Food Evolution Movie Challenges Public Fear Of GMOs - Sensationalist Headlines

Food Evolution Movie Challenges Public Fear Of GMOs

24 replies, posted
In This Thread

[QUOTE]In a hypothetical world devoid of emotions, morality or loyalty, credible information would easily sway people from fact-scarce beliefs. In the real world, the information deficit model, which dictates that people disagree with scientific consensus simply because they lack facts, doesn’t hold up. It’s no different when it comes to public distrust of genetic engineering (GE, better known as GMO)—people rely on their guts, emotions, and often inaccurate information from profiteers and ideologues to form their opinions. [/QUOTE] [url]https://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2017/06/20/food-evolution-movie-challenges-public-fear-of-gmos/[/url]

I think the people who have already invested years of money into buying organic food are going to be pretty entrenched in their decision regardless. my parents sure as fuck will be, anyway

Good luck with that. The more militant GMO opposition is like the 9/11 truthers, anything that doesn't agree with them is ignored as propaganda by the conspirators.

[QUOTE=salty peanut v2;52381909]I think the people who have already invested years of money into buying organic food are going to be pretty entrenched in their decision regardless. my parents sure as fuck will be, anyway[/QUOTE] Organic food isn't only about not using GMOs, though.

If this is what I expect it to be (informative, clear and understandable) I'd love to show it around, even though I'm sure it will be controversially received.

An attempt is still an attempt, I suppose. Maybe it will sway those who are sitting on the fence.

The silly thing is GMOs are usually just controlled breeding, not low level genetic engineering. Mankind has been making GMOs since before recorded history. Given the rate at which the population increases and available arable land starts to dwindle we'll need GMOs if we are to feed the planet anything else isn't sustainable.

[QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;52382040]Given the rate at which the population increases and available arable land starts to dwindle we'll need GMOs if we are to feed the planet anything else isn't sustainable.[/QUOTE] Not really, no. Current agricultural techniques are so inefficient that there are a ton of things to improve first before we have no choice but to invest in GMOs. And even then, GMOs aren't necessarily a particularly adapted solution. Developing them costs a lot of money, so once you finally come up with an efficient breed, you want to sell the greatest amount possible, thus have it be adapted to the widest variety of environment possible. But the adaptability of a breed to multiple environments is limited. Sometimes, different environments even require opposite traits, for instance wheat needs to either be "hairy" or "smooth" depending on the locally prevalent parasite. So instead of adapting the breed to the local environment, you standardize the environment. That means spraying pesticides your GMO is immune to so that no parasites are present, and your crop operates in lab conditions. If you live in a world where arable land is dwindling and the environment has already been fucked quite a lot, pesticides is not necessarily something you'll want to use. And even then, if you somehow came up with a one-size-fits-all breed, that's not something you'd want to use. One unique breed means once a particular disease develops for that breed, it'll put it all in danger of being wiped out. That would be putting all your eggs in a single basket. Again, not something you'd want if food is on high demand due to the population increase. Unless technology advances to a point where any farmer can genetically improve his own local breed in his garage, GMOs aren't going to lead to stable and efficient food production. And even if that was possible, doing so without rethinking our current agricultural methods would be like putting a spoiler on a tricycle, it won't be nearly as efficient as intelligently planning your cultures.

Probably the most frustrating thing is that what anti-GMO people are usually [i]really[/i] against is the excessive steroid usage in food products (mostly meat such as beef), which not only has little to do with being GMO or not but seemingly gets attacked way less despite there being several that have noticeable enough effects on people to be banned in Europe but not the US. [QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;52382040]Given the rate at which the population increases and available arable land starts to dwindle we'll need GMOs if we are to feed the planet anything else isn't sustainable.[/QUOTE] Hopefully within our lifetimes they successfully complete the project of making rice utilize C4 carbon fixation, as this will drastically increase productivity from it's natural C3 utilization state and is one of the most common crops worldwide. I wouldn't necessarily say it's unsustainable without GMOs, but there is also room for even more efficiency.

