|
LP97S posted:Monsanto is the main target because they're monopolizing the distribution of seeds with buy outs and licensing and I'm sorry that apparently this thread is only about GMO being bad from some loving green party platform instead of dealing with the biggest name in loving over food distribution. I guess liberalism wins again, Merry Christmas. [citation needed]
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 00:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 12:44 |
|
|
LP97S posted:Monsanto is the main target because they're monopolizing the distribution of seeds with buy outs and licensing You don't even know who the players are in the market you're so concerned about Monsanto ruining for the world.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 00:05
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:No they aren't. Monsanto isn't even the biggest in the US. They make top 5 in a good year. They control 90% of the soy bean market and they've gotten the OK from the US government to continue with no obligation on their part.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 00:08
|
|
|
LP97S posted:They control 90% of the soy bean market and they've gotten the OK from the US government to continue with no obligation on their part. GMO's increase yields. Farmers aren't stupid, in fact, they're pretty goddamn good at farming. They don't need you to step in and protect them from mean 'ol big city types. They buy Monsanto seed because it's worth more to them. There's no shortage of soybean cultivars available. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Dec 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 00:12
|
|
|
LP97S posted:They control 90% of the soy bean market and they've gotten the OK from the US government to continue with no obligation on their part. Monsanto does not control 90% of the soybean market, 90% of soybeans contain Monsanto patented technology. That's a pretty key difference; consider that in the smartphone, CPU and other high-tech industries, all the major players are essentially using technologies licensed from their competitors. The fact that 90% of soybeans contain Monsanto-licensed technology does not mean that Monsanto literally "controls" 90% of the soybean market since Monsanto itself is very likely licensing patented technology from its competitors as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 00:20
|
|
|
The patent licensing markets work very differently between agriculture and high tech, so it's less of a likelihood that there's extensive cross-licensing going on. That still ignores that 90% of the soybean market is Monsanto because it works better (better in this case being resistance to a relatively inexpensive human-safe herbicide, not increased yield) It's not like it's hard to find a soybean cultivar that doesn't use Monsantos patents and grow it if you don't want to deal with Monsanto. You can even replant the seeds from year to year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 00:33
|
|
|
Kalman posted:That still ignores that 90% of the soybean market is Monsanto because it works better (better in this case being resistance to a relatively inexpensive human-safe herbicide, not increased yield) It's not like it's hard to find a soybean cultivar that doesn't use Monsantos patents and grow it if you don't want to deal with Monsanto. You can even replant the seeds from year to year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 00:42
|
|
|
Kalman posted:The patent licensing markets work very differently between agriculture and high tech, so it's less of a likelihood that there's extensive cross-licensing going on. There's a USDA report that points out that there is in fact a good bit of cross-licensing, at least along the larger companies. From page 38 of the report: quote:[Dupont, Dow Agro Sciences, Syngenta, Monsanto, Bayer Crop Sciences, and BASF] have instituted biotechnology research, acquired interest in biotechnology companies, collaborated in biotechnology research, or signed licensing agreements for biotechnology products. In many cases, they have combined more than one of these activities...Significant cross-licensing agreements still exist between companies, including those comprising the Big 6 (Howard, 2009). For example, Monsanto has cross-licensing agreements with all the other Big 6 companies; Dow with four of the other five, and DuPont and Syngenta with three of the other companies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 00:47
|
|
|
Well gently caress it, I guess since a company that has a long history of killing people is just taking advantage of the gross inequalities that the current system affords them is fine. I focused on Monsanto because what a goddamned shock the name of the company is in the title, and I followed it through because of trying to right the wrongs at reasons to hate Monsanto. They are the largest distributor, so I aimed at them. You can't even argue with that, no one did and instead said "that's fine" or just accepted it as if the childlike notion of a real free market existed. The consolidation of agribusiness over the last 20 years cannot be ignored nor should it just be viewed as natural as in no time in history did the combination at this level with minimum oversight ever have any good come out of it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 01:03
|
|
|
