Honestly, I don't understand the fear of unprocessed foods.
Did the cooking of meat not bring about the ability for humanity to become what it is today? The unnatural farming of plants allowed us to form cities, and the modification of our foods with modern technologies will do just as well.
Processed foods are something that will be a great thing for the human race, and, while there are those who load foods with sugars and corn syrup for cheap sweetener, the sheer amount of ability for people to add things to food is going to lead to a more happy, healthy, humanity.
Canned foods, frozen foods, etc, are all modern and revolutionary ways of preparing food that tastes good while still being cheap. To throw that away is something I cannot understand.
In a way, your point of view is quite liberating. Not caring about what's in food is probably a lot less stressful than trying to eat healthily. I have wondered if that kind of apathetic attitude throughout a persons' life is worth the higher risk of certain illness, some of them deadly and agonizing such as cancer.
Oh, the passive aggressiveness. It burns, it burns so much.
Processed food is improved over that which is unprocessed. Margarine, for example, is much better than butter in the modern day. Splenda is shown not to cause cancer in studies, and chemical improvements to our food makes them taste better with less work put into them. Those are two examples out of many where human efforts can cause our food to be stronger in many ways. We are even capable of modifying the very genetics of crops to make them grow faster, and be more nutritious. It's a beautiful thing. "All natural" is a ruse, and a shining example of Luddites doing their thing.
Can you give an example of a crop that has been genetically modified to grow faster or be more nutritious? What do you think about patenting life?
http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavior/be-a-good-kid-and-eat-your-gmo-vegetables-61481
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/nature/fewer-pesticides-farming-with-gmos/
As to patenting life, that isn't what is happening. Patents exist to grant a company a temporary monopoly over a product so that a company can invest in the product for a competitive advantage. If, by giving Monsanto access to patents on genes they discover that do specific things, we inspire and keep Monsanto creating more better crops, it is entirely worth the few years we will have to deal with farms fields getting destroyed for the sake of keeping the patents.
I'd rather that than not having the tech at all.
The first link promises healthier GMOs in the future. That promise has been around for as long as GMOs have been invented. What's the point of this particular example, the tomato with higher amount of anti-oxidants? I miss the usefulness of it. Why not eat vegetables and fruit which have naturally higher amount of anti-oxidants? The same was being pushed with Golden rice, modified to produce Vitamin A. Why not grow carrots which already have Vitamin A? Useless crops like these are the strongest proof that biotech giants aim is to replace all already existing useful crops with their own patented version.
GM has yet to produce something new and useful. So far there are two types of GMOs being commercialised, pesticide resistant and insecticide producing. This is creating new generations of "super weeds" and insects that are adapting and building resistance to toxins.
The second link claims that GMOs will feed the world as if there isn't enough food to feed the world with regular crops. Hunger is a problem of logistics and political will, not lack of food. The UN has concluded that small eco-farming is the way to feed the world. The whole idea that poor farmers would be better off with a GM seed, which they must pay royalties for and can't save the seed of, is irresponsible to say the least.
The third link claims that the debate over the safety of GMOs is over. I find this extremely deceitful since genetic modification is a technology in its relative infancy and 99.99% of GMOs are still to be invented, no one can possibly claim (and prove) safety of something which has yet to exist. Safety must be accessed on an individual basis.
Personally, I find the patenting and privatisation of living, self-replicating organisms troubling. The genetic pool that evolved over millions of years should belong to everyone and not to a handful of super rich, monopolistic, greedy multinationals. I think we're on for troubled times if we allow a few corporations, with the driving goal of making profit, to control most of our food supply.
As for soil fertility degradation, like you mention, it's very cunning that GM is offered as an answer to fix an issue that is exacerbated by itself in the form of intensive mono-cropping. There are soil regeneration practices such as Permaculture, which should be given more credit and research if we're serious about fixing the depletion problem instead of unsustainable trying to patch the symptoms.
I feel quite strongly that (wilfully) the bio-tech industry and its supporters (naively) miss the bigger picture. The agricultural environmental catastrophe started thousands of years ago with the mass burning of forests to plant annual crops. It was fine then but it's obvious now that modern intensive agriculture is not sustainable. The kind of mindset responsible for this believes that nature must be beaten into fitting the human needs. Until we take a step back, to look at the whole, to understand how soil and sustainable fertility works and come up with a balanced eco-system that produces food for human consumption, no amount of genetic manipulation will fix the core issue... the way of thinking.
- I miss the usefulness of it. Why not eat vegetables and fruit which have naturally higher amount of anti-oxidants?
Why not just make really big farms instead of using tractors?
- Useless crops like these are the strongest proof that biotech giants aim is to replace all already existing useful crops with their own patented version.
Or, perhaps, it gives people the choice of "Do I eat this plant, or do I eat that one?". Nobody is saying you cannot eat different things.
Secondly, patents expire. Seven years in the future those crops will be available to everyone.
- GM has yet to produce something new and useful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_tomato
Nope, nothing useful here. Just horrible companies making these horrible things that have taken 90 percent of the corn market, and are being voluntarily bought and used by everyone involved. Why, why must these companies give us what we want!
- This is creating new generations of "super weeds" and insects that are adapting and building resistance to toxins.
As does our use of antibiotics. No silver bullets have ever existed, and pesticide resistant bugs have always been a problem.
Secondly, it seems this is caused by misuse by farmers, rather than the crops:
- But Monsanto and other seed companies are unlikely to accommodate the farmers. According to Reuters, "seed companies say they warned Brazilian farmers to plant part of their corn fields with conventional seeds to prevent bugs from mutating and developing resistance to GMO seeds."
This isn't a problem with GMO, and it's not hurting our ability to use pesticides.
- When Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” product line went on the market 17 years ago, it was supposed to reduce herbicide use. This convenient system of engineered seeds designed to work with the company’s Roundup herbicide enabled farmers to apply herbicides after crops were growing to kill weeds while leaving their crops unharmed. Farmers enthusiastically adopted these products as they saved time and made weed control easier. And initially, overall herbicide use declined.
The benefits were short lived. Weed species began evolving resistance to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup
Again, we see that this isn't a result of GMO, it's a result of overuse of a product.
I agree that we should keep genetic diversity inside of crops. That does not mean abandoning GMO. In fact, it means embracing it even further with many types of pesticide resistance and pesticides going into use.
- The second link claims that GMOs will feed the world as if there isn't enough food to feed the world with regular crops. Hunger is a problem of logistics and political will, not lack of food.
In third world regions, where people do not have access to anything but local farms, GMO's can help people get more nutrition with the same resources they have now. It is true that dictators and corruption cause the large majority of hunger, but it doesn't mean that GMO's can't help where those things exist.
- The UN has concluded that small eco-farming is the way to feed the world.
Nothing to do with GMO crops.
- The whole idea that poor farmers would be better off with a GM seed, which they must pay royalties for and can't save the seed of
Again, seven years, those issues go away. (barring idiot patent laws and renewals.) Secondly, people in third world nations aren't able to be touched by monsanto, where their government isn't really going to enforce the wills of a US company.
- Personally, I find the patenting and privatisation of living, self-replicating organisms troubling.
The patent is not on the living organism, but on the specific, artificially created, gene/crop that creates that organism. Monsanto doesn't have a patent on corn, it has a patent on the type of corn that it spent money on creating. If it weren't for the ability to get those patents, those crops wouldn't exist in the first place, and you couldn't complain about them no longer being effective, or about having to pay royalties, because that crop wouldn't exist in the first place.
- The agricultural environmental catastrophe started thousands of years ago with the mass burning of forests to plant annual crops. It was fine then but it's obvious now that modern intensive agriculture is not sustainable.
If it isn't sustainable, then as it grows to a critical mass, farmers and researchers will find new and better ways of growing food. You can already see it in hydroponics, farm towers, and other technologies that people are thinking of.
Nothing in human history has been sustainable. People were scared in the past of us running out of copper, running out of oil. In reality, we find these issues, and fix them as they come along, and have done so, and will continue to do so, without fail.
People are a hell of a lot smarter, and a hell of a lot more adaptive than I think you are giving us credit for.
- no amount of genetic manipulation will fix the core issue... the way of thinking.
We didn't move from farming by burning fields to farming through use of fertilizer by way of a change of thinking. We didn't move to having to no longer burn forests to have fertile land by way of thinking. Discovery of fertilizer, and learning to rotate crops did those things.
The world is advancing to where we no longer need nature, and where we, as a species, will do away with it. As time passes we are finding new and interesting way to fuck things up, then fix them in a way that suits us. That is an amazing fact, and a great sign of things to come, not a negative one, IMO.
We think very differently and it's obvious we're not going to agree or convince one another.
- Nobody is saying you cannot eat different things...
...until GMOs have cross bred with all main heirloom varieties. With all other technology you can recall the product if there's an issue. Not with GMOs. This is why I see it as a mass experiment, when the genes are out they are out of our control.
- Nope, nothing useful here. Just horrible companies making these horrible things that have taken 90 percent of the corn market, and are being voluntarily bought and used by everyone involved.
For as much as I appreciate the sarcasm, the statement makes no sense. Consent requires knowledge. When GM foods are slipped into the food supply without labels no choice is being made by the end consumer. GMO awareness is only picking up in the last few years. Let's label them and then see how many rush to buy them. If you were referring to farmers preferring GM, I am sure GM crops are a lot more convenient to farm. You just sit on your tractor all day fertilizing, tilling, sowing, spraying, spraying, spraying, spraying and harvesting. And depleting the soil year after year irresponsibly.
The biggest cognitive dissonance of the bio-tech argument is that GMOs don't need labelling because they are "substantially equivalent". Yet, on the same breath they claim that GMOs are different enough to be accepted at the patent office. Which is it? Are they equivalent or not?
- Nothing to do with GMO crops.
Precisely. You don't see one mention of the need of GMOs to feed the world. Because it's not necessary. As I said, it's a problem of political will.
- The patent is not on the living organism, but on the specific, artificially created, gene/crop that creates that organism.
This is a mute point. The technicality of patenting doesn't change the reality that it affects the whole GM seed, which can only be used after paying royalties.
- If it isn't sustainable, then as it grows to a critical mass, farmers and researchers will find new and better ways of growing food.
Or, we can be truly smart and come up with something that is sustainable and resilient which empowers people instead of corporations. I'm sorry but I find this extremely short sighted, especially in the presence of current environmental challenges. I would understand this train of thought if we had no food and there really was no alternative. But since there are alternative methods for successfully growing food without chemicals and GMOs, it seems foolish to not pursue those first.
- Nothing in human history has been sustainable.
Yes, and this is why there is the train of global environmental catastrophe rushing down the tracks at incredible speed, while we mock about a technology that is not needed to solve the problem at all. Besides we should learn from the past and try not to repeat its mistakes.
- People are a hell of a lot smarter, and a hell of a lot more adaptive than I think you are giving us credit for.
I give credit where credit is due. Centralizing food production is far from smart, it's a recipe for disaster. Resilience exists in diversity. If one variety fails one year another variety will survive. 97% of crop varieties went extinct during the industrialization of agriculture. The expansion of GM will further reduce the genetic pool by replacing varieties which are still being grown. There are currently dozens, sometimes hundreds of varieties of most common crops. We will need to preserve this genetic diversity for hard times ahead. Not in seed banks but by promoting the farming and gardening of all different and rare varieties.
- The world is advancing to where we no longer need nature, and where we, as a species, will do away with it.