[QUOTE=_Axel;52382160]Not really, no. Current agricultural techniques are so inefficient that there are a ton of things to improve first before we have no choice but to invest in GMOs. And even then, GMOs aren't necessarily a particularly adapted solution. Developing them costs a lot of money, so once you finally come up with an efficient breed, you want to sell the greatest amount possible, thus have it be adapted to the widest variety of environment possible. But the adaptability of a breed to multiple environments is limited. Sometimes, different environments even require opposite traits, for instance wheat needs to either be "hairy" or "smooth" depending on the locally prevalent parasite. So instead of adapting the breed to the local environment, you standardize the environment. That means spraying pesticides your GMO is immune to so that no parasites are present, and your crop operates in lab conditions. If you live in a world where arable land is dwindling and the environment has already been fucked quite a lot, pesticides is not necessarily something you'll want to use. And even then, if you somehow came up with a one-size-fits-all breed, that's not something you'd want to use. One unique breed means once a particular disease develops for that breed, it'll put it all in danger of being wiped out. That would be putting all your eggs in a single basket. Again, not something you'd want if food is on high demand due to the population increase. Unless technology advances to a point where any farmer can genetically improve his own local breed in his garage, GMOs aren't going to lead to stable and efficient food production. And even if that was possible, doing so without rethinking our current agricultural methods would be like putting a spoiler on a tricycle, it won't be nearly as efficient as intelligently planning your cultures.[/QUOTE] True, we do alot of one-size-fits-all farming techniques that aren't well optimized; monoculture breeding isn't good in the long run especially when it comes to parasites/diseases (See Irish potato famine) and genetic mutations in the really long run. Hell even geometry comes into play here (I should've included this in my previous post), urban farming with vertical hydro/aquaponics systems are on the rise which would easily tackle the amount of room to grow and, as you said, standarize the environment in which to grow them reducing the need on pesticides while adding potentially useful CO2 scrubbers to the local environment. (There's some hydroponic/aquaponic systems I've seen that are near sealed and pump in higher concentrations of CO2 into the greenhouse to increase crop growth).

[QUOTE=Omali;52381937]Good luck with that. The more militant GMO opposition is like the 9/11 truthers, anything that doesn't agree with them is ignored as propaganda by the conspirators.[/QUOTE] That's because opposition to GMOs is backed by financial incentive - the revenue for Whole Foods alone is $13 billion - there are people who profit from this hysteria.

[QUOTE=_Axel;52381941]Organic food isn't only about not using GMOs, though.[/QUOTE] It is also about the massive amount of waste it produces because organic crops have to discard massive portions due to insects and disease. It is why organic is expensive. Organic crops are straight up horrible for the environment.

[QUOTE=Omali;52381937]Good luck with that. The more militant GMO opposition is like the 9/11 truthers, anything that doesn't agree with them is ignored as propaganda by the conspirators.[/QUOTE] Hell, there are even [I]still[/I] people who think the 1969 moon landing was faked, and one of the reasons given that I've seen is that they claim rockets cannot work in space, not because they don't have oxygen (they acknowledge oxidizers used in rocket fuel), but because [I]there's no atmosphere for the rocket to push against[/I]. Basic understanding of Newton's Third Law would help him realize how baseless and ridiculous an assumption this is, but they just don't seem to get it.

[QUOTE=GunFox;52383567]It is also about the massive amount of waste it produces because organic crops have to discard massive portions due to insects and disease. It is why organic is expensive. Organic crops are straight up horrible for the environment.[/QUOTE] Non organic food does that too, you know. Tons of perfectly edible food gets thrown out simply because it doesn't look appealing enough. If organic farmers have to discard massive amounts of produce, they aren't doing shit right. You shouldn't simply farm like you would non-organic produce without spraying pesticides. Also I fail to see how food waste is worse for the environment than sterilizing entire fields, saturating the ground tables with phosphate and killing off essential insects like bees. I'd be interested in seeing a source on those amounts of food waste and the farming techniques that are used.

