It seems there are an awful lot of threads on the fire about how harmful and terrible GMO crops are. How many of you are on prescription medications? Or have loved ones that are? Many people depend on meds just to stay alive. But, what goes into these synthetic, man made drugs? Even the medications derived from plants are altered by people in labs. Most of us have no idea what goes into these medications, what chemicals or methods are used. Yet, we blindly take them because they are "safe".
Most of these medications have a long list of side effects to go with them, some of which are worse than what the med is supposed to cure. Where is the outrage over this? Everybody wants to complain about "big ag" and "big food", what about "big medicine"?
One argument that I am sure will be thrown at this is that our food is making us sick. Ok fine. Lets go back to all organic food but then shouldn't we also get rid of all man made medicine? I mean we need to be all natural right? I guess the problem with this might be our life expectancy would go back down by many years, maybe 50ish instead of 80 ish?
Mankind has been 'genetically altering' crops for thousands of years. That is what selective breeding is.
good questions. I've always supported the development of good questions to be doused on the lurking masses.
without proper "witches brews" emanating from big ag, and big pharma the world would be vastly different than what it is.
modern chemistry and bio-engineering keeps our system ticking.
Sometimes the level of ignorance in these posts is just staggering.
Selective breeding is not genetic modification as done in a lab using gene splicing techniques. In cross species gene splicing, the parent species cannot interbreed in many cases. In many others, where the parent species are capable of interbreeding, the offspring produced are sterile.
In the plant breeding that produces F1 hybrids that are not sterile, the offspring that are not sterile usually will not reproduce their own characteristics, nor those of their parents.
Assuming that a GMO with genes spliced into say a plant species from a mamalian species, or from a wholly unrelated plant species is a safe because it doesn't kill one of a very limited number of animal species is equally ignorant.
Leaving aside the possibility of a GMO "contaminating" the genes of other variants of the same species and thereby creating a "Monsantoized" version of beans or corn preventing the farmer from legally saving his own seed without paying a royalty to Monsanto for their genes which against his will contaminated his crop, you still have the problem of that cross contamination of another species which can perhaps overwhelm and wipe out a given species. Anyone who eats wild rice knows that domesticated wild rice is like eating gravel that has little to no flavor compared to real wild rice. That's just one species capable of being destroyed to our great loss.
Synthetic analogs of medications can be and very often are considerably more dangerous than their "organic" counterparts. Synthetic analogs are rarely tested across a broad enough sample of individuals of ANY species they are tested on to show how dangerous they can be to specific individuals and as a result you see some being completely withdrawn from commerce and some being severely restricted in their potential application. This is a common occurrence.
That we do stupid things in the pursuit of commerce does not mean it's a good idea to do more of it, or to treat it casually. It's all well and good to run your mouth about how this or that has been done before, but when you or your loved one is the victim of say a cox-2 inhibitor induced heart attack and is killed or incapacitated as a result, the fun goes out of it.
Excellent post and spot on, Miles!
Ed
Sometimes the level of ignorance in these posts is just staggering.
Selective breeding is not genetic modification as done in a lab using gene splicing techniques. In cross species gene splicing, the parent species cannot interbreed in many cases. In many others, where the parent species are capable of interbreeding, the offspring produced are sterile.
In the plant breeding that produces F1 hybrids that are not sterile, the offspring that are not sterile usually will not reproduce their own characteristics, nor those of their parents.
Assuming that a GMO with genes spliced into say a plant species from a mamalian species, or from a wholly unrelated plant species is a safe because it doesn't kill one of a very limited number of animal species is equally ignorant.
Leaving aside the possibility of a GMO "contaminating" the genes of other variants of the same species and thereby creating a "Monsantoized" version of beans or corn preventing the farmer from legally saving his own seed without paying a royalty to Monsanto for their genes which against his will contaminated his crop, you still have the problem of that cross contamination of another species which can perhaps overwhelm and wipe out a given species. Anyone who eats wild rice knows that domesticated wild rice is like eating gravel that has little to no flavor compared to real wild rice. That's just one species capable of being destroyed to our great loss.
Synthetic analogs of medications can be and very often are considerably more dangerous than their "organic" counterparts. Synthetic analogs are rarely tested across a broad enough sample of individuals of ANY species they are tested on to show how dangerous they can be to specific individuals and as a result you see some being completely withdrawn from commerce and some being severely restricted in their potential application. This is a common occurrence.
That we do stupid things in the pursuit of commerce does not mean it's a good idea to do more of it, or to treat it casually. It's all well and good to run your mouth about how this or that has been done before, but when you or your loved one is the victim of say a cox-2 inhibitor induced heart attack and is killed or incapacitated as a result, the fun goes out of it.
Thank you.
Selective breeding is not genetic modification as done in a lab using gene splicing techniques. In cross species gene splicing, the parent species cannot interbreed in many cases. In many others, where the parent species are capable of interbreeding, the offspring produced are sterile.
I might see the Religion people getting a little worked up but the evolutionist should realize that since everything started with one organism and mutated from there, it is all kinfolk and will eventually mutate into the very thing the scientist are creating. Call it "evolution speeded up" hence no harm.
miles
last I heard, we're all gonna die of something, sooner or later. often times it's deemed heart failure, afterall as soon as the heart fails we're close to being dead, right?
what we're doing now at the root level is engaging in high stakes tradeoffs. we've a got a world of people to feed and keep healthy, literally. if we don't use science to advance our cause, we should have remained in the middle ages, with thatched roof houses that leaks everytime it rains.
more to the point, if we have effective science that can reflect on solving some of our worldly economic problems, and choose to not utilize it, are we not derelict?
Sometimes the level of ignorance in these posts is just staggering.
Selective breeding is not genetic modification as done in a lab using gene splicing techniques. In cross species gene splicing, the parent species cannot interbreed in many cases. In many others, where the parent species are capable of interbreeding, the offspring produced are sterile.
In the plant breeding that produces F1 hybrids that are not sterile, the offspring that are not sterile usually will not reproduce their own characteristics, nor those of their parents.
Assuming that a GMO with genes spliced into say a plant species from a mamalian species, or from a wholly unrelated plant species is a safe because it doesn't kill one of a very limited number of animal species is equally ignorant.
Leaving aside the possibility of a GMO "contaminating" the genes of other variants of the same species and thereby creating a "Monsantoized" version of beans or corn preventing the farmer from legally saving his own seed without paying a royalty to Monsanto for their genes which against his will contaminated his crop, you still have the problem of that cross contamination of another species which can perhaps overwhelm and wipe out a given species. Anyone who eats wild rice knows that domesticated wild rice is like eating gravel that has little to no flavor compared to real wild rice. That's just one species capable of being destroyed to our great loss.
Synthetic analogs of medications can be and very often are considerably more dangerous than their "organic" counterparts. Synthetic analogs are rarely tested across a broad enough sample of individuals of ANY species they are tested on to show how dangerous they can be to specific individuals and as a result you see some being completely withdrawn from commerce and some being severely restricted in their potential application. This is a common occurrence.
That we do stupid things in the pursuit of commerce does not mean it's a good idea to do more of it, or to treat it casually. It's all well and good to run your mouth about how this or that has been done before, but when you or your loved one is the victim of say a cox-2 inhibitor induced heart attack and is killed or incapacitated as a result, the fun goes out of it.
Not sure if you were referring to me as "running my mouth", but the point I am trying to make is that as a whole, modern farming practices and modern medicine allows most of us to live longer, healthier lives. I realize there are negative drawbacks to both, but as a whole we are better for them. Would anybody really want to go back to some of the horrific diseases that modern medicine has largely done away with? Polio, measles, typhoid fever, small pox, malaria, diphtheria, tetanus just to name a few. Not to mention medicine for blood pressure, cholesterol, depression and countless others. And, hand in hand with modern medicine saving hundreds of thousands of lives and extending millions more, we now need to feed all these people.
Sometimes the level of ignorance in these posts is just staggering.
