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
Replies
-
There are issues with profit that I deplore. The US health for profit system is why insurance is so high and many people can't afford to have it. Where people used to have retirement to live off of, that same retirement is now used for health care cost. You did see Martin Shkreli on TV last week didn't you?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.
Another would be big oil. They DON'T want alternative power sources implemented as much as they claim they put into ads. Big oil is big money.
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 -
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.
Lol - exactly.
You may find yourself fighting a mentality that say yes AIDS is bad, but condoms are worse...
0 -
There are issues with profit that I deplore. The US health for profit system is why insurance is so high and many people can't afford to have it. Where people used to have retirement to live off of, that same retirement is now used for health care cost. You did see Martin Shkreli on TV last week didn't you?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.
Another would be big oil. They DON'T want alternative power sources implemented as much as they claim they put into ads. Big oil is big money.
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
Alternatively, healthcare is in the mess it's currently in because government eliminated the competitive practices that would have made it more affordable. No other industry (that is mostly free of overwhelming governmental interference) I'm aware of has a similar cost/pricing structure...
...but I suppose that's a another topic for another day.0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »
There are issues with profit that I deplore. The US health for profit system is why insurance is so high and many people can't afford to have it. Where people used to have retirement to live off of, that same retirement is now used for health care cost. You did see Martin Shkreli on TV last week didn't you?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.
Another would be big oil. They DON'T want alternative power sources implemented as much as they claim they put into ads. Big oil is big money.
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
Alternatively, healthcare is in the mess it's currently in because government eliminated the competitive practices that would have made it more affordable. No other industry (that is mostly free of overwhelming governmental interference) I'm aware of has a similar cost/pricing structure...
...but I suppose that's a another topic for another day.
Healthcare is not a good candidate for a free market for a number of reasons - mainly the fact that people typically value their lives above all possessions and will spend practically anything in order to prolong their lives. Secondly it's that people don't take good care of their bodies but then expect doctors to work miracles.0 -
Since Monsanto is always picked on as being only profit driven, I'd thinks it interesting to point out they are 197 on the Fortune 500 list. The "altruistic" Whole Foods who people may think have others motives than profit is 214.
I support the use of and eat GMOs. I also like shopping at Whole Foods.0 -
Your birth control statement came after I posted my question, not before it or else I would have acknowledged it.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. Over population is a real, serious problem. But I genuinely hope I don't have to explain the difference between using birth control and refusing to help sick people.
You're not having an honest conversation or debate with me. You're just having a go at me, for the sake of having a go at me. Go ahead, take it to the next level. Next you could say something like, "Well then, if you think we need to keep the population under control, then maybe you should just go kill your grandma, and then kill yourself. Because that's totally what you're saying, right? Nah nah nah nah." Seriously, grow up. I don't even have time for this foolishness. I was trying to make an actual, serious point, and all I'm met with is a bunch of asshattery designed to "win" an argument in the process of some kind of strange verbal sparring that has nothing to do with anything. Nevermind.
I don't disagree that overpopulation is a serious problem, but its' mostly due to the lack of a food supply to support it. NOT because we don't have enough land to overpopulate the Earth.
The biggest issue I see with humans is the waste they create whether we have a high population or not. You needn't have to go any farther than just your own town to see how the human race would fail if the sewage system alone failed. Not to mention factories and refineries dumping waste.
Like the dinosaurs, we'll meet our end one day, but will it be from ourselves or from a natural catastrophe? Till then, I don't see any reason why we DON'T try keep humans alive (food) if we have the means. Who are we to dictate who should live and die?
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
If some would die without GMO so we create GMO, aren't we already dictating who lives and dies? Same for medicines and surgeries and other medical treatments. I'm not saying I'm against any of these thing, just pointing out that the pendulum swings both ways.0 -
rankinsect wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »
There are issues with profit that I deplore. The US health for profit system is why insurance is so high and many people can't afford to have it. Where people used to have retirement to live off of, that same retirement is now used for health care cost. You did see Martin Shkreli on TV last week didn't you?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.
Another would be big oil. They DON'T want alternative power sources implemented as much as they claim they put into ads. Big oil is big money.