[QUOTE=_Axel;52384876]Non organic food does that too, you know. Tons of perfectly edible food gets thrown out simply because it doesn't look appealing enough. If organic farmers have to discard massive amounts of produce, they aren't doing shit right. You shouldn't simply farm like you would non-organic produce without spraying pesticides. Also I fail to see how food waste is worse for the environment than sterilizing entire fields, saturating the ground tables with phosphate and killing off essential insects like bees. I'd be interested in seeing a source on those amounts of food waste and the farming techniques that are used.[/QUOTE] Organic farming still uses fertilisers and still uses pesticides that have negative ecological impacts, the reduced environmental impact can often be a result of scale as opposed to the impact per unit of produce.

[QUOTE=Carlito;52385027]Organic farming still uses fertilisers and still uses pesticides that have negative ecological impacts, the reduced environmental impact can often be a result of scale as opposed to the impact per unit of produce.[/QUOTE] Organic farms don't use pesticides, that's why they're organic in the first place. I really don't see what you're talking about, if organic farmers in your area are just like non-organic ones except they're using even more terrible farming techniques, then you're just getting ripped off. In France, you need to adhere to strict guidelines to be granted the "organic" label. [editline]21st June 2017[/editline] Impact per unit of produce is the most important metric to consider, yes, but standard farming techniques are currently awful on that front: - Standard fields only contain a single crop, since it makes it easier for machinery to reap. This means that the vast majority of sunlight that reaches the field only serves to warm up the earth, rather than to induce photosynthesis in your crops so that they can develop, until the crops are fully matured and ready to be reaped. This can be alleviated by having alternating rows of crops that develop in different seasons; when one of them is fully matured, they take in the majority of sunlight while the rest is used by the developing crop, and vice-versa. - Phosphates that are applied on the field to support crop growth aren't retained by the ground and go straight to the water tables, where they serve no purpose. This means it has to be continuously mined (non-renewable resource) and transported (CO2 emissions) to the field so that a small portion of it can effectively go to food production. Instead, farmers should plant trees, the roots of which can support symbiotic fungi that collect phosphates and share it with its host. Phosphates then concentrate in tree leaves which fall in autumn and provide crops with resources, free of charge. Of course, some phosphate does still slip through and get below ground, so phosphate mining is still required to an extent, but that's still a more sustainable cycle. - Carbon is brought in by either synthetic or natural fertilizers, which in either case causes CO2 emissions because of high specialization which means farmers have to bring in cow dung from dozens of kms away. This is also a problem because liquid manure is less nutritive than regular manure, which requires straw that isn't produced on site by your average cow farmer. - Ground aeration is supposed to be done by plowing, except research shows that it's actually counter-productive and impoverishes the soil. Proper ground porosity can instead be achieved by using worms, whiich won't manage to survive if you spray pesticides all over the place. There's other shit that standard farmers do quite poorly, but it's been a while since I took that sustainable development course and I don't remember all of it.

