Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Study on effects of eliminating GMOs

24567

Replies

  • lisawinning4losinglisawinning4losing Posts: 732Member Member Posts: 732Member Member
    msf74 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.
  • msf74msf74 Posts: 3,501Member Member Posts: 3,501Member Member
    msf74 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.

  • lemurcat12lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886Member Member Posts: 30,886Member Member
    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.
  • auddiiauddii Posts: 15,410Member Member Posts: 15,410Member Member
    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.
  • senecarrsenecarr Posts: 5,377Member Member Posts: 5,377Member Member
    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.
  • MiloBloom83MiloBloom83 Posts: 2,772Member Member Posts: 2,772Member Member
    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.
  • senecarrsenecarr Posts: 5,377Member Member Posts: 5,377Member Member
    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.
  • ninerbuffninerbuff Posts: 42,485Member, Greeter Member Posts: 42,485Member, Greeter Member
    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.
    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.
    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:
    Water-A-polluted-creek--003_zpsnjliitmf.jpg

    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

    9285851.png


  • WinoGelatoWinoGelato Posts: 13,272Member Member Posts: 13,272Member Member
    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!!!
  • ninerbuffninerbuff Posts: 42,485Member, Greeter Member Posts: 42,485Member, Greeter Member
    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.
    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.

    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

    9285851.png

  • ninerbuffninerbuff Posts: 42,485Member, Greeter Member Posts: 42,485Member, Greeter Member
    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.
    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?
    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

    9285851.png

  • msf74msf74 Posts: 3,501Member Member Posts: 3,501Member Member
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    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...

  • jofjltncb6jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,965Member Member Posts: 34,965Member Member
    ninerbuff 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.
    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?
    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

    9285851.png

    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.
  • rankinsectrankinsect Posts: 2,238Member, Premium Member Posts: 2,238Member, Premium Member
    jofjltncb6 wrote: »
    ninerbuff 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.
    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?
    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

    9285851.png

    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.
  • Nuke_64Nuke_64 Posts: 406Member Member Posts: 406Member Member
    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.
  • Need2Exerc1seNeed2Exerc1se Posts: 13,589Member Member Posts: 13,589Member Member
    ninerbuff 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.
    Your birth control statement came after I posted my question, not before it or else I would have acknowledged it.
    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

    9285851.png

    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.
  • jofjltncb6jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,965Member Member Posts: 34,965Member Member
    rankinsect wrote: »
    jofjltncb6 wrote: »
    ninerbuff 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.
    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?
    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

    9285851.png

    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).
  • stealthqstealthq Posts: 4,307Member Member Posts: 4,307Member Member
    ninerbuff 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.
    Your birth control statement came after I posted my question, not before it or else I would have acknowledged it.
    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

    9285851.png

    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.
  • Carlos_421Carlos_421 Posts: 4,864Member, Premium Member Posts: 4,864Member, Premium Member
    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.




    /sarc
  • Need2Exerc1seNeed2Exerc1se Posts: 13,589Member Member Posts: 13,589Member Member
    stealthq wrote: »
    ninerbuff 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.
    Your birth control statement came after I posted my question, not before it or else I would have acknowledged it.
    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

    9285851.png

    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.