Is "green" activism responsible for millions of deaths?

[Raithere]

You have quite failed to demonstrate in any way that adopting the methodologies you advocate would save millions.

In the 1970's India and China were quickly falling into unprecedented, seemingly unpreventable, mass starvation. It was prevented by the methods I'm advocating. It is also responsible for the massively productive agricultural industries in the US and Europe. So no. I have not failed to demonstrate this.

You have quite failed to demonstrate that millions are at risk from a failure of farming methods, rather than a failure of government and of distribution.

Certainly we are looking at a combination of factors that contribute to the situation. But asserting that the problem is entirely one of government and distribution failure is terribly naive I feel. One, we need only examine the yield per acre averages to find a huge discrepancy between starving nations and well fed ones. Two, part of the solution to distribution problems is to have more food produced locally.

There is also the consideration that two of the primary reasons for governmental instability are a lack of resources such as food and relative poverty. A food surplus helps to amend these problems and is a large contributor to stability. Thus allowing for better government policies and the development of supportive infrastructure.

~Raithere

 

[Enmos]

Same reason why these governments cannot subsidise their farmers. The food aid contracts with the Europeans and Americans makes it illegal.

The governments implement these policies by tying them to bank loans which the farmers subsist on. These are all structural adjustment policies by which the first world helps the third world to become poor and hungry. Its all part of the democracy and freedom package.

Try this:



http://www.wombles.org.uk/article2008102160.php

Wtf? Why did they ever go along with such a shitty deal?
By the way, I'm very much against GM-anything.

 

[S.A.M.]

Wtf? Why did they ever go along with such a shitty deal?
By the way, I'm very much against GM-anything.

Strangely enough I am not I just think that any change requires forethought, instead of forcing poor farmers to grow these crops, the government should give tax incentives to rich farmers to run experimental fields, if they provide educational grants and assist farmers in getting an education in agricultural science to run these projects, it will have vast long term benefits; however, it is so much more profitable to bankrupt poor farmers and take over their lands.

As for why they went along with it, read about the Green Revolution in India. Third World countries with enormous survival issues have few choices. All developmental aid is hitched to conditions and most of them require sacrificing health or education for corporate gains.

see this: http://www.globalissues.org/issue/188/genetically-engineered-food

 

[Raithere]

Does anyone have any substantiated reports regarding the actual use of terminator technology in GM crops? I'm trying to investigate the issue but I've come across mostly biased opinion and conjecture articles. I thought such products were in use in a variety of places but then I found this which would just be a blatant lie:

"Monsanto has never developed or commercialized a sterile seed product. Sharing many of the concerns of small landholder farmers, Monsanto made a commitment in 1999 not to commercialize sterile seed technology in food crops. We stand firmly by this commitment. We have no plans or research that would violate this commitment in any way."

http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto_today/for_the_record/monsanto_terminator_seeds.asp

And I understand the Monstanto has waffled in their statements: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto_and_Terminator_Technology

But it looks more and more as if, while they have patented the technology, they haven't actually put any into the market. Which actually runs contrary to what I thought, having heard so many stories about them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/1999/oct/06/gm.food2
http://www.ethicalinvesting.com/monsanto/terminator.shtml
http://sustainablog.org/2009/11/17/the-ethics-of-selling-crop-seed-part-1/
http://www.banterminator.org/The-Issues/Introduction

Now I understand there are alternate ways to make the farmers dependent upon the corporations but it would mean that accusing them of using terminator technology is a lie.

~Raithere

 

[S.A.M.]

I was going to link you to articles from Anups site above but curiously ALL the pages he linked to give a 404 error. Even the ones from New Scientist.

 

[iceaura]

It may not be a surprise to you, but I have a feeling that most "organic" food proponents would be shocked to find out wild plants contain toxins

That doesn't make GM crops "safe", either to eat or to grow, in food or in fields or in the agricultural economy.

But regarding the GM crops, testing shows that they're safe, the FDA has approved them, and people eat them without any ill effect

Exactly what was said of trans fats, and before that DDT and a zillion other untested, untried innovations. If you want a politically distant example, the Irish potato famine is a well-studied classic.

A reasonable wariness, and prudence in the adoption of new and untried agricultural innovations, is not an "unfounded" approach.

You aren't seriously claiming that stuff invented less than twenty years ago, never seen before on the planet, completely under the control of private multinational corporations, has been shown to be a safe altenative to essentially the entire food supply and agricultural economy of continent sized regions?

But asserting that the problem is entirely one of government and distribution failure is terribly naive I feel. One, we need only examine the yield per acre averages to find a huge discrepancy between starving nations and well fed ones. Two, part of the solution to distribution problems is to have more food produced locally.

Both yield per acre and the ability of people to maintain local production, a local economy in food, are usually damaged by government and distribution failure.

This has been obvious for hundreds of years, from the records of any culture with a written history. It is particularly pointed in its relevance now, when government failure and distribution problems are deliberately arranged by mutlinational corporations backed with overwhelming military and economic power.

 

[Raithere]

That doesn't make GM crops "safe", either to eat or to grow, in food or in fields or in the agricultural economy.

Of course not. I’m merely pointing out that simply because something produces toxins does not mean it’s dangerous. The term is used to scare people and means very little in context.

A reasonable wariness, and prudence in the adoption of new and untried agricultural innovations, is not an "unfounded" approach.