[QUOTE=_Axel;52385040]Organic farms don't use pesticides, that's why they're organic in the first place. I really don't see what you're talking about, if organic farmers in your area are just like non-organic ones except they're using even more terrible farming techniques, then you're just getting ripped off. In France, you need to adhere to strict guidelines to be granted the "organic" label. [editline]21st June 2017[/editline] Impact per unit of produce is the most important metric to consider, yes, but standard farming techniques are currently awful on that front: - Standard fields only contain a single crop, since it makes it easier for machinery to reap. This means that the vast majority of sunlight that reaches the field only serves to warm up the earth, rather than to induce photosynthesis in your crops so that they can develop, until the crops are fully matured and ready to be reaped. This can be alleviated by having alternating rows of crops that develop in different seasons; when one of them is fully matured, they take in the majority of sunlight while the rest is used by the developing crop, and vice-versa. - Phosphates that are applied on the field to support crop growth aren't retained by the ground and go straight to the water tables, where they serve no purpose. This means it has to be continuously mined (non-renewable resource) and transported (CO2 emissions) to the field so that a small portion of it can effectively go to food production. Instead, farmers should plant trees, the roots of which can support symbiotic fungi that collect phosphates and share it with its host. Phosphates then concentrate in tree leaves which fall in autumn and provide crops with resources, free of charge. Of course, some phosphate does still slip through and get below ground, so phosphate mining is still required to an extent, but that's still a more sustainable cycle. - Carbon is brought in by either synthetic or natural fertilizers, which in either case causes CO2 emissions because of high specialization which means farmers have to bring in cow dung from dozens of kms away. This is also a problem because liquid manure is less nutritive than regular manure, which requires straw that isn't produced on site by your average cow farmer. - Ground aeration is supposed to be done by plowing, except research shows that it's actually counter-productive and impoverishes the soil. Proper ground porosity can instead be achieved by using worms, whiich won't manage to survive if you spray pesticides all over the place. There's other shit that standard farmers do quite poorly, but it's been a while since I took that sustainable development course and I don't remember all of it.[/QUOTE] I didn't say organic farmers were like non-organic farmers; I said that they can still use pesticides and fertilisers so long as they are naturally derived, which doesn't necessarily make them better or worse for the environment. It's a bit disingenuous to set the standard for organic farming at Frances particularly stringent regulations and then argue from there because that isn't how all organic farming, or even most of it is done. Besides, even if no pesticides were used, that's still not necessarily going to make organic farming good for the environment. The use of fertilisers (even if they are natural) causes the release of nitrates and phosphates into water systems due to runoff, which then is responsible eutrophication, and in some environments, the expedited growth of invasive weeds. This isn't even touching on the impacts that fertilisers have on environments that are naturally nitrate deficient (such as in Australia), or the general unsustainability of our fertiliser production in the process. Also, the use of aeration is in itself still able to negatively impact the environment. Not every ecosystem relies on heavily aerated soil, which can have negative impacts on the biodiversity surrounding the farm. This is especially important in the case of worms, because they are able to disseminate, they often do. This might not seem bad in places where the worm species used is native, but in places where worms are introduced (such as in the US), the aeration of soil by disseminated worms negatively impacts biodiversity. My point is that organic farming isn't going to be the solution to the rapidly approaching issue of how unsustainable our agricultural practices are. This [URL="http://ac.els-cdn.com.ezproxy1.library.usyd.edu.au/S0301479712004264/1-s2.0-S0301479712004264-main.pdf?_tid=be72e7b4-5661-11e7-b134-00000aacb35e&acdnat=1498036526_de90c469eeed4597accf3004db29b52b"]meta-analysis[/URL] of research on the issue (71 peer-reviewed articles) found that organic farming, namely in the production of milk, cereals, and pork produces more greenhouse gases than conventional farming. It also found that organic farming required more land, and produced more: nitrogen leaching, nitrous oxide emissions, ammonia emissions, eutrophication, and acidification than conventional farming. The use of land is a particular obstacle in the viability of organic farming for global food production. It doesn't matter how you farm, agriculture is horrendous for the environment where it takes place. Land will always have to be cleared, and this is especially impactful when it comes to producing land for pasture. The clearing of land alone can negatively affect soil health, but more importantly, it severely reduces plant biodiversity, and will also generally reduce an area's ability to sequester CO2. The loss of plant life, as well as the eradication of larger animals that impact agriculture (herbivores and large carnivores in particular) results in massive losses of animal biodiversity too, and the ones that are lost the most in agriculture are often already vulnerable. More importantly, the demand and expansion of agricultural land is often encroaching on rainforests, which are immensely important as reservoirs for biodiversity and sinks for CO2. As I've said before, this is not affected by how you are farming the land, this is based upon the conversion of land for agriculture. It is our imperative to minimise this use of land. The whole message I'm trying to convey isn't 'Hurr durr stinky hippies Monsanto knows best.' My whole point is that our current approach to agriculture is flawed; as you've pointed out, conventional agriculture is worse than organic on many accounts. However, neither organic farming nor our current industrial approach is the answer to this. It's probably going to come down to even more extreme modifications of our practices to reduce nutrient consumption (probably through genetic modification), minimise land use, and to close the cycling of nutrients as much as possible, as well as changing our dietary habits and consumption, as well as reducing our population. Organic farming isn't going to solve this issue.

[QUOTE=Carlito;52385232]I didn't say organic farmers were like non-organic farmers; I said that they can still use pesticides and fertilisers so long as they are naturally derived, which doesn't necessarily make them better or worse for the environment. It's a bit disingenuous to set the standard for organic farming at Frances particularly stringent regulations and then argue from there because that isn't how all organic farming, or even most of it is done.[/QUOTE] But I'm not arguing for more people to do organic farming the way it's currently being practised by most organic farmers. I'm arguing against those who claim organic farming is necessarily worse for the environment than standard industrial farming. [QUOTE]Besides, even if no pesticides were used, that's still not necessarily going to make organic farming good for the environment. The use of fertilisers (even if they are natural) causes the release of nitrates and phosphates into water systems due to runoff, which then is responsible eutrophication, and in some environments, the expedited growth of invasive weeds.[/QUOTE] I've covered that subject in part, though. Phosphate contamination happens in industrial farming and, I assume, in a wide amount of organic farms, but there are ways to mitigate that. Runoff also happens more often with liquid manure, which is why standard manure should be used instead and the production chain should be adapted accordingly. [QUOTE]This isn't even touching on the impacts that fertilisers have on environments that are naturally nitrate deficient (such as in Australia), or the general unsustainability of our fertiliser production in the process. Also, the use of aeration is in itself still able to negatively impact the environment. Not every ecosystem relies on heavily aerated soil, which can have negative impacts on the biodiversity surrounding the farm. This is especially important in the case of worms, because they are able to disseminate, they often do. This might not seem bad in places where the worm species used is native, but in places where worms are introduced (such as in the US), the aeration of soil by disseminated worms negatively impacts biodiversity.[/QUOTE] I'm not arguing for a one-size-fits-all mindset, that's why GMO implementation is a fool's errand in the first place unless it can be manipulated on a local scale. Of course techniques have to be adapted to the local environment, the course I took was focused on agriculture in France so it seems logical that it's not necessarily adapted to the Australian ecosystem. [QUOTE]My point is that organic farming isn't going to be the solution to the rapidly approaching issue of how unsustainable our agricultural practices are. This [URL="http://ac.els-cdn.com.ezproxy1.library.usyd.edu.au/S0301479712004264/1-s2.0-S0301479712004264-main.pdf?_tid=be72e7b4-5661-11e7-b134-00000aacb35e&acdnat=1498036526_de90c469eeed4597accf3004db29b52b"]meta-analysis[/URL] of research on the issue (71 peer-reviewed articles) found that organic farming, namely in the production of milk, cereals, and pork produces more greenhouse gases than conventional farming. It also found that organic farming required more land, and produced more: nitrogen leaching, nitrous oxide emissions, ammonia emissions, eutrophication, and acidification than conventional farming.[/QUOTE] Can't access that. I assume it's a study on current organic farming practices, not practices that alleviate the issues I mentioned above. It's a fair point, but to say it means agroecology isn't a solution would be like saying GMOs is a waste of investments when it's still in its infancy. You can't simply judge a developing technology based on its current performances. For what it's worth, my course was dispensed by [url=https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Dufumier]a researcher who teaches at France's top agro-engineering school[/url], so I assume he knows what he's talking about as well. [QUOTE]The use of land is a particular obstacle in the viability of organic farming for global food production. It doesn't matter how you farm, agriculture is horrendous for the environment where it takes place. Land will always have to be cleared, and this is especially impactful when it comes to producing land for pasture. The clearing of land alone can negatively affect soil health, but more importantly, it severely reduces plant biodiversity, and will also generally reduce an area's ability to sequester CO2. The loss of plant life, as well as the eradication of larger animals that impact agriculture (herbivores and large carnivores in particular) results in massive losses of animal biodiversity too, and the ones that are lost the most in agriculture are often already vulnerable. More importantly, the demand and expansion of agricultural land is often encroaching on rainforests, which are immensely important as reservoirs for biodiversity and sinks for CO2. As I've said before, this is not affected by how you are farming the land, this is based upon the conversion of land for agriculture. It is our imperative to minimise this use of land.[/QUOTE] Well yeah, that's what I'm saying and why we should do away with single-crop fields that waste usable space. Same reason we shouldn't be growing corn in non-tropical environments and waste water, a resource that's only getting scarcer as time goes on. [QUOTE]The whole message I'm trying to convey isn't 'Hurr durr stinky hippies Monsanto knows best.' My whole point is that our current approach to agriculture is flawed; as you've pointed out, conventional agriculture is worse than organic on many accounts. However, neither organic farming nor our current industrial approach is the answer to this. It's probably going to come down to even more extreme modifications of our practices to reduce nutrient consumption (probably through genetic modification), minimise land use, and to close the cycling of nutrients as much as possible, as well as changing our dietary habits and consumption, as well as reducing our population. Organic farming isn't going to solve this issue.[/QUOTE] But genetic modification isn't an adapted measure for the aforementioned reasons, unless you manage to reduce the development costs to such an insane level that anybody can do it on their own. You did point out that agriculture isn't one-size-fits-all and needs to be adapted to the ecosystem, that's not going to be the case with GMOs due to the associated costs. It will lead to vulnerable and inadapted monocultures, and I don't see any more reason to trust that GMO technology will advance to a sufficient point to alleviate that than I have to trust our knowledge of ecosystems will advance enough to make organic farming sustainable. To put all your chips on GMOs when it comes to achieving sustainable food production is like putting all your faith in technological advancement in renewable energies without making any effort to reduce energy consumption. Plants grow in a complex environment, and to take a genetician's perspective, which is to improve the crop itself without thinking about what that environment itself should be, is to put on blinders. You need to take the whole thing from an engineering standpoint, not just the plant in isolation. I also don't see how reducing our population is a realistic prospect. It's set to grow up to 10 billion by 2050 and there isn't anything we can do about it short of triggering WWIII.

