Greenpeace

[Tunizcha]

Geez, I hate GreenPeace so much. Things like this do a lot in that department, but protesting the work of Norman Borlaug, a man who has saved the lives of 2 billion people, is entirely reprehensible.

[Natapoc]

Geez, I hate GreenPeace so much. Things like this do a lot in that department, but protesting the work of Norman Borlaug, a man who has saved the lives of 2 billion people, is entirely reprehensible.

Can you explain what you mean about this? Saving 2 billion people?

[Free Soviets]

It is posers like these that commit such acts of stupidity on a regular basis that end up undermining conservation groups and environmental scientists that are trying to be taken seriously, but end up being viewed in a negative light by various ruling authorities because of the idiot greenie stereotypes promoted by groups like Greenpeace.

um, i think you must have some other organization in mind.

[Free Soviets]

Geez, I hate GreenPeace so much. Things like this do a lot in that department, but protesting the work of Norman Borlaug, a man who has saved the lives of 2 billion people, is entirely reprehensible.

Can you explain what you mean about this? Saving 2 billion people?

i assume its a weird way of talking about the increased yields of 'green revolution' in agriculture

[Tunizcha]

Geez, I hate GreenPeace so much. Things like this do a lot in that department, but protesting the work of Norman Borlaug, a man who has saved the lives of 2 billion people, is entirely reprehensible.

Can you explain what you mean about this? Saving 2 billion people?

Norman Borlaug pioneered Genetically Engineered crops. He went to Mexico and lived with farmers where he learned how to increase the output of the farmers. Then he moved to India, in a time war with Pakistan, where he introduced a new strain of wheat that increased their crop outputs by 400%. He did the same thing with a rice strain in China and Africa. When he won the Nobel Prize in 1970, they proclaimed proudly that Norman had saved a billion people from starvation. He's been continuing his work until today, where he worked hard to feed the world.

GreenPeace fought this movement with propaganda, incredulous arguments about genetics and other things that have no lick of knowledge about. They advocated for "organic only", and little did they know that if the only food grown on Earth was organic, we could only feed 4.4 billion people. 66% of the population. The reason we are still here is because of GE crops (among other things).

[Natapoc]

Geez, I hate GreenPeace so much. Things like this do a lot in that department, but protesting the work of Norman Borlaug, a man who has saved the lives of 2 billion people, is entirely reprehensible.

Can you explain what you mean about this? Saving 2 billion people?

Norman Borlaug pioneered Genetically Engineered crops. He went to Mexico and lived with farmers where he learned how to increase the output of the farmers. Then he moved to India, in a time war with Pakistan, where he introduced a new strain of wheat that increased their crop outputs by 400%. He did the same thing with a rice strain in China and Africa. When he won the Nobel Prize in 1970, they proclaimed proudly that Norman had saved a billion people from starvation. He's been continuing his work until today, where he worked hard to feed the world.

GreenPeace fought this movement with propaganda, incredulous arguments about genetics and other things that have no lick of knowledge about. They advocated for "organic only", and little did they know that if the only food grown on Earth was organic, we could only feed 4.4 billion people. 66% of the population. The reason we are still here is because of GE crops (among other things).

Ok. I'm sure he had really good intentions but not everyone agrees with this viewpoint. Do you have proof by the way that organic agriculture would only feed 4.4 billion people?

edit: I found the source for your statement. It seems to be controversial with different studies giving different results.

[Tunizcha]

Geez, I hate GreenPeace so much. Things like this do a lot in that department, but protesting the work of Norman Borlaug, a man who has saved the lives of 2 billion people, is entirely reprehensible.

Can you explain what you mean about this? Saving 2 billion people?

Norman Borlaug pioneered Genetically Engineered crops. He went to Mexico and lived with farmers where he learned how to increase the output of the farmers. Then he moved to India, in a time war with Pakistan, where he introduced a new strain of wheat that increased their crop outputs by 400%. He did the same thing with a rice strain in China and Africa. When he won the Nobel Prize in 1970, they proclaimed proudly that Norman had saved a billion people from starvation. He's been continuing his work until today, where he worked hard to feed the world.

GreenPeace fought this movement with propaganda, incredulous arguments about genetics and other things that have no lick of knowledge about. They advocated for "organic only", and little did they know that if the only food grown on Earth was organic, we could only feed 4.4 billion people. 66% of the population. The reason we are still here is because of GE crops (among other things).

Ok. I'm sure he had really good intentions but not everyone agrees with this viewpoint. Do you have proof by the way that organic agriculture would only feed 4.4 billion people?

Hold on, I'm looking for it. Jesus Christ, do you know how hard it is to find sources when Google keeps dieing on you?

[Natapoc]

Here is the article my friend

http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2006/12/11/borlaug/

[Tunizcha]

Here is the article my friend

http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2006/12/11/borlaug/

Thank you.

[Erich Dahmer]

Geez, I hate GreenPeace so much. Things like this do a lot in that department, but protesting the work of Norman Borlaug, a man who has saved the lives of 2 billion people, is entirely reprehensible.

Can you explain what you mean about this? Saving 2 billion people?

i assume its a weird way of talking about the increased yields of 'green revolution' in agriculture

Weird way? The late Norman Borlaug was the greatest man in recorded history. Without his work between one and two billion people would have surely perished from malnutrition. If giving the starving and dying the means to feed themselves isn't saving live I don't know what is.

[Free Soviets]

When he won the Nobel Prize in 1970, they proclaimed proudly that Norman had saved a billion people from starvation.

small problem there. population tends to overshoot the limit of what the environment can support (until you empower women and break the link between sex and reproduction, at least). more food means more people, which in turn means more people starving to death. what are we at now, 40 million every year?

GreenPeace fought this movement with propaganda, incredulous arguments about genetics and other things that have no lick of knowledge about.

this is true, to some extent - a lot of the left-environmentalist worries about GE were (and are) putting pseudo-scientific cover over concerns that ultimately seem to be about 'purity'. and those are stupid. but there were some legit ones in the mix as well, and many of those still haven't been adequately addressed.

They advocated for "organic only", and little did they know that if the only food grown on Earth was organic, we could only feed 4.4 billion people. 66% of the population. The reason we are still here is because of GE crops (among other things).

of course, since the sustainable carrying capacity of earth is probably closer to 2 billion, that's not much of an argument.

[Natapoc]

When he won the Nobel Prize in 1970, they proclaimed proudly that Norman had saved a billion people from starvation.

small problem there. population tends to overshoot the limit of what the environment can support (until you empower women and break the link between sex and reproduction, at least). more food means more people, which in turn means more people starving to death. what are we at now, 40 million every year?

GreenPeace fought this movement with propaganda, incredulous arguments about genetics and other things that have no lick of knowledge about.

this is true, to some extent - a lot of the left-environmentalist worries about GE were (and are) putting pseudo-scientific cover over concerns that ultimately seem to be about 'purity'. and those are stupid. but there were some legit ones in the mix as well, and many of those still haven't been adequately addressed.

They advocated for "organic only", and little did they know that if the only food grown on Earth was organic, we could only feed 4.4 billion people. 66% of the population. The reason we are still here is because of GE crops (among other things).

of course, since the sustainable carrying capacity of earth is probably closer to 2 billion, that's not much of an argument.

The article I linked above gives a good comparison of the two ideologies. It is highly contested and in my opinion unknown. There are small organic farms that outproduce their pesticide+gmo equivalents.

The problem with non organic farming is that it is totally unsustainable and if technological miracles do not happen it will collapse causing even more death. Norman, et el admit this problem and are forced to trust in technology to solve it's problems before the collapse. Meanwhile non organic agriculture is creating massive "dead zones" in the ocean and poisoning streams and wildlife.

Personally I think we should aim for organic farming due to sustainability except in specific cases where it can be shown that standard methods are better then organic. Organic farming methods have been continually improving with advances being made every year.

