http://video.google....083407501596844
Edited by eatyualive, 03 November 2011 - 08:27 PM.
link was dead on youtube. put a link for google vid.
Posted 30 September 2011 - 07:15 PM
Edited by eatyualive, 03 November 2011 - 08:27 PM.
link was dead on youtube. put a link for google vid.
Posted 30 September 2011 - 07:26 PM
Posted 30 September 2011 - 07:35 PM
Posted 30 September 2011 - 07:58 PM
Posted 03 October 2011 - 07:42 PM
Posted 17 October 2011 - 06:42 PM
Posted 17 October 2011 - 08:11 PM
Posted 17 October 2011 - 10:49 PM
Don't let that turn you off from GMO's entirely. Check out Norman Borlaug for a good example of GMO's done right, for the people. They led to the Green Revolution that saved hundreds of millions from starvation. Good man.
Posted 18 October 2011 - 01:26 AM
Posted 18 October 2011 - 11:42 AM
Spot on dude, you hit the nail on the head! Anyway, you look at it GMO = bad news!!! This last docu I posted, really really pissed me off b/c this is coming from the scientist's mouths themselves!!!!! Not people on the sidelines looking in.Phin,
In case you didn't know monsanto was a HUGE player in the chemical industry back in the 70-80's. They have since made the move to GMO crops, specializing in making them immune to Round Up weed killer (which they also produce). The idea being that you buy their seeds, plant them, spay the field with round up a few weeks later to kill any weeds, then spay again a few weeks later to kill back any stragglers, by which point the crops will be too thick for any new weeds to take hold. there are of course a few catches here. You can not store seeds. they put genetic markers in each years crop, and the contract you sign says they can test your crops whenever they feel like it, and they will sue the crap out of farmers if they try to use last years seeds. Also farmers end up dumping literal tons of round up weed killer onto there fields (which you have to purchase from them as well).
There have been cases on monosanto sending agents illegally onto farms who don't use their genes to take specimens for testing. Then trying to sue them into bankruptcy when they find their genes in one of their plants. The kicker being that even if the genes got there by natural means (pollination) they can still tie the families up in court so long that they end up going under anyways (making cheap land availible to the other farmer using monsanto seeds)
Top that with them pretty much bank rolling the movement of a bill (for which ex-execs were "top advisors") saying that GMO crops are "essentially equivalent to non-GMO". basically meaning that GMO is no different then non-GMO and needs no special treatment or labeling.
scary when you think that they control a large part of our food supply like corn and soy
Posted 18 October 2011 - 03:12 PM
Posted 18 October 2011 - 04:49 PM
Intentions notwithstanding (the road to hell is paved with good intentions and all of that), I don't necessarily think Borlaug is a slam dunk of a "good example on GMO's done right". There are a lot of issues raised with the practice of GMO's. Let's be clear, Borlaug isn't different, he was just among the first. I probably shouldn't even have said this 'cause I don't really have the stamina for a debate but I just don't want Borlaug to have a pass into canonization, so to speak.
Posted 19 October 2011 - 01:03 AM
Eh, I wouldn't worry too much about it, he's there whether you want him to be or not. "Father" of the Green Revolution, saved hundreds of millions, won the Nobel Prize, and Presidential Medal of Freedom, etc, etc. and had probably the greatest impact on genetic modification of any single person since their beginnings. Like him or not, I don't really understand how you can consider him the same as all the rest.
Posted 19 October 2011 - 01:10 AM
Truth!! Especially this part! I.E. Einstein and the atomic bomb!I applaud the scientific method for being able to pull amazing things off. Unfortunately though, it doesn't exist in a vacuum. The clever monkeys in white coats would often like to escape the moral implications of their feats but we live in an interconnected, closed system, no one gets out alive, as it were.
Posted 19 October 2011 - 03:21 PM
Well crafted response, friend.Well of course, it all depends on your perspective on the "Green Revolution". It was indeed quite a triumph of science, rather amazing in fact. The creation of high-yield grains has had a major impact in food production. Borlaug and his colleagues did indeed create a massive increase in this area and I don't want to marginalize his accomplishment there.
As I'm sure you're aware, production doesn't solve the real problem, distribution. Food is there, it was there, people just aren't receiving it. Borlaug couldn't modify access to land or water. He couldn't engineer the socio-economic changes necessary to get the food from field to table. This is why there is a hunger problem. It seems that by increasing yields, the revolution has just allowed more people to survive longer in poverty, enabling them to bring more children into the cycle. There aren't less hungry people now than before the revolution, there's more.
I applaud the scientific method for being able to pull amazing things off. Unfortunately though, it doesn't exist in a vacuum. The clever monkeys in white coats would often like to escape the moral implications of their feats but we live in an interconnected, closed system, no one gets out alive, as it were.
I haven't even addressed the problems associated with petro-chemical fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, dwindling bio-diversity, etc. (and the mind-boggling number of implications connected to them), that stem (pun) from the "green" revolution. All of these technologies take capital. Most of the worlds farmers are poor (ironically farmers make up a large population of the hungry as well). Therefor, most of the techniques of the green revolution can only be achieved by the relatively wealthy, which, in turn, consolidates power and takes away from localizing solutions.
None of this takes into consideration the possible health impacts of GMO's on the human organism.
The Green Revolution is like the foreign aid debacle on steroids. As I'm sure you're aware, the idea of foreign aid, in it's current paradigm, in solving the problems of the poor, has basically been debunked.
And just like the fear that talk radio pundits and xenophobic politicians have about fundamentalists taking over in the wake of the middle-eastern and north African Revolutions, Monsanto (the fundamentalists fuck sticks) have taken over after the Green Revolution. And oh shit, are they doin a job.
So, yea, Borlaug did some nifty shit. Congrats on scientific achievement. If used though, hindsight is a wonderful thing. Imo, the green revolution isn't all it's proponents would like it to be. But, it's nearly impossible to fix a system with a view as narrow as the current one. I haven't figured out how to win a game that someone else has rigged.
Oh, as for the Nobel prize point, ever heard of Barrack Obama, Yassir Arafat and Henry Kissinger? Well, they all have Nobel prizes too, in the Peace category :lol: You can probably guess how much weight I give the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
Edited by eatyualive, 03 November 2011 - 08:24 PM.
politics
Posted 19 October 2011 - 10:37 PM
Edited by Calaquendi, 19 October 2011 - 10:43 PM.
Posted 19 October 2011 - 11:25 PM
I haven't laughed out loud at something online for a long time. :hugs:I never thought it could be possible but I think I agree with Jawn (agreeing with Jawn is not the impossible part ;)).
Posted 01 November 2011 - 05:53 AM
Posted 07 November 2011 - 10:22 PM
Edited by thatgreenthumb, 07 November 2011 - 10:46 PM.
Posted 08 November 2011 - 12:32 AM
Like Mycotopia? Become a member today!