[QUOTE=_Axel;52385361]But I'm not arguing for more people to do organic farming the way it's currently being practised by most organic farmers. I'm arguing against those who claim organic farming is necessarily worse for the environment than standard industrial farming. [/QUOTE] I'm not even sure what the point of our arguments are then? My initial post was about current organic farming practices, as was the review I posted (by the way I do apologise that you can't access it, I forgot I accessed it through my uni's library system). You then responded to mine saying it was wrong, with your counterpoints being about emerging organic farming practices that have yet to enter wide use, which is a little irrelevant considering that my points have been about current practices. It is a bit fallacious to use examples that aren't representative of organic farming as representatives of organic farming. [QUOTE=_Axel;52385361]Can't access that. I assume it's a study on current organic farming practices, not practices that alleviate the issues I mentioned above. It's a fair point, but to say it means agroecology isn't a solution would be like saying GMOs is a waste of investments when it's still in its infancy. You can't simply judge a developing technology based on its current performances. For what it's worth, my course was dispensed by a researcher who teaches at France's top agro-engineering school, so I assume he knows what he's talking about as well.[/QUOTE] Nobody was talking about agroecology. The whole point isn't about whether or not this (what it at least seems to be) emerging field is a viable option. It's about current organic practices that you were making your points about, despite the fact that the whole point of the argument isn't about agroecology but about current organic farming practices. Also I suppose that I should have made the point earlier that I don't agree with the application of GMOs that you are against (like Roundup-ready plants and shit I assume?). But it's again dishonest to represent that as ALL applications of GMOs. Whilst they are uneconomical currently, that's not necessarily representative of their actual viability, but is due to dwindling public agricultural research. This lack of research for the public good leaves private entities with sufficient capital to undertake the research, which then results in a poor application of the technology due to the profit associated with such applications. There is still some amount of public research (and private) associated with genetic modification to improve hardiness, nutrient efficiency, and yield, which is obviously the more ideal application. Such research and development would probably be viable if agriculture was less privatised and shunted out of the public concern, but it isn't, so your point still has merit about poor current applications of GMOs. I apologise for not making this point earlier. [QUOTE=_Axel;52385361]Well yeah, that's what I'm saying and why we should do away with single-crop fields that waste usable space. Same reason we shouldn't be growing corn in non-tropical environments and waste water, a resource that's only getting scarcer as time goes on.[/QUOTE] No disagreement here. In fact I was kind of itching to make a point about Australia's production of rice and how that is among the most retarded things imaginable (although most non-native agricultural products are kind of a bad idea in the long term here considering how alien our ecology is to most other places). A point I also should have made (but you might know more about how viable this is or isn't regarding your education) is the prospect of shit with vertical farming as part of the initiative to reduce land use, which I believe has some early implementation and success. [QUOTE=_Axel;52385361]But genetic modification isn't an adapted measure for the aforementioned reasons, unless you manage to reduce the development costs to such an insane level that anybody can do it on their own. You did point out that agriculture isn't one-size-fits-all and needs to be adapted to the ecosystem, that's not going to be the case with GMOs due to the associated costs. It will lead to vulnerable and inadapted monocultures, and I don't see any more reason to trust that GMO technology will advance to a sufficient point to alleviate that than I have to trust our knowledge of ecosystems will advance enough to make organic farming sustainable. To put all your chips on GMOs when it comes to achieving sustainable food production is like putting all your faith in technological advancement in renewable energies without making any effort to reduce energy consumption. Plants grow in a complex environment, and to take a genetician's perspective, which is to improve the crop itself without thinking about what that environment itself should be, is to put on blinders. You need to take the whole thing from an engineering standpoint, not just the plant in isolation.[/quote] I already covered my points about GMOs earlier, but I should say that I didn't say that GMOs were going to be the sole solution, your points are all made under the notion that I implied that GMOs were the sole solution, a point which I didn't make. [QUOTE=_Axel;52385361]I also don't see how reducing our population is a realistic prospect. It's set to grow up to 10 billion by 2050 and there isn't anything we can do about it short of triggering WWIII.[/quote] Again, my mistake that I worded what I meant to say wrong. I should have said 'reducing our population growth.' This could be done if serious action was made on an international scale to encourage birth control and free movement; in addition to reducing our reliance on population growth to alleviate problems associated with economic growth, which is largely responsible for population growth in the first place, especially seeing as the emerging applications of automation are soon to have significant impacts on the ways our societies and economies function.