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
Alternatively, healthcare is in the mess it's currently in because government eliminated the competitive practices that would have made it more affordable. No other industry (that is mostly free of overwhelming governmental interference) I'm aware of has a similar cost/pricing structure...
...but I suppose that's a another topic for another day.
Healthcare is not a good candidate for a free market for a number of reasons - mainly the fact that people typically value their lives above all possessions and will spend practically anything in order to prolong their lives. Secondly it's that people don't take good care of their bodies but then expect doctors to work miracles.
It's apparently not a good candidate for governmental control either...
...and the factors in your reasoning above are still in play. They don't magically disappear because government is involved. This willingness to spend personal resources to prolong life doesn't go away (unless you're proposing to somehow remove those resources from the equation).0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Your birth control statement came after I posted my question, not before it or else I would have acknowledged it.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. Over population is a real, serious problem. But I genuinely hope I don't have to explain the difference between using birth control and refusing to help sick people.
You're not having an honest conversation or debate with me. You're just having a go at me, for the sake of having a go at me. Go ahead, take it to the next level. Next you could say something like, "Well then, if you think we need to keep the population under control, then maybe you should just go kill your grandma, and then kill yourself. Because that's totally what you're saying, right? Nah nah nah nah." Seriously, grow up. I don't even have time for this foolishness. I was trying to make an actual, serious point, and all I'm met with is a bunch of asshattery designed to "win" an argument in the process of some kind of strange verbal sparring that has nothing to do with anything. Nevermind.
I don't disagree that overpopulation is a serious problem, but its' mostly due to the lack of a food supply to support it. NOT because we don't have enough land to overpopulate the Earth.
The biggest issue I see with humans is the waste they create whether we have a high population or not. You needn't have to go any farther than just your own town to see how the human race would fail if the sewage system alone failed. Not to mention factories and refineries dumping waste.
Like the dinosaurs, we'll meet our end one day, but will it be from ourselves or from a natural catastrophe? Till then, I don't see any reason why we DON'T try keep humans alive (food) if we have the means. Who are we to dictate who should live and die?
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
If some would die without GMO so we create GMO, aren't we already dictating who lives and dies? Same for medicines and surgeries and other medical treatments. I'm not saying I'm against any of these thing, just pointing out that the pendulum swings both ways.
I would say that we give at least some of those who would have died an opportunity to live. Which may be a fine distinction, but I don't see it as dictating anything.0 -
If Mother Nature doesn't see fit to provide adequate supply of food to a population then it is clear that said population must be allowed to starve down to a sustainable level. Any interference by creating crops which do not naturally occur or shipping in foodstuffs from other areas is clearly not part of the natural process.
Humans should not be interfering with nature and should certainly not be playing God by providing sustenance to a population not able to survive naturally.
/sarc0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Your birth control statement came after I posted my question, not before it or else I would have acknowledged it.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. Over population is a real, serious problem. But I genuinely hope I don't have to explain the difference between using birth control and refusing to help sick people.
You're not having an honest conversation or debate with me. You're just having a go at me, for the sake of having a go at me. Go ahead, take it to the next level. Next you could say something like, "Well then, if you think we need to keep the population under control, then maybe you should just go kill your grandma, and then kill yourself. Because that's totally what you're saying, right? Nah nah nah nah." Seriously, grow up. I don't even have time for this foolishness. I was trying to make an actual, serious point, and all I'm met with is a bunch of asshattery designed to "win" an argument in the process of some kind of strange verbal sparring that has nothing to do with anything. Nevermind.
I don't disagree that overpopulation is a serious problem, but its' mostly due to the lack of a food supply to support it. NOT because we don't have enough land to overpopulate the Earth.
The biggest issue I see with humans is the waste they create whether we have a high population or not. You needn't have to go any farther than just your own town to see how the human race would fail if the sewage system alone failed. Not to mention factories and refineries dumping waste.
Like the dinosaurs, we'll meet our end one day, but will it be from ourselves or from a natural catastrophe? Till then, I don't see any reason why we DON'T try keep humans alive (food) if we have the means. Who are we to dictate who should live and die?
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
If some would die without GMO so we create GMO, aren't we already dictating who lives and dies? Same for medicines and surgeries and other medical treatments. I'm not saying I'm against any of these thing, just pointing out that the pendulum swings both ways.
