Now You've Done It

people lived ok for centuries without these things and still managed to lead rich and fulfilling lives. they had light and warmth. if our lives are so rich and fulfilling why do we need to mindlessly consume? why is depression, mental illness, and substance abuse so prevelant? we can produce adequate amounts of food and we do, it just isn't distributed equally. you think all those people in 3rd world poverty ridden countries are living rich and fullfilling lives? life and death are natural occurences which we are striving to control with out technoligical advances.

 

LOL! i have a bridge in brooklyn to sell, you interested?

 

Yeah, people lived ok with smallpox, cholera, tuberculosis, diptherea, scarlet fever, whooping cough.


And you're right Theres enough food right now on the planet to feed the entire world, so if you were naive, you might think, we'll why don't we just give it to them... but thats simply impossible. The price of shipping enough food to make a dent in world hunger would be astronomical... literally hundreds of billions of dollars for one shipment, and theres also the fact that most food of dietary consequence spoils very rapidly, (meat, milk, bread, veggies.) we could probably ship twinkies and pop tarts for an insane amount of money, but that wouldn't really combat hunger at all.

Another problem in delivering the food is one of the major causes for hunger... a lack of infrastructure. Many of the places that need this aid so much, don't even have roads... this makes giving them food grown here impossible.

These poor people have dirt, they have water, they have the sun, but they mostly use innefecient slash and burn croping methods. They don't have the machinery to harvest large amounts of this food, they lack the hybrid strains that produce more food per acre, and they often don't have enough infrastucture, (roads, markets) to distribute this food... so while one village may not have enough food, another village has too much, and some of it rots.

Using only organic croping methods on currently existing farmlands, we could only produce a quarter of the food we are now.

Name me a few of these non-technological advances toward easing suffering...

So whats the solution? Well theres no magic bullet, at least not yet, but this has been the greatest century in terms of producing and getting more food to the starving population.

In the 50's there was an apocolyptic lack of food and population growths on the Asian contienent, and a catastophe was predicted, where billions would starve.

But that didn't happen... the populations grew as expected, but the food output increased dramatically, this was thanks to the introduction of advanced western farming techniques and hybird plant strains to much of the third world.

The man spearheading this campaign, an american agronomist named Dr. Norman Borlaug, won the nobel prize in 1970. When he won the nobel prize, they predicted that Dr. Borlaug had saved over a billion lives.

And hes been working ever since.

http://reason.com/0004/fe.rb.billions.shtml

Norman Borlaug is the greatest man who has ever lived.

 

So one major step in the allocation of more food for the third world is the introduction of hybrid plant strains, or so called, GM crops, which produce more food per acre, and can thrive in harsh climates.

GM food is nothing ghastly, When you crossbreed a plant you're mixing 50,000 genes of one plant, with 50,000 genes of another plant, with GM, you're carfully replacing a few genes.

The US can't ship food produced here to Africa... most food spoils quickly and the shipping costs would be astronomical.

But you can ship seeds and spores, and since hybrid crops can germinate more effeciently, they are ideal for the third world.

the USDA the FDA, the EPA, and the WHO have all approved GM crops sold on the market for human consumption.

The benifits of Bio-tech are limitless, crops can produce 8 times yields, survive harsh climates, survive refrigeration longer, be less suseptable to pesticides. (The US is ruining Columbia's countryside to fight the drug war)

And Hybrid crops can also have more nutrients then regular crops, golden rice for example, is rice infused with Iron, a nutrient not usaully found in rice, making it a very effective to fight anemia, which affects a large part of the world.

http://www.biotech-info.net/GR_tale.html
http://www.foodnavigator.com/news/news.asp?id=48499

 

GM food has the potential to save millions, and I'm glad its being donated to starving populations.

There are at least 42 publications extractable from the PubMed database that describe research reports of feeding studies of GM feed or food products derived from GM crops. The overwhelming majority of publications report that GM feed and food produced no significant differences in the test animals.

The two studies reporting negative results were published in 1998 and 1999 and no confirmation of these effects have since been published. Many studies have been published since 2002 and all have reported no negative impact of feeding GM feed to the test species.

http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech_i...iewed-pubs.html

And heres an article about Patrick Moore, the founder of greenpeace, joining more then 3,000 scientists in supporting agriucultural bio-technology.

http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech_info/pr/moore.html

American agronomist and nobel prize winner Dr. Norman Borlaug, and all agricultural scientists agree that on existing farmlands, its only possible to produce enough food to feed 4 billion people using organic mathods...

