Organic...
Replies
-
And I don't recall claiming hyperbole was banned. It is a bad use of technical term that actually has a meaning. Two species dropping in numbers, without actually going extinct, isn't even the cusp of a mass extinction event. In extinction events, things go extinct.
Fifty nine insect species are known to have vanished in our modern time (IUCN 2007), however, thousands are estimated to have disappeared. In the United States, 160 insect species are presumed to be extinct or missing.0 -
my real question is, are those testosterone boosts multiplicative or additive
so we have the arguing
the superman pose
doing squats
I'm probably missing a few things
how many testosteronez will I gain0 -
Interestingly, we do seem to be in the beginning of mass-extinction event, one probably largely having to do with carbon footprints - which interestingly is something conventional tends to do well at reducing.
I'm not seeing it. We're still discovering more new species every year than we're seeing go extinct, nothing I've seen suggests we're on the cusp of some kind of global wipeout.
0 -
ScreeField wrote: »And I don't recall claiming hyperbole was banned. It is a bad use of technical term that actually has a meaning. Two species dropping in numbers, without actually going extinct, isn't even the cusp of a mass extinction event. In extinction events, things go extinct.
Fifty nine insect species are known to have vanished in our modern time (IUCN 2007), however, thousands are estimated to have disappeared. In the United States, 160 insect species are presumed to be extinct or missing.
There are somewhere around 10 million known species of life on this planet. "160" doesn't even qualify as noise.
0 -
There are somewhere around 10 million known species of life on this planet. "160" doesn't even qualify as noise.ScreeField wrote: »Fifty nine insect species are known to have vanished in our modern time (IUCN 2007), however, thousands are estimated to have disappeared. In the United States, 160 insect species are presumed to be extinct or missing.
Yes, 160 would be noise, especially if you count all "species of life" on this planet. 10 million refers to all life on earth, not just insects. And, of that 10 million, we've identified just 10%. A fraction of that 10% is identified insect life.
It's estimated that there are approximately 91,000 identified species of insects in the US and 73,000 unidentified species (Smithsonian). The 160 (plus another 59) refers to known and identified species, in the US, which have become or presumably become extinct. One study suggests 16,000 at-risk for extinction in the US.
If you read the quote more carefully, it stated: thousands [of species of insects] are estimated to have disappeared. So, although we've documented only 160 + 59, it's estimated thousands of undocumented/unidentified insects have become extinct in recent years. So, thousands extinct in comparison to a few hundred thousands.0 -
Even thousands is in the noise.
Sorry.
0 -
Additive, you stack the test.
my real question is, are those testosterone boosts multiplicative or additive
so we have the arguing
the superman pose
doing squats
I'm probably missing a few things
how many testosteronez will I gain
0 -
-
ScreeField wrote: »
There are somewhere around 10 million known species of life on this planet. "160" doesn't even qualify as noise.ScreeField wrote: »Fifty nine insect species are known to have vanished in our modern time (IUCN 2007), however, thousands are estimated to have disappeared. In the United States, 160 insect species are presumed to be extinct or missing.
Yes, 160 would be noise, especially if you count all "species of life" on this planet. 10 million refers to all life on earth, not just insects. And, of that 10 million, we've identified just 10%. A fraction of that 10% is identified insect life.
It's estimated that there are approximately 91,000 identified species of insects in the US and 73,000 unidentified species (Smithsonian). The 160 (plus another 59) refers to known and identified species, in the US, which have become or presumably become extinct. One study suggests 16,000 at-risk for extinction in the US.
If you read the quote more carefully, it stated: thousands [of species of insects] are estimated to have disappeared. So, although we've documented only 160 + 59, it's estimated thousands of undocumented/unidentified insects have become extinct in recent years. So, thousands extinct in comparison to a few hundred thousands.
http://www.currentresults.com/Environment-Facts/Plants-Animals/number-species.php
"The greatest species diversity exists among insects, which account for about one million of the earth's species known to science. Mammals make up one of the smallest groups, with just 5,513 members."0 -
Yes, as I mentioned:
10 million refers to all life on earth, not just insects. And, of that 10 million, we've identified just 10%. A fraction of that 10% is identified insect life.
Total Life on the Planet (Identified vs Estimate of Unidentified):
10 million total estimated x 0.10 (10%) = 1 million identified species (or "accounted for" per your quote)
Total Identified Insects on the Planet:
some value less than 1 million (aka: a fraction of 1 million) = total identified insects on the planet
However, this is the second time now that total life on earth is being confused with number of insects in the US.
It's estimated that there are approximately 91,000 identified species of insects in the US and 73,000 unidentified species (Smithsonian). One study suggests 16,000 at-risk for extinction in the US.
Total insects in US:
91,000 + 73,000 = 164,000
Total % of Insects at-risk in the US:
16,000 / 164,000 = 9.76%0 -
ScreeField wrote: »Yes, as I mentioned:
10 million refers to all life on earth, not just insects. And, of that 10 million, we've identified just 10%. A fraction of that 10% is identified insect life.
Total Life on the Planet (Identified vs Estimate of Unidentified):
10 million total estimated x 0.10 (10%) = 1 million identified species (or "accounted for" per your quote)
Total Identified Insects on the Planet:
some value less than 1 million (aka: a fraction of 1 million) = total identified insects on the planet
However, this is the second time now that total life on earth is being confused with number of insects in the US.
It's estimated that there are approximately 91,000 identified species of insects in the US and 73,000 unidentified species (Smithsonian). One study suggests 16,000 at-risk for extinction in the US.
Total insects in US:
91,000 + 73,000 = 164,000
Total % of Insects at-risk in the US:
16,000 / 164,000 = 9.76%
So you're assuming that the number of insect species that are going insect within the number of insect species we've identified is representative of the whole of insect species going extinct? The problem with that is, one reason we identify and label insect species is we're interested in them because they appear to be in decline.
What's more, even if accurate, what is the replacement rate? We might be losing insect species, but the net might be a gain (I'm honestly doubtful of that, but not willing to assume). What is the historical estimate of the turn over rate for insects before humans or human civilization, if we're worried this is human caused?0 -
It's estimated that there are approximately 91,000 identified species of insects in the US and 73,000 unidentified species (Smithsonian). One study suggests 16,000 at-risk for extinction in the US.
Total insects in US:
91,000 + 73,000 = 164,000
Total % of Insects at-risk in the US:
16,000 / 164,000 = 9.76%
10% of the total insects in the United States are at risk for extinction. This does not include those already extinct in modern history (estimated to be in the thousands). This does not include any estimate for total world populations or declines. This is US only. This is both identified and as-yet unidentified. The confusion seems to come from commenters' who muddy the calculation with an estimated value for the "total life on earth" which is outside the scope.
Although, a comparison of US rates of decline vs rates in countries without pesticide use would be quite interesting.0 -
ScreeField wrote: »It's estimated that there are approximately 91,000 identified species of insects in the US and 73,000 unidentified species (Smithsonian). One study suggests 16,000 at-risk for extinction in the US.
Total insects in US:
91,000 + 73,000 = 164,000
Total % of Insects at-risk in the US:
16,000 / 164,000 = 9.76%
10% of the total insects in the United States are at risk for extinction. This does not include those already extinct in modern history (estimated to be in the thousands). This does not include any estimate for total world populations or declines. This is US only. This is both identified and as-yet unidentified. The confusion seems to come from commenters' who muddy the calculation with an estimated value for the "total life on earth" which is outside the scope.
Although, a comparison of US rates of decline vs rates in countries without pesticide use would be quite interesting.
So it's completely irrelevant to anything. There's no wild polar bears in the US, doesn't mean polar bears don't exist anymore.0 -
I think it is worth remembering this was brought up as a reply to the fact that 2 species having a decline in numbers is a mass extinction.
This is eristic arguing at its highest.0 -
I think it is worth remembering this was brought up as a reply to the fact that 2 species having a decline in numbers is a mass extinction.
This is eristic arguing at its highest.
I provided 2 examples based on commonly known and documented information. Both examples directly link pesticide use (herbicide and insecticide) to the decline in insects. One of which (honeybee) is vital for pollination of specific crops. The other, Monarch Butterfly, is a commonly known insect. I then demonstrated a 10% decline in the total estimated population of insects in the US. Findings greater than 5% are a generally accepted starting point to measure statistical significance. The decline in total insects, and the individual bee decline and the Monarch decline all meet this criteria.
My logic is sound and well-supported and there is no flaw in foundation or assumptions.
The US is experiencing a decline in insects.
Honeybee colony collapse is known and documented.
Monarch Butterfly numbers are down by a known and documented amount.
Other butterfly species are down as well, known and documented.
The bee collapse in the US is directly linked to pesticide use.
An effective insecticide kills insects.
An effective herbicide kills insect habitat and food supply ("weeds" aka native plants).
The US consumes roughly 40% of the total world insecticide and herbicide market.
And, you agree that we seem to be in the beginning of a “mass-extinction” event:Interestingly, we do seem to be in the beginning of mass-extinction event, one probably largely having to do with carbon footprints
However, suggesting "carbon footprints”, an arbitrary calculation created to allocate greenhouse gas emission, is the cause of insect decline, not insecticide use (for which sole purpose is to kill insects) is like saying: I'm fat because of this algebraic formula, not because I eat too much.
Insecticides kill insects. Mathematical formulas do not.
(With this, I will make my exit from this thread. Thanks for the discussion, laughs, and entertainment. It's been great, but I'm wasting too much life.)0 -
In the area that I live there is a huge community of clean eating/organic eating. Do you think that eating organic is important?
I think eating whole foods (plants and vegetables) is important. It is my preference to support organic farmers and hope to put more of my food dollars to local growers -- especially growers that use techniques that keep soil alive, the workers safe, and have minimal (negative) environmental impact.0 -
I am new here, but just reading briefly over this, I wanted to say that I have noticed when my household eats organic beef (which is not often, we are not big into red meat), however when organic we only need one hamburger patty to feel full (same weight etc of non organic). When we eat non organic beef we always want 2 or 3 pattys. I have also noticed this with ground turkey meat in place of red meat, Same exact if natural and esp if organic we only need one patty verse non organic we need 2 or 3 to feel full. For me that alone speaks to way we in this house only buy organic meats.0
-
skylarLorenzo wrote: »I am new here, but just reading briefly over this, I wanted to say that I have noticed when my household eats organic beef (which is not often, we are not big into red meat), however when organic we only need one hamburger patty to feel full (same weight etc of non organic). When we eat non organic beef we always want 2 or 3 pattys. I have also noticed this with ground turkey meat in place of red meat, Same exact if natural and esp if organic we only need one patty verse non organic we need 2 or 3 to feel full. For me that alone speaks to way we in this house only buy organic meats.
that makes absolutely no sense and has nothing to do with organic food0 -
I'm eating a pound of organic strawberries right now in honor of this thread.
And they are every bit as tasteless as the non organic ones in this variety...0 -
I'm eating a pound of organic strawberries right now in honor of this thread.
And they are every bit as tasteless as the non organic ones in this variety...
Hahaha! Thanks for taking one for the team. My sister gave me an organic chocolate easter egg. I'm already smug enough, and couldn't face the though of eating it, so I gave it away.
0 -
I'm eating a pound of organic strawberries right now in honor of this thread.
And they are every bit as tasteless as the non organic ones in this variety...
Fruit is often picked too early in order to make it to market. The organic strawberries I harvest from my garden are amazing. Because I am eating them, using them, or freezing them right away, I can wait until they are at peak ripeness before harvesting them.
0 -
Organic is important to me, as I'm following the Wahl Paleo Plus Protocol (veg, veg & more veg...) and quite a lot of it raw in smoothie form. So yes, junk on food is an issue. However, one of the major advantages of living in the UK with its Big Nanny culture, is that food regulation is not too corrupt and our food is generally OK. The EU, which supplies a lot of food as well, is even stricter. And there is a very active movement (from 2nd WW legislations) that makes it fairly easy to grow veg in neighbourhood allotments -- in most EU countries as well. However my main priority is the pureness of the fat that I cook with, so what animls are fed is very important. And I like my meat to be grass fed as well, but when poor, settle for mince rather than steak. Also nothing factory-farmed, like fish, so I splurge on wild produce when in season, and settle for tinned wild salmon off-season. Its about what the animals are fed, rather than what I'm fed, because there, 'organic' does make a difference to the end product. But I am a very genial darwinian, and have no desire to persuade those who think organic is just an economical ploy of some sort: I am quite happy to see if 'the proof of the pudding will be in the eating' thereof -- or perhaps in the non-eating!0
-
also, I would believe that graph shows how mosquito control (a use of pesticides which has saved millions of lives) plays a big roll in the total pesticide numbers.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »What I can't wrap my head around is why anyone would be against organic gardening or think that organic food "sucks". I mean I totally get thinking it's not necessary, doesn't taste better, not more nutritious, but why the hate?
I think its all the arrogant talk and condescending schooling by those that use organics. The folks I live with praise it, swear by it, and half the food rots because I watch them eat organic macaroni and cheese, organic kettle corn, dry gin and Hennessy because its "cleaner", reeses must be organic too! Those small farms are so unregulated and it will never feed the masses, and a lot of animals suffer mot getting treated with antibiotics that could help or save their lives until their condition is cleared up. * It's the hypocrisy when you miss the right isles in the first place!0 -
Organic or not really doesn't matter. If you really want to eat more organic, grow a garden and raise and kill your own meat. I have not been able to grow a garden recently like I would like so I just buy from the store or hit up farmers markets/amish when I can. As for meats, I don't have time to raise chickens and such, however I do hunt and have not bought beef unless eating out in the past 6 years. Doesn't get much more organic than straight from the wild to the table.
0 -
That map is very interesting, especially since it shows Use of Lousing Agents in Cold Storage at International Airports During the Month of April 2009. Ok, I totally made that up, but who knows what the map is reporting since there is no reference information provided to discern what pesticide, what time frame, and what use. Looking at it a little further, it looks like a team of students posted it to the internet as part of a school assignment back in 2006. The other maps in the students' report have slightly more reference information than the pesticide map shown above.
When I recreated the same map from the FAOSTAT website for both 2005 and 2006, they were entirely different. My theory is the students pulled the wrong data set or it was incomplete (for example, the students pulled only a partial year of data instead of the entire year or perhaps pulled only a single pesticide instead of all pesticides used in agriculture). See below for the correct map and source information. There's a link where you can recreate it (for whatever year).
It's quite interesting that there's an assumed linked between that map and mosquito control since the FAOSTAT website is a food and agricultural website. Has nothing to do with mosquitoes really. But, that's neither here nor there. The argument that mosquito control is beneficial therefore all pesticide use is beneficial is sort of like saying, since chlorine is harmless in the water supply, we should add little bits of chlorine to everything. Or: since iron supplements are good for me, I should take lots!
the more the merrier!
Here's the map from the current FAOSTAT website "faostat3" (notice the updated format) showing pesticide use on agricultural land from 1992 through 2010. You can also use the link below to recreate the map for 2006 and compare it to the above map (very very different picture I'd say).
source: http://faostat3.fao.org/browse/E/EP/E
Here's a second showing emissions from use of synthetic fertilizer (1992 through 2010):
source: http://faostat3.fao.org/browse/G1/GY/E
After seeing the map I couldn't resist coming back to say thanks for posting it! The FAOSTAT website is such a great find. All kinds of useful information--although, I'd recommend using the updated site since there seems to be some confusion from their old website--the old site is awfully clunky and hard to use.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions