RE: Seeds of Conflict
April 25, 2013 at 10:39 pm
(This post was last modified: April 25, 2013 at 11:10 pm by A_Nony_Mouse.)
(April 25, 2013 at 10:04 pm)Dawud Wrote: Well I think the point is made - find whatever evidence you like if you fancy...
Way back in the dark ages of the 1960 I got a BS in physics. I worked from some 20 years for the US Navy after being designated an EE. The largest amount I ever "signed out" was $76 million. Anything I post is open to question and I answer all legitimate questions and have since I joined in January this year.
[Anyone questioning the dollar amount is risking a very boring lecture on how DC headquarters worked. Trust me. It bores me too.]
(April 25, 2013 at 10:05 pm)Dragonetti Wrote:(April 25, 2013 at 10:03 pm)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: SciAm was quite responsible until 1991 when it almost folded for sales that went into the toilet. It came back solely by "popularizing" what should have been serious coverage. It was the rise of the age of "what does it feel like to be a (blank)? Fill in a scientist name for the blank.
If you want serious coverage there is Science and New Scientist in that order and just about nothing else. Since 1991 SciAm as been on the order of Popular Science just less obvious about it.
Correct! I would rather see a source from a Science/Health Journal, that is peer reviewed.
The simplifications went beyond simplification. The ascientific content increased to the point it dominated some articles. I still glance though it occasionally but have found no reason to change my opinion. It does seem to be a rational retreat in that it has stopped getting worse.
(April 25, 2013 at 10:33 pm)Dragonetti Wrote: I was just pointing out most of the fast food products are subsidized. Corns, wheat, and certain meats (makes less than 15% of subsidy). These food are not healthy, but they are very cheap. The impoverish will buy the cheapest products available. Statistically speaking, the poorest of the community are also the most unhealthy and over weight.
Farm subsidies are political which means unrelated to reality.
Here is something I picked up that throws all "common knowledge" knowledge about farming into a cocked hat.
All wheat (or barley or anything else) is not equal. There are qualities of wheat even from the same seed in neighboring farms in the same year. Companies who want such products only want the best that appeals to humans. So what are they going to do with the crops the bread companies and the Green Giant will not buy? Till it under or feed it to meat animals like cattle?
And if you know you have real shit land that will not grow what people will eat why not grow animal feed? And if there are people starving in Africa should we send them grain that Americans refuse to eat?
I can go further but that should be enough to show all this vegetarian crap really is crap. All this anti-meat stuff is just from stupid people.
Farmers are not dumb. They learn maximizing earnings at their fathers' knees. And then most food is produced by corporate farms where all the kids sitting on knees are never more than amateurs.
I have not figured a way to calculate it but it is something like if the entire country went vegetarian something like 80-90% of the grain crops would be wasted because people would not eat them. AND if production were decreased to only 10-20% only 10-20% would meet current quality standards.
The higher the quality standards for people the more left overs that have to be plowed under or fed to meat animals which we eat.