I would say that we give at least some of those who would have died an opportunity to live. Which may be a fine distinction, but I don't see it as dictating anything.
Do you see it as 'dictating' more or less than a company producing GMO? All the company is doing is producing a product that may or may not provide the opportunity for some to not starve depending on whether they have access to the product and the money to pay for it.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Your birth control statement came after I posted my question, not before it or else I would have acknowledged it.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. Over population is a real, serious problem. But I genuinely hope I don't have to explain the difference between using birth control and refusing to help sick people.
You're not having an honest conversation or debate with me. You're just having a go at me, for the sake of having a go at me. Go ahead, take it to the next level. Next you could say something like, "Well then, if you think we need to keep the population under control, then maybe you should just go kill your grandma, and then kill yourself. Because that's totally what you're saying, right? Nah nah nah nah." Seriously, grow up. I don't even have time for this foolishness. I was trying to make an actual, serious point, and all I'm met with is a bunch of asshattery designed to "win" an argument in the process of some kind of strange verbal sparring that has nothing to do with anything. Nevermind.
I don't disagree that overpopulation is a serious problem, but its' mostly due to the lack of a food supply to support it. NOT because we don't have enough land to overpopulate the Earth.
The biggest issue I see with humans is the waste they create whether we have a high population or not. You needn't have to go any farther than just your own town to see how the human race would fail if the sewage system alone failed. Not to mention factories and refineries dumping waste.
Like the dinosaurs, we'll meet our end one day, but will it be from ourselves or from a natural catastrophe? Till then, I don't see any reason why we DON'T try keep humans alive (food) if we have the means. Who are we to dictate who should live and die?
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
If some would die without GMO so we create GMO, aren't we already dictating who lives and dies? Same for medicines and surgeries and other medical treatments. I'm not saying I'm against any of these thing, just pointing out that the pendulum swings both ways.
I would say that we give at least some of those who would have died an opportunity to live. Which may be a fine distinction, but I don't see it as dictating anything.
Do you see it as 'dictating' more or less than a company producing GMO? All the company is doing is producing a product that may or may not provide the opportunity for some to not starve depending on whether they have access to the product and the money to pay for it.
If I understand you correctly, that was the point I intended to make.
The company produces the product, so the opportunity exists for others who might have otherwise starved or died of illness to live.
Even those that can't purchase the actual GMO product still may reap indirect benefits from its production, like driving down the overall cost of a crop because it is now more widely available than it was before or because it can now be grown in more inhospitable climes and doesn't need to be imported. Or they don't get sick because the spread of disease may be vastly reduced because a vaccine is now widely available and more effective.
To me, dictating who lives and who dies would mean strictly limiting the benefits of GMO to a particular group and I don't see that happening without some pretty draconian practices (thinking about the prevention of humanitarian aid delivery in some regions of Africa). If anyone has heard of companies producing GMO engaging in such, then I'm all ears.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Your birth control statement came after I posted my question, not before it or else I would have acknowledged it.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. Over population is a real, serious problem. But I genuinely hope I don't have to explain the difference between using birth control and refusing to help sick people.
You're not having an honest conversation or debate with me. You're just having a go at me, for the sake of having a go at me. Go ahead, take it to the next level. Next you could say something like, "Well then, if you think we need to keep the population under control, then maybe you should just go kill your grandma, and then kill yourself. Because that's totally what you're saying, right? Nah nah nah nah." Seriously, grow up. I don't even have time for this foolishness. I was trying to make an actual, serious point, and all I'm met with is a bunch of asshattery designed to "win" an argument in the process of some kind of strange verbal sparring that has nothing to do with anything. Nevermind.
I don't disagree that overpopulation is a serious problem, but its' mostly due to the lack of a food supply to support it. NOT because we don't have enough land to overpopulate the Earth.
The biggest issue I see with humans is the waste they create whether we have a high population or not. You needn't have to go any farther than just your own town to see how the human race would fail if the sewage system alone failed. Not to mention factories and refineries dumping waste.
Like the dinosaurs, we'll meet our end one day, but will it be from ourselves or from a natural catastrophe? Till then, I don't see any reason why we DON'T try keep humans alive (food) if we have the means. Who are we to dictate who should live and die?