I don't see two billion people raising their hands to starve.

 

You're lauging at the fact that the USDA, the EPA, and the FDA, have to approve hybrid crops marketed? I'd think a luddite like you would be pleased with such precautions.

 

Heres an article by Gregory Conko, director of food saftey policy at CEI.

 

you aren't convincing me. i just think you are reading all the propoghandic (?) hype surrounding these issues and it sounds really pretty and fluffy warm feely touchy but i just think they are taking too much into their own hands and DON"T have a real clue or care about the consequences. these corporations and governments do not give a shit about the starving people or you or me or the environment. they give a shit about the money. who is funding these studies? my guess is the corporations who stand to lose if they are negatively reported. i don't believe for a nano second that these things are adequately tested. if they are so fabulous why are some countries resisting and refusing their use?

 

i don't believe these precautions exist. and i don't have faith in 'safety boards' who are in bed with the corporations they are 'investigating'

 

But you're not fighting a health issue now, you're fighting this technology because you don't trust the source.

I don't care if your anti-corparation, but that has nothing to do with plant pathology.

These plants have proven to be healthy in all legitamate study, and if you don't trust all the research going into these crops, don't eat them

In traditional plant pathology, about 50,000 genes of one plant are combined with 50,000 genes of another plant. Every bit of produce sold today is a result of selective breeding over tens of thousands of years to encourage more plentiful produce.

With hybrid crops, a few carefully selected genes of one crops are mixed with another to produce a more desirable crop. These are very basic agricultural principles. Even 'organic' crops are kept refrigerated during transportation and transported on trucks, theres no food avilable today without technology unless you're killing your own bear...You'd have to kill it with a gun.

The leaders of several african nations without legitamate research fronts were told by groups like greenpeace that these crops were poisonous, and would damage other crops they were growing. This was done with very shoddy evidence presented to them, and without large scientific communities to investigate these claims, a few such as Zambia were tragically talked out of taking the aid to feed there starving populations.

These are commercial crops in the US, but they were donated to feed the third world... this is stuff good enough for me to eat, but tragically, many Zambian children starved to death because off unfounded pseudo-scientific garbage spouted by these 'activists'.

I don't give a fuck if somebody doesn't want to eat hybrid crops, but the third world doesn't have the luxury of being so finicky. These activists are affluent well feed people living on cloud nine, going into the third world and telling them how to live, and convincing them that there starvation isn't as important as these activists vauge bullshit concerns.

When the whole world has plenty of food, I'd love to hear these 'activists' opinions. But I certainly won't mistake it for information.

 

You're not showing any evidence or voicing any real concern about the safety of these products

Are there any specific concerns you have about the safety of these products? Are you worried about bio-diversity? Worried that Zambians are going to grow extra eyes?! What!?

All the research, including the UN's WHO research have shown this food to be beneficial, and you don't even wanna look into that research, you just want to dismiss it because 'corparations funded it', which you have no proof of.

 

just thought I'd add the final nail for the global warming skeptiscm has been hammered in the coffin. The proof made 6th page, new cell phone tones made the front page in my town. And we wonder why people are misinformed

 

you say you don't care about whether i want to eat them or not as long as the third world countries get them. well how nice. yet i do have to eat them because they are in the food we are sold and eat. unless i can afford to eat organic...which as a low income single parent, i can't. what about allergies? if i am allergic to fish and i eat an apple with fish dna am i susceptible to an attack? what about the fact that they are patenting these seeds and farmers, like the ones in saskatchewan are being fucked over because monsantos canola invaded their crops and now monsanto wants the money they should 'rightfully' get organic canola is a dying product because of contamination. my understanding is these 'pest resistant plants come with all sorts of problems. you have to use their insectices in order for them to work. why is it iraq can't save their own seeds? why are they being forced to use these modified seeds? what about the fact that these are not being tested properly. they are changing the way nature works. nature has worked just fine for thousands of years. the problem is we just don't like to look at the inevitablity of death so we think we need to 'combat' starvation etc. there are other issues causing the poverty in these countries other than 'poor crop management or whatever.' i know this doesn't sound very intelligent, but i have read up on this issue. i just lack the retention / ability to clearly describe the arguments and concerns i have. mainly though, as far as i'm concerned its a no brainer; a soybean was given soybean dna for a reason. if it was meant to have glowworm or pig dna it would have had it all along.
http://www.saynotogmos.org/ud2005/updates2005.html
http://www.saynotogmos.org/scientists_speak.htm
http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/Index.htm
i don't need to eat gmo food? its all going to africa?? then explain this: http://www.truefoodnow.org/shoppersguide/guide_printable.html
http://www.sgr.org.uk/GMOs.html

