Environmentalists are hypocrites

[New England and The Maritimes]

This.

I am not mistrustful of GMOs for most health reasons, mind you, but when it comes to crop biodiversity and the environment? Sure as fuck I am.

That's not a problem unique to GMO's.

It's a problem related to industrializing our agriculture and turning it into a profit-driven corporate enterprise. Monoculture, famine, and the absolutely disgusting levels of toxicity in soil and water around the world are usually linked to idiots controlling the shape of our food production.

[Jute]

Ah yesh forgot about this. Yeah genetically modified foods are not the problem, since really we've be doing it for years just not in a lab. Oh, I still rather eat something not lab made (since gmos was at first was aiding natural selection. One good example is the carrot) but I'm not going to deny anyone who wants to eat lab gmos. Also, I would like add that it's crap we put into our food that's a the problem (pesticides and the like).

A shit ton of Non-GMO's aren't exactly good for our health either but we don't oppose them.

Me and many other environmentalists LOVE coconut oil. It's a tasty oil with a nice, nutty flavour.

It's a saturated fat however. Although there are some that disagree, the overwhelming consensus among nutritionists and doctors is that saturated fats are really bad for your arteries.
But never mind that, GMO's are fucking dangerous!

Now that is some really outdated opinion. The overwhelming consensus nowadays is that saturated fats aren't bad at all.
Link, link and link

[Tule]

A shit ton of Non-GMO's aren't exactly good for our health either but we don't oppose them.

Me and many other environmentalists LOVE coconut oil. It's a tasty oil with a nice, nutty flavour.

It's a saturated fat however. Although there are some that disagree, the overwhelming consensus among nutritionists and doctors is that saturated fats are really bad for your arteries.
But never mind that, GMO's are fucking dangerous!

Now that is some really outdated opinion. The overwhelming consensus nowadays is that saturated fats aren't bad at all.
Link, link and link

You've got it all wrong mate.^{1)2)3)4)5)6)7)}

You are citing individuals and isolated studies. I'm citing seven different government entities and federations of government entities specializing in health.
Regardless of the accuracy of the lipid hypothesis itself, the scientific consensus is undeniably in support of it.

It's perfectly OK to have guilty pleasures, acknowledging that some behaviour is bad for your health doesn't mean that you have to oppose that behavior.

Based on my diet, rich in saturated fats and sodium, and my alcohol of choice, scotch, I'll probably be dead by the age of 70 from heart disease or stomach cancer.
But those things are worth dying for.

[Sociobiology]

A shit ton of Non-GMO's aren't exactly good for our health either but we don't oppose them.

Me and many other environmentalists LOVE coconut oil. It's a tasty oil with a nice, nutty flavour.

It's a saturated fat however. Although there are some that disagree, the overwhelming consensus among nutritionists and doctors is that saturated fats are really bad for your arteries.
But never mind that, GMO's are fucking dangerous!

Now that is some really outdated opinion. The overwhelming consensus nowadays is that saturated fats aren't bad at all.
Link, link and link

do you have an actual source of just editorial pieces?

[Sociobiology]

Nobody can prove that the prevailing economic system will create and deploy so-called "GMO products" in ways that will be of overall benefit. It makes little sense for a capitalist to think about the environment and social health, given how they've put us in the position of killing our planet thus far.

This.

I am not mistrustful of GMOs for most health reasons, mind you, but when it comes to crop biodiversity and the environment? Sure as fuck I am.

you do realize GMO's are our best bet for increasing crop diversity and lowering environmental impact of our crops, right?

[Ethel mermania]

This.

I am not mistrustful of GMOs for most health reasons, mind you, but when it comes to crop biodiversity and the environment? Sure as fuck I am.

you do realize GMO's are our best bet for increasing crop diversity and lowering environmental impact of our crops, right?

Own Monsanto stock do you?

[Archeuland and Baughistan]

Short answer: the environmentalists who are aware of Agenda 21 are quite pleased with themselves, I think. They know that they can do as they please because half the country is to be 'given to nature' anyway.