LP97S posted:Well gently caress it, I guess since a company that has a long history of killing people is just taking advantage of the gross inequalities that the current system affords them is fine. I focused on Monsanto because what a goddamned shock the name of the company is in the title, and I followed it through because of trying to right the wrongs at reasons to hate Monsanto. They are the largest distributor, so I aimed at them. You can't even argue with that, no one did and instead said "that's fine" or just accepted it as if the childlike notion of a real free market existed. The consolidation of agribusiness over the last 20 years cannot be ignored nor should it just be viewed as natural as in no time in history did the combination at this level with minimum oversight ever have any good come out of it. They aren't the 'largest distributor' their technology is in most soybeans because, again, they are objectively the best. Do you have any background in agriculture or something because even the most insanely anti-GMO farmers know that Monsanto isn't the main distributor in most any field. How about you cite some sources to these outrageous arguments?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 01:15
|
|
LP97S posted:Well gently caress it, I guess since a company that has a long history of killing people is just taking advantage of the gross inequalities that the current system affords them is fine. I focused on Monsanto because what a goddamned shock the name of the company is in the title, and I followed it through because of trying to right the wrongs at reasons to hate Monsanto. They are the largest distributor, so I aimed at them. You can't even argue with that, no one did and instead said "that's fine" or just accepted it as if the childlike notion of a real free market existed. The consolidation of agribusiness over the last 20 years cannot be ignored nor should it just be viewed as natural as in no time in history did the combination at this level with minimum oversight ever have any good come out of it. There is a lot of unfocused anger here. What is so bad about other people in the thread asking you to make some specific claims or substantiate the vague ones that you have made? Can you quit making fairly big claims ("Monsanto are mass murders!") without saying where you got the idea, a link, something?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 01:21
|
|
|
LP97S posted:Well gently caress it, I guess since a company that has a long history of killing people is just taking advantage of the gross inequalities that the current system affords them is fine. I focused on Monsanto because what a goddamned shock the name of the company is in the title, and I followed it through because of trying to right the wrongs at reasons to hate Monsanto. They are the largest distributor, so I aimed at them. You can't even argue with that, no one did and instead said "that's fine" or just accepted it as if the childlike notion of a real free market existed. The consolidation of agribusiness over the last 20 years cannot be ignored nor should it just be viewed as natural as in no time in history did the combination at this level with minimum oversight ever have any good come out of it. You do realize that Monsanto is in the title as a reference to exactly the ignorance you're displaying, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 01:23
|
|
|
I've never understood why the frothing anti-GMO doomsayers have latched onto Monsanto. Why not Pioneer, Bayer, or Dow?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 01:36
|
|
|
Yeah Dow's mass murder is actually existent and well-documented. (Companies now owned by dow anyway...)
Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 02:06 on Dec 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 02:02
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:I've never understood why the frothing anti-GMO doomsayers have latched onto Monsanto. Why not Pioneer, Bayer, or Dow? Monsanto was the first to do so. Prior to becoming a mostly genetics based company, they manufactured PCB and managed to dump 45 tons of the mess into a single creek in 1969. They also engaged in dangerous practices in disposing of it in many places. Sure, they might not have the raw body count of Union Carbide, now owned Dow, but when people asked why did I not like Monsanto, I explained why specifically with regards of that company. Cargill and Dow are also sketchy companies and I wouldn't trust them with dogsitting, let alone being a major component in food security in the 21st century. But hey, since apparently this thread is solely about GMO from some dumb loving email chain arguments and not about the ultimately dangerous practice of monopolies I'll stop.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 02:20
|
|
|
LP97S posted:Monsanto was the first to do so. Prior to becoming a mostly genetics based company, they manufactured PCB and managed to dump 45 tons of the mess into a single creek in 1969. They also engaged in dangerous practices in disposing of it in many places. Sure, they might not have the raw body count of Union Carbide, now owned Dow, but when people asked why did I not like Monsanto, I explained why specifically with regards of that company. Cargill and Dow are also sketchy companies and I wouldn't trust them with dogsitting, let alone being a major component in food security in the 21st century. This thread was originally about a particular strain of bizarre ideas about Monsanto and GMO that propogated in a strange internet vacuum to create people that were angry at issues that they basically invented themselves. I'm sorry if actually stating what your mad about is a lot of work for you, but...hahaha no i'm not. Actually make a coherent argument if you want to discuss something. If you lack enough information to do so, consider that your beliefs may be ill-founded, since you can no longer back them up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 02:54
