Why GM crops are vital

[Kuciwalker]

No, but they still multiply faster than agriculture grows.

No they don't.

Example: Europe.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Drogue

No, but they still multiply faster than agriculture grows. Just not in a geometric/arithmetric dichotomy.

Given the (lack of) success of past efforts, predicting human reproductive behavioral trends is fiendishly difficult. Who knows what the future trend will be? That uncertainty seems like good reason continue developing the tools we might need for any of the possibilities.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Why exactly is it assumed that feeding a growing population is a good thing, anyways? In a finite environment, such as we live in, there will always come a point where it is simply impossible to feed the entire population if it continues to grow. The longer it is prolonged, the more catastrophic it will be when it happens.


It'd be better to spend resources towards birth control than to try to support a runaway population growth (which is futile anyways).

feeding a human population, be it a growing, shrinking, or stagnant one is deemed important because most people find starvation of humans to be a tragic thing.

Anyway, the point was earlier raised multiple times in this thread that agricultural pressures may arise not merely from growth in population but from the changing tastes of newly affluent populations which will insist on more meat in their diets. A vegitarian might be forgiven for condeming such an inefficient change to culinary habits but opposition to GM foods will do nothing either to prevent such a switch or allow us to mitigate it's environmental effects.

[GePap]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk


Can you point to a nation where moving population from farming to industry did not raise the standards of living over the long haul?

You missed the whole point.

IN todays world, most subsistance farmers exist in nations that have little ability to create successful industries of their own because of the vastly more efficient industries that already exist. Millions of african farmers aren;t going to all of a sudden become factory workers, simply because factories in sufficient numbers are not going to open up in Africa any time soon. just look at the immense pressures in China as tens of millions of peasants leave farming for Cities (thus the largest migration in human history), and the Chinese government is left scrambling to find them work. NOw imagine the situation for poor farmers in places worst off than China, and without the benefits China has. What replacement work is actually there for them?

Oerdin keeps oging on about the greateness of GM crops to feed the very poor, but the very poor can't afford GM crops for the most part, not the way the business is right now, and many of the crops the poor grow haven't been modified much.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by GePap




You missed the whole point.

IN todays world, most subsistance farmers exist in nations that have little ability to create successful industries of their own because of the vastly more efficient industries that already exist. Millions of african farmers aren;t going to all of a sudden become factory workers, simply because factories in sufficient numbers are not going to open up in Africa any time soon. just look at the immense pressures in China as tens of millions of peasants leave farming for Cities (thus the largest migration in human history), and the Chinese government is left scrambling to find them work. NOw imagine the situation for poor farmers in places worst off than China, and without the benefits China has. What replacement work is actually there for them?

Oerdin keeps oging on about the greateness of GM crops to feed the very poor, but the very poor can't afford GM crops for the most part, not the way the business is right now, and many of the crops the poor grow haven't been modified much.

That's because the negative hysteria that gets so worked up about GM products ends up dumping a lot more cold water on altruistic efforts like golden rice than it ever could on the for profit efforts because the altruistic efforts are obviously far more dependant on public funding and support.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Geronimo


That's because the negative hysteria that gets so worked up about GM products ends up dumping a lot more cold water on altruistic efforts like golden rice than it ever could on the for profit efforts because the altruistic efforts are obviously far more dependant on public funding and support.

Please. Even what you say does not change the point that GM is a BUSINESS, and few businesses make money by catering to the poor, aka, those without lots of cash.

I don't buy the **** about the poor being "hurt" by tyhe spread of GM being slowed down, because GM right now hardly benefits the poor. When someone develops a new better type of Millet, and then decides to spread it for free to the poor farmers in Africa, and they get shot down, then come and claim that.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by GePap


Please. Even what you say does not change the point that GM is a BUSINESS, and few businesses make money by catering to the poor, aka, those without lots of cash.

I don't buy the **** about the poor being "hurt" by tyhe spread of GM being slowed down, because GM right now hardly benefits the poor. When someone develops a new better type of Millet, and then decides to spread it for free to the poor farmers in Africa, and they get shot down, then come and claim that.