How many years do you think something needs to be tested before it has been proven safe enough for consumption? It strikes me curious how prudence, wariness, and caution are only being used on one side of the argument. What do you think?

You aren't seriously claiming that stuff invented less than twenty years ago, never seen before on the planet, completely under the control of private multinational corporations, has been shown to be a safe altenative to essentially the entire food supply and agricultural economy of continent sized regions?

Funny, but if you eliminate the part about corporations this is pretty much what I’ve been saying. Using third-world countries as experimental laboratories is a bad idea.

I’d go on here but I would like to point out that I’m not advocating any specific GM products or even GMO generally, though I do think it is an important area of development and that some of the less controversial GMOs could safely be used. I don’t advocate any experimental agriculture should be implemented on a large scale and particularly not in areas that already have problems.

Both yield per acre and the ability of people to maintain local production, a local economy in food, are usually damaged by government and distribution failure.

Yes. All of these problems are interrelated and contribute to one another. We can toss in education as well. Scarcity of resources is critical however. We need some progress in all areas at once to really improve things.

~Raithere

 

[iceaura]

How many years do you think something needs to be tested before it has been proven safe enough for consumption?

Depends on the integrity and thoroughness of the testing.

At the current level of integrity and thoroughness, I would join the Europeans in simply banning the whole mess until they've cleaned up their act.

Funny, but if you eliminate the part about corporations this is pretty much what I’ve been saying. Using third-world countries as experimental laboratories is a bad idea.

Like I said - your natural allies are among the greens. Eliminate the "part about the corporations", establish government governing in the interests of the locals and smallholders, and things would look a lot different.

 

[ogdred]

Does anyone have any substantiated reports regarding the actual use of terminator technology in GM crops?

...But it looks more and more as if, while they have patented the technology, they haven't actually put any into the market. Which actually runs contrary to what I thought, having heard so many stories about them.

I believe you're right about that--the terminator seeds haven't been marketed yet (doesn't sound like they've even been field tested...?). Regardless, farmers still aren't technically allowed to save their GM seed because it's considered patent infringement.

 

[swarm]

""The problem is that the western world's move toward organic farming - a lifestyle choice for a community with surplus food - and against agricultural technology in general and GM in particular, has been adopted across the whole of Africa, with the exception of South Africa, with devastating consequences."

Oh, please! "Organic" food is raised with barely modified modern farming technology if it is bigger than a garden; and it isn't "greens" that are the issue in places like Zimbabwe. Its plane old corruption, political instability and in the case of their cotton and textile industry, it's the dumping of waste clothing from the Western world on them.

Hundreds of tonnes of discarded clothing.

 

[Ophiolite]

You aren't seriously claiming that stuff invented less than twenty years ago, never seen before on the planet, completely under the control of private multinational corporations, has been shown to be a safe altenative to essentially the entire food supply and agricultural economy of continent sized regions?

Elegantly, eloquently, concisely and accurately put. If raithere had the balls he would quit at this point.

 

[Raithere]

Oh, please! "Organic" food is raised with barely modified modern farming technology if it is bigger than a garden; and it isn't "greens" that are the issue in places like Zimbabwe. Its plane old corruption, political instability and in the case of their cotton and textile industry, it's the dumping of waste clothing from the Western world on them.

Hundreds of tonnes of discarded clothing.

First of all, I'm using the term "organic farming" in the context of the ideal not in the context of the semi-accurate perversion of it that is the US's industrialized version. Specifically, the use of conventional methods has been prevented in a number of circumstances specifically due to the efforts of various environmentalist efforts.

As to your other objections, they were already presented and I've already addressed them. I see no need to repeat myself at this point.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

Elegantly, eloquently, concisely and accurately put. If raithere had the balls he would quit at this point.

Conceding a point or error takes balls. Quitting doesn't.

Neither does cheerleading.


As to iceaura's statement, I've already addressed it. I'm not advocating using experimental GMO or even GMO as a primary point. Though largely I find the arguments against it disingenuous. The statement is not even completely accurate, as evinced by the "Golden Rice Project" for instance.

http://www.goldenrice.org/

~Raithere

 

[Orleander]

Is this one of those green things that's bad?

MILWAUKEE - Cities around the country that have installed energy-efficient traffic lights are discovering a hazardous downside: The bulbs don't burn hot enough to melt snow and can become crusted over in a storm — a problem blamed for dozens of accidents and at least one death...

 

[Grim_Reaper]

You want sustainable crop growth and mass crop growth god Hydroponic. No need for tractors so that eliminates the fossil fuel argument the water is recyclable so that eliminates the water running out argument and as far as space goes you can grow more per acre hydroponically then you can organically.

 

[Raithere]

You want sustainable crop growth and mass crop growth god Hydroponic. No need for tractors so that eliminates the fossil fuel argument the water is recyclable so that eliminates the water running out argument and as far as space goes you can grow more per acre hydroponically then you can organically.

Aeroponics as well. There are some issues though. There are large overhead costs and it requires quite a bit of technology and supportive infrastructure. Certainly worth exploring in industrialized countries but not really a good solution in this instance yet.

~Raithere

 

[Grim_Reaper]

Aeroponics as well. There are some issues though. There are large overhead costs and it requires quite a bit of technology and supportive infrastructure. Certainly worth exploring in industrialized countries but not really a good solution in this instance yet.

~Raithere

well they want to develope the industries and skills in these 3rd world countries what better way to do that then to have them do an advanced form of farming better that then nuclear power and bio weapons.