GMO not a threat:

[Eastoff]

http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2013/10/massive-review-reveals-consensus-on-gmo-safety.html
If we aren't going to put our population growth in check, we have to start looking at GMOs as part of our solution to world hunger.

 

[magnifier661]

http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2013/10/massive-review-reveals-consensus-on-gmo-safety.html
If we aren't going to put our population growth in check, we have to start looking at GMOs as part of our solution to world hunger.

I disagree that this is not a threat. And I also disagree with population and food. Aquaponics requires no soil and watering; yet produces good faster than traditional means.

128 sq ft of growing area can feed a family of 4 perpetually forever. All organically as well

 

[Further]

I didn't read the story, I'll check in on it later, I basically agree with the premise. But while I trust GMO food, I don't trust much of the processes that go along with it or the depletion of our biodiversity.

In making most GMO food, the companies often make food that lasts much longer and in much larger quantities, so it becomes that much more important to never have a bad crop, so pesticides are used in tremendous quantities. Also, they are often heavily processed, so lower quality product can be used and less pure product can be used. So while GMO in my mind is fine, I'll usually go organic anyway because 1) it tastes better, 2) fewer pesticides) 3) handled by farmers instead of robots, 4) less time in transit means more vitamins make it to the table and 5) we get to support local people trying to put quality first instead of corporations trying to put profit first.

 

[Eastoff]

Aquaponics requires no soil and watering... All organically as well

These two things seem VERY at odds.

 

[Eastoff]

I didn't read the story, I'll check in on it later, I basically agree with the premise. But while I trust GMO food, I don't trust much of the processes that go along with it or the depletion of our biodiversity.

In making most GMO food, the companies often make food that lasts much longer and in much larger quantities, so it becomes that much more important to never have a bad crop, so pesticides are used in tremendous quantities. Also, they are often heavily processed, so lower quality product can be used and less pure product can be used. So while GMO in my mind is fine, I'll usually go organic anyway because 1) it tastes better, 2) fewer pesticides) 3) handled by farmers instead of robots, 4) less time in transit means more vitamins make it to the table and 5) we get to support local people trying to put quality first instead of corporations trying to put profit first.

agreed.

 

[magnifier661]

These two things seem VERY at odds.

Well you need water, just not watering. The nutrients are cycled from the symbiotic relationship of the fish, microbes and plants.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Whether you are for against GMO food, here's the dirty little secret about the world's food supply: We've got plenty of food right now, but we have a massive distribution problem. Second to that, history has proved that no matter how much more supply you put into the system the net result is almost always an increase in births and population - a zero sum game.

I guess what I'm getting at, is even if there is a second wave in the green revolution that radically increase crop yields, it's probably not going to lead to an eradication of hunger, but instead will only magnify the world's population problem.

 

[magnifier661]

Whether you are for against GMO food, here's the dirty little secret about the world's food supply: We've got plenty of food right now, but we have a massive distribution problem. Second to that, history has proved that no matter how much more supply you put into the system the net result is almost always an increase in births and population - a zero sum game.

I guess what I'm getting at, is even if there is a second wave in the green revolution that radically increase crop yields, it's probably not going to lead to an eradication of hunger, but instead will only magnify the world's population problem.

Exactly! That's why training areas of poverty to grow their own food is essential. You can keep sending food, but how does that help the area once the food runs out? The trick is to find other media to grow in and still economic.

 

[Further]

Whether you are for against GMO food, here's the dirty little secret about the world's food supply: We've got plenty of food right now, but we have a massive distribution problem. Second to that, history has proved that no matter how much more supply you put into the system the net result is almost always an increase in births and population - a zero sum game.

I guess what I'm getting at, is even if there is a second wave in the green revolution that radically increase crop yields, it's probably not going to lead to an eradication of hunger, but instead will only magnify the world's population problem.

philosophically, I wonder if this ratcheting up of population to match the food supply would hold if food really became so abundant it was virtually free. What I'm trying to get at is that if people don't need to have larger families to basically become workers for the family food supply, would families start to shrink. We know that in the US, as families no longer needed large families to till the fields, they can concentrate on education, which in turn leads to a lower population. So, hypothetically if GMO food becomes so cheap and plentiful that no families worldwide need to worry about their next meal, does that still result in an increase in population or does it actually result in a decrease like we have seen in "westernized" nations?

