by cappytan 48 Replies latest jw friends
Billy the Ex-Bethelite,
"Frankly, it still wouldn't be enough organic fertilizer."
How about rotating crops with nitrogen fixing plants?
"I think we rely on too few crops as primary staples. Particularly when native African crops, for example, are ignored in favor of European/American/Asian crops."
Like sorghum and millet? They are drought resistant and we will be having quite a few droughts in the years to come.
Interesting article in the NYT today...
"I decided I could no longer continue taking a pro-science position on global warming and an anti-science position on G.M.O.s."
Cofty, thanks for that article. It is an interesting experience. One thing I don't understand is why all skeptical GMO stances fall into the anti-science bucket. Why does skepticism of GMOs place people in the same company of anti-vaxers? I think some GMOs are perfectly fine. I'm skeptical of others. I do not agree with groups like Greenpeace using the fear of health problems as a means to block third world countries access to golden rice. I see nothing wrong nutritionally with that specific product. I do think skepticism of companies like Monsanto are warranted though. Massive corporations' chief concern is profits, and therefore the science they fund has an inherent conflict of interests, and they certainly don't have their customers best interests in mind [I view them like I view financial advisers... ready to sell you a product whether or not it's in your best interests to buy].
It's not uncommon to find members on the boards of various scientific associations and food safety regulatory groups having current or past ties with big agriculture. Scientific peer-review is not a perfect system, not even close. Sure studies of the likes of Seralini et. al. get retracted. I do see some issues with the study's design (e,g, sample sizes too small). But, it is of note that that paper got republished elsewhere. From this it appears there is a political-component to what should be objective science. By I digress, the more trust people put into these large biotech companies the higher the probability that a GMO product could prove disastrous to the environment or our health. Maybe it will not happen, but the risk is there. I think skepticism is appropriate, but blatantly non-scientific opposition for opposition's sake is not helpful.
Lastly, I also don't get why GMOs are needed to "feed humanity." There is more than enough food to go around for everyone in the world. It's politics and capitalism that cause people to go to bed hungry.
How about rotating crops with nitrogen fixing plants?
It's common where I grew up to rotate corn and soybeans, and some other crops. Not only are soybeans good at fixing nitrogen on residual root nodules, the rotation reduces some pests that can overwinter in the ground. While the soy rotation helps, both crops need phosphorus and potassium, and additional nitrogen helped the corn yield even better. Corn was the cash crop. Soybeans could be hit or miss on profitability, and they had their own pest problems like spider mites, Japanese beetles, and required more herbicides than corn because corn could outgrow many weeds while the beans would more easily lose soil, water, and sunshine to weeds.
Getting back a little bit more toward the GMO topic, and overlapping with the issues of farm chemicals and commercial fertilizers, it isn't a case where farmers are eager to use lots of chemicals and buy lots of GM seed. That stuff is all EXPENSIVE. Fertilizer is expensive. Fuel is expensive. Chemicals are expensive. Seed is expensive. Equipment is expensive to buy/maintain/repair. Land is expensive. To a great extent, the old-fashioned days of family farming is gone. Some have gotten bigger and are profitable. Many struggle. All it takes is one big bad decision and the business is over. Like my grandfather used to say, "If I won a million dollars, I'd farm until it was all gone!"
GMO avacado
That's an excellent example baltar. Hass avocados all come from grafts originating from one singular tree. (read the link, if anyone cares) I think the new patent laws would make these delicious things corporate property of whoever "patented" some part of the genetic code. Want to plant that avocado pit and see what grows? Get ready to go to court.
*sigh* Maybe these are the last days.
To say anything in opposition to current science is to be put in the realm of an anti-Vaxxer. Even more so on a site filled with former Christians who were once duped by ignoring science in favor of religion.
The he bad thing is if in the future it turns out that somehow there was reason to be alarmed everyone will act as if it's no big deal
All the hybrid crops we use for food now are "GMO", it's just that their genomes were modified by generations of selective breeding and cross-pollination (trial-and-error approach) rather than methodically in a lab (the factory approach). Even organic crops are nothing like their counterparts from a few centuries ago.
It really depends on how the GMO is different, and how it is used. Example: the big risk for "BT" corn is that pests constantly exposed to the BT toxin will be selectively bred for immunity to that natural pesticide, so there are regulations requiring mixes of BT and non-BT plots intermixed with each other (so that BT-susceptible pest genes won't become extinct).
To say anything in opposition to current science is to be put in the realm of an anti-Vaxxer. Even more so on a site filled with former Christians who were once duped by ignoring science in favor of religion.
I can see why many could feel that way. Ironically, it was science (evolution in particular) that got me out of the cult. When it comes to human health and the environment though, with science it often isn't until much later that we realize things are harmful.
Look at artificial sweeteners, long advertised as a safe alternative to sugar. While we don't metabolize the likes of splenda, aspartame, and saccharine, our gut microbiota is affected. The changes there have an adverse affect on our blood sugar, which is the opposite of what you would think would happen by drinking artificial sweeteners. Scientific consensus is now changing to view artificial sweeteners as potentially unsafe.
Look too at DDT (a Monsanto product by the way), in the 1940s it's toxicity to humans wasn't originally apparent, nor it's impact on the environment. It wasn't until the 1960s that it was shown to be really awful stuff.
I think caution is needed with GMOs and I think companies like Monsanto are anything but. I'm not anti-GMO, I'm just skeptical of them due to the typical recklessness and short-sightedness often found in human nature and capitalism.