|
|
|
LP97S posted:Monsanto was the first to do so. Prior to becoming a mostly genetics based company, they manufactured PCB and managed to dump 45 tons of the mess into a single creek in 1969. They also engaged in dangerous practices in disposing of it in many places. Sure, they might not have the raw body count of Union Carbide, now owned Dow, but when people asked why did I not like Monsanto, I explained why specifically with regards of that company. Cargill and Dow are also sketchy companies and I wouldn't trust them with dogsitting, let alone being a major component in food security in the 21st century. To call Dow 'also sketchy' is like saying "Yea Hitler was a dictator who killed millions, and Stalin was also kinda a dick". If you want to rant and rage about random companies, pick Dow, it's the one that actually DID have death squads that actually DID straight murder people. Like, no one is saying monopolies are good, we're saying you legit don't understand what you're angry about, just that you're supes mad about about something. You didn't give any specific reasons you don't like Monsanto beyond 'what if they make a monopoly' and a poor understanding of soy beans.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 04:11
|
|
|
I found I had a draft of a post I was writing for an old thread from last year about monsanto, and in addition to being an answer to the below, I quoted some other posts from that thread.Tatum Girlparts posted:So to be clear if you make a seed you shouldn't own it? If you produce a product you don't own your labor if it's deemed to be a 'staple'? When it outcompetes other seeds (economically, not biologically, GMOs are fine) and eliminates them from the marketplace or with enough horizontal integration, then farmers are forced to pay for a seed with a yearly royalty due to contract-even if the yields do not measure up to what they are told it will yield or if overproduction lowers prices to such an extent that no profit can be made. This results in small farmer debt which often leads to perpetual poverty (in de facto debt bondage for India) or suicide. When I have concern (not anti-GMO concerns; anti-capitalistic concerns) about Monsanto, it is based on its history and the history of subsistence farming societies forcibly converted to agricultural societies with a capitalistic mode of production. I am not concerned with monsanto's involvement with American farmers or other first world farmers. I am concerned with Monsanto's activities in places like India, where 65% of the total population's livelihood depends on farming--places where vast portions of the population are largely agrarian or subsistence-farming and capitalist outsiders are seeking to transform that. First, two articles about the situation in India: quote:http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/in-india-gm-crops-come-at-a-high-price/ Full article on the following here; some snippets http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/02/201224152439941847.html posted:
Foreign traders pushing cotton farming in India is not new. In reaction to the cotton famine of 1861-65 where British textile manufacturers were hit by a huge shock to their supply chain due to the American Civil War, The British Empire got more involved in British-occupied colonial India so they would have a stable cotton supply. Through their policies, subsistence farmers were converted into cotton farmers who were promised short-term profits. Overproduction of cotton resulted and those who used to be subsistence farmers had to buy food when they formerly had grown it. Did this conversion result in an overall shortage of food crops? No. During these years, India was a net exporter of food crops. The nation grew economically. Of course, the wealth of nations does not equal the well-being of its people. Somewhere around 10 to 20 million people died over the next several decades from chronic famines that came not from food shortage but unavailability to the people at market prices. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Victorian_Holocausts posted:Davis argues, for example, that "Between 1875–1900—a period that included the worst famines in Indian history—annual grain exports increased from 3 to 10 million tons", equivalent to the annual nutrition of 25m people. "Indeed, by the turn of the century, India was supplying nearly a fifth of Britain’s wheat consumption at the cost of its own food security. If there's any problem with Monsanto's genetic modification, it's because of the implications of that modification, not the mere fact that some crops were modified. For instance, they have a contract stipulation that you must buy new seeds from them every year; you cannot hold onto seeds. They've sued people who have held onto seeds for piracy. It's this context that colors their decision to genetically modify sterile plants as something not done for