You may see beauty in technological advancement, I see beauty in diversity, harmonious eco-systems, pristine water bodies and soil alive with micro-organisms and fungi, most of which we still know nothing about. Let us study and understand the inner workings of nature, which carried us where we are today and work with it to carry us into the future. Or it'll leave us behind.
- ...until GMOs have cross bred with all main heirloom varieties
Again, seven years.
Patents will expire before GMO's become anywhere near so prevalent that you cannot find seeds that are not GMO.
- Consent requires knowledge. When GM foods are slipped into the food supply without labels no choice is being made by the end consumer.
When I said choice, I was talking about farmers. Consumers really don't have much of one when nearly every product you can buy is GMO. Of course, you can find and grow your own stuff still.
- GMO awareness is only picking up in the last few years. Let's label them and then see how many rush to buy them.
Yeah, just like gluten free and organic foods. People will believe anything they are told, and bending to these stupid crazes does nothing. GMO's do not need special labeling, although more information is always better.
- I am sure GM crops are a lot more convenient to farm. You just sit on your tractor all day fertilizing, tilling, sowing, spraying, spraying, spraying, spraying and harvesting. And depleting the soil year after year irresponsibly.
If this were true fields would not grow year after year. Farmers aren't stupid. They know how to keep a field's soil in a way that keeps it fertile year after year. Heck, farming is nearly down to a science at this point.
How much do you know about farming by the way? You an expect? You ever spoken to a farmer? Ever bothered looking up the reasons behind the practices? Or are you just jumping on the social bandwagon of how horrible these GMO's are, how the unnatural farming techniques are making us unhealthy and stupid.
Meanwhile, the only real negative farming practice is the US government's subsidy of corn. Even then, that practice has it's own benefits.
As to talking about the patents, my point was that no patents means no GMO crop at all. They wouldn't exist to complain about if no companies could patent them.
- Or, we can be truly smart and come up with something that is sustainable and resilient which empowers people instead of corporations.
Magic flowers will power the world, cure all toxins, and feed people with almost no need for water at all. People just have to be truly smart to come up with them.
- I would understand this train of thought if we had no food and there really was no alternative. But since there are alternative methods for successfully growing food without chemicals and GMOs, it seems foolish to not pursue those first.
Capitalism and cost is a proxy for the amount of work to produce a product. Do you think farmers would use GMO's if there were more expensive? Do you think society will be more productive when we go back to a third of the world being farmers rather than less than a percent?
No. The fact of the matter is that our modern system of farming is better than a decentralized one. Perhaps that will not be true when global warming hits, or if something else goes down.
And, if it does, people will change. When it is best to produce food at home, people will do so rather than going out and buying food. That is how capitalism/markets work.
- Yes, and this is why there is the train of global environmental catastrophe rushing down the tracks at incredible speed
I am only aware of 1) overfishing, and 2) global warming that are things that are looking to actually be catastrophic.
Look at the ozone layer, look at when rivers in the US ran red. Look at how much more we can do, how far we have come.
Do you really think we are less prepared to deal with our environment now than we were in the sixties? Do you really think human society isn't smart enough to change? The only real issue with overfishing today is the nations which refuse to regulate. The vast majority of the world actively creates quotas and is trying to preserve the environment. People are, have been, and will continue to be, smart enough to not destroy the environment to the point that we can no longer survive.
The number of wind farms has gone up far faster in recent years than the number of coal plants. Things are changing. There are suspicions that the cheap price of gas is because Saudi Arabia fears the coming end of oil, and wants to sell as much of it as they can before it's no longer used.
The age of fossil fuels is rapidly headed to an end. Humanity will persist, we will survive, and we will continue to thrive. Not by being back-asswards and fearing technology, but by embracing it.
- We will need to preserve this genetic diversity for hard times ahead. Not in seed banks but by promoting the farming and gardening of all different and rare varieties.
Why not in seed banks? Isn't it best to have the diversity in storage where nothing can learn to infect it?
- This statement could make sense if you were writing from an artificial, self-sustained biomme in some alien planet, and even then you'd have to have at least some plant life which you must have gathered somewhere else.
Hunters and gathers relied entirely on the environment
Farmers captured and controlled plants, build homes, and retreated from nature without needing caves
Modern society has massive complexes, cities, areas where nature only exists within the contexts of where it lives on us, or despite us.
When I say "nature" I am talking about the natural ecosystem humanity was born in. Not plants and animals. As time passes we take more and more under our control, and learn to better and better control it. An issue like global warming, one that exists over the entire climate of the entire planet, being recognized and being planned for is a huge sign of how we have shifted over time.
Yeah, we still rely on nature today, but that will come to change should we stay on the course we are on. I have my own hopes that our reaches into space will be the "wright brothers plane" of the environment regulated and controlled entirely by mankind.
- I see beauty in diversity, harmonious eco-systems, pristine water bodies and soil alive with micro-organisms and fungi, most of which we still know nothing about.
No body of water is more pristine than those we purify for our cities. As for diversity of life, and what we can learn from it, I agree that it should remain preserved within reservations until the day comes that we can truly have studied all of live, and are able to surpass what evolution can create for us within our own ability to create and test new genetics and life.
- Let us study and understand the inner workings of nature, which carried us where we are today and work with it to carry us into the future.
History has not fared kindly to all those creatures that relied on nature to keep them alive. Nature will have a fit one day and kill us all if we don't stop it from doing so.
- Or it'll leave us behind.
I am sure the dinosaurs would agree.
- Patents will expire before GMO's become anywhere near so prevalent that you cannot find seeds that are not GMO.
You are missing the point that nature doesn't follow human made law. Once the GMOs are out and cross pollinating with native varieties that's it, there's no going back. I'm starting to repeat myself. Even right now, I wonder how many people are growing seeds with GM genes, without knowing, due to involuntary cross pollination. This clearly shows how ridiculous the idea of co-existence of GM crops with traditional ones, as pushed forward by GM proponents, truly is.
- Consumers really don't have much of one when nearly every product you can buy is GMO.
Exactly. And the authoritarian mentality of the bio-tech industry is spending millions to ensure it stays that way. Lack of choice is the definition of totalitarianism.
- People will believe anything they are told, and bending to these stupid crazes does nothing.
This just reinforces my previous statement. You're starting to contradict yourself just like the industry you're supporting. You said before that people are not stupid and you're now calling people who don't follow your way of thinking "stupid crazes". This says more about you than about the people you're judging.
- GMO's do not need special labeling, although more information is always better.
Another contradiction. Can you please explain how can you have more information without labelling?
- Farmers aren't stupid.
I never called farmers stupid. I'm sure they make the best economic choice with the least possible effort for themselves. However, just because something is economically advantageous it doesn't mean that it's the best course of action and definitely does not mean that it's environmentally sound.
- They know how to keep a field's soil in a way that keeps it fertile year after year.
That's not true. Modern agriculture is known to erode and deplete arable soils of nutrition. Chemical fertilizers add 3 chemicals to the soil, while plants require several dozens. It's obvious this is unsustainable.
- Heck, farming is nearly down to a science at this point.
If you mean military science, then I'd wholly agree. War zone is the most accurate metaphor to describe mono-cultures where everything else is killed but the crop for human consumption.
- How much do you know about farming by the way? You an expect? You ever spoken to a farmer? Ever bothered looking up the reasons behind the practices? Or are you just jumping on the social bandwagon of how horrible these GMO's are, how the unnatural farming techniques are making us unhealthy and stupid.
What does my background matter for? Are you looking for reasons to personally attack me because you're running out of arguments? I have spoken to plenty of farmers, my parents were farmers. I grew up in a small self-subsistence farm until I moved on to study IT. I have since volunteered at a number of farms and I now have a small garden where I grow my own food organically. How about you? Do you know what it takes to grow a carrot without pesticide,herbicide,fungicide and chemical fertilizer?
- Magic flowers will power the world, cure all toxins, and feed people with almost no need for water at all.
I'm sorry but recurring to facetiousness shows you ran out of arguments and just strips away any last credibility you may have had. I mentioned specifically Permaculture as a sustainable alternative that needs more research. Even current organic agriculture is a step up from chemical agriculture.
- I am only aware of 1) overfishing, and 2) global warming that are things that are looking to actually be catastrophic.
You truly live in a bubble: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_environmental_issues
- The number of wind farms has gone up far faster in recent years than the number of coal plants. Things are changing.
True, things are slowly changing in some directions but regressing in others such as the pursuit of GM as an unnecessary solution to solve challenges which can be solved without it. Imagine how much further ahead we could be if all those billions biotech if swimming in were invested in researching truly sustainable tech.
- Why not in seed banks? Isn't it best to have the diversity in storage where nothing can learn to infect it?
All seeds have a shelf life, even in seed banks. Also, seed banks protect seeds from the elements. This prevents them from adapting to the changing weather, atmosphere, soil conditions, micro-climates, etc. If the seed is not grow in its natural environment generation after generation, there's no guaranty that seeds saved today will survive the conditions in 50, 100, 500 years time. Besides there are so many varieties scattered across all over the globe, from farmers to small scale gardeners, that it'd impossible to collect them all.
- As time passes we take more and more under our control, and learn to better and better control it.
"Control it" is the key here isn't it? The arrogance of controlling nature to fit human needs at the expense of everything else is what brought us where we are today. Our own well being above all else, instead of collaboration and trying to live in harmony with other living beings and systems.
- No body of water is more pristine than those we purify for our cities.
You're confusing sanitized with pristine.
- I am sure the dinosaurs would agree.
The dinosaurs didn't go extinct due to the stupidity of their own doing. The same can be said about the species that go extinct everyday due to human selfishness and stupidity.
- History has not fared kindly to all those creatures that relied on nature to keep them alive. Nature will have a fit one day and kill us all if we don't stop it from doing so.
It amazes me that on one hand you're all for technological advancement at any cost, fucking the planet over, and on the other you have the guts to blame nature for our own fuck up, which you wholly support. Your arguments are full of contradictions and baseless opinions showing that you are either very confused or just having a laugh. In either case, I've exhausted all I have to say. All the best.
This is relavent: http://thelogicofscience.com/2015/02/21/gmos-are-unnatural-but-so-is-everything-else-that-you-eat/
I'm going to attempt to narrow this down:
Your issue with GMO's are: 1) GMO's could cross polinate into other plants and kill genetic diversity.
2) Modern agriculture is depleting and making our soils less healthy in the long run
3)By using too many GM crops, we are killing biodiversity and opening up vectors into disease.
I'll respond to the "contradictions" later in this post.
The first issue is a non-issue. There isn't anything inherent to GMO crops that makes them superior to natural crops in terms of spreading and taking over everything else. Cross pollination increases diversity, it doesn't lower it, and GMO crops are not unhealthy by nature of being GMO. The only possible issue here is if a company claimed that these plants that got cross pollinated are now owned by them, which gets into a legal grey area I cannot really comment on without knowing more about the subject.
The second issue just isn't true. If it were, farms would see less crop growth every year. Instead, we see more output from the same amount of land as we improve techniques.
The third issue is true,and I agree that we should be attempting to ensure we have diversity in the crops we plant. Heck, even monsanto agrees and apparently tells the people buying their seeds to do so.
___
- You said before that people are not stupid and you're now calling people who don't follow your way of thinking "stupid crazes".
Do you agree that the massive focus on gluten free foods being healthy has any bearing in reality? Do you agree that the focus on organic crops holds any bearing on reality? Do you think that any of these things are actually making people healthier, or are they just things companies slap on their products to sell things.
A craze is the movement itself in culture. I am not calling the people following the crazes "Stupid crazes". I may be calling them idiots, however.
- Can you please explain how can you have more information without labelling?