 

You have no sense of perspective if you'd call yourself low income in this situation... You're not low income compared to the third world... the fact that you'd bring that up brings up your lack of perspective.

Why do you think organic food costs more? Because it produces much less food on the same amount of land... that means if organic food were adopted globally, we'd have to tear down much more natural habitat to sustain the amount of food we need.

You'd be glad to know that there are no fish genes in commmercial crops.

Sometimes these genes are moved around in labrotory experiments, and this is very useful tool for biology, however none of that is ever marketed for commercial product.

Patents are needeed to ensure a return of investment on a commercial crop... millions of dollars are invested into producing a hybrid crop, and they expire after a few years.

Many of these hybrid crop patent holders are waiving there patents for the third world.

http://www.biotech-info.net/GR_tale.html

This is one patent infrigment case of one of many bio-tech firms, and I don't see a need to intervene... let the courts handle it.

http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/news/news.asp?id=3745

All produce needs insecticides, this prevents the crops from being ruined, however pest resilliant crops were manufactured so less pesticides would have to be used. This prevents many ecological problems of pesticide overuse.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20041124/04

There have been no legitamate studies to suggest problems associated with these crops.

Nobodys being forced to use modified seeds, these seeds are being donated to the Iraqis... they can throw them away if they want to.

http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech_info/topics/goldenrice/specialgoldrice.html

These are crops sold commercially in the US. They must be approved by the FDA, USDA, and EPA.

And nature will work fine for billions of years in the future, but the question is, how do we produce enough food for the planet? GM is the answer.

I truly hope that was typed without you realising what you were saying, otherwise, thats one of the most shallow, and sadistic things I've ever heard.

Why feed starving people?! Thats something that needs no justification...

We live in infinite freaking comfort, we have food water medecine, we can life long meaningful lives, we can enjoy the company of our grandchildren.

Why shouldn't we try and share some of the infinite fortune we have with these poor people? Why feed starving people is like asking why learn? why protect yourself aginst the cold, its human nature.

We should feed starving people because we have the ability to.

Of course there are many factors leading to the lack of food in the third world, these people don't have the technology to plant crops on large scale, they don't have the advanced farming methods to produce food more effeciently, they don't have the infrastructure such as roads to properly disperse this food, they don't have refridgeration to keep the plants better longer. And they don't have the hybrid crops which produce more food per acre.


These regions are often plauged by wars, and there are many pests feasting on the crops.

These people lack the benifits of modern technology, should we let them starve or give them the benifits? How can the choice be any clearer?

You're ignoring the very basics of agriculture on multiple levels...

A soybean wasn't given soybean DNA, it evolved through changes in its molecular strucutre from non-soybean plants.

And its DNA has been changed tremendously for the past 10,000 years through selective breeding by people to attain a more bountiful crop.

This method of breeding is a genetic roulette, but now as we understand the genetic structure of these plants, we can carefully replace a few genes to produce a more desirable crop.

There is no animal DNA in commercial crops.

You're also ignoring hundreds of millions of starving people.

When did I say anything about there being no hybrid food comercially?
You can buy organic food if you want to, its more expensive, but you're sitting on a computer on the internet, you could afford it if you streched your budget.

Moreover, you have this choice, and you're not going to starce, much of the world isn't going to bed with a full stomach tonight. Try to think of them before you make political desicions on vauge fear and primative ludditism.

http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech_info/articles/myths.html

Heres some more stuff about how GM crops can co-exist with non GM crops.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20041124/04

 

have you ever read ishmael?

