Organic trailblazer accept GE!

[Roger Baldwin]

http://worldtruth.tv/usda-forces-whole-foods-to-accept-monsanto/

I applaud Whole Foods willingness to "coexist" in exchange for regulation reform, because GE is an important technology we should embrace for the future. It is a shame that it is being misused and has such a bad rap, because our consumptive nature as humans can't "coexist" with out GMOs.

[Alex Veidel]

Hey Bob, is that statistic claiming that the Earth is not capable of supporting the population at its current rate of expansion? Or that the way we are handling the earth currently is not capable of supporting an expanding population?

Bob Terrell said:

Yes, it is a subject that many people are very passionate about, BUT the bottom  line no matter what side you are on and no matter what position you take is that the EARTH cannot support the amount of people that will be here by the year 2050 at the current rate of expansion.  We have a really BIG problem and it will just keep getting worse untill

1. WWIII

2. pamdeminc

3. Bruce Willis fails to stop the astroid.

4. Sun Explodes

you take youir pick.

Bottom line is our children are in a heap of trouble, and most don't even have a clue.

PS

Yes this is fun and Yes NOONE needs to get excited or upset over anything said here.

Aquaponice is fun!

[Alex Veidel]

I don't think anyone is denouncing the technology as evil. Although, at its current state, it is definitely unsafe. What is evil is that people are trying to sell us this stuff, and indeed, sell it to us underhandedly so that we aren't even aware that we are eating it, when GMO's are not ready to be made available to the public, and it is having a LOT of negative side effects, everything from suicides in India, to creating a path for lawsuits against American farmers who refuse to grow them, to just general poor health in the world. I for one don't think the idea will work at all, but I have no problem with scientists being scientific and scientifically experimenting with new ways of growing food. Take note that most of the anti-GMO raving is not directed toward the scientists, but toward the marketers and distributors. Yeah, maybe it will be beneficial one day, but if someone had tried to sell me the computer at its earliest stage, I definitely wouldn't have bought it. And if I found out that they were pushing these computers on the population and the machines were causing negative side effects like forcing little children out of the their homes because the massive computation devices took up too much room, or the computers were actually emitting unsafe radiation that was slowly killing off the populace, I would fight against that. If people are eating poison, the quickest and best solution is not to spend a lot of time and money creating an antidote, but to get them to stop eating it.

Roger Baldwin said:

Genetic Engineering is a new technology, but it has monumental potential to do both harm and good.  When the first computer came out it took up a whole warehouse and couldn't do 1/10th of the computing as the average persons cellphone.  At the time computers looked like a huge waste of time money and space, because it was a new misunderstood technology.  Think of where we would be without computer technology today.  We don't know where this new GE tech will take us, so, why should we waste all this effort with denouncing this young misunderstood technology?  Why not use the effort to try to make it a beneficial tool in sustainability?

[Bob Terrell]

" If people are eating poison, the quickest and best solution is not to spend a lot of time and money creating an antidote, but to get them to stop eating it."           But alas, people will always be hungry and believe whatever the powers to be tell them to believe for the masses are sheep, ment to be sheared and penned.

Alex Veidel said:

I don't think anyone is denouncing the technology as evil. Although, at its current state, it is definitely unsafe. What is evil is that people are trying to sell us this stuff, and indeed, sell it to us underhandedly so that we aren't even aware that we are eating it, when GMO's are not ready to be made available to the public, and it is having a LOT of negative side effects, everything from suicides in India, to creating a path for lawsuits against American farmers who refuse to grow them, to just general poor health in the world. I for one don't think the idea will work at all, but I have no problem with scientists being scientific and scientifically experimenting with new ways of growing food. Take note that most of the anti-GMO raving is not directed toward the scientists, but toward the marketers and distributors. Yeah, maybe it will be beneficial one day, but if someone had tried to sell me the computer at its earliest stage, I definitely wouldn't have bought it. And if I found out that they were pushing these computers on the population and the machines were causing negative side effects like forcing little children out of the their homes because the massive computation devices took up too much room, or the computers were actually emitting unsafe radiation that was slowly killing off the populace, I would fight against that. If people are eating poison, the quickest and best solution is not to spend a lot of time and money creating an antidote, but to get them to stop eating it.