[The Sotoan Union]

you do realize GMO's are our best bet for increasing crop diversity and lowering environmental impact of our crops, right?

Own Monsanto stock do you?

Maybe he was convinced by their new advertising campaign.

[Sociobiology]

you do realize GMO's are our best bet for increasing crop diversity and lowering environmental impact of our crops, right?

Own Monsanto stock do you?

No, a degree in biology.

[Mushet]

Short answer: the environmentalists who are aware of Agenda 21 are quite pleased with themselves, I think. They know that they can do as they please because half the country is to be 'given to nature' anyway.

(Image)

The entire Navajo Nation wildlands, the fuck?

[Nazi Flower Power]

Really depends on the amount of fossil fuel products they are using and why they are using them.

For example... Having a car because you live in a rural area and there really is no other way for you to get around -- fine. Having a car that gets crappy mileage, driving places that are close enough to walk, having a car when you live in the city, etc. -- hypocritical.

[The Fraticelli Papacy]

Own Monsanto stock do you?

No, a degree in biology.

I don't think I've ever seen someone shut down quite so hard on NSG as just happened now.

[Nazi Flower Power]

you do realize GMO's are our best bet for increasing crop diversity and lowering environmental impact of our crops, right?

Own Monsanto stock do you?

I've heard a lot of different things about GMOs and haven't entirely made up my mind about them, but they could be good for the environment because they allow farmers to grow more food per acre and that means less land has to be cleared for farming.

[Vladislavija]

Own Monsanto stock do you?

No, a degree in biology.

Oh wait, now for the favourite word of NSG for you: SOURCE!

[Socialist Czechia]

First time when i realized that eco-people can be shockingly ignorant, even scary, was discussion about protection of endangered local species.

You simply can't prefer subspecies of frogs living just under some hill before the people, if you can help them there with new factory to get jobs or new railway to help local transportation.

I sympathize with frogs, but hell, people are always in the first place, if I want to call myself leftist.

I have problem with whale hunts, though: first, oceans are waste enough to let them be in peace, we can get fat and meat from better sources than few remaining poor whales, second, if there would enough whales to controlled hunt, such meat should be used for better purposes than expensive meal for few rich people, like lunch for kids in hospitals or schools, since it's very healthy meat .

[MERIZoC]

Own Monsanto stock do you?

No, a degree in biology.

Sources would be nice, but the general consensus right now is that we don't know. The USDA has said the GMO crops and the herbicides employed with them could have a "major, as-yet-uncertain impact on the environment."
http://rt.com/usa/usda-gmo-risk-report-537/

IMO, it's not worth the risk. People like to claim that it's being used to feed our growing population, but almost all of our GMO corn isn't for us to eat—it's for feed for slaughterhouse animals, or for use in corn syrup. If you want to talk managing the population issue, we should work to reduce our population, not come up with risky methods of simply allowing ourselves to grow more.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

I am of the mind that everyone should do a little bit here and there (IE Recycle you goddamn lazy bastards) and thus reduce their carbon footprint a little bit in ways that don't put them out. 7 billion people reducing their carbon footprint by 2% is going to go a lot farther than 10,000 people living completely green.

[Imperializt Russia]

I am of the mind that everyone should do a little bit here and there (IE Recycle you goddamn lazy bastards) and thus reduce their carbon footprint a little bit in ways that don't put them out. 7 billion people reducing their carbon footprint by 2% is going to go a lot farther than 10,000 people living completely green.

In fairness, China is being a bit of a problem state when it comes to this.
I'd go so far to say as worse than the US.

[The United Districts of Wanderers]

You know, there was one environmentalist who said he could find a way to make fossil fuels burn cleaner. I can't remember the name though, but finding a way to burn our fuel cleaner may be worth more the time and effort than finding more natural power, such as wind and sun. If anyone can remember the man or woman's name, please reply. And also…

I am of the mind that everyone should do a little bit here and there (IE Recycle you goddamn lazy bastards) and thus reduce their carbon footprint a little bit in ways that don't put them out. 7 billion people reducing their carbon footprint by 2% is going to go a lot farther than 10,000 people living completely green.