its intrinsic benefit but for a way of making sure no sales opportunity is lost. http://www.economist.com/node/14904184 posted:Acquisitions have been a key part of Monsanto's strategy, giving it access to new seed markets. In 2005, it began to apply biotech to vegetables after buying Seminis, the world's largest vegetable-seed company, for $1.4 billion. Since it was spun off, Monsanto has made more than 20 acquisitions (as well as several disposals). Those purchases are one reason why it was singled out as an appropriate target for the antitrust authorities in a paper published in October by the American Antitrust Institute, an independent competition watchdog. The paper laments the “impaired state of competition in transgenic seed”—which it blames on Monsanto above all. In response to this in the other thread, someone posted:
My question then would be if it's so advantageous to buy the same seeds every year to ensure higher quality and quantity in yields, why do you need explicit enforcement through royalties? Especially since the seed itself loses its patented traits after replanting. And what if a royalty-bound crop doesn't produce as much of a yield as was expected, causing the farmer to expect having to go into debt if they want to buy seeds next year--shouldn't they have the option of 'dropping out', simply planting from their previous yield to recoup costs? (Not having the option open for replanting of cotton crops is the problem in India--farmers were unable to make up for debt due to royalties.) One could say, "no one forced anyone to change from being subsistence farmers!" but that disregards the great power disparity between the two sides of the contract when someone with absolutely no experience in working with contract law is rendered "equal" to foreign entities who have vast amounts of lawyers and salespersons in their employ whose sole existence is to extract the last drop of revenue from other human beings. (One might as well blame any early 1900s immigrant to America who was sold a house under a contract for deed, where they were told they own it (so long as they meet rent--it becomes truly theirs only once it is all paid off). At any time, if they lose employment and are unable to meet it for even a brief period, they are evicted and lose all stake in the house. This still goes on in US/Mexican border towns called Colonias, where plumbing and electrical systems are a 'maybe'). It also disregards land reform that marks those epochs of conversion, where feudal or traditionally-owned land suddenly comes under a competitive system of rents and peasants then must pay increasing rents on land that produces no more revenue than before. How do you come up with this rent? An agricultural salesperson will come in here and suggest "how about a commercial crop? You can be rich!" If one doesn't risk this, they will be evicted from their land and have to compete as wage workers in an already swelling labor market. The choice between small-scale/subsistence farming and capitalistic farming should be a choice individual people in a society should be allowed to make. Strict state enforcement royalties on crops when very few non-royalty-bound alternatives are available is one way that a capitalist mode of production is coerced. Seed patents are simply another type of capital (intellectual capital) that a firm uses to gain an advantage in a market. Capital itself is neutral. The socially-harmful (or helpful) way a firm uses that capital is what determines whether or not a firm should be allowed to use that capital for a profit or if they should have that privilege taken away. A company with a history such as Monsanto's--where they produced Agent Orange in large quantities for the US government with full knowledge of its toxicity as early as 1952--should not be allowed the privilege to continue functioning as-is, and especially not in ways where their function is to gently caress with populations of developing peasant countries when it is has shown that is has no respect for their well-being. When dealing with ensuring the basic necessities of living are met, why should there be profit needed for self-subsistence to occur? Do we need a profit motive to make sure people get food? Sometimes it is more efficient to have an organization provide things with everyone pitching in to support it. If GMO crops have such great real-world benefits that not only save lives but also cut costs due to increasing efficiency with higher crop yields (and making food aid more efficient), why not have not have world governments sponsor the research and introduce seeds on the market with no added cost to farmers for a 'technology fee?' Even if you have to spend a billion dollars a year, R&D could be concentrated on something like Golden Rice 2 instead of Roundup Ready 2 (the latter being a marginal improvement whose benefits probably do not make up for the cost of staying on patent). A socialist response to the abuses of capitalist production is not to destroy capital. It's to socialize the gains from it. If GMO crops make the world better and result in easier eats, then make them. It is not the newfangled proprietary crops that are to blame, but the use of those proprietary crops by companiesas a tool for expropriating people so that they cannot afford to buy the food companies allege they've worked so hard to make for the sake of the people. Capital, Chapter 15 posted:The contradictions and antagonisms inseparable from the capitalist employment of machinery, do not exist, they say, since they do not arise out of machinery, as such, but out of its capitalist employment! Since therefore machinery, considered alone, shortens the hours of labour, but, when in the service of capital, lengthens them; since in itself it lightens labour, but when employed by capital, heightens the intensity of labour; since in itself it is a victory of man over the forces of Nature, but in the hands of capital, makes man the slave of those forces; since in itself it increases the wealth of the producers, but in the hands of capital, makes them paupers-for all these reasons and others besides, says the bourgeois economist without more ado, it is clear as noon-day that all these contradictions are a mere semblance of the reality, and that, as a matter of fact, they have neither an actual nor a theoretical existence. Thus he saves himself from all further puzzling of the brain, and what is more, implicitly declares his opponent to be stupid enough to contend against, not the capitalistic employment of machinery, but machinery itself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 06:35
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:A socialist response to the abuses of capitalist production is not to destroy capital. It's to socialize the gains from it. If GMO crops make the world better and result in easier eats, then make them. It is not the newfangled proprietary crops that are to blame, but the use of those proprietary crops by companiesas a tool for expropriating people so that they cannot afford to buy the food companies allege they've worked so hard to make for the sake of the people. Why is this so loving difficult for people to understand?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Why is this so loving difficult for people to understand? Because people use the term "FrankenFood" unironically.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 18:56
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Why is this so loving difficult for people to understand?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 19:30
|
|
|
I've said this in this thread before, the way that Monsanto and other big agro corporations want people to farm is not sustainable. It takes 10 calories (from petroleum) to grow and ship every calorie we eat. We've alredy hit big oil. That's known as an [b]unsustanaible practice[\b]. Also, apparently Monsanto hired Blackwater as their intel branch? m.dailykos.com/story/2010/10/16/910986/-Monsanto-Xe
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:I've said this in this thread before, the way that Monsanto and other big agro corporations want people to farm is not sustainable. It takes 10 calories (from petroleum) to grow and ship every calorie we eat. We've alredy hit big oil. That's known as an [b]unsustanaible practice[\b]. This is also true of a lot of 'organic' stuff, though. It's nothing to do with the unscientific reasons people rant about Monsanto's evil.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:This is also true of a lot of 'organic' stuff, though. It's nothing to do with the unscientific reasons people rant about Monsanto's evil.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 23:16
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:I've said this in this thread before, the way that Monsanto and other big agro corporations want people to farm is not sustainable. It takes 10 calories (from petroleum) to grow and ship every calorie we eat. We've alredy hit big oil. That's known as an unsustanaible practice. Now show how other alternative ways of farming will use less energy than supar ebil  BIG AGRO!!!
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
Or more simply, show why using more energy (that we can't eat) to produce energy (that we can eat) matters at all. This isn't a power plant - you expect energetic loss in the process of converting energy from less useful to more useful forms.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Or more simply, show why using more energy (that we can't eat) to produce energy (that we can eat) matters at all. This isn't a power plant - you expect energetic loss in the process of converting energy from less useful to more useful forms. Actually you also expect losses in converting less useful energy into electricity, because that's how thermodynamics work 
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 09:32
|
|
|
Just always expect losses, because the universe hates us and wants us to die.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 10:50
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Now show how other alternative ways of farming will use less energy than supar ebil http://lmgtfy.com/?q=permaculture
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Also uses more energy than it produces.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
Most of the permaculture techniques I've heard of would be way too labor-intensive to be feasible for mainstream food production. At least, assuming the labor is done by humans: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/09/robots-farm-future I've even heard proposals for robots to kill pests by shooting them with lasers, avoiding the need for pesticides.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Also uses more energy than it produces. But it is sustainable .
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:But it is sustainable . What exactly is the relative energy consumption between the two, and at what point does sustainability become an issue? I'm not googling poo poo that you are trying to use as a point without providing evidence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 01:36
|
|
Kalman posted:Also uses more energy than it produces. As opposed to farming methods which do break the laws of thermodynamics. joeburz posted:I'm not googling poo poo I too am proud of my ignorance and lack of desire to do basic research regarding the topics I debate. joeburz posted:All googling about permaculture has turned up is this mystical form of agriculture that is great because it is sustainable but it's sustainable by virtue of being called permaculture. It's not my duty to try and provide any backing of this person's claims which, so far in this thread, lack any compelling evidence in their support. Well, "Permaculture" doesn't have the kind of definition you're asking for because it doesn't refer to one thing. The goal is to create a "permanent" "agriculture" ie a sustainable one. It's not so much a group of methods as much as it is a different philosophy to approach agriculture with. The point being that there are ways to reduce the amount of fossil fuel we use in farming. Most of the methods I've seen involve a lot more human labor fwiw. down with slavery fucked around with this message at 01:51 on Jan 13, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:As opposed to farming methods which do break the laws of thermodynamics. All googling about permaculture has turned up is this mystical form of agriculture that is great because it is sustainable but it's sustainable by virtue of being called permaculture. It's not my duty to try and provide any backing of this person's claims which, so far in this thread, lack any compelling evidence in their support. down with slavery posted:Well, "Permaculture" doesn't have the kind of definition you're asking for because it doesn't refer to one thing. The goal is to create a "permanent" "agriculture" ie a sustainable one. It's not so much a group of methods as much as it is a different philosophy to approach agriculture with. Well this sounds like a perfect opportunity for one to present and explain one or more of these methods, isn't it now? esto es malo fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Jan 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:But it is sustainable . Why is it more sustainable than big agriculture, and what does that sustainability have to do with the 10 calories in:1 calorie out ratio? It's cited as if it matters, when in reality all it means is "yes, I do obey the laws of thermodynamics". Because, you know, unless there's an actual connection, that ratio sure seems like an attempt to use Numbers to back up a claim where those numbers actually do not support the claim.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
Kalman posted:what does that sustainability have to do with the 10 calories in:1 calorie out ratio? It's cited as if it matters, when in reality all it means is "yes, I do obey the laws of thermodynamics". Those 10 calories are provided by petroleum, which is a limited resource. We will run out of petroleum soon. Most of the world's farming relies on fertilizers and pesticides from petroleum. If there is no petroleum, there will be no farming. If there is no farming, there will be no food. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture e: http://permaculture.org.au/2012/06/...-the-ground-up/ white sauce fucked around with this message at 02:14 on Jan 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:Those 10 calories are provided by petroleum, which is a limited resource. We will run out of petroleum soon. Most of the world's farming relies on fertilizers and pesticides from petroleum. If there is no petroleum, there will be no farming. If there is no farming, there will be no food. You can eliminate reliance on pesticides using GMOs, but those are  FRANKENFOODS .
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
Seriously, though, our current agricultural model is mad dependent on petroleum products. We should legit start funding and experimenting with urban agriculture like Cuba did during their Special Period. Monstanto and its ilk have a vested interest in maintaining our food production systems like they are, which is a bad thing and only going to get worse as oil gets more and more expensive. It's got nothing to do with frankenfoods, but it's a fairly good example of how all corporations are bastards.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 12:44 |
|
|
computer parts posted:You can eliminate reliance on pesticides using GMOs, but those are I have no issue with genetic engineering of organisms.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 02:16
|
|