 

[Nikolokolus]

Exactly! That's why training areas of poverty to grow their own food is essential. You can keep sending food, but how does that help the area once the food runs out? The trick is to find other media to grow in and still economic.

That's not a solution. As food production grows so does population - especially in developing countries. You'll just end up with more mouths to feed until it finds the same point of "equilibrium" it's at now.

 

[magnifier661]

philosophically, I wonder if this ratcheting up of population to match the food supply would hold if food really became so abundant it was virtually free. What I'm trying to get at is that if people don't need to have larger families to basically become workers for the family food supply, would families start to shrink. We know that in the US, as families no longer needed large families to till the fields, they can concentrate on education, which in turn leads to a lower population. So, hypothetically if GMO food becomes so cheap and plentiful that no families worldwide need to worry about their next meal, does that still result in an increase in population or does it actually result in a decrease like we have seen in "westernized" nations?

Or the decrease is because of gmo foods and growth hormones added to our foods? That could cause for more fertility.

 

[magnifier661]

That's not a solution. As food production grows so does population - especially in developing countries. You'll just end up with more mouths to feed until it finds the same point of "equilibrium" it's at now.

No I get that; but the concept of a nation able to feed itself is a higher reward than pumping them with donated foods. So even though the population grows; you can adjust the landscape of aquaculture to adjust the expansion.

There are evaporative water generators that can pull very clean water from the atmosphere; and powered by solar to boot. Areas like Ethiopia have as much sun as they need and the added water can supply the community with drinking water and supply for the aquaponic system in the area.

One unti produces 5,000 gallons per day

 

[Nikolokolus]

philosophically, I wonder if this ratcheting up of population to match the food supply would hold if food really became so abundant it was virtually free. What I'm trying to get at is that if people don't need to have larger families to basically become workers for the family food supply, would families start to shrink. We know that in the US, as families no longer needed large families to till the fields, they can concentrate on education, which in turn leads to a lower population. So, hypothetically if GMO food becomes so cheap and plentiful that no families worldwide need to worry about their next meal, does that still result in an increase in population or does it actually result in a decrease like we have seen in "westernized" nations?

It's a biology problem. When people aren't suffering privation, they feel better and when they feel better they like to fuck and when they fuck, they make more people. You don't get a decrease in population or birth rate until the economics make having a child less desirable. In developing, impoverished countries having children is an economic benefit.

 

[Nikolokolus]

One more problem. If you increase world population without increasing the amount of potable water how do you get around that?

 

[magnifier661]

One more problem. If you increase world population without increasing the amount of potable water how do you get around that?

http://www.islandsky.com/products/emergency-water-generator

Systems can be set up with solar systems to give free water.

Here is a more detailed information on the process

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_water_generator

 

[Nikolokolus]

http://www.islandsky.com/products/emergency-water-generator

Systems can be set up with solar systems to give free water.

Here is a more detailed information on the process

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_water_generator

And who's going to pay for all of that?

 

[magnifier661]

And who's going to pay for all of that?

There are many philanthropist groups that spend billions of dollars a year on this exact thing.

 

[Further]

soylent green

 

[Denny Crane]

Whether you are for against GMO food, here's the dirty little secret about the world's food supply: We've got plenty of food right now, but we have a massive distribution problem. Second to that, history has proved that no matter how much more supply you put into the system the net result is almost always an increase in births and population - a zero sum game.

I guess what I'm getting at, is even if there is a second wave in the green revolution that radically increase crop yields, it's probably not going to lead to an eradication of hunger, but instead will only magnify the world's population problem.

I saw recently a claim that 2/3 of the world's food spoils or is thrown out.

Plenty of food. Obviously you have to get a good chunk of that 2/3 to where it's needed.

 

[Eastoff]

It's a biology problem. When people aren't suffering privation, they feel better and when they feel better they like to fuck and when they fuck, they make more people. You don't get a decrease in population or birth rate until the economics make having a child less desirable. In developing, impoverished countries having children is an economic benefit.

And that's where education and condoms/birth control enter the equation!

 

[Nikolokolus]

And that's where education and condoms/birth control enter the equation!

Doesn't work. It's not about education it's more about economics. Your own children equal cheap labor in a subsistence based economy and and you need a lot of manual labor in places without mechanization.