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
If some would die without GMO so we create GMO, aren't we already dictating who lives and dies? Same for medicines and surgeries and other medical treatments. I'm not saying I'm against any of these thing, just pointing out that the pendulum swings both ways.
I would say that we give at least some of those who would have died an opportunity to live. Which may be a fine distinction, but I don't see it as dictating anything.
Do you see it as 'dictating' more or less than a company producing GMO? All the company is doing is producing a product that may or may not provide the opportunity for some to not starve depending on whether they have access to the product and the money to pay for it.
If I understand you correctly, that was the point I intended to make.
The company produces the product, so the opportunity exists for others who might have otherwise starved or died of illness to live.
Even those that can't purchase the actual GMO product still may reap indirect benefits from its production, like driving down the overall cost of a crop because it is now more widely available than it was before or because it can now be grown in more inhospitable climes and doesn't need to be imported. Or they don't get sick because the spread of disease may be vastly reduced because a vaccine is now widely available and more effective.
To me, dictating who lives and who dies would mean strictly limiting the benefits of GMO to a particular group and I don't see that happening without some pretty draconian practices (thinking about the prevention of humanitarian aid delivery in some regions of Africa). If anyone has heard of companies producing GMO engaging in such, then I'm all ears.
You seem overly fixated on the word "dictating" and I agree it's not the correct word to use, but it is the word used in the post to which I replied. Neither GMO or medicine truly dictates who lives or dies, but I would argue that the extent to which they could or do dictate life is equal.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Your birth control statement came after I posted my question, not before it or else I would have acknowledged it.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. Over population is a real, serious problem. But I genuinely hope I don't have to explain the difference between using birth control and refusing to help sick people.
You're not having an honest conversation or debate with me. You're just having a go at me, for the sake of having a go at me. Go ahead, take it to the next level. Next you could say something like, "Well then, if you think we need to keep the population under control, then maybe you should just go kill your grandma, and then kill yourself. Because that's totally what you're saying, right? Nah nah nah nah." Seriously, grow up. I don't even have time for this foolishness. I was trying to make an actual, serious point, and all I'm met with is a bunch of asshattery designed to "win" an argument in the process of some kind of strange verbal sparring that has nothing to do with anything. Nevermind.
I don't disagree that overpopulation is a serious problem, but its' mostly due to the lack of a food supply to support it. NOT because we don't have enough land to overpopulate the Earth.
The biggest issue I see with humans is the waste they create whether we have a high population or not. You needn't have to go any farther than just your own town to see how the human race would fail if the sewage system alone failed. Not to mention factories and refineries dumping waste.
Like the dinosaurs, we'll meet our end one day, but will it be from ourselves or from a natural catastrophe? Till then, I don't see any reason why we DON'T try keep humans alive (food) if we have the means. Who are we to dictate who should live and die?
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
If some would die without GMO so we create GMO, aren't we already dictating who lives and dies? Same for medicines and surgeries and other medical treatments. I'm not saying I'm against any of these thing, just pointing out that the pendulum swings both ways.
I would say that we give at least some of those who would have died an opportunity to live. Which may be a fine distinction, but I don't see it as dictating anything.
Do you see it as 'dictating' more or less than a company producing GMO? All the company is doing is producing a product that may or may not provide the opportunity for some to not starve depending on whether they have access to the product and the money to pay for it.
If I understand you correctly, that was the point I intended to make.
The company produces the product, so the opportunity exists for others who might have otherwise starved or died of illness to live.
Even those that can't purchase the actual GMO product still may reap indirect benefits from its production, like driving down the overall cost of a crop because it is now more widely available than it was before or because it can now be grown in more inhospitable climes and doesn't need to be imported. Or they don't get sick because the spread of disease may be vastly reduced because a vaccine is now widely available and more effective.
To me, dictating who lives and who dies would mean strictly limiting the benefits of GMO to a particular group and I don't see that happening without some pretty draconian practices (thinking about the prevention of humanitarian aid delivery in some regions of Africa). If anyone has heard of companies producing GMO engaging in such, then I'm all ears.
You seem overly fixated on the word "dictating" and I agree it's not the correct word to use, but it is the word used in the post to which I replied. Neither GMO or medicine truly dictates who lives or dies, but I would argue that the extent to which they could or do dictate life is equal.
I did say it was a fine distinction.
I don't separate GMO from medicine since they are so intertwined (fair amount of medicine produced by or derived from GMO, etc). Relative availability of medicine and food obviously influences the likelihood that people will survive or not. I'd rank food as more influential than medicine because it is a universal requirement with medicine less so, but probably it doesn't really matter for the purposes of this discussion.0 -
So, I did see the "walmart saves you money regardless of if you shop there" argument applied to GMO...just making sure I saw that.0
-
Here's proof that we're not ALL GOING TO DIE if we don't have GMOs. What a huge marketing scam that people have bought into! It's almost criminal the way they have scare mongered people into supporting their corporate agenda. Again, it's a well known fact that there's already enough food to feed the world, but a lot is wasted, and it's obviously not being evenly distributed. If Monsanto and the big food companies really wanted to feed the world, they would have done so a long time ago.
Do you realize that tons and tons of perfectly good crops are thrown away every day because they're considered unsuitable for the supermarket, just because they don't have a certain size or shape or color, or something stupid like that? Literally mountains of bananas and other things are thrown away every day, for no good reason. According to this article in National Geographic, 30 percent of the food we grow is never eaten. The GMO people are in the business of business, not the business of feeding hungry people.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/10/141013-food-waste-national-security-environment-science-ngfood/
The damage being done to the environment through modern day agriculture is a far greater threat to our existence than not having GMOs. It would behoove us all to return to more natural ways of farming. Or rather, we can use modern day methods that are safe and organic. We lived for thousands and thousands of years without GMOs, in balance with the environment, with a sustainable population and farming methods that didn't destroy the earth. Even with the current population, we still don't need GMOs. But we also don't need a bigger population. Even the article linked in the OP says that damage to the environment is caused by the need for more agriculture. It's a very finite planet we live on, and we need to start getting real about that. The entire argument (though incorrect) is that GMOs are better because they take up less space and fewer resources. How about we take up less space and resources by having fewer people?
p.s. I'm not vegetarian, nor am I advocating vegetarianism, but consumption of meat would obviously be reduced if the population were reduced. Plus, there's this thing called grass. We used to let livestock freely roam the pastures.
http://ecowatch.com/2015/03/31/gmos-will-not-feed-world/
http://www.sott.net/article/288642-Debunking-the-myth-We-need-GMOs-to-feed-the-world
Even the UN says we don't need GMOs, and that current farming methods are destroying the environment and threatening our survival.
http://www.srfood.org/images/stories/pdf/officialreports/20110308_a-hrc-16-49_agroecology_en.pdf
I could go on with links, but I'll just leave it at that.
0 -
lisawinning4losing wrote: »Here's proof that we're not ALL GOING TO DIE if we don't have GMOs. What a huge marketing scam that people have bought into! It's almost criminal the way they have scare mongered people into supporting their corporate agenda. Again, it's a well known fact that there's already enough food to feed the world, but a lot is wasted, and it's obviously not being evenly distributed. If Monsanto and the big food companies really wanted to feed the world, they would have done so a long time ago.
Do you realize that tons and tons of perfectly good crops are thrown away every day because they're considered unsuitable for the supermarket, just because they don't have a certain size or shape or color, or something stupid like that? Literally mountains of bananas and other things are thrown away every day, for no good reason. According to this article in National Geographic, 30 percent of the food we grow is never eaten. The GMO people are in the business of business, not the business of feeding hungry people.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/10/141013-food-waste-national-security-environment-science-ngfood/
The damage being done to the environment through modern day agriculture is a far greater threat to our existence than not having GMOs. It would behoove us all to return to more natural ways of farming. Or rather, we can use modern day methods that are safe and organic. We lived for thousands and thousands of years without GMOs, in balance with the environment, with a sustainable population and farming methods that didn't destroy the earth. Even with the current population, we still don't need GMOs. But we also don't need a bigger population. Even the article linked in the OP says that damage to the environment is caused by the need for more agriculture. It's a very finite planet we live on, and we need to start getting real about that. The entire argument (though incorrect) is that GMOs are better because they take up less space and fewer resources. How about we take up less space and resources by having fewer people?
p.s. I'm not vegetarian, nor am I advocating vegetarianism, but consumption of meat would obviously be reduced if the population were reduced. Plus, there's this thing called grass. We used to let livestock freely roam the pastures.
http://ecowatch.com/2015/03/31/gmos-will-not-feed-world/
http://tapnewswire.com/2014/11/the-united-nations-admits-we-dont-need-gmos-owen-paterson/
I could go on with links, but I'll just leave it at that.
Did you read the study in the OP?
ETA: And not surprised that a website called Ecowatch believes that traditional breeding methods have better results. And completely lol'd at throwing around scaremongering, and then using these sites as backup.
And yes it's sad that so much food is wasted because it isn't pretty. Australia and a few other countries are working on that: http://theconversation.com/taste-over-waste-ugly-food-movement-winning-friends-389870 -
Go Australia!
Look, here's what's really going on. Studies show that GMOs are very harmful, but big ag is using their money and power to try to push the scientific community around.
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/07/15/new-study-links-gmos-to-cancer-liverkidney-damage-severe-hormonal-disruption/0 -
lisawinning4losing wrote: »Here's proof that we're not ALL GOING TO DIE if we don't have GMOs. What a huge marketing scam that people have bought into! It's almost criminal the way they have scare mongered people into supporting their corporate agenda. Again, it's a well known fact that there's already enough food to feed the world, but a lot is wasted, and it's obviously not being evenly distributed. If Monsanto and the big food companies really wanted to feed the world, they would have done so a long time ago.
Do you realize that tons and tons of perfectly good crops are thrown away every day because they're considered unsuitable for the supermarket, just because they don't have a certain size or shape or color, or something stupid like that? Literally mountains of bananas and other things are thrown away every day, for no good reason. According to this article in National Geographic, 30 percent of the food we grow is never eaten. The GMO people are in the business of business, not the business of feeding hungry people.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/10/141013-food-waste-national-security-environment-science-ngfood/
The damage being done to the environment through modern day agriculture is a far greater threat to our existence than not having GMOs. It would behoove us all to return to more natural ways of farming. Or rather, we can use modern day methods that are safe and organic. We lived for thousands and thousands of years without GMOs, in balance with the environment, with a sustainable population and farming methods that didn't destroy the earth. Even with the current population, we still don't need GMOs. But we also don't need a bigger population. Even the article linked in the OP says that damage to the environment is caused by the need for more agriculture. It's a very finite planet we live on, and we need to start getting real about that. The entire argument (though incorrect) is that GMOs are better because they take up less space and fewer resources. How about we take up less space and resources by having fewer people?
p.s. I'm not vegetarian, nor am I advocating vegetarianism, but consumption of meat would obviously be reduced if the population were reduced. Plus, there's this thing called grass. We used to let livestock freely roam the pastures.
http://ecowatch.com/2015/03/31/gmos-will-not-feed-world/
http://tapnewswire.com/2014/11/the-united-nations-admits-we-dont-need-gmos-owen-paterson/
I could go on with links, but I'll just leave it at that.
Did you read the study in the OP?
ETA: And not surprised that a website called Ecowatch believes that traditional breeding methods have better results. And completely lol'd at throwing around scaremongering, and then using these sites as backup.
And yes it's sad that so much food is wasted because it isn't pretty. Australia and a few other countries are working on that: http://theconversation.com/taste-over-waste-ugly-food-movement-winning-friends-38987
We're trying, but it's got a bit to go. It's very annoying when the 'ugly' veg are the same price, or even more, than the normal veg when its on sale.
France, however, just made it illegal for supermarkets to throw out produce when it is still edible, but not considered by the supermarket to be saleable. They now have to donate it to food banks and the like:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/04/french-law-forbids-food-waste-by-supermarkets0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Modern day agriculture is one of the worst things to happen to the environment. It's destroying some very fundamental things that we depend on for survival, such as bees, and topsoil. Even if the cause of bee extinction is controversial (though the evidence is there), you can't deny that we're stripping the land and decimating the topsoil everywhere. The biggest culprits are cereal grain monocrops, which are almost all GMO now. Most people don't understand how destructive it is. We need to turn more toward permaculture and agroecology rather than traditional agriculture. We don't necessarily need to go back to the old ways, but we need new ways. The technology is there, but we need to get big business out of the way so we can put it into practice.
http://www.motherearthnews.com/nature-and-environment/topsoil-loss-zmaz80mjzraw.aspx
"Three or four years ago, we added around nine million more acres of marginal land, but less than half was put under good conservation practices. The following year we lost, through the resulting erosion, 60 million tons of rich, vital topsoil . . . gone forever. Sixty million tons! Can you calculate how many starving children could live off that?
An Overdrawn Account
Each day we're losing 30 hundred-acre farms down the river . . . 10,000 farms a year . . . 15 tons of topsoil a second . . . a yearly loss of one ton for each person on earth.
We in America have lost about one-third of our arable land since we arrived here. At the rate we're going, we'll lose another third in the next dozen or so years, while the population almost doubles. Today, each acre feeds barely one person. At the turn of the century, 20 years from now — with the loss of acreage and our increased population — not one, but three people will be trying to eat off each acre that's left.
There are moments in the history of the world when a new time begins. Usually it's during a period of desperate crises. We are at such a moment of great change in our history, and we must be aware of it. We have a choice. We can stand off, let history repeat itself, and watch the death of our hard-earned country . . . or we can pull ourselves together, go into action, and solve the problems of food and soil. We have the know-how, the technology. We need discipline and courage, both good American words, but we also need a new awareness and greater vision.
Our task is . . . to rebuild the earth."
We really aren't going to last much longer at this rate. It needs to change.0 -
Or we could just turn the whole planet into a desert by letting Monsanto do whatever he wants. Ya know, whatevs.0
-
lisawinning4losing wrote: »Or we could just turn the whole planet into a desert by letting Monsanto do whatever he wants. Ya know, whatevs.
0 -
The alternative: Agroecology!
http://permaculturenews.org/2014/09/26/un-small-farmers-agroecology-can-feed-world/
Excerpt:
Modern industrial agricultural methods can no longer feed the world, due to the impacts of overlapping environmental and ecological crises linked to land, water and resource availability.
The stark warning comes from the new United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Prof Hilal Elver, in her first public speech since being appointed in June.
“Food policies which do not address the root causes of world hunger would be bound to fail”, she told a packed audience in Amsterdam.
One billion people globally are hungry, she declared, before calling on governments to support a transition to “agricultural democracy” which would empower rural small farmers.
Agriculture needs a new direction: agroecology
“The 2009 global food crisis signalled the need for a turning point in the global food system”, she said at the event hosted by the Transnational Institute (TNI), a leading international think tank.
“Modern agriculture, which began in the 1950s, is more resource intensive, very fossil fuel dependent, using fertilisers, and based on massive production. This policy has to change.
“We are already facing a range of challenges. Resource scarcity, increased population, decreasing land availability and accessibility, emerging water scarcity, and soil degradation require us to re-think how best to use our resources for future generations.”
The UN official said that new scientific research increasingly shows how ‘agroecology’ offers far more environmentally sustainable methods that can still meet the rapidly growing demand for food:
“Agroecology is a traditional way of using farming methods that are less resource oriented, and which work in harmony with society. New research in agroecology allows us to explore more effectively how we can use traditional knowledge to protect people and their environment at the same time.”
Small farmers are the key to feeding the world.0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »Here's proof that we're not ALL GOING TO DIE if we don't have GMOs. What a huge marketing scam that people have bought into! It's almost criminal the way they have scare mongered people into supporting their corporate agenda. Again, it's a well known fact that there's already enough food to feed the world, but a lot is wasted, and it's obviously not being evenly distributed. If Monsanto and the big food companies really wanted to feed the world, they would have done so a long time ago.
Do you realize that tons and tons of perfectly good crops are thrown away every day because they're considered unsuitable for the supermarket, just because they don't have a certain size or shape or color, or something stupid like that? Literally mountains of bananas and other things are thrown away every day, for no good reason. According to this article in National Geographic, 30 percent of the food we grow is never eaten. The GMO people are in the business of business, not the business of feeding hungry people.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/10/141013-food-waste-national-security-environment-science-ngfood/
The damage being done to the environment through modern day agriculture is a far greater threat to our existence than not having GMOs. It would behoove us all to return to more natural ways of farming. Or rather, we can use modern day methods that are safe and organic. We lived for thousands and thousands of years without GMOs, in balance with the environment, with a sustainable population and farming methods that didn't destroy the earth. Even with the current population, we still don't need GMOs. But we also don't need a bigger population. Even the article linked in the OP says that damage to the environment is caused by the need for more agriculture. It's a very finite planet we live on, and we need to start getting real about that. The entire argument (though incorrect) is that GMOs are better because they take up less space and fewer resources. How about we take up less space and resources by having fewer people?
