|
The thing is, at some level EVERYONE accepts science. All modern civilisations' comforts are a direct result of science. That painkiller you used for you headache? Science. That air conditioning keeping you from sweaty ballsacks? Science. That car? Science. That computer? Science. That weather forecast? Science. It's like they accept the end result of science but not science itself. The dichotomy never ceases to puzzle me.
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 05:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 22:53 |
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Or the ever depressing D&D version where "goons just worship science like it's a religion". This needs a bit of nuance. The issue I see and have issue with is absolute belief that technology will, 100% guaranteed, save us from our food, energy, and other environmental concerns in the future without the need for a leveling off of or reduction in consumption. I have a bit of trouble with that personally, seeing how we've used technology and increasing consumption to get ourselves into the messes we are in now. Science and technology have given us incredible gifts, but we also need to deal with their consequences. It's less a blind faith in science than it is an absolute resistance to the idea that we need to reduce the amount of resources we use. Counting on advancing technology to increase efficiency is not a guaranteed way to reduce this usage to where they need to be, in order to not be depleted faster than they are replenished. Increasing efficiency of resource usage and finding new sources are great, but reduction in total usage isn't talked about so much. I suspect this is more a symptom of how our economy is structured to use increases in efficiency to simply produce more with the same resources. But then again, I'm just speculating on possible causes for this train of thought that is so against reduction in usage. If anyone wants to chime in, I'm all ears, because I can't figure this one out myself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 06:11
|
|
|
TheFuglyStik posted:This needs a bit of nuance. The issue I see and have issue with is absolute belief that technology will, 100% guaranteed, save us from our food, energy, and other environmental concerns in the future without the need for a leveling off of or reduction in consumption. I have a bit of trouble with that personally, seeing how we've used technology and increasing consumption to get ourselves into the messes we are in now. Science and technology have given us incredible gifts, but we also need to deal with their consequences. It's less a blind faith in science than it is an absolute resistance to the idea that we need to reduce the amount of resources we use. Anyone who thinks technology will save us is extremely short-sighted. If we planned for it before global warming ever happened, sure, we could actually prevent it and likely reverse its effects. At this stage, it'll be a miracle if we actually stop INCREASING the current trend. The scale affecting the planet means it's extremely unlikely any kind of technology can fix the mess we've made.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 06:15
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Or the ever depressing D&D version where "goons just worship science like it's a religion". I suspect it's not just goons who do that, but many people in the past decades who have grown disillusioned. You know, believing really really hard in science hasn't magically produced solutions to whatever their pet probems are yet so now it's time to believe really really hard in Jesus, horoscopes, or Ron Paul 2016 again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 06:32
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
I feel like a part of the issue has been the degree of success which agricultural science has been able to overcome its challenges. We should have had multiple Malthusian catastrophes by this point, yet the plagues which should have laid us low were averted and yields were able to far surpass population growth. Even the barriers of implementation were overcome, which was incredibly impressive considering the backgrounds of farmers in third world countries. I do not mean to white wash the Green Revolution, there are definite faults and serious consequences which need to be addressed, but all things considered, it was an incredible achievement. Why shouldn't we expect lightening to strike twice? There are still people around the world starving but it is not for lack of food production. Affluent nations are dealing with problems associated with obesity, not famine. The juggernaut of modern agriculture is no longer impressive and its feats are practically expected. The institutions which powered it have not vanished, some in fact have actually grown to monstrous proportions and have no ethical qualms about pushing the envelope if need be. I am certain some of my colleagues think that if given the green light, we could certainly mitigate the effect climate change will have on food production. It might not be pretty but a "War on Famine" attitude breeds reckless optimism. Still, climate change is a huge deal with many possible scenarios. We do not yet have the ability to shore up ecological abilities and still increase yields. Dwarfing was incredibly easy compared to what is asked this time and a technological solution alone will likely fail. Going beyond a technological solution though will require much more effort and will definitely push people's comfort zones. Any which way it goes down, agriculture as we know it will not survive. I do not believe though, that the solution is for everyone to the way of the Amish; it feels too much like rolling over and going extinct. We likely cannot save the North American lifestyle but must we be doomed to a new dark age or worse? At least let us try something before bottle caps and bitcoins become the new currency of choice. In regards to the OP, a big factor I feel is how people are now incredibly disconnected with their food. Few wish to acknowledge the realities of production needed to fuel every single impulse we could ever direct at a plate. This disconnect I feel is partly the reason why there is a push for more organic options, distaste of the factory farm and fear of genetic modification. I personally have nothing against these positions but I do not like their implementations. I have seen little desire to reconnect to producers, understand their decisions and limitations, and push to realign the desires of both groups. Instead it is gross vilification and proselytizing, whereby the old must be completely destroyed to make way for some utopian reality. By going back to nature, we will somehow quadruple production, have no disease problems, repair all environmental damage and everything will be super safe and healthy. I highly doubt that a farmer who has to take a part time job just to make ends meet will enjoy being lectured on how to make his living by posh suburbanites. GMO's do help the bottom line of the farmer and make things a heck of a lot easier. Farmers, as a whole, ain't nobodies fool. Both the companies and the farmers know the game and the bullshit that comes with it. It is far easier to just circle the wagons than it is to deal with the general consumer. There is more to it than that but in the end, both sides aren't talking and real issues cannot be resolved until production and consumption is engaged again. As such, this issue is far beyond just scientific ignorance and tackling it from a scientific standpoint alone solves nothing. I am certain the same attitudes dominate on the question of climate change as well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 09:59
|
|
|
TheFuglyStik posted:This needs a bit of nuance. The issue I see and have issue with is absolute belief that technology will, 100% guaranteed, save us from our food, energy, and other environmental concerns in the future without the need for a leveling off of or reduction in consumption. I have a bit of trouble with that personally, seeing how we've used technology and increasing consumption to get ourselves into the messes we are in now. Science and technology have given us incredible gifts, but we also need to deal with their consequences. It's less a blind faith in science than it is an absolute resistance to the idea that we need to reduce the amount of resources we use. Uh no, there are also people who think "Science can provide all the answers to everything", along with the people who unironically say "By Science!" instead of "By God" or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 13:51
|
|
|
I had a friend on Facebook that just posted that, "Obama is forcing Whole Foods to sell Monsanto GMO food!" I've already replied to dozens of his conspiracy theory rants with easy to find Snopes links refuting them, but he always responds, "I don't believe the liberal media." I don't even know where to begin if you think Obama is personally forcing stores to stock Monsanto foods. He's also always talking about strange new alternative medicine and untested supplements he's taking to "detox." Kind of ironic, he'll probably be plagued with health issues from all the untested things he's putting his body due to his irrational fear of things science has shown to be safe.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 14:12
|
|
|
TheFuglyStik posted:This needs a bit of nuance. The issue I see and have issue with is absolute belief that technology will, 100% guaranteed, save us from our food, energy, and other environmental concerns in the future without the need for a leveling off of or reduction in consumption. I have a bit of trouble with that personally, seeing how we've used technology and increasing consumption to get ourselves into the messes we are in now. Science and technology have given us incredible gifts, but we also need to deal with their consequences. It's less a blind faith in science than it is an absolute resistance to the idea that we need to reduce the amount of resources we use. What I wrote was literally something I've seen several times without expansion, so I find your nuance refreshing! One thing I've seen personally is the use of technology towards the ends you're speaking of. Here in the Seattle area they've spent decades installing low-flow shower heads and faucet restrictions. Sounds mundane as all gently caress, but over that period of time, residential water use has been flat in the face of our significant population growth. So yeah, I'm totally with you, and I think you're on to something when you speak to the idea of "efficiencies go towards greater production rather than keeping it level". After all, you only have to look at the average hours worked before and after computers became cheap to see that all the extra free times wasn't going towards reducing the work week.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:12
|
|
|
I feel that the "all bow before the mighty science" crowd also underestimates political powers in these things. Especially concerns about deregulation, which makes me weary of private run nuclear power plants. Which maybe is irrational, but I think we've seen enough problems with, for example coal power plants to think maybe first we need to deal with that. These are complex issues (maybe not GMOs I don't know) But just saying nuclear power is the answer I think is glib since we still have to ask about sustainability, if the entire world switched over to nuclear power as a primary power option how much fuel is that going to take, how long is that gonna work before we run out of it, mind you we also have to think about the developing countries increasing demand, which very often I think people ignore the Third World and the developing countries and instead just project current usages forward.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 18:58
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:I feel that the "all bow before the mighty science" crowd also underestimates political powers in these things. Especially concerns about deregulation, which makes me weary of private run nuclear power plants. Which maybe is irrational, but I think we've seen enough problems with, for example coal power plants to think maybe first we need to deal with that. These are complex issues (maybe not GMOs I don't know) But just saying nuclear power is the answer I think is glib since we still have to ask about sustainability, if the entire world switched over to nuclear power as a primary power option how much fuel is that going to take, how long is that gonna work before we run out of it, mind you we also have to think about the developing countries increasing demand, which very often I think people ignore the Third World and the developing countries and instead just project current usages forward. We have enough nuclear fuel to last well beyond mine or my childrens lifetimes, that's good enough for me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 19:04
|
|
|
Good enough for you is not good enough for everyone or truly sustainable, and that again assumes demand does not increase. I'm sure at one point someone said there'd be enough oil/coal to last well beyond mine or my children's lifetime. Anything that relies on a limited stock of fuel is going to eventually run out. I'm sure the supply can be stretched out if one uses geothermal, wind, solar or hell I've heard they're working on harnessing tidal powers. But whenever these issues come up there seems to be no small number of people that insist that nuclear power is the only option. And in all the rush to blame the granola eating anti-science lefties people tend to forget the NIMBY people (or course except when it's nuclear power the complaints of that never end), like those that opposed the wind farm off of Martha's Vineyard, or (again) the wealthy of Manhattan were opposed to putting windmills on the skyscrapers to help power them cause it would ruin the view.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 19:19
|
|
|
Scald posted:We have enough nuclear fuel to last well beyond mine or my childrens lifetimes, that's good enough for me. Thorium and breeder reactors mean there is enough fuel to last a long-rear end time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 19:43
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:Good enough for you is not good enough for everyone or truly sustainable, and that again assumes demand does not increase. I'm sure at one point someone said there'd be enough oil/coal to last well beyond mine or my children's lifetime. Anything that relies on a limited stock of fuel is going to eventually run out. I'm sure the supply can be stretched out if one uses geothermal, wind, solar or hell I've heard they're working on harnessing tidal powers. But whenever these issues come up there seems to be no small number of people that insist that nuclear power is the only option. World population is expected to peak in 2050 so I'm somehow doubting we'll have massive population and energy use explosions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 19:48
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:Good enough for you is not good enough for everyone or truly sustainable, and that again assumes demand does not increase. I'm sure at one point someone said there'd be enough oil/coal to last well beyond mine or my children's lifetime. Anything that relies on a limited stock of fuel is going to eventually run out. I'm sure the supply can be stretched out if one uses geothermal, wind, solar or hell I've heard they're working on harnessing tidal powers. But whenever these issues come up there seems to be no small number of people that insist that nuclear power is the only option. Nuclear power is in fact the only option that can be dropped in place now and take offline all of those drat coal power plants providing baseline power. And I might point out the fact that it's completely possible to toss in a lot of what's currently marked as spent fuel and nuclear waste into properly designed reactors to get more out of them. This is not even getting into the fact that building it to push out fossil fuel stuff in no way prevents the building of other forms of power at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 21:18
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:Good enough for you is not good enough for everyone or truly sustainable, and that again assumes demand does not increase. I'm sure at one point someone said there'd be enough oil/coal to last well beyond mine or my children's lifetime. Anything that relies on a limited stock of fuel is going to eventually run out. I'm sure the supply can be stretched out if one uses geothermal, wind, solar or hell I've heard they're working on harnessing tidal powers. But whenever these issues come up there seems to be no small number of people that insist that nuclear power is the only option. Fusion power's not going to be happening and powering the entire world with solar and wind is also not going to be happening. You can either have nuclear, or you can have nothing when the oil and gas run out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 21:23
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:Good enough for you is not good enough for everyone or truly sustainable, and that again assumes demand does not increase. I'm sure at one point someone said there'd be enough oil/coal to last well beyond mine or my children's lifetime. Anything that relies on a limited stock of fuel is going to eventually run out. I'm sure the supply can be stretched out if one uses geothermal, wind, solar or hell I've heard they're working on harnessing tidal powers. But whenever these issues come up there seems to be no small number of people that insist that nuclear power is the only option. This is a policy and enforcement issue, not an issue with the underlying science. I'm not saying that these are bad arguments to make or that concerns shouldn't be raised, but the underlying science on how these plants work and how much waste they produce and what it takes to safely contain it is well understood. Science isn't the issue here. quote:And in all the rush to blame the granola eating anti-science lefties people tend to forget the NIMBY people (or course except when it's nuclear power the complaints of that never end), like those that opposed the wind farm off of Martha's Vineyard, or (again) the wealthy of Manhattan were opposed to putting windmills on the skyscrapers to help power them cause it would ruin the view. The NIMBY assholes aren't the ones who are denying or lying about facts well known and supported by a scientific consensus. They're just complaining about their precious property values. And face it, the rush to blame the anti-science left is well deserved. The right has gotten their share for denying reality (creationism, climate change denial), and it's time the same standard was applied to the left. They can take their anti-nuke, anti-GMO, anti-vaccine, homeopathic herbal remedy secrets that your doctor doesn't want you to know about bullshit and shove it in the same place that creationism and climate change denial belongs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 22:56
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:Good enough for you is not good enough for everyone or truly sustainable, and that again assumes demand does not increase.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 23:02
|
|
Thundercracker posted:So this apparently just happened. Why isn't this front page news? Why aren't the people involved all prosecuted as terrorists and their organizations broken? This is Dark Ages, witch hunts poo poo, a literal attack on technology that feeds people, and its allowed to go on? It's ironic that the nuts call them 'Frankenfoods' since they're the mob with torches and pitchforks. On another note, I've seen people still freaking out over Fukashima's radiation. Is there really any danger from it? The sites linked to are all super-dodgy so I'm doubtful.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 23:11
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:Good enough for you is not good enough for everyone or truly sustainable, and that again assumes demand does not increase. I'm sure at one point someone said there'd be enough oil/coal to last well beyond mine or my children's lifetime. Anything that relies on a limited stock of fuel is going to eventually run out. I'm sure the supply can be stretched out if one uses geothermal, wind, solar or hell I've heard they're working on harnessing tidal powers. But whenever these issues come up there seems to be no small number of people that insist that nuclear power is the only option. Yeah, wind energy is bullshit as anything other than a gap-filler and a distraction for people to greenwash themselves with. Even if we filled the entire country with wind turbines it still wouldn't generate enough power to run even a fraction of the nation. It's very silly to tout it as any sort of long-term solution independent of nuclear or some other dependable, large-scale, and high-output power source. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Aug 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 23:12
|
|
TheFuglyStik posted:Yes. I can't find a reason to consider selective breeding bad unless we're using it to produce crops/animals that can't survive less than ideal conditions. See turkeys that can't physically reproduce on their own. There's a lot to be said for resilience in our food supply. Shouldn't we care about helping and protecting PEOPLE, not the environment?
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 23:14
|
|
|
The only option other than nuclear is providing solar cells for the roofs of every house, and that's only really viable in countries with higher solar exposure (e.g. Australia would be soooo easy to get rid of the dirty 'clean' coal plants). Plus from an industrial perspective it's a rather huge undertaking when current solar cell demand is much higher than the supply. No, I don't think anyone thinks nuclear is the BEST option, but it certainly is the only one if we want to eliminate co2 production while still providing us enough power. Also as others have mentioned modern breeder units are much more efficient, produce less waste, and more power. Thorium reactors can't even go nuclear, so you get the added safety and no dirty bombs. Barnsy fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Aug 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 23:22
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:And face it, the rush to blame the anti-science left is well deserved. The right has gotten their share for denying reality (creationism, climate change denial), and it's time the same standard was applied to the left. They can take their anti-nuke, anti-GMO, anti-vaccine, homeopathic herbal remedy secrets that your doctor doesn't want you to know about bullshit and shove it in the same place that creationism and climate change denial belongs. When hippies form a corporation that holds a monopoly on the basic requirements of life, I'll get equally angry at them! And this conflation of hippies with leftism, please turn off the South Park. Politics and economics ruin the science of agriculture just as they ruin the science of medicine, and goons treat this as some minor problem to be addressed after educating the hippies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 23:46
|
|
|
Golden rice is exactly the counter-example to the economic argument. It is to be freely distributed, and farmers need pay no royalties as long as they make less than $10,000 per year from it. The seeds can be kept and replanted. And yet Greenpeace, a mainstream environmental organization, remains violently and destructively opposed to them. This isn't South Park, and it's not about "corporate monopoly on the basic requirements of life," if that were ever anything but hysteria - it is a very real anti-scientific position that harms people, and it is held primarily by leftists. edit: An organization is not an organism. In the usual sense, anyway. Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Aug 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 23:56
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Golden rice is exactly the counter-example to the economic argument. It is to be freely distributed, and farmers need pay no royalties as long as they make less than $10,000 per year from it. The seeds can be kept and replanted. And yet Greenpeace, a mainstream environmental organism, remains violently and destructively opposed to them. This isn't South Park, and it's not about "corporate monopoly on the basic requirements of life," if that were ever anything but hysteria - it is a very real anti-scientific position that harms people, and it is held primarily by leftists. After having been involved in government fisheries, I can assure you all that the only reason we aren't sustainable in most every way is because of the idiots in charge of our countries. I won't go into detail, but most of the governments in Australia decided to get rid of fisheries because they saw it as a hole in their budget. Never mind the science research into preserving the country's assets...
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 00:00
|
|
|
Barnsy posted:After having been involved in government fisheries, I can assure you all that the only reason we aren't sustainable in most every way is because of the idiots in charge of our countries. I won't go into detail, but most of the governments in Australia decided to get rid of fisheries because they saw it as a hole in their budget. Never mind the science research into preserving the country's assets...
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 00:01
|
|
|
Doctor Dog posted:When hippies form a corporation that holds a monopoly on the basic requirements of life, I'll get equally angry at them! And this conflation of hippies with leftism, please turn off the South Park. Politics and economics ruin the science of agriculture just as they ruin the science of medicine, and goons treat this as some minor problem to be addressed after educating the hippies. You're going to have to show me how the anti-science left isn't part of the political left. Is the modern environmentalism movement no longer left wing either?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 00:23
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Is the modern environmentalism movement no longer left wing either? This is why I've given up on just using the tired left/right division. I describe dissent with a mix of three 'flavors' - left, right, and gonzo. Borderline anarchoprimitivism is gonzo - but has left and right elements as well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 00:41
|
|
|
McDowell posted:This is why I've given up on just using the tired left/right division. This is a huge "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Look at how various environmental groups spend their lobbying money and how they grade the votes of members of Congress. This flavor of anti-science rhetoric comes from the left, and it must be addressed internally. That's why I'm so adamant about this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 03:35
|
|
|
Exactly. Most of the extreme anti-science I see comes from my lefty friends. It goes back to the same 'nature = good' fallacy that spawned the environmental movement.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 03:48
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Golden rice is exactly the counter-example to the economic argument. It is to be freely distributed, and farmers need pay no royalties as long as they make less than $10,000 per year from it. The seeds can be kept and replanted. And yet Greenpeace, a mainstream environmental organization, remains violently and destructively opposed to them. This isn't South Park, and it's not about "corporate monopoly on the basic requirements of life," if that were ever anything but hysteria - it is a very real anti-scientific position that harms people, and it is held primarily by leftists. Truly you must be some kinda smelly hippy to think that corporations engage in manipulative trade deals or outright theft from third world nations! What exactly do you think happened to Haiti? "We can feed the hungry with science!" conveniently ignores the corporate plunder that lead to hunger in the first place! D&D is smart enough to see exploitation for what it is domestically with the pharmaceutical industry and finance sector, why do we assume these processes don't occur globally? It's startlingly naive. Greenpeace has about as much economic clout as Topeka's Maoist Party. quote:In Haiti in 1986 we imported just 7000 tons of rice, the main staple food of the country. The vast majority was grown in Haiti. In the late 1980s Haiti complied with free trade policies advocated by the international lending agencies and lifted tariffs on rice imports. Cheaper rice immediately flooded in from the United States where the rice industry is subsidized. In fact the liberalization of Haiti's market coincided with the 1985 Farm Bill in the United States which increased subsidies to the rice industry so that 40% of U.S. rice growers' profits came from the government by 1987. Haiti's peasant farmers could not possibly compete. By 1996 Haiti was importing 196,000 tons of foreign rice at the cost of $100 million a year. Haitian rice production became negligible. Once the dependence on foreign rice was complete, import prices began to rise, leaving Haiti's population, particularly the urban poor, completely at the whim of rising world grain prices. And the prices continue to rise.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 04:39
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Uranium is truly sustainable on a geologic timescale, as in thousands or millions of years worth of power at current consumption levels and at reasonable prices. This is something that has been brought up in this thread more than once, and the numbers are publicly available from dozens of peer-reviewed sources. But if were powering the whole world with it those consumption levels will rise. The fact we can get more out of the "spent" fuel rods is news to me. I'll stress again I don't disagree with nuclear power, and I never said wind/solar should be the only form of power production. But I see no reason why we shouldn't use those where we can even if we have a majority nuclear power grid and I don't get why they all can't share, yes nuclear power will be the main cart horse doesn't mean wind and solar can't pull their weight where they can though. And yes most of my hesitancy is about policy implementation, since that's what we should be worried about. Since the thread often feels like way too much Positivism going on, that science can only do good, but in science there will be a down side we couldn't predict or foresee, what killed Positivism was the horrors of World War One. Science can do just as much bad as good depending on how you use it and this thread at times has seemed like the over all opinion has been that science can only do good. Sorry if that is not what people have meant but it is how it has come off. And yes the anti-GMO science left pisses me off as much as you guys. I shake my head when a friend of mine continually posts about GMOs or fluidization. But fluidride in the drinking water is a brand of insanity that crosses political boundaries. Count Chocula posted:Exactly. Most of the extreme anti-science I see comes from my lefty friends. It goes back to the same 'nature = good' fallacy that spawned the environmental movement. I would say the environmental movement had more to do with DDT, "Silent Spring," a poo poo ton of pollution and the moon landing making us see we've only got one place to live we better not poo poo where we sleep than any nature=good fallacy. Rivers use to just burst into flames in the US, and poo poo half the stories I've heard about the East River and NY harbor in general from about 30 years ago is insane. We have the EPA for a reason not just to make some "hippies" feel good about their organic food. KomradeX fucked around with this message at 05:43 on Aug 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 04:55
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:But if were powering the whole world with it those consumption levels will rise. Not that I'm agreeing with the point, just clarifying to the best of my ability.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 05:25
|
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:Rent-A-Cop can correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think the "consumption level" being referred to was the total energy consumption, not nuclear consumption, meaning that we could replace the entirety of energy consumption worldwide with nuclear and still have thousands or millions of years of potential energy in reserve. Ahh my mistake then, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 05:43
|
|
|
Doctor Dog posted:Truly you must be some kinda smelly hippy to think that corporations engage in manipulative trade deals or outright theft from third world nations! What exactly do you think happened to Haiti? "We can feed the hungry with science!" conveniently ignores the corporate plunder that lead to hunger in the first place! I fail to see the connection you are making here between genetically engineered organisms and corporate and/or government exploitation due to globalization. This sounds more an issue in regards to trade agreements on agriculture (which are a mess) than anything to do with science. Was Haiti screwed by this? The effect is undeniable but the effect has nothing to do with scientific application or knowledge. Monsanto is not the only producer of GMO varieties and there are public institutions, some even in third world countries, who are actively involved breeders. As such, GMO's cannot as a whole be connected to any singular corporation or practice. It is a weak correlation if nothing else, that those who benefit from trade subsidies and tariffs also can benefit from GMO varieties. Corporations and governments do indeed engage in highly manipulative trade deals and all sorts of backstabbing of honest people but there is nothing scientific about these endevours. Hypha fucked around with this message at 06:06 on Aug 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 06:01
|
|
|
I went to March Against Monsanto this summer thinking that people were upset like I was that Monsanto was one of the big corporations that you could see abusing the government for profiteering purposes. Surely the amount of money they spent for protection legislation to be snuck through in budget bills and such would upset everyone else as much as it upsets me to see my government continue to play patty cake with lobbyists. I had a sign that read: YOU TOO CAN BUY POLITICANS FOR JUST 6 MILLION DOLLARS! ASK MONSANTO HOW! And had their PR phone number on the sign (someone actually copied the number down, but no idea if they called about it). At any rate, I seemed to be of a small percentage of people who were actually concerned about government buy outs, moles in the FDA and SCOTUS specifically to keep testing to a minimum, etc. And to be clear, I'm undecided about GMO's. I'm actually more worried, when concerning them, that the chemicals they resist when used in greater concentration can have adverse affects on the plant itself that simply rinsing it off when going to eat it cannot correct. Just wanted to put that out there so my stance on GMO's is know. I'm weary of them, but I'm not a nut on the whole thing. So, back to the march...me and my girlfriend went and I kid you not, most people were concerned with their immediate plate, nothing more. Most signs had dumb slogans like "Get your GMOs off my dinner table", etc. Nothing of real substance. There were some interesting speakers at the event talking about Aeroponics, which seemed cool. The way the guy was talking it was like hydroponics on steroids. But I'm getting off topic. My girlfriend and I kinda waited around for someone, anyone, to come out and start talking about how they've spend lots of money corrupting our government in to be in their favor and after about 2 hours of waiting, a green party member finally hit the right tone I was looking for. No one there really seemed to be worried about this, though. Immediately after, it was back to "Devil Monsanto Food" and such. Overall, I was disappointed and left the march about 10 minutes into it after all of the speakers, some of whom I missed because it was a smoke free park and me and my gal wanted to get in a cigarette and sit in the shade for a minute instead of listening to all this BS about Monstanto's evil seed and bees, etc. Like I said, I think Monsanto is shady and the jury is out with me on their actual product. I know they get huge subsidies from the government for their corn so they can peddle it instead of actually giving us real sugar in our drinks here, I know they have lobbyists and give handily to SuperPACs whenever they can to spread information and I know they have former employees working in positions of the government that benefit them. These things alone make me not trust them or their GMOs. Science, schmience. As soon as you corrupt my government with your dark money, you lost any respect you might have had. This goes for Dow, Dupont, etc. Just thought I'd share my experience at the rally.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 07:14
|
|
|
hseiken posted:Like I said, I think Monsanto is shady and the jury is out with me on their actual product. I know they get huge subsidies from the government for their corn so they can peddle it instead of actually giving us real sugar in our drinks here, Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 08:02 on Aug 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 07:58
|
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:Rent-A-Cop can correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think the "consumption level" being referred to was the total energy consumption, not nuclear consumption, meaning that we could replace the entirety of energy consumption worldwide with nuclear and still have thousands or millions of years of potential energy in reserve. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 08:26 on Aug 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 08:19
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:This isn't really particularly true either. The U.S. has some pretty significant corn subsidies, but it's money that goes to farmers, and it doesn't matter whether they grow GM corn or whatever other kind, so the connection to Monsanto is tenuous at best (except insofar as they certainly go to bat, politically, for money that goes to the people who buy their products). And the whole HFCS-vs-sugar thing is another debate steeped in misinformation. Do you have any independent studies concerning HFCS vs. sugar vs. honey? I hear it's essentially identical to honey and that both are inferior in terms of the way the body breaks it down compared to cane sugar, but I don't even know what a trustworthy, non-money source of information is on this. And it's sad that I have to question the motives of all reports now by tracing their funding. I can't even trust scientists and dietitians anymore. I feel sometimes I trade one lie for another and now I'm so tired of being lied to I don't want to listen to anyone. It's a sad state to live in...
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 08:28
|
|
|
hseiken posted:Do you have any independent studies concerning HFCS vs. sugar vs. honey? I hear it's essentially identical to honey and that both are inferior in terms of the way the body breaks it down compared to cane sugar, but I don't even know what a trustworthy, non-money source of information is on this. And it's sad that I have to question the motives of all reports now by tracing their funding. I can't even trust scientists and dietitians anymore. I feel sometimes I trade one lie for another and now I'm so tired of being lied to I don't want to listen to anyone. It's a sad state to live in... I'll see if I can find the study, but basically your body prefers to send fructose straight to fat. While with glucose your body can use it as energy first. High fructose corn syrup is still about half glucose. Long term effects are inconclusive because it's neigh impossible to not find it in your diet in America.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 15:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 22:53 |
|
|
hseiken posted:Do you have any independent studies concerning HFCS vs. sugar vs. honey? I hear it's essentially identical to honey and that both are inferior in terms of the way the body breaks it down compared to cane sugar, but I don't even know what a trustworthy, non-money source of information is on this. And it's sad that I have to question the motives of all reports now by tracing their funding. I can't even trust scientists and dietitians anymore. I feel sometimes I trade one lie for another and now I'm so tired of being lied to I don't want to listen to anyone. It's a sad state to live in... Sucrose has additional metabolism step where it is broken down into fructose and glucose in 50/50 ratio. Does it matter?  There are many studies showing heavy disbalance into fructose over glucose leads to some metabolic anomalies(spiking triglyceride levels in blood for example) of unclear long-term effect(could be obesity and diabetes, but evidence is dodgy). HFCS despite the name is not all that high fructose to cause obvious metabolic effects, is straying from 50/50 even a little to fructose bad for you? again. Pure glucose is apparently ok for metabolism unless used in unreasonable quantities.Filling up US with fatties probably has more to do with HFCS quantities in use than HFCS being really bad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 15:24
|
|