After the hostility (which continues!) to golden rice how could an effort to develop a better millet gather any steam at all? Altruistic efforts require public acceptance far more than for profit ones. A blanket opposition to GM crops drops the hammer on precisely the kind of GM crops you advocate far more than it does on the the for profit crops that are held up as the bogeymen of big agribusiness.

If as you say someone were to develop and distribute for free the modified millet that would convince you it was ok to stop opposing collectively all GM crops then it obviously wouldn't matter if such opposition ended or not since obviously that opposition would not be getting in the way.

Your stance is not unlike an israeli saying "When palestinians stop engaging in terrorist activities we'll start respecting their civil liberties". I use that example because in many ME threads you have shown your disdain for such logic even though you appear to be using that same logic here. You won't relent in opposing all GM crops until you have already seen the bennefits that would arise from ceasing opposition to some GM crops.



I hope I misread you.

[GePap]

My hostility does not lie with GM crops. Its lies with the notion that GM as it stands right now is some critical thing, and that opposition to it is some insane notion that is hurting the poor out there.

Currently we grow enough to feed everyone. Distribution issues are the problem, and even if the consupmtion of animal products go up, as it seem they will, switching from say hectares of wheat to corn would increase the caloric output needed for animal feed.

I have no problem with GM crops, never have. I don't give a **** about "natural" vs. "unnatural", since human created mutations are still mutations. I have a problem with rhetoric that does not match reality, and the pro-GM people are almost as guilty as the anti-GM people in that respect.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by GePap
My hostility does not lie with GM crops. Its lies with the notion that GM as it stands right now is some critical thing, and that opposition to it is some insane notion that is hurting the poor out there.

Currently we grow enough to feed everyone. Distribution issues are the problem, and even if the consupmtion of animal products go up, as it seem they will, switching from say hectares of wheat to corn would increase the caloric output needed for animal feed.

I have no problem with GM crops, never have. I don't give a **** about "natural" vs. "unnatural", since human created mutations are still mutations. I have a problem with rhetoric that does not match reality, and the pro-GM people are almost as guilty as the anti-GM people in that respect.

That is a reasonable approach to the use of GM crops. unfortunately such approaches are not existing policy anywhere yet. Policy instead has been to use blanket bans on and blanket opposition to GM crops. If the anti agribusiness crowd would would adopt policies in line with your reasoning I would have nothing to complain about, but as they haven't you shouldn't be surprised to see people P'Od about the blanket and apparently mindless opposition to all GM crops that they see getting turned into policies.

[Flip McWho]

You all are pretty much wasting your time till we have some form of real world government.

If anybody expects any state to ever give a **** about the distrubtion of food to poor countries then stop being so optimistic. The world ain't that much of a happy place and never will be.

The companies will continue ****ing people over cause thats what some do. A world government would fix that too.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
You all are pretty much wasting your time till we have some form of real world government.

If anybody expects any state to ever give a **** about the distrubtion of food to poor countries then stop being so optimistic. The world ain't that much of a happy place and never will be.

The companies will continue ****ing people over cause thats what some do. A world government would fix that too.

I just expect the governments of any states to stop getting in the way of the use of GM products and for the public to stop encouraging them to get in the way.

[Flip McWho]

Yeah because leaving it to the corporations is the best way of making sure the food problems are sorted (sarcasm by the way).

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
Yeah because leaving it to the corporations is the best way of making sure the food problems are sorted (sarcasm by the way).

Blanket GM bans effectively do "leave it to the corporations" since they sure as hell yank it out from under the feet of the non profit efforts. If "leaving it to the corporations" is the least responsible thing to do, why is there so much support for these blankets bans rather than for public sector efforts to develop an alternative to "the corporations", or at least for bans targeting the particular behavior that is seen as so "corporate"?


BTW, you should stop and imagine someone who isn't anti-GM and isn't "pro-corporation". It's not really that hard to see how such a thing could be possible is it?

[Flip McWho]

When did I say I was for a blanket ban on GM?

And many people don't try to find the difference between corporations and public programs.

[Flip McWho]

Anyways, what do you mean by public?

Public is government. Anything else is private.