p.s. I'm not vegetarian, nor am I advocating vegetarianism, but consumption of meat would obviously be reduced if the population were reduced. Plus, there's this thing called grass. We used to let livestock freely roam the pastures.
http://ecowatch.com/2015/03/31/gmos-will-not-feed-world/
http://tapnewswire.com/2014/11/the-united-nations-admits-we-dont-need-gmos-owen-paterson/
I could go on with links, but I'll just leave it at that.
Did you read the study in the OP?
ETA: And not surprised that a website called Ecowatch believes that traditional breeding methods have better results. And completely lol'd at throwing around scaremongering, and then using these sites as backup.
And yes it's sad that so much food is wasted because it isn't pretty. Australia and a few other countries are working on that: http://theconversation.com/taste-over-waste-ugly-food-movement-winning-friends-38987
We're trying, but it's got a bit to go. It's very annoying when the 'ugly' veg are the same price, or even more, than the normal veg when its on sale.
France, however, just made it illegal for supermarkets to throw out produce when it is still edible, but not considered by the supermarket to be saleable. They now have to donate it to food banks and the like:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/04/french-law-forbids-food-waste-by-supermarkets
We have a grocery store here in Boston where all the items are what other stores would either throw away or not accept for sale. They sell a pound of apples for like 0.19/lb. Sure the apples have some imperfections, but it is a cheap way to get pretty decent food. It's also in the heart of Dorchester which is one of the poorest neighborhoods in Boston.
Great idea.0 -
I'm glad that the amount of food that gets wasted has been brought up.
Also, personally I don't think that trying to combat the greenhouse gas emissions for the purpose of controlling global warming is justifiable enough to keep growing GMO food.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »I'm glad that the amount of food that gets wasted has been brought up.
Also, personally I don't think that trying to combat the greenhouse gas emissions for the purpose of controlling global warming is justifiable enough to keep growing GMO food.
So to make sure I understand what you are saying, you think GMO's should be banned, even if they would help ameliorate or reduce global climate change?0 -
lisawinning4losing wrote: »We in America have lost about one-third of our arable land since we arrived here. At the rate we're going, we'll lose another third in the next dozen or so years, while the population almost doubles. Today, each acre feeds barely one person. At the turn of the century, 20 years from now — with the loss of acreage and our increased population — not one, but three people will be trying to eat off each acre that's left.
So you are posting a screed about population increase in the US that was written in 1980 by Eddie Albert (who was in How to Beat the High Co$t of Living that same year)?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »We in America have lost about one-third of our arable land since we arrived here. At the rate we're going, we'll lose another third in the next dozen or so years, while the population almost doubles. Today, each acre feeds barely one person. At the turn of the century, 20 years from now — with the loss of acreage and our increased population — not one, but three people will be trying to eat off each acre that's left.
So you are posting a screed about population increase in the US that was written in 1980 by Eddie Albert (who was in How to Beat the High Co$t of Living that same year)?
I'm curious if his prediction was even remotely accurate?0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »We in America have lost about one-third of our arable land since we arrived here. At the rate we're going, we'll lose another third in the next dozen or so years, while the population almost doubles. Today, each acre feeds barely one person. At the turn of the century, 20 years from now — with the loss of acreage and our increased population — not one, but three people will be trying to eat off each acre that's left.
So you are posting a screed about population increase in the US that was written in 1980 by Eddie Albert (who was in How to Beat the High Co$t of Living that same year)?
I'm curious if his prediction was even remotely accurate?
My quick search came up with the number one per acre, same as Albert claims in 1980.
He claimed 3 per acre by 2000.
I think it's absurd to claim overpopulation as a problem in the US, also, given our density or lack thereof. And that's without getting into the minefield of claiming that other countries should have fewer children or are overpopulated, which makes me queasy. I do not believe that excess population is the reason for hunger in the world today.0 -
This content has been removed.
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