Obesity-monsanto

[lxskllr]

They do if you don't have to have them tested. That is the point, anyone can say that. Ever watch someone dieing from starvation, someone you know perhaps? Until you have it is easy to say feelings don't matter. Everyone has a certain degree of bluster to support a viewpoint till they are faced with the actual ramifications of that view point.

Ken

If it was someone I knew, even casually, I'd give them food. They would be part of my "tribe", even if it was an extended association. I care more about SnusOn members than I do Africans. I care less about SnusOn members than I do my daughter. We're clanish creatures, and the closer to the center of the clan, the more we care.

The point is, you would prefer a portion of our population dies than advances in agricultural science continue. That is like wishing for Polio and Small Pox to come back because they did wonders for population control.

Ken

There's many interrelated problems with proprietary food, and engineering our way to a larger population. We've hardly even begun to cover the issues, and honestly, I don't feel like going over them all. I'm just somebody on a snus forum I don't set policy, and nobody cares what I think. I could put the effort into laying out a global policy, but that would be work for it's own sake. To make a short answer; Yes, it's better if people die, than to artificially extend the planet's carrying capacity. Everyone dies, and odds are good your death will be painful. Odds are even better that you've personally watched someone die a painful death; I have. All the hand wringing in the world, and throwing money at problems while simultaneously fscking something else up doesn't further our goals as a culture, or resident of this planet.

[squeezyjohn]

Ho ho ho!

The population will continue to increase if we keep creating more and more unsustainable labour intensive ways to make it possible ... until it is no longer possible or something external and unforseen (or uncontrollable) makes it all come crashing down on our many heads. Then more people will die and suffer than would have if we had a natural balance in the first place. Which would YOU prefer?

If one lives in a world where there are winners - then there must also be losers - whether they live many miles from the winners - or they will live in the future where the winners have taken everything and there is nothing left for the grandchildren. Only by following policies aiming for balance and sustainability in the long term can we even hope to have a future as a species.

The western capitalist world we live in works by trying to create winners btw - that's the single motive that keeps everyone more or less motivated not to have a revolution in western countries. If you couple that with the shenanigans of politicians and big business to make your average voter feel like they are so alone and powerless that they can't do anything about it without being within "the system" then you get the political apathy so apparent in the UK at the moment because you watch the leaders of all political parties lying through their smiling bastard teeth on TV and know they are lying to us all the time - but they keep you just comfortable enough to not revolt.

We bloody should revolt though! All of us - the whole system is fake democracy. No-one in their right mind would look at the real evidence of what we are doing to our planet in the name of profit and the free market and say "yes we should continue doing that" - but the greed and ridiculous short-termism of the ruling élite is crippling not only the majority in the world - but the majority in the West too! One thing humans have been blessed to have evolved in to is people who can look in to the future and hazard a guess that what we're doing is good or bad for future generations ... no other animal has that capacity and yet we CHOOSE to ignore the warning signs for short term comforts and gains - what a bunch of arseholes!

RANT OVER - but if someone started a political party where the core value was long-termism then I would sign up like a shot ... it's not just being green and tree-hugging ... it's an absolute necessity for the future of mankind and I don't have that choice at the moment which is F#¢∞§§ng ridiculous.

Squeezy

[truthwolf1]

Russia suspends import of GMO

http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/724f0fb6-075b-11e2-bf8b-0019bb30f31a.html

[devilock76]

If it was someone I knew, even casually, I'd give them food. They would be part of my "tribe", even if it was an extended association. I care more about SnusOn members than I do Africans. I care less about SnusOn members than I do my daughter. We're clanish creatures, and the closer to the center of the clan, the more we care.

There's many interrelated problems with proprietary food, and engineering our way to a larger population. We've hardly even begun to cover the issues, and honestly, I don't feel like going over them all. I'm just somebody on a snus forum I don't set policy, and nobody cares what I think. I could put the effort into laying out a global policy, but that would be work for it's own sake. To make a short answer; Yes, it's better if people die, than to artificially extend the planet's carrying capacity. Everyone dies, and odds are good your death will be painful. Odds are even better that you've personally watched someone die a painful death; I have. All the hand wringing in the world, and throwing money at problems while simultaneously fscking something else up doesn't further our goals as a culture, or resident of this planet.

Fair enough. My belief is that the further research in agricultural technology can no only lead to us preventing such needless deaths by that mechanism, but also further our ability to travel and colonize beyond our current means, other environments, planets, etc. Granted that is the stuff of way off science fiction. But then again I wonder what the Wright Brothers would think about the Sr-71 or the space shuttle.

Ken