[Tunizcha]

I see your point, and I agree that we can't completely depend on this technology as it is now. Which is why we must improve the technique to the point where we are able to phase out organic with genetically engineered hybrids. The scientific community isn't so single-minded as to be completely focused on one area.

[Mikoyan-Guryevich]

Sea Shepard is not the world police. What Japan is doing might not be right but its legal as they are using a loophole. Ramming ships, sailing boats infront of harpoons or tying yourself to whaling ships isn't the right way to go about it. Think of all the people you hurt by doing it.

Greenpeace/Sea Shepard can all go get stuffed. Its about friggen time they faced charges for their blatant breach of international law under the guise of 'saving the environment.' The next time I get a speeding fine I'll tell the officer I'm trying to save the planet and see if I get off.

And what about all the other protesters who go to things like powerstations and the G20/G8 summits and do nothing but vandalise property, assault security officials and claim they are the victims. Tell me thats acceptable.

[Erich Dahmer]

Personally I think we should aim for organic farming due to sustainability except in specific cases where it can be shown that standard methods are better then organic. Organic farming methods have been continually improving with advances being made every year.

The organic farming methods of today were the high-tech advances of yestercentury. The past fucking sucked. People starved, suffered, and died by the millions until modern agriculture arrived on the scene with genetic modifications, efficient chemical fertilizers, effective water purification and distribution, and partial automation. Without these advances we'd be farming just as people people did during the fucking dark ages when nearly half of Europe was keeling over because of flea infested plague rats and the other half was nothing but walking skeletons because of famine. I am so fucking glad I wasn't born in that time.

If you want to be an arrogant snob, fine. But no one should have that crap forced on them.

[New Ziedrich]

So long as Greenpeace is opposed to nuclear power I will oppose Greenpeace. Bunch of bastards.

[Free Soviets]

The organic farming methods of today were the high-tech advances of yestercentury. The past fucking sucked. People starved, suffered, and died by the millions until modern agriculture arrived on the scene with genetic modifications, efficient chemical fertilizers, effective water purification and distribution, and partial automation. Without these advances we'd be farming just as people people did during the fucking dark ages when nearly half of Europe was keeling over because of flea infested plague rats and the other half was nothing but walking skeletons because of famine. I am so fucking glad I wasn't born in that time.

If you want to be an arrogant snob, fine. But no one should have that crap forced on them.

the germ theory of disease and sewers are the big advances. food tech just increases the number of people who can live at all. it doesn't and could not solve the problem of famine, except indirectly when combined with the much more important advances that stop population growth and encourage better distribution.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

I have always supported Greenpeace and will continue to.

[Non Aligned States]

the germ theory of disease and sewers are the big advances. food tech just increases the number of people who can live at all. it doesn't and could not solve the problem of famine, except indirectly when combined with the much more important advances that stop population growth and encourage better distribution.

Untrue. Disease resistant strains in agricultural development does save lives. There have been numerous crop failures before in the past that led to widespread famine, and not all of them were weather related. The Irish potato famine for example, is one such incident of widespread famine killed nearly a million people. Without advances in crop development to deal with inclement weather and disease, the supply chain becomes much more vulnerable to failure, and when that goes, so do the people who rely on it to live.

[New Dracora]

The organic farming methods of today were the high-tech advances of yestercentury. The past fucking sucked. People starved, suffered, and died by the millions until modern agriculture arrived on the scene with genetic modifications, efficient chemical fertilizers, effective water purification and distribution, and partial automation. Without these advances we'd be farming just as people people did during the fucking dark ages when nearly half of Europe was keeling over because of flea infested plague rats and the other half was nothing but walking skeletons because of famine. I am so fucking glad I wasn't born in that time.

If you want to be an arrogant snob, fine. But no one should have that crap forced on them.

the germ theory of disease and sewers are the big advances. food tech just increases the number of people who can live at all. it doesn't and could not solve the problem of famine, except indirectly when combined with the much more important advances that stop population growth and encourage better distribution.

I'm starting to get the feeling that your line of logic will soon be heading along the lines of population control and human culling - am I correct?