In fairness, China is being a bit of a problem state when it comes to this.
I'd go so far to say as worse than the US.

According to the History channel magazine and World Geographic, China's pollution rate is somewhere between double to triple America's. That is something they really ought to take care of.

[Imperializt Russia]

I thought it was about approximate, but that China's major issue was that a lot of it was coal.
Coal contributes to about three million deaths a year, much of it probably in China.

[Tule]

No, a degree in biology.

Sources would be nice, but the general consensus right now is that we don't know. The USDA has said the GMO crops and the herbicides employed with them could have a "major, as-yet-uncertain impact on the environment."
http://rt.com/usa/usda-gmo-risk-report-537/

IMO, it's not worth the risk. People like to claim that it's being used to feed our growing population, but almost all of our GMO corn isn't for us to eat—it's for feed for slaughterhouse animals, or for use in corn syrup. If you want to talk managing the population issue, we should work to reduce our population, not come up with risky methods of simply allowing ourselves to grow more.

We can't really do anything about the "population issue" at this point. Most of the population growth we are expecting to see in this century is not the result of a growing number of children, but the aging of current generations.

According to the UN (pdf), this is how the world population is expected to grow over this century, divided into two age groups: People over the age of 14 and children 14 or younger:

2015: 2 billion children, 5.4 billion adults
2025: 2 billion children, 6.1 billion adults
2050: 2 billion children, 7.5 billion adults
2075: 2 billion children, 8.4 billion adults
2100: 2 billion children, 8.9 billion adults.

Furthermore, 80% of that population growth will take place in Sub-Saharan Africa, and since Sub-Saharan Africa will remain poorer than other areas of the globe they are going to have to feed themselves. They can't afford to buy imported food, and even if they could it would only mean bankrupting local farmers.

Africa has plenty of arable land, sufficient rain and more than enough manpower to feed itself.
What they need are hardier plant varieties and better farming techniques.

[Imperializt Russia]

You know, there was one environmentalist who said he could find a way to make fossil fuels burn cleaner. I can't remember the name though, but finding a way to burn our fuel cleaner may be worth more the time and effort than finding more natural power, such as wind and sun. If anyone can remember the man or woman's name, please reply. And also…

Burning fossil fuels "cleaner" would essentially be reacting them (since that's what "burning" is, a chemical reaction) at closer to ideal conditions, such that the input and output resembles the simplified equation you get in chemistry class.

Ideal chemical conditions may not be ideal for their reaction's practical applications, however.

Additionally, this would make reaction vessels (combustion engines and industrial-use powerplants, in this instance) ludicrously expensive, due to all forms of catalyst materials, processes and design works.
"Cleaner" burns can sometimes be achieved by greater reaction temperature (energy) or greater oxygen intake, but this has similar issues - the engine needs to be heavy and better built to withstand it.

This is why cars have catalytic converters on them, because it's probably hugely simpler and less expensive that dicking about with engineering the reactions so precisely.

[Gaiserin]

Environmentalist are funny bunch.

[Napkiraly]

Nobody can prove that the prevailing economic system will create and deploy so-called "GMO products" in ways that will be of overall benefit. It makes little sense for a capitalist to think about the environment and social health, given how they've put us in the position of killing our planet thus far.

This.

I am not mistrustful of GMOs for most health reasons, mind you, but when it comes to crop biodiversity and the environment? Sure as fuck I am.

Which has nothing to do with GMO's. All that can, and has, occurred without GMO's.

[Imperializt Russia]

This.

I am not mistrustful of GMOs for most health reasons, mind you, but when it comes to crop biodiversity and the environment? Sure as fuck I am.

Which has nothing to do with GMO's. All that can, and has, occurred without GMO's.

But it can, and has possibly, occurred with GMOs.
Rampant science denialism and fearmongering is 100% not the answer (I say as a possible future representative of that much maligned of industries, the nuclear industry), nor is pretending it's a non-issue.

It's much less of an issue than people think. This is not the same thing.