Roger Baldwin said:

Genetic Engineering is a new technology, but it has monumental potential to do both harm and good.  When the first computer came out it took up a whole warehouse and couldn't do 1/10th of the computing as the average persons cellphone.  At the time computers looked like a huge waste of time money and space, because it was a new misunderstood technology.  Think of where we would be without computer technology today.  We don't know where this new GE tech will take us, so, why should we waste all this effort with denouncing this young misunderstood technology?  Why not use the effort to try to make it a beneficial tool in sustainability?

[Vlad Jovanovic]

Thanks for the thoughtful explanation Roger, I now have a much better understanding of where you are coming from...

Often, in my experience, when people (even so-called 'environmentalists') start talking about "population reduction" it often starts out as an ill-defined, abstract idea. Invariably, when probed deeper, you come to find that they often mean some "other folks" that there are just too many of...Usually these people that there are "too many of" just happen to be of a different skin color (often yellow or brown)...This coming from folks who are of European ancestry living in a country (the US) where the average citizen uses over one hundred times more resources than the average Kenyan, and almost 30 percent more resources than the average world citizen...but, yet "something needs to be done" about those other folks...Yet they themeselves just keep right on spawning and often have more automobiles in the garage, than they have Family members in the household...and still "something" needs to be done...

I live in an area where where every other generation or so, the 'chieftains' of the different 'tribes' around here embark upon a program to "do something"...it usually isn't pretty, though it does have the effect of reducing the population somewhat (though not very efficiently at that). And mostly results in large scale migrations, resettlement programs, a lot of orphans, refugee problems etc...So I'm not a big fan of any type of involuntary population reduction schemes...as usually they are quite monstrous affairs. At any rate...

Yeah, there does seem to be a lot of "marketing" and "trendiness"  going on in the organic/healthy/save the planet realm, and much of it makes little sense and/or is completely illogical. Like you say "...capitalism often skews the best of intentions.." Apparently according to your post, it also seems to bring out the worst in people...both consumers as well as producers. I guess that I just tend to believe that a person always has a choice...Always. It may not be easy, or secure, or the most comfortable decision you could have made...but the choice is always there...and you can always start now...at any given moment, if you so choose to. But, like someone here said, most of us are like cattle (or sheep, was it)...

And you can't really expect most of us to change, fact is we're just too dumb and too scared. But who does one blame for that? Us Sheep, or the 'Shepards'?...

Humans have been usefully compared to a cancer on the face of this planet, but it is a mistake to assume that cancer is genetic in origin, and that humans are therefore inevitably somehow 'programmed' to 'destroy the planet'. It is the mechanical world-view of industrial consumerist society which is destroying this petri dish called Earth...humans are merely the agents by which this world-view is applied. In this sense, the cancer is ideological, and humans cannot be blamed for the desecration anymore than a dreamer can be blamed for a nightmare. Though irreversible, the desecration is preventable, and can be stopped at any time. So it is not a question of blame at all, but of how to wake the dreamer, without further injury...

GE like the splitting of the atom is neither "good" nor "bad" in and of itself. It's "goodness" or "evilness" comes in the way it is used. It is a tool like any other. Take a hammer for instance...one person may pick it up and use it to build a sheltering structure for himself and others...while another may pick it up and smash someones skull in...I guess I just don't trust our "managers" with such a powerful hammer...Maybe if we lived in a 'Star-Trek'-y parallel universe I'd think differently about what GE's may bring us...But we don't.

GM foods here are not a new "we need to do something" fad. People and governments have been working hard to keep them out of their fields and out of their food supplies for over a decade and a half now pending more evidence of Monsanto's and the US's claims of how safe and great they are... 

Roger Baldwin said:

It seems to me that every year there is a different atrocity  that is going to change the World so that it will never be the same and we NEED to do something to stop it.  But, then a year goes by, the underground media bring some new atrocity to light and the old "we need to do something" fad fade away.  There is a small percentage of people that attempt to change the way they live for the good of the World, and if they don't pay attention they miss the new fad and all hell will break loose.   it is almost like a marketing ploy.  I own and operate a retail nursery, where I attempt to cater to "organic" gardeners.  It is difficult, because every year I have to make sure that my product is inline with the latest fad.  Two years ago everyone was into certified organic, god forbid you add a little super phosphate  to tomatoes to make them bigger and tastier.  Last year it was prion avoidance.  Not only does it have to be organic, but it can't  have an animal byproducts or manure,  I'd like to see you grow tomatoes with cottonseed meal and alfalfa meal alone.  This year is the year of the big bad GMO! I have had dozens of people asking if my veggy starts are GMO or not, even though they are the same varieties they have bought for years.  My annual vendor even has a selection of heirloom varieties that people are scoffing at because he also grows hybrid varieties.  I sensed this coming so I started several heirloom varieties from a reputable seed company and those plants, I could charge triple for.  Marketing ploy?

