in the form of Balrog

  12. #42
    Contributor Doomarias's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 May 08
    Location
    Bronx, NY
    Posts
    426
    Country: United States
    Where is this growth projected? I can tell you it's not in Japan. Japan is losing people. It won't be in western Europe. Western European women birth rate is way below the replacement ratio, although not as bad as Japanese. You can wipe out the entire European continent and the total human population of the planet will still increase.
    Yah, I can see China and India as with many Asian populations getting more wealthy which invariably leads to a slowing of population growth, but Africa I don't know whats going to happen there.

  13. #43
    Senior Contributor YellowFever's Avatar
    Join Date
    17 Jul 06
    Posts
    4,313
    Country: United States
    Let's see...over population causes famine.

    Famine kills off a portion of the population.

    Killing off a portion of the population means there won't be over population.

    So what's the problem here?

  14. #44
    Senior Contributor Castellano's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 Apr 08
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    826
    Country: Spain
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    Increase supply will decrease prices, and/or reduce land devoted to farming. More space toward other productive activities, or just open country side and living spaces.
    Those aren't problems that demand a "solution" as potentially troublesome as GM food production. We don't need it in Europe, and you certainly don't need it in America.

    Another reason, more production has an impact on world prices. Look at the US ethanol debacle. We burned our food as fuel. Corn prices skyrocketed. It diverted other farm land to produce corn (increased prices for other food items) and affected those who can least afford food.
    Aha! Welcome the oil component of all this.

    Then, why did you say earlier?:

    It's earth day today and I plan to burn some extra gasoline.
    The link you point to is only partially true. Even if no corn fields were dedicated for ethanol, the poor would have had a hard time last year because the oil prices would have been high anyway.

    The rise in oil prices provoked a rise in food prices, which provoked food shortages for the poor.

    So we can see that the price of oil is what St Thomas Aquino called the 'effective cause' of food shortages. Alas, what St Thomas Aquino called the 'causing cause' is overpopulation.

    The world must indeed solve the problem that 150$ a barrel is, specially for the poor. But this is a problem in itself and GM food shouldn't come into the picture. GM perry grass to produce ethanol? Hell yeah!

    That's why I couldn't understand when in 2002 I think it was, Europe proposed to the US to standardize fuel efficiency in cars and the US said no. Apparently the US were very happy to keep producing Hammers...

    Even if you did it for national security, don't you know who is profiting from that oil thirst?

    My Golf GTI 16v is twice as fast, 4 times as agile, 10 times prettier and half as oil hungry than any of those boat with wheels that you drive over there.

    Sorry, I couldn't resist it...

    And here in A'dam in go around in my bike, which is great with this glorious weather we are enjoying lately.

    Who has died from GM food? I have no idea why euros are so paranoid about GM food.
    I think the more rational approach is to be cautious. No one is going to tell me that science can figure out all the ramifications of GM food.

    Look how the mad cow disease came about.

    But in a way you are right there is much superstitious fundamentalism in the environmental movement. Only some of the attitudes expressed here that anything the environmentalist propose is wrong, is just as infantile.


    If anything, GM food reduces the margin for farmers because it increase production.
    Farmers in Africa and other poor places which are the only ones who in my opinion could conceivably justify the use of GM crops don't have that problem. They can't afford them in the first place.


    Efficiency. Why pay more for less? I understand environmentalists love to pay more for less. That just doesn't make sense to me.
    I gladly pay for quality food.
    Given the choice of GM corn and natural corn I go for the natural. Everybody does. And corn is no so expensive that we need to fill the fields of Europe with manipulated stuff to save a few cents.

    There is simply no need.


    I think efficiency is a pretty good reason. Fewer people and less land need to work to produce food. Less chemicals used to control pests and fertilize the soil = good for the environment.
    You don't know if it is really more efficient. We don't really know all consequences of this. But even if it were, I don't see an efficiency problem that justifies taking the risk.


    Easy, stop helping them. There won't be overpopulation if a huge chunk of the population die off.
    No. But help them change the viral mentality. Introduce the concept of responsibility. If you can't raise 14 children, don't have them.


    You assume technology makes zero progress.
    No I don't.
    You assume technology is totally under control.

    Of course not. There are other constraints than food.
    Indeed. Overpopulation is at the root of most global problems. Including quite a few conflicts and wars.


    It seems to me your fear of overpopulation and the Malthusian theory wants you to reduce food supply and starve the excess population to death.
    I have seen it in action. I dedicated a year of my life building schools and educational centers in Liberia, which shattered quite a few of my own prejudices.

    To me demography is absolutely the Big Picture. But everytime one mentions it, people think you are flirting with the Nuremberg laws.

    We must end this taboo.

    You are still not looking at the "overpopulation" problem by region.

    Europe DOES NOT have an overpopulation problem.

    Japan DOES NOT have an overpopulation problem.

    All the industrialized nations DO NOT have an overpopulation problem.

    You somehow want to curb overpopulation in Africa by stop having children in Europe.
    No, my point is that Europe, Japan or the US don't need GM crops.

    Africa can't afford them.

  15. #45
    Senior Contributor Castellano's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 Apr 08
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    826
    Country: Spain
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    Yet you want to decrease food supply.
    No.

    I want to end the viral mentality.

    Yet you want to decrease food supply.
    I want to end the viral mentality.

    Yet you want to decrease food supply.
    I want to end the viral mentality.

    Where is this growth projected?
    Those aprox. figures are all over the place, ie. UN's "The World at six billion" or US Census bureau.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts