Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Study on effects of eliminating GMOs
_John_
Posts: 8,646 Member
Replies
-
But Franken food0
-
I love this line:
We aren't saying we should or shouldn't have GMOs, just that they save money and the environment."This is not an argument to keep or lose GMOs," Tyner said. "It's just a simple question: What happens if they go away?"0 -
Surely we can just give up the cotton yield by all going commando? Wouldn't that be the answer from the strongly anti-GMO side of things?Eliminating all GMOs in the United States, the model shows corn yield declines of 11.2 percent on average. Soybeans lose 5.2 percent of their yields and cotton 18.6 percent.0 -
Surely we can just give up the cotton yield by all going commando? Wouldn't that be the answer from the strongly anti-GMO side of things?Eliminating all GMOs in the United States, the model shows corn yield declines of 11.2 percent on average. Soybeans lose 5.2 percent of their yields and cotton 18.6 percent.
Going commando is always the answer.0 -
Why would I even support anything that promotes over-population, which in and of itself is destroying the environment and the future of our species? Even if GMOs are necessary to feed the current population, which I'm not convinced of, if we have to genetically modify food to produce enough to feed everyone, then there are way too many freaking people.0
-
lisawinning4losing wrote: »Why would I even support anything that promotes over-population, which in and of itself is destroying the environment and the future of our species? Even if GMOs are necessary to feed the current population, which I'm not convinced of, if we have to genetically modify food to produce enough to feed everyone, then there are way too many freaking people.
How do you suggest reducing the number of people? Because letting them starve out seems a bit harsh...0 -
Free birth control for everyone. Wear a condom. Get a vasectomy. Get your tubes tied. Etc, etc. We need better education and better health care, on a global level. Greater gender equality always leads to a reduction in birth rates. People need to understand the dangers of over population, and just stop breeding so much. And stop thinking of women as breeding machines.
This could be done worldwide.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/08/12/how-colorados-teen-birthrate-dropped-40-in-four-years/0 -
So then you would also NOT support medical extension of life. Cancer treatment, surgery and ER's should be eliminated right?lisawinning4losing wrote: »Why would I even support anything that promotes over-population, which in and of itself is destroying the environment and the future of our species? Even if GMOs are necessary to feed the current population, which I'm not convinced of, if we have to genetically modify food to produce enough to feed everyone, then there are way too many freaking people.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Eliminating GMO is genocide? Lol. OK. And you're suggesting that the reason why I don't like GMO's is because I want to kill brown people? Lol. Oooh kay. Jumping to wild conclusions and using hyperbole much? Next you'll compare me to Hitler, or accuse me of being part of the New World Order. But wait, I thought GMO's were part of the NWO depopulation agenda? I don't know anymore. I'm confused. I can't keep the nutters straight.
[edited by MFP Mods]0 -
By the way, there's already enough food to feed the world, which is a well known fact. That's not the problem. If you think that all we need to do is reduce waste, then please be the first to volunteer to stop driving your car, stop using gas and electricity, stop buying electronic devices such as the one you're typing on, stop buying anything that comes in a package, never buy new clothes again until absolutely necessary and then only from a thrift store, etc. (You see, anyone can debate that way.) I completely agree with reducing waste, and I do recycle as well as grow some of my own vegetables, but seeing as we actually enjoy modern day civilization, maybe we could also consider the merits of simply having less people. It's just a thought. There's no reason to get mad at me about it.0
-
In your first post in this thread you advocated reducing the food supply. Who do you think this will affect?
0 -
Where exactly did I advocate reducing the food supply?0
-
You see, you just make things up. Have fun arguing with your own imagination.0
-
lisawinning4losing wrote: »Why would I even support anything that promotes over-population, which in and of itself is destroying the environment and the future of our species? Even if GMOs are necessary to feed the current population, which I'm not convinced of, if we have to genetically modify food to produce enough to feed everyone, then there are way too many freaking people.
What do you call this?0 -
I would call it you having poor reading comprehension. I said that our starting point should be reducing the population through education, alleviation of poverty, greater gender equality, and free birth control. I didn't say we should reduce the population by starving people to death. But if we do reduce the population, which we should, then at that point we could start producing less food because we won't need as much anymore. You don't need food for people who aren't there. Duhhh. And less farming would be absolutely great for the environment we live in and depend on. If we destroy the earth, then none of us will have anything to eat, nor an inhabitable planet to live on. Perhaps you should think about that.
0 -
In case you're not already aware of it, there's a reciprocal relationship between high birth rates and poverty, with one causing the other. The poorest nations have the most kids, and because the families are poor, they can't provide for so many kids. And then, because they're poor, the kids have lots more kids. It's a problem that just perpetuates. Lack of education, lack of access to birth control, and women having a lower status than men are all things that contribute to the problem. Young girls being forced into marriage and pregnancy, for example. It's been shown that alleviating poverty, providing education, providing birth control, and giving more rights to women are all things that help to reduce the population. Just giving women an education helps to reduce population. Over population is a serious problem both in terms of human rights and in terms of the environment. A lot of people don't understand how serious the problem actually is. There's a huge scientific community telling us that we're screwed unless we put a stop to over population. That's why the United Nations and other human rights organizations are trying to address this issue. But why I'm even trying to talk to you like a rational human being, I don't even know. As far as you're concerned, I'm the second coming of Hitler. I doubt its even possible for things like logic and reasoning to have any real impact in this so called debate. You'll probably just think of some other completely outrageous, off the wall ad hominem attack to hurl at me. But I stand by my belief that we don't need more food. We need less people.0
-
How, pray tell, does gmo "promote overpopulation " (your words)?0
-
lisawinning4losing wrote: »
The absolute best thing we can do for the third world--and the second world, and the first world--is lift them out of poverty and provide them with things like education and birth control. Simply reducing the population would greatly reduce poverty. That would hugely increase their quality of life. I even made specific mention of the need for greater gender equality.
I think you are undoubtedly right when you say the best thing for the developing world is to assist them with strategies to lift their populations out of poverty. Education, reproductive health, gender equality and so on. I very much doubt anyone will disagree with you on those points.
However your assertion that simply focusing on reducing population would greatly reduce poverty and hugely increase quality of life isn't particularly convincing as an overall solution and the concessions you are therefore willing to make from that (such as not supporting GMO production generally) become hot topics. I do agree though that population control would be a good thing.
On a simple level less fertility means more resources and income for families to devote to their current children. Great. However, this a rather short term view of addressing poverty. These children then need to survive, grow and be educated in sufficient numbers so that when they can work and be productive they do that. This helps with economic growth and wealth creation which then helps drive down birth rates and people prosper. They then feed into the system which provides support for the population as it ages. In essence it is my view that a much better solution would be strategies to help with economic growth rather than specific demographic issues. A strong economy needs enough workers basically.
However, we know in the developing world there are real barriers to economic growth from corruption, deeply patriarchal and religious societies feeding social attitudes, fear that children will not survive into adulthood, mass inequality of access to opportunity and resources to name but a few. So, the massive social, economic and political change necessary to help alleviate poverty is going to take tremendous effort but more importantly time. We are taking change which will require multiple generations to achieve.
In the meantime people will continue to go hungry and starve in large numbers until such time as change is achieved in a meaningful way. While just letting them die would indeed reduce numbers very few people would believe that to be a good solution. Feeding those people will have to be done in some realistic way. GMO is one way that can help this to be achieved. Obviously, we shouldn't allow the developing world to be guinea pigs for unsafe products so there must be of course suitable checks on GMO production.
0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »How, pray tell, does gmo "promote overpopulation " (your words)?
I'm referring to the concept that we need to produce more and more food in order to feed more and more people as the population continues to grow exponentially. No. I know that's what some people are promoting, but I think it's a very bad idea. I'm not saying that anyone should go hungry, but what I am saying is that all the resources and effort put into developing GMO's and expanding big agriculture could instead be put into reducing the population through the ways that I mentioned, which would be a much more sensible thing to do. But then again, I'm just repeating myself, since I already explained all of that. I'm pretty sure that my meaning was clear the first time.0 -
By the way, if you think that Monsanto truly cares about actually feeding anyone, then I'm afraid you'll be disappointed. It's only their bottom line that they care about, and they have no intention of ever feeding the world. That's just their sales pitch. They just want to keep churning out products they can market to people who can afford it. They're not giving anything away for free.0
-
lisawinning4losing wrote: »
The absolute best thing we can do for the third world--and the second world, and the first world--is lift them out of poverty and provide them with things like education and birth control. Simply reducing the population would greatly reduce poverty. That would hugely increase their quality of life. I even made specific mention of the need for greater gender equality.
I think you are undoubtedly right when you say the best thing for the developing world is to assist them with strategies to lift their populations out of poverty. Education, reproductive health, gender equality and so on. I very much doubt anyone will disagree with you on those points.
However your assertion that simply focusing on reducing population would greatly reduce poverty and hugely increase quality of life isn't particularly convincing as an overall solution and the concessions you are therefore willing to make from that (such as not supporting GMO production generally) become hot topics. I do agree though that population control would be a good thing.
On a simple level less fertility means more resources and income for families to devote to their current children. Great. However, this a rather short term view of addressing poverty. These children then need to survive, grow and be educated in sufficient numbers so that when they can work and be productive they do that. This helps with economic growth and wealth creation which then helps drive down birth rates and people prosper. They then feed into the system which provides support for the population as it ages. In essence it is my view that a much better solution would be strategies to help with economic growth rather than specific demographic issues. A strong economy needs enough workers basically.
However, we know in the developing world there are real barriers to economic growth from corruption, deeply patriarchal and religious societies feeding social attitudes, fear that children will not survive into adulthood, mass inequality of access to opportunity and resources to name but a few. So, the massive social, economic and political change necessary to help alleviate poverty is going to take tremendous effort but more importantly time. We are taking change which will require multiple generations to achieve.
In the meantime people will continue to go hungry and starve in large numbers until such time as change is achieved in a meaningful way. While just letting them die would indeed reduce numbers very few people would believe that to be a good solution. Feeding those people will have to be done in some realistic way. GMO is one way that can help this to be achieved. Obviously, we shouldn't allow the developing world to be guinea pigs for unsafe products so there must be of course suitable checks on GMO production.
I basically agree with you! And thanks for your comment, because it was actually very helpful in expanding on what I was trying to say. Because there's a chicken-and-egg relationship between poverty and over-population, there's been an ongoing debate about which is more important to address first, the poverty or the population. I think we need to address both. So for me, it's not really an argument.
Whether or not GMOs are truly safe is another whole argument. I personally think we're better of without them, and that they aren't really necessary. We can feed the world without GMOs. The whole thing about us needing GMOs to feed the world is nothing more than one big giant marketing schtick. It's just not true. It's corporate lies. If anyone wants evidence, please just Google it yourself. It's not my job to link things. Even if I did link something, I would be criticized for linking it, just as surely as I'll be criticized for not linking it, so what's the use. There's plenty of info out there, and it's easy to find. Do your own research. Form your own opinions. I'm just giving mine.0 -
lisawinning4losing wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »
The absolute best thing we can do for the third world--and the second world, and the first world--is lift them out of poverty and provide them with things like education and birth control. Simply reducing the population would greatly reduce poverty. That would hugely increase their quality of life. I even made specific mention of the need for greater gender equality.
I think you are undoubtedly right when you say the best thing for the developing world is to assist them with strategies to lift their populations out of poverty. Education, reproductive health, gender equality and so on. I very much doubt anyone will disagree with you on those points.
However your assertion that simply focusing on reducing population would greatly reduce poverty and hugely increase quality of life isn't particularly convincing as an overall solution and the concessions you are therefore willing to make from that (such as not supporting GMO production generally) become hot topics. I do agree though that population control would be a good thing.
On a simple level less fertility means more resources and income for families to devote to their current children. Great. However, this a rather short term view of addressing poverty. These children then need to survive, grow and be educated in sufficient numbers so that when they can work and be productive they do that. This helps with economic growth and wealth creation which then helps drive down birth rates and people prosper. They then feed into the system which provides support for the population as it ages. In essence it is my view that a much better solution would be strategies to help with economic growth rather than specific demographic issues. A strong economy needs enough workers basically.
However, we know in the developing world there are real barriers to economic growth from corruption, deeply patriarchal and religious societies feeding social attitudes, fear that children will not survive into adulthood, mass inequality of access to opportunity and resources to name but a few. So, the massive social, economic and political change necessary to help alleviate poverty is going to take tremendous effort but more importantly time. We are taking change which will require multiple generations to achieve.
In the meantime people will continue to go hungry and starve in large numbers until such time as change is achieved in a meaningful way. While just letting them die would indeed reduce numbers very few people would believe that to be a good solution. Feeding those people will have to be done in some realistic way. GMO is one way that can help this to be achieved. Obviously, we shouldn't allow the developing world to be guinea pigs for unsafe products so there must be of course suitable checks on GMO production.
I basically agree with you! And thanks for your comment, because it was actually very helpful in expanding on what I was trying to say. Because there's a chicken-and-egg relationship between poverty and over-population, there's been an ongoing debate about which is more important to address first, the poverty or the population. I think we need to address both. So for me, it's not really an argument.
Whether or not GMOs are truly safe is another whole argument. I personally think we're better of without them, and that they aren't really necessary. We can feed the world without GMOs. The whole thing about us needing GMOs to feed the world is nothing more than one big giant marketing schtick. It's just not true. It's corporate lies. If anyone wants evidence, please just Google it yourself. It's not my job to link things. Even if I did link something, I would be criticized for linking it, just as surely as I'll be criticized for not linking it, so what's the use. There's plenty of info out there, and it's easy to find. Do your own research. Form your own opinions. I'm just giving mine.
It's a difficult discussion and one I prefer to avoid getting too involved in usually!
Personally, I think wealth and liberal democracies are the best contraceptives ever created
Re: the profit motive. Look, I'm not so naive so as to believe GM producers have this whole "save the world gig" going on. They are out to make money. So what? Reducing barriers to innovation and mass production (with appropriate checks on what has been produced) undoubtedly can drive down costs for very useful products over time (such as medicine or in this case, food) which helps provide accessible solutions for people in the developing world. I'm not sure starving people care how much the executives at Monsanto are getting paid frankly.
0 -
lisawinning4losing wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »Free birth control for everyone. Wear a condom. Get a vasectomy. Get your tubes tied. Etc, etc. We need better education and better health care, on a global level. Greater gender equality always leads to a reduction in birth rates. People need to understand the dangers of over population, and just stop breeding so much. And stop thinking of women as breeding machines.
This could be done worldwide.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/08/12/how-colorados-teen-birthrate-dropped-40-in-four-years/
"You made no mention of birth control."
You're just arguing for the sake of arguing. All I said was that a sustainable population doesn't need any kind of genetic modification of food, and that people should use birth control to keep from having too many kids, which is something many scientists and other experts would whole heartedly agree with.
Many people likely want to have more children than you would approve of.
I'm in favor of most things that tend to naturally decrease birthrates (like opportunities/equality for women, decreasing the child mortality rate, and increasing economic opportunity overall), but I don't think we should casually meddle in other cultures, either (yes, there's an inherent conflict there, but it makes it a different problem by far than the unmarried teen birthrate in the US).
I also don't think that we can assume that people will cut the birthrate as quickly as you might hope (and that many policies that encourage this, like limits on how many children people can have or, of course, pressured sterilization violate human rights).
And, ironically, cutting birthrate typically goes along with increasing wealth, and that goes along with increased resource use, so the effect of it seems unclear.0 -
lisawinning4losing wrote: »I would call it you having poor reading comprehension. I said that our starting point should be reducing the population through education, alleviation of poverty, greater gender equality, and free birth control. I didn't say we should reduce the population by starving people to death. But if we do reduce the population, which we should, then at that point we could start producing less food because we won't need as much anymore. You don't need food for people who aren't there. Duhhh. And less farming would be absolutely great for the environment we live in and depend on. If we destroy the earth, then none of us will have anything to eat, nor an inhabitable planet to live on. Perhaps you should think about that.
Even if you could reduce the population through education, that would take several generations to take effect. Stopping GMOs now would lead to starvation of many, many people. And yes, it would affect poor people (and a lot of Africans) well more than anyone else. Not only do rich people have the choice of not eating GMOs and insisting that they be shipped overseas, many of the GMO foods were produced to provide nutrition for populations experiencing famines that did not have a wide supply of foods.0 -
lisawinning4losing wrote: »Why would I even support anything that promotes over-population, which in and of itself is destroying the environment and the future of our species? Even if GMOs are necessary to feed the current population, which I'm not convinced of, if we have to genetically modify food to produce enough to feed everyone, then there are way too many freaking people.
Actually, overpopulation is the way for the world's excess consumers to complain about other people. Yes, China and India have far more population than the USA, but even with that, they consume less of the world's resources than the USA. Isn't that a pretty poor argument? To claim that even though they're using less total and far less per person, the world's problem is shear numbers instead of the people that are using up everything?
Heck, a lot of India's agriculture is devoted to growing cotton to satisfy the needs of other countries that can keep India as a cash crop grower - repeating a bit of the colonial exploitation cycle. GMOs would potentially help them produce food security in their own borders, which Europe would hate, which is part of why Europe tries to export their attitude.
You're also ignoring the article didn't say necessary for feeding the world, it talked about economic and environmental cost. Telling people have less kids doesn't mean it is okay to make food more expensive for the people that are already here, especially when your only argument seems to be that we could feed the world even if it would be more expensive for some of its poorest people. Nor does it justify polluting the world more with increased chemicals inputs needed to grow non-GMO crops. Honestly, it seems you have an off the cuff argument against GMOs because you've decided you're against them, rather than considering anything about implications.0 -
lisawinning4losing wrote: »By the way, if you think that Monsanto truly cares about actually feeding anyone, then I'm afraid you'll be disappointed. It's only their bottom line that they care about, and they have no intention of ever feeding the world. That's just their sales pitch. They just want to keep churning out products they can market to people who can afford it. They're not giving anything away for free.
Monsanto is a company that figured out how to maximize their profits, which is the goal of every company. I want to know why making a profit is deemed as evil by so many people today. Are they jealous? Profits are necessary drive businesses forward, so they can grow and provide jobs to our growing population that they can then feed with their GMO products. Monsanto and GMO foods are awesome.0 -
lisawinning4losing wrote: »By the way, if you think that Monsanto truly cares about actually feeding anyone, then I'm afraid you'll be disappointed. It's only their bottom line that they care about, and they have no intention of ever feeding the world. That's just their sales pitch. They just want to keep churning out products they can market to people who can afford it. They're not giving anything away for free.
This is literally not true.
Every time they win a patent case, they give away the winnings local scholarships.
During many world disasters, they've offered seeds and agricultural help to affected areas. Sometimes they've been blocked from helping by naive protesters.
They've donated research and time of their experts towards projects like Golden Rice.
About the most true statement you made was they want products they can market to people who can afford it. The people who can afford it are the end product of producing food that can feed the world by reducing the costs. Frankly, Monsanto would love a world raised out of poverty because such a world would have more customers for their customers.
At the end of the day, yes, they're a corporation under capitalism, but they're hardly the worst as far as big ones go. They're frankly one of the better cases of profit motive being aligned with helping - oil companies, tobacco industries can't exist without harming their customers, but Monsanto actually benefits from people living longer lives because every day a person lives is a day they eat more food.0 -
Where do you feel I'm "mad" about it? Lol, maybe it's how you're reading responses (with a tone of anger behind it) that you perceive that.lisawinning4losing wrote: »By the way, there's already enough food to feed the world, which is a well known fact. That's not the problem. If you think that all we need to do is reduce waste, then please be the first to volunteer to stop driving your car, stop using gas and electricity, stop buying electronic devices such as the one you're typing on, stop buying anything that comes in a package, never buy new clothes again until absolutely necessary and then only from a thrift store, etc. (You see, anyone can debate that way.) I completely agree with reducing waste, and I do recycle as well as grow some of my own vegetables, but seeing as we actually enjoy modern day civilization, maybe we could also consider the merits of simply having less people. It's just a thought. There's no reason to get mad at me about it.
Having enough food to feed the world may be one thing, but it's demographics and politics that help to dictate who has access to it. US has tons of food for availability. That means NOTHING to the people who live in the slums of the Philippines (my country of ethic origin).
My issue with waste is what it does to the environment. Not the population of the Earth. Excessive waste has to be broken down some how, and in most cases it's done by sanitation companies in industrialized countries. But many other countries do it own their own by either burning it, or just dumping it anywhere it can be dumped. Like this:
Personally myself, I've increased insulation in my attic, purchase more energy efficient windows, drive only when I have to (I bike or walk if I can), have solar on my roof, and try to keep garbage down to a minimum. I recycle more that what I actually throw away. Can I give up everything? Not likely if I need to still be competitive with other families in the same city. But hey, it's a conscious voluntary effort.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
MiloBloom83 wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »By the way, if you think that Monsanto truly cares about actually feeding anyone, then I'm afraid you'll be disappointed. It's only their bottom line that they care about, and they have no intention of ever feeding the world. That's just their sales pitch. They just want to keep churning out products they can market to people who can afford it. They're not giving anything away for free.
Monsanto is a company that figured out how to maximize their profits, which is the goal of every company. I want to know why making a profit is deemed as evil by so many people today. Are they jealous? Profits are necessary drive businesses forward, so they can grow and provide jobs to our growing population that they can then feed with their GMO products. Monsanto and GMO foods are awesome.
So much this. I live in St Louis and many of my friends and work there. It drives me crazy when people become so anti big corporation based on the fear mongering clickbait campaigns of woo peddlers like the Food Babe and others who they themselves, are out to make a profit!!!0 -
Have you even looked at the possibility that what you've offered hasn't been already mentioned to countries like this? Tell you what, go to the Catholic Diocese and mention about contraception to them and get their reaction. Many countries that exist below the equator are predominantly Catholic in religion.lisawinning4losing wrote: »In case you're not already aware of it, there's a reciprocal relationship between high birth rates and poverty, with one causing the other. The poorest nations have the most kids, and because the families are poor, they can't provide for so many kids. And then, because they're poor, the kids have lots more kids. It's a problem that just perpetuates. Lack of education, lack of access to birth control, and women having a lower status than men are all things that contribute to the problem. Young girls being forced into marriage and pregnancy, for example. It's been shown that alleviating poverty, providing education, providing birth control, and giving more rights to women are all things that help to reduce the population. Just giving women an education helps to reduce population. Over population is a serious problem both in terms of human rights and in terms of the environment. A lot of people don't understand how serious the problem actually is. There's a huge scientific community telling us that we're screwed unless we put a stop to over population. That's why the United Nations and other human rights organizations are trying to address this issue. But why I'm even trying to talk to you like a rational human being, I don't even know. As far as you're concerned, I'm the second coming of Hitler. I doubt its even possible for things like logic and reasoning to have any real impact in this so called debate. You'll probably just think of some other completely outrageous, off the wall ad hominem attack to hurl at me. But I stand by my belief that we don't need more food. We need less people.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
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
- 232.6K 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