Selective breeding is not genetic modification as done in a lab using gene splicing techniques. In cross species gene splicing, the parent species cannot interbreed in many cases. In many others, where the parent species are capable of interbreeding, the offspring produced are sterile.
In the plant breeding that produces F1 hybrids that are not sterile, the offspring that are not sterile usually will not reproduce their own characteristics, nor those of their parents.
Assuming that a GMO with genes spliced into say a plant species from a mamalian species, or from a wholly unrelated plant species is a safe because it doesn't kill one of a very limited number of animal species is equally ignorant.
Leaving aside the possibility of a GMO "contaminating" the genes of other variants of the same species and thereby creating a "Monsantoized" version of beans or corn preventing the farmer from legally saving his own seed without paying a royalty to Monsanto for their genes which against his will contaminated his crop, you still have the problem of that cross contamination of another species which can perhaps overwhelm and wipe out a given species. Anyone who eats wild rice knows that domesticated wild rice is like eating gravel that has little to no flavor compared to real wild rice. That's just one species capable of being destroyed to our great loss.
Synthetic analogs of medications can be and very often are considerably more dangerous than their "organic" counterparts. Synthetic analogs are rarely tested across a broad enough sample of individuals of ANY species they are tested on to show how dangerous they can be to specific individuals and as a result you see some being completely withdrawn from commerce and some being severely restricted in their potential application. This is a common occurrence.
That we do stupid things in the pursuit of commerce does not mean it's a good idea to do more of it, or to treat it casually. It's all well and good to run your mouth about how this or that has been done before, but when you or your loved one is the victim of say a cox-2 inhibitor induced heart attack and is killed or incapacitated as a result, the fun goes out of it.
Well said.
Selective breeding is not genetic modification as done in a lab using gene splicing techniques. In cross species gene splicing, the parent species cannot interbreed in many cases. In many others, where the parent species are capable of interbreeding, the offspring produced are sterile.
I might see the Religion people getting a little worked up but the evolutionist should realize that since everything started with one organism and mutated from there, it is all kinfolk and will eventually mutate into the very thing the scientist are creating. Call it "evolution speeded up" hence no harm.
miles
Evolution occurred gradually over hundreds of millions of years, and only small steps that were adaptive in a given ecosystem could survive. Quite a world apart from what Monsatan is engaging in.
To quote MILES58, "the level of ignorance is staggering."
According to the US census bureau, life expectancy 100 years ago was 47.3 years, now it is 77.85 years. I guess we could revert back 100 years and go back to dying young. Modern food and medicine is what we have to thank for the longer lives. I think many people who long for the "good ole days" don't really remember them.
According to the US census bureau, life expectancy 100 years ago was 47.3 years, now it is 77.85 years.
This statistic is an artifact of improvements in neonatal care, hygiene, public sanitation, indoor plumbing, emergency medicine, and the like. The changes in the quality of our food have only worked
against these improvements, not cooperatively with them.
Not sure if you were referring to me as "running my mouth", but the point I am trying to make is that as a whole, modern farming practices and modern medicine allows most of us to live longer, healthier lives. I realize there are negative drawbacks to both, but as a whole we are better for them. Would anybody really want to go back to some of the horrific diseases that modern medicine has largely done away with? Polio, measles, typhoid fever, small pox, malaria, diphtheria, tetanus just to name a few. Not to mention medicine for blood pressure, cholesterol, depression and countless others. And, hand in hand with modern medicine saving hundreds of thousands of lives and extending millions more, we now need to feed all these people.
You do realize that none of the diseases you mentioned have been done away with other than in very limited populations? You also realize that what that science gives us with one hand it takes away with the other? Consider just one example of a disease "conquered" by science, smallpox. Smallpox is gone. It only exists officially in a couple of specific repositories and then under extreme security. Science without my consent, and certainly without the consent of many scientists has taken samples of a closely related pox virus GMOed it with human interleuken-2 and it quite literally blows through any vaccine. Of all the incredibly dumb experiments to do, testing to see if we could produce a strain of smallpox with the capability of killing several billion humans before we could find a way to slow it down let alone stop or eradicate it again, with a simple and relatively common lab practice when we know full good and well that Russia made truckloads of smallpox virus and we have never accounted for most of it inspires no trust in the community of science for me.
Science is the only thing we have to save us from ourselves. Yet, we have systematically dismantled our public health infrastructure to the point where we turn what we know to be homicidal maniacs loose on the street because we can no longer involuntarily commit them to protect ourselves.
When science gets mixed into economic value, we rarely come up winners.
The perfect example of this mistake is E. coliO157:H7. The bacteria that periodically gets loose and kills/maims a goodly number of people. E. coli comes from one place. [bleep]. It's an intestinal bacteria. It s now OUR job to cook any meat we eat to kill the bacteria resultant from our food producers introducing it into our food. If you don't put [bleep] on the meat in processing you do not have it in the food. It's that simple. We have set up a food chain that not only puts [bleep] in our food, it deliberately concentrates the animals carrying the bacteria so as to maximize the spread of the bacteria from animal to animal while including multiple antibiotics into the animal's gut. It's almost as if we are trying to deliberately produce a more deadly bacteria that is resistant to more and perhaps all antibiotics. Where is responsible science in that proposition?
Quite a world apart from what Monsatan is engaging in.
To quote MILES58, "the level of ignorance is staggering."
Call it "evolution speeded up" hence no harm. miles
You need to learn to read the whole damn post, and what a smiley face is for. miles
Not sure if you were referring to me as "running my mouth", but the point I am trying to make is that as a whole, modern farming practices and modern medicine allows most of us to live longer, healthier lives. I realize there are negative drawbacks to both, but as a whole we are better for them. Would anybody really want to go back to some of the horrific diseases that modern medicine has largely done away with? Polio, measles, typhoid fever, small pox, malaria, diphtheria, tetanus just to name a few. Not to mention medicine for blood pressure, cholesterol, depression and countless others. And, hand in hand with modern medicine saving hundreds of thousands of lives and extending millions more, we now need to feed all these people.
You do realize that none of the diseases you mentioned have been done away with other than in very limited populations? You also realize that what that science gives us with one hand it takes away with the other? Consider just one example of a disease "conquered" by science, smallpox. Smallpox is gone. It only exists officially in a couple of specific repositories and then under extreme security. Science without my consent, and certainly without the consent of many scientists has taken samples of a closely related pox virus GMOed it with human interleuken-2 and it quite literally blows through any vaccine. Of all the incredibly dumb experiments to do, testing to see if we could produce a strain of smallpox with the capability of killing several billion humans before we could find a way to slow it down let alone stop or eradicate it again, with a simple and relatively common lab practice when we know full good and well that Russia made truckloads of smallpox virus and we have never accounted for most of it inspires no trust in the community of science for me.
Science is the only thing we have to save us from ourselves. Yet, we have systematically dismantled our public health infrastructure to the point where we turn what we know to be homicidal maniacs loose on the street because we can no longer involuntarily commit them to protect ourselves.
When science gets mixed into economic value, we rarely come up winners.
The perfect example of this mistake is E. coliO157:H7. The bacteria that periodically gets loose and kills/maims a goodly number of people. E. coli comes from one place. [bleep]. It's an intestinal bacteria. It s now OUR job to cook any meat we eat to kill the bacteria resultant from our food producers introducing it into our food. If you don't put [bleep] on the meat in processing you do not have it in the food. It's that simple. We have set up a food chain that not only puts [bleep] in our food, it deliberately concentrates the animals carrying the bacteria so as to maximize the spread of the bacteria from animal to animal while including multiple antibiotics into the animal's gut. It's almost as if we are trying to deliberately produce a more deadly bacteria that is resistant to more and perhaps all antibiotics. Where is responsible science in that proposition?
You are making some damn good points in your writings here, Sir.
GTC
You do realize that none of the diseases you mentioned have been done away with other than in very limited populations? You also realize that what that science gives us with one hand it takes away with the other? Consider just one example of a disease "conquered" by science, smallpox. Smallpox is gone. It only exists officially in a couple of specific repositories and then under extreme security. Science without my consent, and certainly without the consent of many scientists has taken samples of a closely related pox virus GMOed it with human interleuken-2 and it quite literally blows through any vaccine. Of all the incredibly dumb experiments to do, testing to see if we could produce a strain of smallpox with the capability of killing several billion humans before we could find a way to slow it down let alone stop or eradicate it again, with a simple and relatively common lab practice when we know full good and well that Russia made truckloads of smallpox virus and we have never accounted for most of it inspires no trust in the community of science for me.
Science is the only thing we have to save us from ourselves. Yet, we have systematically dismantled our public health infrastructure to the point where we turn what we know to be homicidal maniacs loose on the street because we can no longer involuntarily commit them to protect ourselves.
When science gets mixed into economic value, we rarely come up winners.
The perfect example of this mistake is E. coliO157:H7. The bacteria that periodically gets loose and kills/maims a goodly number of people. E. coli comes from one place. [bleep]. It's an intestinal bacteria. It s now OUR job to cook any meat we eat to kill the bacteria resultant from our food producers introducing it into our food. If you don't put [bleep] on the meat in processing you do not have it in the food. It's that simple. We have set up a food chain that not only puts [bleep] in our food, it deliberately concentrates the animals carrying the bacteria so as to maximize the spread of the bacteria from animal to animal while including multiple antibiotics into the animal's gut. It's almost as if we are trying to deliberately produce a more deadly bacteria that is resistant to more and perhaps all antibiotics. Where is responsible science in that proposition?
Another excellent post.
Here is my problem with GMO. I farm. I choose what I grow with great deliberation and care. I spend what little money I have on seed. I expect that seed to germinate and grow the plants I chose and paid for. Say I grow corn. Odds are the corn I grow will not be what I chose but rather it will be a corn contaminated with GMO corn. It may not hurt me but it is NOT what I bought.
GMO corn was recently discovered in taco shells. That corn produced a pesticide not approved for humans. I understand it is nearly imposable to grow corn not contaminated with GMO and now if I want to sell my organic corn for human consumption I have to have it tested to prove it is not GMO.
I can choose to take a medicine or not to take it. The ability to chooses non GMO corn has been all but totally removed.
Here is my problem with GMO. I farm. I choose what I grow with great deliberation and care. I spend what little money I have on seed. I expect that seed to germinate and grow the plants I chose and paid for. Say I grow corn. Odds are the corn I grow will not be what I chose but rather it will be a corn contaminated with GMO corn. It may not hurt me but it is NOT what I bought.
GMO corn was recently discovered in taco shells. That corn produced a pesticide not approved for humans. I understand it is nearly imposable to grow corn not contaminated with GMO and now if I want to sell my organic corn for human consumption I have to have it tested to prove it is not GMO.
I can choose to take a medicine or not to take it. The ability to chooses non GMO corn has been all but totally removed.
+1
It's doubtful now that there exists any non-GMO contaminated corn in our entire hemisphere. Even in the high mountains of South America, the corn that grows (and has always grown) wild there is contaminated, i.e., tests as GMO corn even though it's ostensibly a wild and undomesticated species, and thus even
it won't pass muster for sale to European countries.
good questions. I've always supported the development of good questions to be doused on the lurking masses.
without proper "witches brews" emanating from big ag, and big pharma the world would be vastly different than what it is.
modern chemistry and bio-engineering keeps our system ticking.
Yea, in 1900 the average lifespan of a man was 47 years. We take these medications with POSSIBLE side effects because we prefer dying later rather than earlier. The resurgence in pertussis and the deaths and damage done by it is due to those too stupid to take advantage of the miracles He said we would do.
I'm not equipped to argue the science of this debate, but I do object vehemently to the predatory actions taken by Monsanto regarding cross pollination across property lines and hell will freeze before I embrace an ag concept which promotes use of herbicides on something I'll eat later on. Talk about a sea of ignorance...