I was arguing about the potential development of the techniques, also I might have conflated organic farming with agroecology. My apologies for being confused.

[QUOTE=_Axel;52384876]Non organic food does that too, you know. Tons of perfectly edible food gets thrown out simply because it doesn't look appealing enough. If organic farmers have to discard massive amounts of produce, they aren't doing shit right. You shouldn't simply farm like you would non-organic produce without spraying pesticides. Also I fail to see how food waste is worse for the environment than sterilizing entire fields, saturating the ground tables with phosphate and killing off essential insects like bees. I'd be interested in seeing a source on those amounts of food waste and the farming techniques that are used.[/QUOTE] There's also water waste. Out here on the high plains of Eastern New Mexico (which is pretty arid), we have crops that rely on lots of water despite a rapidly shrinking water table. People do it because the land is cheap. We also apparantley have a lot of farmers who will purposefully plant crops in the wrong season to ensure their failure and cash in on farming subsidies, so there's that, too.

I have no issue with GMOs but please label then so people who don't want to eat GMOs can avoid them.

While I'm not big on the camp GMO vs Organic, experience does indicate that Organic does give you a bit more for what you pay for. Particular in meats. The bigger issue with GMOs are terminator genes, pretty harsh copays, crosspollination sending out pesticide resistant plants etc and the pretty messed up business models.

My local organic shop is plastered with anti-vax and anti GMO shit. Seems to go hand in hand.

[QUOTE=LAMB SAUCE;52386585]My local organic shop is plastered with anti-vax and anti GMO shit. Seems to go hand in hand.[/QUOTE] My sister seems to be on the anti-GMO kick as well, and infrequently shares stuff from David "Avocado" Wolfe and stuff about Himalayan salt lamps. Thankfully she's smart enough to know that vaccines aren't a danger.

Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.