 

No, I've heard of it. A critique of humanity told from the point of an ape, no? It blames all these problems on the agricultural revolution, which is pretty absurd, as the agricultural revolution was the solution to a growing population, not the cause of it.

Moreover, the later part of the 20th century was signicantly better for humanity as whole and the environment then the former.

Seems like an interesting read, but whatever point it attemts to make is moot when compared to the reality of billions of people starving.

 

heres some evidence for you.
www.cqs.com/50harm.html
and as for the third world not having the luxury of being so finicky, what's that got to do with anything. I live in Canada, but when I have to apply caulking to the exterior of the rich mans house, i have to use the product that clearly states that it is known to contain cancer causing agents and can also affect liver and nuerological system. how can they even put that stuff out there when they state it is bad. it's about money. And I don't have the luxury of refusing to use the product because thats what the rich man wants. that's all technology is, is about making money. I agree with jamaica, life was fine before all this. global tech pretends to bring the world closer together but personally I feel it isolates us even more. Helps us lose touch with who we are. How many people got to suffer so a few can get rich?

 

You know damn well that you wouldn't want to live the way people lived 2,000 years ago. Life was fine before all this? Umm, no. The life expectancy was less than 30 years because there was no medicine, women had lots of kids and very few rights of their own because there was no birth control, and most of the world was enslaved because there was no mass communication.

If you think that "life was fine before" technology, you are very very very much mistaken.

You have a computer, so don't try claiming the moral high ground against "the rich" from a global perspective. And technology makes the vast majority of people rich, not just a few people. We simply adjust our standards of what is "rich" upward. The average American today is far better off than the richest king in the world was 2,000 years ago.

 

the more food you have access to the bigger the population growth. what happens when all these billions of people are fed and living 'rich and fulfilling' lives?

 

404, File not found on server. I guess whatever evidence was found was so shoddy that they decided to get rid of it.

How doesn't it apply. These nations grow there food 'organically' now, but they can't produce sufficient amount of it. Should we show them more advanced farming techniques (which are much better for the enviornment the slash and burn cropping) and give them some of our hybrid crops, or let them starve?

Not only does that have nothing to do with hybrid crops, its and the dangers you stated only apply when you eat it... although you should use it in a well ventilated area. You should feel glad you live in a place where hazardous matireal is labeled as such, they don't have that in the third world either.

How do you define life being fine... why don't you hop in your time machine and have this 'fine' bubble burst. People lived till there thirtys and suffered from all kinds of afflictions that have fadded from human memory. They had agonizing diseases that couldn't be cured, and at best only prolonged so they could live another few agonizing months.

Famines were common in China and India, resulting in millions of starvations every drought season.

Remeber that Tsunami? It would have been isolated with very little foreign aid, a prime example where technology brought people together. The media allowed the whole world to see the devastation of the tsunami and billions in aid were given.

In 1900 that would have been a distant memory, with little or no foreign aid, malaria would have swept Indonesia, and killled tens of thousands. The only way they knew of to fight malaria back then was to burn large sections of forest and swamp land... which would have been a significant environmental problem.

I'm not rich either, but we have it so good. We have food, healthcare, light, warmth, a place to live, computers and the internet which can process billions of flops of information a second. We have leisure time we can spend with our loved ones.

I think you're outta touch with the rest of the world. You have no idea of the horrible things these poor people go through, You've never lived in a famine or an epidemic. Freedom and technology have given us abundance, and its only after you share in this abundance that you criticise it.

Let them eat cake eh?

THis isn't about your proletarian fantasies with the man who's house you weather seal. Its about how do we share this abundance with the rest of the world.

This may be hard for you to understand in your infinite luxury, but people are suffering now!!! They don't have the benifits of technology so they can't produce adequate food or medicine.

You stay healthy because you live in a healthy area where you can stay dry and warm, and eat a nice hot meal with lots of vitamins.

We should all celibrate, we're living at the healthiest, most affluent time in history. Theres enough food for all of us.

But in Asia and Africa, millions people are going to bed hungry every night. Try to think about them next time you criticise technology that you heavily benifit from. Why not share our affluence with the third world.

There are billions of people around the world who'd kill to have your life. Same here, lets share our luck with the less fortunate.