|
[ Genetically Engineered Foods Archive ] [ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ] [ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ] |
Search this site! | |
It seems the press in the US is catching up with the Europeans in hyping this issue. It's interesting because GM foods have been around for a while and most of what was in Europe, came from here.
It's pretty axiomatic that most people want to eat the healthiest and most wholesome foods. Reality, however, is that organic or "natural" foods are a very expensive boutique item for most people.
As the world's population tops 8 billion, it will become extremely difficult to find a remote section of the food chain.
Even if you sought some remote nook in South Dakota to produce your grub, chances are some bird will eventually poop a GM seed onto your patch. If not that, the wind will blow in spores from those crops.
The inexorable process of science, as it relates to food production, probably mandates even more GM food. The reason being, an expanding population needs caloric volume and not caloric selection.
Warren
In Reply to: Genetically modified foods posted by Warren on October 23, 2000 at 23:07:10:
Hi Warren,
You might want to read Daniel Quinn's latest book (he wrote the prize winning "Ishmael") about agriculture and the negative impact it's had on the world population and its out of control growth. You might be interested in his interpretation of the Cain & Abel story.
We actually produce more than enough food for the world's exponentially increasing population. Sadly, much of it doesn't reach those truly in need. What doesn't get used, gets dumped.
Quinn cites studies that show when mice receive too much food, their population grows excessively. However when they're given exactly the right amount of food (not starved) the population stays stable. Agriculture (which is a fairly recent development in our history) is a big, big problem, creating many of our woes today. I can't remember the title of the book, but I think it's something like "The story of O". O is an antichrist type figure (or so the catholic church believes), who's actually trying to educate the world about where we've gone wrong through agriculture. You may not like the story line, but there's a lot of great research there about the negative impact organized agriculture has had on modern civilization.
Penny
In Reply to: Re: Genetically modified foods - Agriculture - civilization's downfall posted by penny on October 25, 2000 at 00:06:59:
Good points, Penny!
Namaste`
Walt
In Reply to: Re: Genetically modified foods - Agriculture - civilization's downfall posted by penny on October 25, 2000 at 00:06:59:
"Agriculture (which is a fairly recent development in our history) is a big, big problem, creating many of our woes today"
Hi Penny,
Weren't Cain and Abel involved in agricultural pursuits when the slaying took place?
Perhaps it's a matter of scale.
In 1910 an acre of land in Scott County Iowa might yield 20 bushels of corn. Today, that number can exceed 200.
If we are analagous to overbreeding well fed mice, then reducing that crop yield for starvation in the short term, and birth control in the long, is a desired effect?
Presently trim folks would be exempt from any privations visited on the plump folks?
Human beings must find solutions to humanities problems that don't draw on the behavior of fat mice.
Warren
In Reply to: Re: Genetically modified foods - Agriculture - civilization's downfall posted by Warren on October 25, 2000 at 21:10:46:
Hi Warren,
Unfortunately, you can draw a lot of wrong conclusions from a brief synopsis such as the one I gave. I'd just like to respond to a couple of your points.
"Weren't Cain and Abel involved in agricultural pursuits when the slaying took place?"
One was, one wasn't. Didn't the farmer kill the shepherd (not a rancher, by the way) and then pretend to be the shepherd? Why did the father prefer the shepherd over the farmer? I know you take the bible literally, but is it possible that there was more being conveyed in that story than modern people might grasp?
"If we are analagous to overbreeding well fed mice, then reducing that crop yield for starvation in the short term, and birth control in the long, is a desired effect?"
The point was, the mice were not starved. They were given what they needed, but not more. And when humans lived off the land, and took what they needed, our population remained stable. It only started growing out of control in the last few thousand years, the same time modern agriculture developed. In only several thousand years or so, our population has grown from a reasonable number to over 6 billion people! At this rate, the population will double again in a matter of not centuries, but decades. This is frightening!
"Presently trim folks would be exempt from any privations visited on the plump folks?"
That's quite a jump you're making. The book doesn't say anything like that. Just points out that our population stayed stable for hundreds of thousands of years, until agriculture was invented. If we don't start thinking about ways to correct what we've done, we'll start dieing off for lack of resources.
"Human beings must find solutions to humanities problems that don't draw on the behavior of fat mice"
Nobody said anything about fat mice. Usually intellectual people like yourself want to see "proof" of unusual new theories. And mice, unfortunately, are often used to test these theories out.
I agree with you that we do indeed need to find human solutions to our problems. But it often means looking at things in new ways. I heard a saying once. "A mind is like a parachute, it doesn't work, if it's not open".
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. But based on your first reasoned statement, I thought you might be interested in pursuing the topic and in learning more. Most people are completely blind to the impact agriculture has had on civiliaztion. Can you just imagine the first people who came up with the concept of agriculture for the masses? I mean, how much more power could anyone possibly have than to control the food supply? We, as human beings, may need to wake up to something that's right under our noses.
Penny
In Reply to: Re: Genetically modified foods - Agriculture - civilization's downfall posted by penny on October 25, 2000 at 22:50:42:
"It only started growing out of control in the last few thousand years, the same time modern agriculture developed."
Hi Penny,
You should try to be a little less contemptuous as in "i know you take the Bible literally", open mind, parachutes etc.
You are correct that Cain and Abel were in different branches of agriculture. I have my opinion on that event, but you can read Genesis: 4: 1-16 for your own slant.
I don't know how old you are but I do know that short of an apocalypse, world population levels won't get to a level you consider non-frightening, in your lifetime.
Perhaps a little scary for me, based on your statement, is that you seem to consider the population level of the world to be out of control. What would you like to do about it, and what about those who disagree with your assertion?
Warren
In Reply to: Re: Genetically modified foods - Agriculture - civilization's downfall posted by Warren on October 26, 2000 at 01:22:57:
Sorry Warren, I was trying to be respectful of your well publicized views while clarifying what I think is an interesting theory. I'm sorry if it did not come across that way. You initially threw out some questions, and I answered, thinking you were interested in a discussion. Unfortunately, it seems to me that the discussions you're involved in tend to become arguments. I prefer not to get involved in arguments. As far as I'm concerned, winning an argument never accomplishes anything, except perhaps to make one person shut up and leave, probably resentful. Rarely is someone's mind changed through losing an argument. I AM interested in discussion. Minds can be changed and expanded through discussion. I know mine has. Of course you have every right to your opinion and can believe whatever you want, as do we all. I can't prove that the theory I was sharing with you is correct. But I certainly think it's thought provoking, and if more people thought about it, perhaps we could find a way to improve our world. I'd be happy to continue a discussion on the topic, but I'm not looking to get into any kind of personal argument. It's not productive for any of us.
Best Wishes,
Penny
In Reply to: Re: Genetically modified foods - Agriculture - civilization's downfall posted by penny on October 26, 2000 at 11:51:25:
nmi
In Reply to: Re: Genetically modified foods - Agriculture - civilization's downfall posted by penny on October 26, 2000 at 11:51:25:
In my previous response, to your response, I suggested you were making contemptuous remarks, what I meant to say was patronizing remarks.
When you illustrate a point of view and I comment or respond, why do you demur that you are not seeking an argument?
Your first sentence has a comment about my "well publicized views". What "well publicized views"?
Part of the discussion evolved around the population of the world and your apparent opinion that evolving from subsistance to commercial forms of agriculture, had brought us to a dire place.
What's the point of citing the breeding habits of diet controlled mice in a discussion of human population growth, if you don't think there is some lesson to be learned?
I would refute that balderdash anytime and, if you think opposing that point of view is an "argument", then you could be savaged by a dead sheep.
You can't kill the current 6 billion, you have to find the most efficient ways to feed them.
If they're fat, happy and have big families, well, that's a fundamental human right.
And by the way, I'd lay mine down to prevent somone arbitrarily selecting you for life span reduction.
Warren
In Reply to: Re: Genetically modified foods - Agriculture - civilization's downfall posted by Warren on October 27, 2000 at 02:30:58:
nmi
In Reply to: For the record: I'm not interested in life span reduction. I'm not sure why you insist on misconstrueing my remarks. nmi posted by penny on October 27, 2000 at 10:05:29:
When you refer to HUMAN population as being at dangerous levels and cite in the same discussion how mice breeding is influenced by caloric intake, are you suggesting this is a model to halt the HUMAN "tide"?
|
[ Genetically Engineered Foods Archive ] [ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ] [ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ] |
Search this site! | |