Scott hit it on the head. We're not being given a choice. Something this country is running low on in many areas.
I realize that 60% of us will die of something in our lifetimes. But along the way, there are certain choices to be made. Right or wrong, I want those choices to be mine.
Excellent post and spot on, Miles!
Ed
A HUGE +1.
Remember, syphilis is natural and organic, too.
Scott hit it on the head.
Occasionally is screw up nd get one right.
Scott hit it on the head.
Occasionally is screw up nd get one right.
Yep, just like the roulette wheel occasionally hits double green zero.
good questions. I've always supported the development of good questions to be doused on the lurking masses.
without proper "witches brews" emanating from big ag, and big pharma the world would be vastly different than what it is.
modern chemistry and bio-engineering keeps our system ticking.
Yea, in 1900 the average lifespan of a man was 47 years. We take these medications with POSSIBLE side effects because we prefer dying later rather than earlier. The resurgence in pertussis and the deaths and damage done by it is due to those too stupid to take advantage of the miracles He said we would do.
I agree, and I also choose to go to bed tonight and every night with a full stomach. Even if it could possibly harm me later, starvation would kill me quicker. I am not trying to start any fights, I agree our food system is a long way from perfect. But, things are still far better now than they were 100 years ago.
I can choose to take a medicine or not to take it. The ability to chooses non GMO corn has been all but totally removed.
Unfortunately Scott, you cannot choose in today's market it is virtually impossible to go into a grocery store and buy any animal products that are not contaminated. I turned up allergic to doxycycline the first time it was prescribed to me because of dietary intake from meat/fish/milk, etc. The same thing happend to me with the first script for ciprofloxacn. Remember the anthrax scare on the east coast in 2001? They started passing out cipro like pez until they had so many people turn up allergic to it and then they switched to dox. The fluoroquinolones and tetracyclnes are so commonly in animal feed that huge numbers of people are now allergic to them and don't even suspect that they are.
Antibiotics are so commonly misused that they are now everywhere and even wild meat may not be completely clean. Water has been contamnated with them for a while now.
Miles58 - I don't know if what we see is "ignorance" or someone riding a self-serving hobby horse, or just stroking their own ego and wanting to sound important. Most of the time, the outcome is the same.
Thanks for an excellent post.
A good example of how serious just the antibiotic problem is would be my wife.
A few years back she was taking an antibiotic for an infection and the antbiotic was not working. She degenerated into sepsis. When I realized what was going on I rushed her to the ER (two miles away) and by the time I got there she was so far in shock they had to do a cutdown to get a vein to get a line in. While I was squeezing the fluds bag to get them in as fast as possible with a couple broad spectrum antibiotics she damn near died. After two days in the ICU and a day in a ward she was released with the instruction that she turned up allergic to Vancomycin and with a script for another antibiotic.
By the next morning she was in anaphylaxis. Another rush to the ER. Another cutdown to get a line in, another stay in ICU and discharge with another script for a different antibiotic. She had never taken either antibiotic before. Ever. Both had a good run at killing her. Had I been at work (or hesitated) she'd likely have died.
So, we attacked a bacteria with an antibiotic to which it was resistant. The bacteria wet forth an multiplied, greatly and my wife went septic. Rushed into the ER with a woman deeply in shock on death's doorstep and gave her vancomycin to which she was severly allergic and we added anaphylaxis to sepsis. She survived that to be given a second antibiotic which she had also never used before in her life and pushed her back into anaphylaxis.
This is not an isolated incident! I have a doctor friend whose first use of dox sent him into anaphylaxis and he was lucky enough to make it back to his practice and competent help that loaded him up with benadryl right now and got a line into him. We will all see this happen more often in the not so distant future.
The stunts we are pulling to put more food in our mouths more cheaply without carefully determining the consequences of our actions is already killing some of us. Never overlook the whole price of our progress, it might be your turn to pony up next.
The stunts we are pulling to put more food in our mouths more cheaply without carefully determining the consequences of our actions is already killing some of us.
This,
+1
GTC
I live on a small farm. We do not spend much in the grocery stores and usually vote with our dollars and buy organic. We also do our best to stay away from medications. We both are healthier with this lifestyle than when we were young.
We are what we eat.
I live on a small farm. We do not spend much in the grocery stores and usually vote with our dollars and buy organic. We also do our best to stay away from medications. We both are healthier with this lifestyle than when we were young.
We are what we eat.
The roulette wheel hits double green zero again.
Thanks my friend.
Just for your info. We changed our diet slightly to include more carbs in moderation but to omit all gluten. My wife's blood sugar dropped into the normal range in two days. Have not had a morning reading above 99 since.
keep in mind you are putting this stuff in a living organism.....there are hundreds of things every day that interacts and changes the DNA in our cells causing mutations, hell UVB rays from the sun do this....
in the normal course of plant breeding your playing with mostly the same genes that have been around for millions of years in the species or related species.....with GMO your doing things like taking genes from a starfish and putting them in wheat, something that does not happen in nature and if every thing stays stable alot of times its not a big deal but the very nature of DNA is not perfectly stable, its built to change to enhance an organisms ability to reproduce so now all the sudden that plant which was modified to produce a safe pesticide has tweaked its chemical manufacturing process and now produces a chemical that while similar is not safe for one reason or another....and there is no way for people to control this aspect....
Miles58--thanks for taking the time to educate.
Thanks my friend.
Just for your info. We changed our diet slightly to include more carbs in moderation but to omit all gluten. My wife's blood sugar dropped into the normal range in two days. Have not had a morning reading above 99 since.
We do the same. Unfortunately the damn animals (wild) I eat have a pronounced tendency to feed on stuff like corn and beans and cabbage and alfalfa. The deer mix in with cattle freely and eat in their pastures and sometimes from the same feed bunks and drink from the same tanks/troughs. If the little bastards would just dress a little different from each other so I could tell the uncouth ones from the decent moral ones I'd be happier. They all look the same to me. I do the best I can. I shoot the little ones and pass on the old ones. I can't remember the last time I bought hamburger in a store. I do eat pork and chicken though and we have no wild pigs here.
I recall awhile back that some were making derisive comments about "Silent Spring". The stuff Miles refers to about the presence of various pharmaceuticals in our water IS something I know a bit about.
Collectively, we are pissing in our teapot and it's going to bite us on the ass eventually. It isn't a matter of if...
One of the conundrums of the water resource, and the food resources as well, is found in the desire to make it cheap. There is no such thing as cheap here, only a question of who is going to pay for it. You, me, or the grand kids?
When science gets mixed into economic value, we rarely come up winners.
This statement is just not true. I'll paraphrase the full equation, but GDP = Technology x Capital. It's technology that allows us to leverage our labor hours and make each one more valuable, and enables us to create more in the same amount of time. Ever since the first anthropithecus used a rock to crack a bone to get out the marrow to eat it, Technology's been a factor in our food supply.
I recall awhile back that some were making derisive comments about "Silent Spring". The stuff Miles refers to about the presence of various pharmaceuticals in our water IS something I know a bit about.
Collectively, we are pissing in our teapot and it's going to bite us on the ass eventually. It isn't a matter of if or when, since it's already there and already biting us. The question left is how bad will it be.
Fixed it for you.
One of the conundrums of the water resource, and the food resources as well, is found in the desire to make it cheap. There is no such thing as cheap here, only a question of who is going to pay for it. You, me, or the grand kids?
[quote=antelope_sniper
This statement is just not true. I'll paraphrase the full equation, but GDP = Technology x Capital. It's technology that allows us to leverage our labor hours and make each one more valuable, and enables us to create more in the same amount of time. Ever since the first anthropithecus used a rock to crack a bone to get out the marrow to eat it, Technology's been a factor in our food supply. [/quote]
You are correct, it's not true in a lot of cases. But in the context of our discussion it is very applicable and more so when you look at the advantages of backing away from the leading edge.