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
Options
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
It absolutely is not. There are plenty of food worldwide to feed every single mouth in abundance. However access to all that food to those in poverty is often severely lacking.
That's what I keep saying. If the people producing GMOs wanted to feed the world, they could be doing it already.0 -
Correct. (And I do realize that this may sound like a strange stance).lemurcat12 wrote: »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 -
I would like to see them labeled. I think that those who are wary or do fear them...they should be given the choice of selecting that their foods are GMO free.
I'm not wary of them, but I'm happy to see them labeled.
I don't strongly care whether they are required to be labeled or non GMO are simply permitted to use the label non GMO if they want (as they are, right? I've seen it). I'm open to argument on this.0 -
lisawinning4losing wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
It absolutely is not. There are plenty of food worldwide to feed every single mouth in abundance. However access to all that food to those in poverty is often severely lacking.
That's what I keep saying. If the people producing GMOs wanted to feed the world, they could be doing it already.
Then why did you start out by claiming that overpopulation was a problem (something you have continued to push)?0 -
How about a risk/benefit analysis? Golden rice has got to have huge benefits attached to it.
https://www.ted.com/talks/pamela_ronald_the_case_for_engineering_our_food0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I would like to see them labeled. I think that those who are wary or do fear them...they should be given the choice of selecting that their foods are GMO free.
I'm not wary of them, but I'm happy to see them labeled.
I don't strongly care whether they are required to be labeled or non GMO are simply permitted to use the label non GMO if they want (as they are, right? I've seen it). I'm open to argument on this.
Same. I'm more pro labeling non-GMO than the other way for various logistical and semantics reasons.0 -
lisawinning4losing wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
It absolutely is not. There are plenty of food worldwide to feed every single mouth in abundance. However access to all that food to those in poverty is often severely lacking.
That's what I keep saying. If the people producing GMOs wanted to feed the world, they could be doing it already.
They would but there's all these people who want to outright ban them and are talking conspiracy theories about how monsanto wants to rule the world.0 -
Excess population isn't a reason for hunger at this time, but it's a reason for severe environmental destruction partly caused by traditional modern day farming methods, which is the cause for concern. And we could eventually get to the point of not having enough good topsoil left to grow enough food for everybody. There's only so much of it. So the idea that we should just continue destroying more and more topsoil, so we can breed more and more people, so we can destroy more and more topsoil, so we can breed more and more people, is an absolutely terrible idea. You're worried about genocide and people dying? Then worry about that! You're right to be afraid, but your fears are completely misplaced. That's why I'm proposing two things. One is to decrease the population through birth control, and the other is to implement agroecology instead of GMO Monsanto agriculture which is actually what's going to end up killing us.
I respectfully present this opinion, and I respect it if you have a different opinion. Please don't call me woo or stupid, or talk down to me in a condescending tone, or suggest that I have no ability for rational thought, and don't accuse me of wanting to kill masses of brown skinned people. Thanks. I'll try my best to abstain from sarcasm and be the bigger person from now on, no matter how much other people are condescending to me and putting me down.0 -
Well no, because people can basically refuse to eat what's given to them or not get medical attention. NOT being given the option would be more of a dictation on who lives or dies.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.
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 -
lisawinning4losing wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
It absolutely is not. There are plenty of food worldwide to feed every single mouth in abundance. However access to all that food to those in poverty is often severely lacking.
That's what I keep saying. If the people producing GMOs wanted to feed the world, they could be doing it already.
Just for curiosity's sake, can you name the companies or universities working with GMO's besides Monsanto? I mean without hitting up Google, just off the top of your head? Do you feel such companies should be run as a charity? It isn't a point I'd entirely be opposed to, but I find that issue to be far separate and more moral philosophy based (therefore less provable) than say the raw science of if GMOs are safe, provide yield benefits, enhance nutrition, increase food security, etc.
Are you aware that Bill and Melinda Gates, through their foundation, are hoping to provide GMO's to Africa in hopes of reducing both poverty and to increase food security?
If you have a specific one of your links about the harm of GMO's, I'll gladly address the specific points it raises.
Are you opposed to Golden Rice, and excellent project jgnatca mentioned? It does receive support from Monsanto among others, but is not for profit initiative mainly run by university researchers if I recall correctly. It has the potential to prevent death in blindness in hundreds of thousands of children - which will help lower the population you're worried about - and no, even though I said lives, I did mean it when I said it will lower population. One of the best ways to reduce fertility rates is to increase survivor rates because people who see their children survivor tend to reduce the number of children they have.0 -
Also, how is it any less hysterical to say that we're all going to starve to death if we don't have GMOs? How did we survive for thousands of years without them?0
-
Look up Norman Borlaug. Nobel prize winning biologist who helped save lives with GMO.lisawinning4losing wrote: »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/
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 -
All my points, links, evidence, etc, were given earlier in this thread, and were obviously not read by the people arguing with me now, so I'm just going to bow out at this point. It would be redundant for me to repeat what I've already said.0
-
The original point wasn't that people would starve without them (although that doesn't mean they can't be helpful). It was that there would be bad environmental effects, specifically in the US (and on greenhouse emissions), from banning them.
Then we had the following:
lisawinning4losing wrote: »
"Why would I even support anything that promotes over-population, which in and of itself is destroying the environment and the future of our species? Even if GMOs are necessary to feed the current population, which I'm not convinced of, if we have to genetically modify food to produce enough to feed everyone, then there are way too many freaking people."
Followed by:
"How do you suggest reducing the number of people? Because letting them starve out seems a bit harsh..."
YOU are the one who asserted that there are too many people in the world and that we shouldn't enable that. That's why you've gotten pushback.0 -
53.
That's how many posts I deleted out of this discussion due to a spectacular job at forgetting that we have community guidelines in here. And that was after a few had already been deleted by some of my fellow moderators. The violations were literally all over the place, so I'm not going to bother quoting any of the guidelines at you. I am however, going to remind you that we have them, and violations of them can and do result in warnings. If you see someone violating guidelines, report it. Do not engage. If you feel really strongly about it, PM a mod. But do not engage, as engaging a violating post often leads to further violations, then I'm warning everybody and crying into my beer. You're crying into your beer, she's crying into her beer, and sadness ensues.
I don't like to be sad. Do you?0 -
Okay, guys, you've made a mod cry and dillute her beer. Are y'all happy now?0
-
I don't want any beer unless it's non-GMO. Joking.0
-
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Okay, guys, you've made a mod cry and dillute her beer. Are y'all happy now?
Depends.
Was the beer made from GMO or non-GMO grains?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 912 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions