|
I'm an environmentalist and not anti-nuclear though?
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 21:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 22:44 |
|
|
Mr. Self Destruct posted:I'm an environmentalist and not anti-nuclear though? Which mainstream environmentalist groups align with your values?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 21:45
|
|
|
The green party of Canada... oh wait, not only are they against nuclear but they support homeopathy too! 
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 22:02
|
|
|
Awesome, I just heard on the local NPR station that the GMO labelling bill is favored 3 to 1 among likely voters. I'll find a link later today. But remember, these guy don't have any ~*~real~*~ power!
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 12:13
|
|
Scald posted:The green party of Canada... oh wait, not only are they against nuclear but they support homeopathy too! The majority of environmentalists don't give a poo poo about minor details such as "the scientific method" or "empirical evidence".
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 16:22
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Awesome, I just heard on the local NPR station that the GMO labelling bill is favored 3 to 1 among likely voters. I'll find a link later today. I say gently caress it, let a bill pass and then just not label your second generation seeds to drive home the point. "No, this one isn't genetically modified, you're thinking of the parent."
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 16:26
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:I say gently caress it, let a bill pass and then just not label your second generation seeds to drive home the point. "No, this one isn't genetically modified, you're thinking of the parent." That's a meaningless distinction. I'm no fan of GM labelling, but if you're going to term something GM, then all descendants of the original organism that haven't deleted the inserted gene must surely also be GM? Even if their circumstances of origin are not the same, they are of the same kind.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 16:35
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:I say gently caress it, let a bill pass and then just not label your second generation seeds to drive home the point. "No, this one isn't genetically modified, you're thinking of the parent." I wasn't clear earlier - this isn't a bill in the legislature, this is a loving initiative. Sponsored by loving PCC Markets and Dr. Bonner's homemade, all-natural bullshit soaps.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 18:06
|
|
|
CottonWolf posted:That's a meaningless distinction. I'm no fan of GM labelling, but if you're going to term something GM, then all descendants of the original organism that haven't deleted the inserted gene must surely also be GM? Even if their circumstances of origin are not the same, they are of the same kind. It's all meaningless distinctions. That's exactly his point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 19:37
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:It's all meaningless distinctions. That's exactly his point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Meaningless or not, the 'second-generation' seeds would still have a legal requirement to be labeled, and failing to do so certainly wouldn't accomplish anything desirable. Labeling any of them doesn't accomplish anything desirable in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 04:24
|
|
|
NewtGoongrich posted:The majority of environmentalists don't give a poo poo about minor details such as "the scientific method" or "empirical evidence". I have a sneaking suspicion that most environmentalists are actually motivated by hatred of urbanism than anything else. e:wires crossed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 04:36
|
|
|
ErichZahn posted:I have a sneaking suspicion that most environmentalists are actually motivated by hatred of urbanism than anything else. Evnironmentalists generally support urbanism, as the alternative is more destructive to nature.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Evnironmentalists generally support urbanism, as the alternative is more destructive to nature. Anecdotally this hasn't been my experience, though it is better recently than in the past. A lot of the "hardcore" ones I've met have a vision of a subsistence farming society.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 19:32
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:Anecdotally this hasn't been my experience, though it is better recently than in the past. A lot of the "hardcore" ones I've met have a vision of a subsistence farming society. Hope they low or no-till. Difficulty notwithstanding, if you are going to go all the way, might as well do it right.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 05:10
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Meaningless or not, the 'second-generation' seeds would still have a legal requirement to be labeled, and failing to do so certainly wouldn't accomplish anything desirable. Wouldn't it? It sounds like exactly the kind of thing a multinational meglocorperation would argue and by the time they're found guilty they'd already have passed another law eliminating the first. They couldn't pass labeling in California, and if they did I'm sure they'd be unable to keep it when it becomes obvious that nearly every crop ever needs to be labeled.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 17:50
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:Wouldn't it? It sounds like exactly the kind of thing a multinational meglocorperation would argue and by the time they're found guilty they'd already have passed another law eliminating the first. That's still a year of growing that you're wasting when you could just not allow the law to pass initially.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 18:05
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:Wouldn't it? It sounds like exactly the kind of thing a multinational meglocorperation would argue and by the time they're found guilty they'd already have passed another law eliminating the first. Maybe they couldn't pass labeling because it was a loving stupid law to begin with?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 19:47
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:Labeling any of them doesn't accomplish anything desirable in the first place. Solkanar512 posted:Maybe they couldn't pass labeling because it was a loving stupid law to begin with?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 20:04
|
|
|
Personally I think we need to label produce that was harvested by illegal central american laborers---what if they poop in the field and I get sick??? Now you might say, "That's ridiculous and racist and unjustified, what the gently caress is wrong with you?" I ask, "What are you trying to hide?" I mean, it's not like that by labeling my product as "100% certified Not poo poo On by Mexicans" I'm somehow implying that the other products are poo poo on, right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 20:18
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:Personally I think we need to label produce that was harvested by illegal central american laborers---what if they poop in the field and I get sick??? Now you might say, "That's ridiculous and racist and unjustified, what the gently caress is wrong with you?" I ask, "What are you trying to hide?" EDIT: it's been a long week.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 21:12
|
|
|
Hypha posted:Hope they low or no-till. Difficulty notwithstanding, if you are going to go all the way, might as well do it right. Hope they keep the baby making to a minimum, because there's no way old-school subsistence farming could support anywhere near the planet's current population.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 22:49
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:Hope they keep the baby making to a minimum, because there's no way old-school subsistence farming could support anywhere near the planet's current population. * But they're the sort of people who don't even have iPads so they aren't really people. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 23:01 on Sep 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:Hope they keep the baby making to a minimum, because there's no way old-school subsistence farming could support anywhere near the planet's current population. I do not mean to suggest that I support this stance. I was referring to "right" in regards to soil health.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 23:09
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Educated environmentalists who know maths generally support urbanism, as the alternative is more destructive to nature. Fixed that for you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2013 12:53
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
I fruitlessly tried to explain the stupidity of labeling to someone up in Seattle that I had expected was better educated than this. He literally said they should be labeled "just because" even though he admitted it's not scientific. And then one of his friends posted this link as a refutation: http://naturalsociety.com/monsanto-bee-collapse-buys-bee-research-firm/ It is so hard to be a progressive that actually understands science. Pseudoscience really does know no ideology.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 23:16
|
|
|
Rebochan posted:I fruitlessly tried to explain the stupidity of labeling to someone up in Seattle that I had expected was better educated than this. I want to smack the editors of the Stranger. They're now posting "studies" from the Alliance for Natural Health. What the gently caress is that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 00:12
|
|
|
Sorry for the double post, but something hit me last night regarding GMOs. Given how low the yields are for organic farming, wouldn't it be incredibly beneficial to support the research and development of GMO cultivars which thrive under organic farming conditions? In the same vein, wouldn't it be helpful to the locavore movement to have similarly designed plants that are customized to a greater variety of climatic and pest conditions? After all, most of the environmental issues with GMO farming have more to do with the way the plants are being farmed rather than the plants themselves. I guess what I'm saying here is why in the gently caress aren't these communities advocating for public research toward these ends?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2013 23:42
|
|
|
The only identifying aspect of "organic" farming is the random rejection of useful farming techniques because they're not natural enough. That's why they never will use GMO.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2013 02:20
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Sorry for the double post, but something hit me last night regarding GMOs. Because GMO crops already thrive under organic farming conditions, they grow like weeds. The line of thinking isn't that you'd get more corn per square foot with organic crops, the intent is to use sustainable practices growing healthy foods with what you already have: heritage seeds. The auxiliary benefits of biodiversity like not wiping out all the bees is just a plus.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2013 02:47
|
|
|
Organic is the opposite of sustainable. It actively denies access to sustainable techniques at complete whim.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2013 03:04
|
|
|
Cheekio posted:Because GMO crops already thrive under organic farming conditions, they grow like weeds. The line of thinking isn't that you'd get more corn per square foot with organic crops, the intent is to use sustainable practices growing healthy foods with what you already have: heritage seeds. The auxiliary benefits of biodiversity like not wiping out all the bees is just a plus. Heritage seeds have nothing to do with organic farming. You have no idea what you're talking about. A lot of the chemicals used in organic farming are actually far more harmful to insects and the environment than the chemicals that don't qualify as organic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2013 03:12
|
|
|
Largely uneducated as I am, I tend to support GMOs because, to my knowledge, most GMOs are largely just very complicated breeding experiments designed to isolate existing growth hormones and accelerate them, thus enabling bigger vegetables, bigger harvests and a better output. I don't know anything as far as "quality" goes, since I don't think I've eaten a non-GMO veggie next to a real one, but I suspect there are probably some taste differences. I don't think being completely against GMO's on a principle of it being "unnatural" makes any sense, since it's not like you're creating some freakish amalgamation of a pumpkin and a tomato, you're just giving your tomatoes an extra boost to their growth hormones, or so I believe. That said, Monsanto is loving evil as all goddamn hell and they rule this country's agriculture supply with an iron fist. I dislike their business practices, I dislike the state and condition and quality of food in America and I think anyone with even a mind towards proper nutrition can see that you're being surrounded by bad options--frozen veggies, crummy tomatoes, potatoes that rot almost as soon as you bring them back from the store, and so many preservatives pumped into everything that isn't at least seemingly a pure vegetable or fruit. Plus the fact that Monsanto forces hundreds of thousands of Indian farmers out of their land and lives, AND didn't they bid for ownership of the Blackwater PMC group? I don't know if that is fact or heresay. So, Monsanto = bad, GMO's = not bad--but prone to corruption, no doubt. I do not think that every GMO food is an improvement nor better for you, but I also see the rationale behind not labeling them, since all you may do is turn away ignorant people from otherwise good foods, and be promoting bad science in the process.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2013 04:10
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Organic is the opposite of sustainable. It actively denies access to sustainable techniques at complete whim. That is a pretty harsh statement and I would argue that its premise is wrong, presuming you mean environmental sustainability. There are plenty of techniques which allow you to positively contribute to improving the environment while still increasing yield, such as beetle banks and various intercropping arrangements. There are definitely options though which cannot be considered in an organic system and I would argue there are measures which are counter-intuitive to what organic agriculture should be trying to achieve but the research is still out on that question. From a producer standpoint, as I understand, you can be pretty pragmatic about what works for you and what doesn't. The consumer side of things has a sort of cult thinking, which probably explains the price point we are able to demand. Organic produce, my risk assessment alone, should cost more but organic wheat at $3 a pound at the farmers' market feels like stealing. E: quote:Largely uneducated as I am, I tend to support GMOs because, to my knowledge, most GMOs are largely just very complicated breeding experiments designed to isolate existing growth hormones and accelerate them, thus enabling bigger vegetables, bigger harvests and a better output. GMO's do not have the capability, at least, not yet. Hypha fucked around with this message at 04:36 on Oct 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2013 04:33
|
|
|
BottledBodhisvata posted:Plus the fact that Monsanto forces hundreds of thousands of Indian farmers out of their land and lives Hypha posted:GMO's do not have the capability, at least, not yet. Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 04:51 on Oct 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2013 04:35
|
|
|
Hypha posted:That is a pretty harsh statement and I would argue that its premise is wrong, presuming you mean environmental sustainability. There are plenty of techniques which allow you to positively contribute to improving the environment while still increasing yield, such as beetle banks and various intercropping arrangements. There are definitely options though which cannot be considered in an organic system and I would argue there are measures which are counter-intuitive to what organic agriculture should be trying to achieve but the research is still out on that question. From a producer standpoint, as I understand, you can be pretty pragmatic about what works for you and what doesn't. The consumer side of things has a sort of cult thinking, which probably explains the price point we are able to demand. Organic produce, my risk assessment alone, should cost more but organic wheat at $3 a pound at the farmers' market feels like stealing. It's not harsh, it's true. Organic farming is anti-evidence-based. It outright rejects farming methods for no good reason other than "not natural enough". There is never and has never been a scientific basis to the precepts of organic farming. Of course those measures are counter intuitive to what organic is "trying to achieve" - it tries to achieve a living manifestation of the naturalistic fallacy!
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2013 04:49
|
|
|
BottledBodhisvata posted:That said, Monsanto is loving evil as all goddamn hell and they rule this country's agriculture supply with an iron fist. Monsanto had revenue of 11 billion in 2011, Cargill had 130 billion. ADM had 89 billion. CHS had 40 billion. Mosaic was about 11 billion. Thats about how much of an "iron fist" Monsanto has, Cargill will just spin off a subsidiary like Mosaic of equal size. I bet you have never heard of Mosaic, and you sure as hell haven't heard about CHS.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2013 04:51
|
|
|
Hypha posted:That is a pretty harsh statement and I would argue that its premise is wrong, presuming you mean environmental sustainability. There are plenty of techniques which allow you to positively contribute to improving the environment while still increasing yield, such as beetle banks and various intercropping arrangements. There are definitely options though which cannot be considered in an organic system and I would argue there are measures which are counter-intuitive to what organic agriculture should be trying to achieve but the research is still out on that question. From a producer standpoint, as I understand, you can be pretty pragmatic about what works for you and what doesn't. The consumer side of things has a sort of cult thinking, which probably explains the price point we are able to demand. Organic produce, my risk assessment alone, should cost more but organic wheat at $3 a pound at the farmers' market feels like stealing. Ya, no. What can work with massive amounts of manual labor on a 4 acre hobby garden will not scale up to 640 acre farm. Instead organic farmers rely on the tried and true method of weed control, tillage.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2013 05:00
|
|
|
karthun posted:Ya, no. What can work with massive amounts of manual labor on a 4 acre hobby garden will not scale up to 640 acre farm. Instead organic farmers rely on the tried and true method of weed control, tillage. So what is your point? Farming "organically" is like stepping back 90 years, so farmers are going to have to rely on tillage, fallowing and a very strict crop rotation. You can still farm a major operation "organically". It is definitely riskier and there will be a lot of problems with weed and insect control but on a good year, your pay-out is larger. I do not mean to defend all the bullshit that people add to organic production, there is a lot of methodology that does not make sense. To say that cultural techniques are scientifically unsound though is objectively wrong; tillage does control weed and pathogen populations. Numerous scientific studies support that cultural control does work. You do not need all kinds of chemical inputs to farm, it will be more effective though if you do. To say that it is impossible to farm today without drowning everything in chemicals is incredibly misinformed, almost as much as those that claim that organic systems will overtake the yield of conventional systems. E: Not that I am responding to you specifically that you implied that cultural control is unscientific. Every technique I do talk about though, I only understand from a 640 acre farm perspective. I don't do hobby farms. Hypha fucked around with this message at 06:54 on Oct 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2013 06:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 22:44 |
|
|
Hypha posted:So what is your point? Farming "organically" is like stepping back 90 years, so farmers are going to have to rely on tillage, fallowing and a very strict crop rotation. You can still farm a major operation "organically". It is definitely riskier and there will be a lot of problems with weed and insect control but on a good year, your pay-out is larger. I do not mean to defend all the bullshit that people add to organic production, there is a lot of methodology that does not make sense. To say that cultural techniques are scientifically unsound though is objectively wrong; tillage does control weed and pathogen populations. Numerous scientific studies support that cultural control does work. You do not need all kinds of chemical inputs to farm, it will be more effective though if you do. To say that it is impossible to farm today without drowning everything in chemicals is incredibly misinformed, almost as much as those that claim that organic systems will overtake the yield of conventional systems. Sigh... It was the conventional practices of 90 years ago that hosed up the Mississippi river and caused the dead zone in the Gulf. It was the conventional practices of 90 years ago that caused the dust bowl. And these are the failed conventional practices that are implemented broadly on "organic farms". Honestly I don't like to call a thing like Earthbound Farm to be a farm. Btw there is the future of your organic movement. Large megacorporations with tenant farmers. gently caress that poo poo and gently caress the organic movement. Btw I never said that cultural techniques are scientifically unsound and objectively wrong. But you can quote me on saying that scientifically unsound practices, like 90 year old conventional practices that hosed up the Mississippi river, the Gulf of Mexico and caused the god drat dust bowl, are absolutely objectively wrong. karthun fucked around with this message at 07:25 on Oct 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2013 07:16
|
|