A label being required to be given is different than a label being requested and given. GMO crops do not need a label because GMO is just another one of those terms that means little in the long run. They aren't directly unhealthy, and it's not misleading to leave crops not labeled as GMO, especially when the modern day assumption is that they are.
The current system, you assume GMO unless stated otherwise. It works just as well as a label saying a crop is GMO. Forcing companies to slap GMO on products as if they are somehow hazardous is misleading and pointless.
- If you mean military science, then I'd wholly agree. War zone is the most accurate metaphor to describe mono-cultures where everything else is killed but the crop for human consumption.
- What does my background matter for? Are you looking for reasons to personally attack me because you're running out of arguments?
It matters because you are stating clearly false things that border on conspiracy without any apparent context of farms.
Also, when I said farms, I did not mean having a garden in your backyard, or having a little 100 acre farm. I am talking about the real, industral, farms that feed the nations today. Have you ever talked to people who work, who maintain the fields, who manage the crops, etc? Do you understand the reasons for fertilizers?
I am asking if you are ignorant, because you appear to be.
- Even current organic agriculture is a step up from chemical agriculture.
No.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7397/full/nature11069.html
Imagine farms suddenly having to use up to 25% more land to provide the same amount of food, along with a decent loss in ability to mass produce crops due to organic farming not being nearly as automated as industrial farming is.
Honestly, the best thing to do in a situation like this is to create taxes and put the prices of fixing economic damages back onto the farms which use fertilizer. Once that happens, pollution is factored into the equation of "Is it worth it to do this" and farmers will compensate and change appropriately.
The fact is that organic vs regular farming is situational. organic is useful in some areas, while regular is useful in others.
- You truly live in a bubble: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_environmental_issues
On a list that includes things like light pollution, I wouldn't call that a list of serious or a list of catastrophic environmental issues.
- Imagine how much further ahead we could be if all those billions biotech if swimming in were invested in researching truly sustainable tech.
Impossible to determine without lots of study. What we have now is the result that modern farming techniques are the only things that allow our current populations to be a large as they are. We know that industrialization and centralization of farming has resulted in humanity being able to produce much more food than not.
We do not know if similar investment in alternate methods would have produced the same results. Invest as much money as you want into the hunter-gather method, it won't outproduce farming.
- "Control it" is the key here isn't it? The arrogance of controlling nature to fit human needs at the expense of everything else
I bet you are sitting in a climate controlled room, that has access to a modern power grid, near a modern road, etc right now. All examples our mankinds arrogant controlling of nature.
That is hypocrisy speaking.
Humans do go above all. Humans are more important than the environment, and the environment is only important when harming it hurts humans in some form as well. I don't care about the species that go extinct at our expense, unless those species could have benefited mankind somehow had we discovered them, or if the loss of those species prevents us from farming and feeding our people.
- The dinosaurs didn't go extinct due to the stupidity of their own doing.
They went extinct because they were animals. They lived along with nature for however many years until the day came that nature changed on them.
Do or die. Humanity either grasps control of the world around us, or it grasps control of us, and kills us without mercy. (seeing that it has no mind, that isn't say much)
- You're confusing sanitized with pristine.
I will pick tap water over river water every day of the week, month, year, and century. Minus when there are boil-water orders out.
Pretty natural water can kill incredibly quickly, even if it is generally safe.
- and on the other you have the guts to blame nature for our own fuck up, which you wholly support.
Nature killing us because we caused global warming is not what I am talking about. If humankind lived in harmony with nature, we would still be like the old indians. Hunting nomads, with little technology, low populations, and regular disasters wiping out areas of the population.
It is our abandonment of the environment, the adoption of controlling the world around us, that enables us to grow to massive sizes, have huge numbers of minds thinking and inventing, eventually leading us away from this planet, and away from the ability for a single meteor to leave us all dead.
In a passive-aggressive argument, who wins: The most passive or the most aggressive? The one who stoops lowest first, obviously.