 

[MARIS61]

GMO's are a cornerstone of Monsanto's goal of contolling the entire world's food supply.

http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/201...a-and-the-government-theyre-killing-us-11650/

 

[Further]

Doesn't work. It's not about education it's more about economics. Your own children equal cheap labor in a subsistence based economy and and you need a lot of manual labor in places without mechanization.

In a non-agricultural society, having cheap labor becomes less important and the extra mouths to feed could become a negative. So make the megacorp food super cheap and everywhere.

 

[magnifier661]

GMO's are a cornerstone of Monsanto's goal of contolling the entire world's food supply.

I don't get why people see GMO as a safe way for growing a food supply? Monsanto's main seed is a GMO that work with their herbicide "Round Up". Adding this herbicide will add to our food supply. It is a huge snowball for the negative.

 

[Nikolokolus]

In a non-agricultural society, having cheap labor becomes less important and the extra mouths to feed could become a negative. So make the megacorp food super cheap and everywhere.

Big Ag is in the business of making profit, not feeding the world.

As I said before (and Denny underscored with a statistic) we don't have a supply problem, we have a distribution problem.

 

[Denny Crane]

Nik has a great point. Lost in this so far is the fact that as people live longer, the population is going to grow. More births than deaths means growth.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Monsanto's a bigger danger in the way that they've patented seeds, implant them in small farmers' fields, then sue the farmer for illegal growth. Farmer drowns under legal costs, Monsanto gets to buy the land at auction. Nice business model, if you can get it.

BTW, nutrient levels in GMO are nowhere close to heirloom crops. Yes, the pumpkin is bigger (for instance). But the nutrients aren't there. And the GMO plants (as said earlier) are now dependent on chemicals to eradicate "pests" (some of which are needed in symbiotic relationship with "normal" crops) and "weeds", then dependent on chemical nutrients to grow because they've sterilized the soil from giving the plants nutrients, then dependent on trucking/refrigeration/etc (all energy drains) to get them to cities where they don't actually supply the nutrients that people think they should be getting.

 

[magnifier661]

Nik has a great point. Lost in this so far is the fact that as people live longer, the population is going to grow. More births than deaths means growth.

This is why I see a solution of taking rural areas and developing a grow program is essential. The import duties, shipping costs and storage wouldn't be a problem. I think industries like Ag in america are wasting the supply. We need to subsidize the distribution to where areas in need can grow their own fresh food, harvest good potable water and have extra to generate more economic growth.

I do understand that the spread will only increase population, but if a good model is in place; we won't have starvation. We have plenty of dry land, we just lack water and soil. If you can work around them, there isn't a problem, IMO.

 

[KeepOnRollin]

Monsanto's a bigger danger in the way that they've patented seeds, implant them in small farmers' fields, then sue the farmer for illegal growth. Farmer drowns under legal costs, Monsanto gets to buy the land at auction. Nice business model, if you can get it.

This sounds like a move I somewhat recently saw with Dennis Quaid. I think it was called At any price or something along those lines.

 

[magnifier661]

Monsanto's a bigger danger in the way that they've patented seeds, implant them in small farmers' fields, then sue the farmer for illegal growth. Farmer drowns under legal costs, Monsanto gets to buy the land at auction. Nice business model, if you can get it.

BTW, nutrient levels in GMO are nowhere close to heirloom crops. Yes, the pumpkin is bigger (for instance). But the nutrients aren't there. And the GMO plants (as said earlier) are now dependent on chemicals to eradicate "pests" (some of which are needed in symbiotic relationship with "normal" crops) and "weeds", then dependent on chemical nutrients to grow because they've sterilized the soil from giving the plants nutrients, then dependent on trucking/refrigeration/etc (all energy drains) to get them to cities where they don't actually supply the nutrients that people think they should be getting.

Exactly!!!! Just because the fruit is bigger, doesn't mean you have more nutrients. The plant can only uptake a certain amount of nutrients. More mass, equals mass of undesired material in crops. Some say "Just add more fertilizer to get nutrients". It doesn't work that way. Adding too much will only lock the soil and you get even less uptake. Remember the carrier of most these minerals are bound with salts. That salt constricts the root system and lowers the beneficial microbiology of the soil.

This doesn't help, but only hurt, IMO.