Then there is the rest of the people in this world, who have been taught to seek the cheapest, easiest and most popular ways to live.  Most people in this World will continue to eat lunch off the dollar menu, regardless of the quality, ethics, and environmental impact, because it is cheap.  Most people will continue to buy the cheapest wheelbarrow, regardless of where it was made, how far it was shipped, or the fact that it will go to the landfill, broken in a year.  They will continue to shop at the store that undercuts all other competitors, by ANY means necessary, employee mistreatment, vendor coercion, and sending jobs oversees, because they can pay $1.00 less for some Chinese POS.  Everything you buy nowadays is CRAP, but no one cares because it was so cheap they can just get another one and throw the old one in the dump.  Grow your own produce? buy local produced goods? Grow tilapia aquaponically?  Why do that when it is cheaper and easier to go to Walmart? All of the solutions that everyone here is proposing, won't work for saving the World because people are too cheap and won't expend the effort.

I have a 1 acre vegetable garden, several fruit trees and bushes, a flock of 25 chickens which I cull regularly for dinner, a fish tank with 40 tilapia, that will soon be fish tacos, and  a greenhouse that I raise veggies in year round.  I am fortunate that I have the space and opportunity to do all this, and wish everyone could.  I do all this because I enjoy providing for my family and seeing what goes into my food, however the amount of time and effort that goes into my endeavors are prohibitive to the majority of people.  They have no choice but to buy everything and somehow we have to keep that choice available or else people will "come and try to snatch my crop."

My argument is not trying to defend Monsanto, government policy, or current practices with GMO.  I agree that there have been some serious issues with the way  our government has fast tracked GE technology, throwing caution to the wind so they can put some of Monsanto's money in their pocket.  Also, there have been some poor decisions in which direction GE tech should pursue.  Capitalism often skews the best of intentions.  But, I also think that for every piece of Monsanto corrupted media, there is 10 pieces of anti-monsanto corrupted media, so good luck to all you truth seekers staying up late at night reading a bunch of bullshit on the internet.  Its all a marketing ploy in every direction.

Genetic Engineering is a new technology, but it has monumental potential to do both harm and good.  When the first computer came out it took up a whole warehouse and couldn't do 1/10th of the computing as the average persons cellphone.  At the time computers looked like a huge waste of time money and space, because it was a new misunderstood technology.  Think of where we would be without computer technology today.  We don't know where this new GE tech will take us, so, why should we waste all this effort with denouncing this young misunderstood technology?  Why not use the effort to try to make it a beneficial tool in sustainability?

As far as euthanasia, I am not a proponent, but it sure would be nice if there weren't so damn many helpless people that we all have to take care of.

[Alex Veidel]

So Bob, I was thinking, how do we know that this whole "earth can't support the growing population" idea is based on feasible and reliable information? I mean, the same thing happened with global warming, it got plenty of people in a panic (heck, our former vice-president did a documentary on it), and we all know what a farce that turned out to be. I heard someone once say that "Green is the new Red". In context of the conversation, they were pointing out that the government was using the concept of global warming to impose new taxes and regulations on the populace and gain further control. (and I'll point out that even though the whole idea is built on sketchy information, those laws are still being enforced. We're still subject to carbon emissions testing out here to be able to drive vehicles. And they outlawed albuterol inhalers because of their "negative effect" on the environment ['cause we all know how those crazy asthmatics just love to take those canisters and just empty one after another into the atmosphere. On second thought, maybe that was just their attempt at population control :) ] And those are just a couple examples) So, how do we know that this isn't something that is just being encouraged so that the government can take further control of a panicking populace? I could see how the government would love to step in and have say in how many children one is allowed to have or who can live and who must be left to die "for the good of the country". And I've kind of developed a mistrust of "modern science", I don't usually just take the word of a guy just 'cause he's in a lab coat. (Not at all saying that anyone here does)

[Bob Terrell]

Alex, I agree with your points of control over populace, have you ever been to Bejing, China, Belize City, Belize, Kenya, Guatamala, El Salvador,  ?  I have.  I have seen what overpopulation has done.  Stop to think for just a min on how many people would be on the Earth today that we would be trying to feed and house if we had not had World War I or WW II?

The spanish flu took out 18 million, the Black death took a full half of the world population at that time.  I know that we or at least most of us live in areas where we have space and get the food that we want on any given day.  A lot of the world cannot because there is just not enough food for the Earths population and we just keep on popping out little ones.  Everyone says jobs is the real need but you cannot eat a Ford, or a sky scraper, and yes, not everyone knows how to grow food, what a shame.

Alex Veidel said:

So Bob, I was thinking, how do we know that this whole "earth can't support the growing population" idea is based on feasible and reliable information? I mean, the same thing happened with global warming, it got plenty of people in a panic (heck, our former vice-president did a documentary on it), and we all know what a farce that turned out to be. I heard someone once say that "Green is the new Red". In context of the conversation, they were pointing out that the government was using the concept of global warming to impose new taxes and regulations on the populace and gain further control. (and I'll point out that even though the whole idea is built on sketchy information, those laws are still being enforced. We're still subject to carbon emissions testing out here to be able to drive vehicles. And they outlawed albuterol inhalers because of their "negative effect" on the environment ['cause we all know how those crazy asthmatics just love to take those canisters and just empty one after another into the atmosphere. On second thought, maybe that was just their attempt at population control ] And those are just a couple examples) So, how do we know that this isn't something that is just being encouraged so that the government can take further control of a panicking populace? I could see how the government would love to step in and have say in how many children one is allowed to have or who can live and who must be left to die "for the good of the country". And I've kind of developed a mistrust of "modern science", I don't usually just take the word of a guy just 'cause he's in a lab coat. (Not at all saying that anyone here does)

[Bob Terrell]

CFACT

There has been no global warming since the nineties -- according to all the major temperature data sets.

When most in the media refused to report, CFACT graphed it and put it on a billboard at the entrance to D.C.

Warming campaigners immediately went into denial and accused CFACT of "lying," "cherry picking" and "ignoring science." Yet the evidence is so overwhelming, that even the BBC, which has steadfastly toed the warming line, is forced to concede.

The BBC is not ready to give up on the global warming campaign just yet, but their welcome admission shows progress and is worth sharing!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22567023

Alex Veidel said:

So Bob, I was thinking, how do we know that this whole "earth can't support the growing population" idea is based on feasible and reliable information? I mean, the same thing happened with global warming, it got plenty of people in a panic (heck, our former vice-president did a documentary on it), and we all know what a farce that turned out to be. I heard someone once say that "Green is the new Red". In context of the conversation, they were pointing out that the government was using the concept of global warming to impose new taxes and regulations on the populace and gain further control. (and I'll point out that even though the whole idea is built on sketchy information, those laws are still being enforced. We're still subject to carbon emissions testing out here to be able to drive vehicles. And they outlawed albuterol inhalers because of their "negative effect" on the environment ['cause we all know how those crazy asthmatics just love to take those canisters and just empty one after another into the atmosphere. On second thought, maybe that was just their attempt at population control ] And those are just a couple examples) So, how do we know that this isn't something that is just being encouraged so that the government can take further control of a panicking populace? I could see how the government would love to step in and have say in how many children one is allowed to have or who can live and who must be left to die "for the good of the country". And I've kind of developed a mistrust of "modern science", I don't usually just take the word of a guy just 'cause he's in a lab coat. (Not at all saying that anyone here does)

[Alex Veidel]

I just realized I keep using the term global warming. By "global warming" I'm referring to the notion that human trends in increasing pollution are causing the earth's temperature to increase on a global scale, not simply whether the earth is getting warmer or not. And yes, I keep resurfacing this thread because I'm STILL thinking about it. Can you spell o-b-s-e-s-s-i-v-e - c-o-m-p-u-l-s-i-v-e???

