New roots

[thesummerqueen]

You just don't get it do you.

This is from the University of Leeds, not the so called tree huggers.

Wait...where did I deny the authority of Leeds? I said environmentalists, which is who I meant in my original post stating that and I should have specified what kind - the sensationalist retard kind. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with the information we had - I'm saying that new information came up that may or may not change the assumptions we base decisions on when it comes to how we think about the planet and the way we interact with it. Excuse me for not specifically stating so but I rather thought that was implied when new data is explored.

For the record, I quipped about the movie Ferngully because I love jungles. I was rather obsessed with them as a child. I'm an army brat who was born in a tropical country, if you really want to get woo-woo about it. Save the rainforests! I'm all for it.

Don't you get it. No Eco-System = No Humanity. Without the biosphere there will be no goddam humanity.

You're right - the quote I responded to about your opinion of crops, I did not read correctly. By the by, nature's stronger than that - if we introduce something that takes over, it will still act like a plant does - the eco-system will shrug into a new position. We'll be forced to adapt or fail. You're correct. But I'm hard-pressed to think of something that's going to be released into the wild that will truly make it so humanity dies out because it took over the earth and destroyed every option we had left to us. We're an adaptable lot.

A very small proportion of the Worlds food goes to countries that really need it. Also, GreenPeace and other NGO's help with feeding the World's poor.

Absolutely - on their terms. Which is their right I suppose - it's their money and their supporter's money - but I don't have to agree with the scare tactics and bullshit they use, or the terms of their help. In fact, it usually gets me angry. I think they are wrong based on what I've studied and read, and I try to read both sides. Will I change my mind in the field? Maybe.

Ten corporations control nearly 70 percent of the world's seed market. This corporate control of agriculture means farmers have less choice.

That quote came from Greenpeace and I've already stated I'm under the opinion they have a certain agenda. I'll certainly be looking into those facts today - I'm actually working on a paper for school concerning this - and you're welcome to try to convince me otherwise, but I didn't see a link under that statement showing where they got their numbers, so I'm skeptical. I'm also not convinced that a little more education wouldn't prove to farmers that GM crops are more economical - if you're getting bigger bang for your buck...

Also, here's a quote from Monsanto at the other side of the spectrum, which should be treated with the same skepticism but presents another side:

The reality is that the commercial seed market is only about 33 percent of the total volume of seeds used globally. Another 33 percent is farmer saved-seed and the remaining 33 percent comes from national or public institutions. More than 1,000 separate seed companies supply the commercial seed market globally. We're one of the largest commercial seed companies, but we what we offer is less than five percent of the world's seeds. We also actively license our traits to a number of other seed companies, which means farmers have many choices for accessing the technology.

On a really really small scale, in my own backyard, this is what I do: I save seeds from what I grow, be it flowers or veggies or herbs, and I could in theory grow those plants and sell the produce and reap mostly profit. If I have to pay a small royalty for selling something with a brand name on it, it's no worse than if I am a department store selling a brand name and paying mark ups because of it. Even if there are only 10 corporations, they're still competing with each other - the smartest ones charge the least to have their name put on something. I shop at Wal-mart because their brands cost less than other store brands. And if it's something sold in other stores as well, such as Starbucks coffee beans, their mark up is usually less than another store's. I am NOT an economics major or expert by any means, but I am a consumer who has to pay attention to who is catering to me the most - and unless I'm dead wrong, is this so different on a wider scale? What people like Greenpeace and other groups are doing are using weasel words to get you to follow their principles for what nations should buy, just as someone who has a grudge against Wal-Mart might tell me their products are inferior. I really can't tell the difference in taste or nutrition value between a can of beans with Wal-Mart's little logo on it compared to Harris Teeter's or some other country-wide brand, but I can see a difference in price/yield. Nor, after a little education, do I see a point in the same store, say Harris Teeter, in buying organic over 'regular'. The reason people go to Teeter instead of Wal-Mart or buy organic instead of regular is that they've bought into the advertising people have used to discredit a certain corporation or way of living and encourage you to subscribe to their principles instead. Otherwise there is no reason for anyone to spend money on more expensive products. Educating people as to whether or not the product you're buying at a more expensive price and higher labor is really worth it will make a huge difference. Telling people who don't have the same relaxed access to information that we do that the crops they could get "more bang for their buck" for will harm them in order to enforce your own beliefs is wrong. No one is deliberately trying to harm anyone, and if it came out that something a corporation put their name behind WAS harming people monetarily or physically...don't you think it'd come out and bite them on the ass?

From NPR:

People who are a little older, make more money and have at least a college degree are most likely to think safety is not an issue for the foods, whose qualities have been altered by laboratory manipulation of DNA.

Then you get more people, who use more resources and the problem never ends. More food=More People=More Growth=More Food......where does it end.

You tell me - I thought one of the other issues we discussed on this forum was population control - it's one of the reasons I have a huge problem with religion since there's that whole "be fruitful and multiply" and discouragement of birth control, yada yada. I do believe there are plenty of children out there that could be adopted rather than pushing more kids out into the world. I don't know how to solve the highly personal and emotional issues that go behind us needing to have something of our own image rather than taking in another person's child. What I do know is that even if you disregard future population statistics, the food supply we have now doesn't feed the world - or rather, there is disproportionate access, and I'm not going to be the one who has to make the judgement over who should live or die because of it.

Good luck telling that to the Corporations that control the World's food supply.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you do believe there is some conspiracy to keep people hungry and in debt.

Well the problem is, the Planet is coming second at the moment. The problem with that is, in the long term, without a healthy planet there will be no people to save.

I agree to an extent. But I'm also a realist and I realize that no one who is hungry is going to give a good goddamn about the planet over their own stomach or their children's. I know this personally because in my own hunger pangs, I did whatever I could with commercial fertilizers and commercial seed to buy the cheapest, most effective products to grow food for my roommate and I. It's hard to successfully bring up not just enough food from the earth to eat, but also to have surplus to store in the times you can't grow it. It's backbreaking, and labor intensive. To do it organically is even more so - putting a little compost on my roses and vegetables was nowhere near as effective as a commercial fertilizer - and a commercial one cost a fuckload less than a "organic" commercially produced one, for all they have to contain the same chemicals (by the way - commercial ones are regulated. We haven't quite figured out firm regulations for things labeled "organic"). GM crops and better product management will eventually lead to a population better in tune with nature/the planet and how to get what we need without raping it and without relegating certain portions of the world's population to die of starvation until then.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I do have my own garden to tend to.