[Non Aligned States]

I'm starting to get the feeling that your line of logic will soon be heading along the lines of population control and human culling - am I correct?

Only the first part. He has a point that as food production increases, naturally so will the total population until an equilibrium is reached, though he has missed out the impact disease resistant crops have on preventing famine. That Malthusan predictions on global famine by overpopulation have so far failed to come true is solely because of techniques which increase crop yields.

Certainly, first world countries tend towards negative growth, as economic pressures reduce the time and inducement towards child rearing and more towards career building, but they counter that by importing labor from less developed countries with high positive growth. And there are certainly far more developing and undeveloped countries than there are developed ones. The net result being that global population is on the rise.

Naturally, consistent rise in the global population is simply not sustainable in the long run.

[Free Soviets]

the germ theory of disease and sewers are the big advances. food tech just increases the number of people who can live at all. it doesn't and could not solve the problem of famine, except indirectly when combined with the much more important advances that stop population growth and encourage better distribution.

Untrue. Disease resistant strains in agricultural development does save lives. There have been numerous crop failures before in the past that led to widespread famine, and not all of them were weather related. The Irish potato famine for example, is one such incident of widespread famine killed nearly a million people. Without advances in crop development to deal with inclement weather and disease, the supply chain becomes much more vulnerable to failure, and when that goes, so do the people who rely on it to live.

sure, though i would argue that once larger than regional trade in food became the norm (which is quite a while ago, now, and certainly before the 'green revolution'), almost nobody has encountered famine due to crop failure alone. it has always been a political and economic problem of distribution. during the irish potato famine, ireland was a food exporter, for example. weather and disease just don't affect everywhere all at once, so barring major global disaster, there is food to go around if there is the political will to make it happen.

oddly, the super-homogeneous mono-cropping of the green revolution presents a possible vulnerability on a larger scale, just because of the lack of genetic diversity. if something comes up that a particular strain is susceptible to, then the entire crop could more easily fall than a more diverse crop would.

[Free Soviets]

I'm starting to get the feeling that your line of logic will soon be heading along the lines of population control and human culling - am I correct?

i already mentioned exactly what population control i advocate. empower women and make birth control and abortion widely available. does the trick nicely.

[Non Aligned States]

sure, though i would argue that once larger than regional trade in food became the norm (which is quite a while ago, now, and certainly before the 'green revolution'), almost nobody has encountered famine due to crop failure alone. it has always been a political and economic problem of distribution. during the irish potato famine, ireland was a food exporter, for example. weather and disease just don't affect everywhere all at once, so barring major global disaster, there is food to go around if there is the political will to make it happen.

Ireland's potato famine however, was the result of food crops they were dependent on being susceptible to disease. Yes, there definitely was a problem with the distribution system which put the lions share of crops on ships bound to London, but those were not potatoes. Instead, it demonstrates the vulnerability to famine in any system where a primary crop is the staple.

Famines in China, India and Egypt on the other hand, have been primarily attributed to either disease or long periods of drought that resulted in massive crop failures. Yes, some people managed to remain well fed with access to either dwindling staples or luxury foods not affected by the drought, but most did suffer from the effects of famine.

On the other hand, I dispute the idea that globalization may have reduced the probability of famine by crop failure. Take for example, Haiti, or Rwanda (iirc). The principle ideas behind globalization and the specialization of countries in production (sometimes with no focus on staples), can result in countries growing cash crops like tobacco without having a sufficient backing in agricultural staples. But if the cash crops fail, you're back to square one with people facing famine, except they can't even eat what produce they manage to eke out.

oddly, the super-homogeneous mono-cropping of the green revolution presents a possible vulnerability on a larger scale, just because of the lack of genetic diversity. if something comes up that a particular strain is susceptible to, then the entire crop could more easily fall than a more diverse crop would.

Naturally. But conversely, one must remember that the driving forces behind the mono-cropping idea is not only improved yields, but natural disease resistance. Active efforts into creating a superior strain of high yield disease resistant crops is better than diversifying along regional based mono-crops.