[Jon Nose]

Here is a link that has a bit more info

http://iceagenow.info/

http://iceagenow.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCohucT7FmQ

[Alex Veidel]

Read this article today and thought back to this discussion. I think it adds some good after-dinner-mint-like food for thought:

http://www.patternliteracy.com/203-is-sustainable-agriculture-an-ox...

What are your thoughts?

[George]

Well, certainly this is cherry picking, when you pick the hottest year on record, an El Nino year, to begin your comparisons.  There are other facts which could be considered, such as there have been over 400 consecutive months of global annual temperatures greater than the 20th century average and that over ten hot records are now being broken for each cold record.  The 2000s were the hottest decade on record, as was the previous decade.  These are things which wouldn't happen in a non-warming world.  

Scientists conspiring in mass, worldwide, to fool the rest of us?  Every scientific body in the world is lying?  I don't believe so.  

There are many facts but they are opposed by a well-funded distortion campaign.  The truth is not that difficult to determine, for those who wish to do so.  

No matter how much we want climate change not to be true, that doesn't change the basic physics of this issue and the science has been well understood for a long time.

The gasses which trap heat in our atmosphere, enabling life to exist on planet earth, are increasing.  This is precisely measured, many times per day in many places and it's just a fact.  If someone can make a scientific case that this will not cause the earth to retain more heat in our planetary system, atmosphere, oceans and earth, they haven't done so yet.
Conversely, the data shows that air temperatures and ocean temperatures are, in fact, increasing.

There are many blowhards around, such as I, and it makes us weary to listen.  That's exactly what some people, some industries, want.  There are two other things I'll say:

Regardless of what the truth is and whether we believe it, what we believe doesn't change the truth.

(2)  The Earth also speaks

Bob Terrell said:

CFACT

There has been no global warming since the nineties -- according to all the major temperature data sets.

When most in the media refused to report, CFACT graphed it and put it on a billboard at the entrance to D.C.

Warming campaigners immediately went into denial and accused CFACT of "lying," "cherry picking" and "ignoring science." Yet the evidence is so overwhelming, that even the BBC, which has steadfastly toed the warming line, is forced to concede.

[Alex Veidel]

It's been a while since I've taken a good look at this stuff, but if I recall correctly, we've only been accurately keeping track of global temperatures since 1860. No matter how old you think the earth is, whether 10,000 or 1,000,000,000, that is an infinitesimal speck of data in our earth's timeline. We know the earth goes through heating and cooling trends; how do we know this isn't just another trend?

Another thing I recall (and like I said, it has been a while, so there might have been some new data since then) is that while it seems like the scientific community at large agrees with global warming trends, there are in fact only a fraction of scientists that are knowledgeable enough in this particular area to actually make a qualified assessment. And in that group of people, there are mixed opinions about warming trends. A lot of scientist have simply jumped on the bandwagon in support, although it's not their area of expertise.

I don't really have a problem with the theory of global warming though, depending on how action is implemented. I like that it gets people thinking about mankind's unhealthy practices. Plus, the temperatures has been in the low 30's here in Illinois, and I'm cold :)

George said:

Well, certainly this is cherry picking, when you pick the hottest year on record, an El Nino year, to begin your comparisons.  There are other facts which could be considered, such as there have been over 400 consecutive months of global annual temperatures greater than the 20th century average and that over ten hot records are now being broken for each cold record.  The 2000s were the hottest decade on record, as was the previous decade.  These are things which wouldn't happen in a non-warming world.  

Scientists conspiring in mass, worldwide, to fool the rest of us?  Every scientific body in the world is lying?  I don't believe so.  

There are many facts but they are opposed by a well-funded distortion campaign.  The truth is not that difficult to determine, for those who wish to do so.  

No matter how much we want climate change not to be true, that doesn't change the basic physics of this issue and the science has been well understood for a long time.

The gasses which trap heat in our atmosphere, enabling life to exist on planet earth, are increasing.  This is precisely measured, many times per day in many places and it's just a fact.  If someone can make a scientific case that this will not cause the earth to retain more heat in our planetary system, atmosphere, oceans and earth, they haven't done so yet.
Conversely, the data shows that air temperatures and ocean temperatures are, in fact, increasing.

There are many blowhards around, such as I, and it makes us weary to listen.  That's exactly what some people, some industries, want.  There are two other things I'll say:

Regardless of what the truth is and whether we believe it, what we believe doesn't change the truth.

(2)  The Earth also speaks