|
Post by Bluefinger on May 3, 2010 5:44:58 GMT -5
Rime, even taking all that into consideration, the problem is we still need some form of pesticide in order to maintain good enough crop yields. The point of Vene's link was to show that 'natural' pesticides are not any safer then synthetic, particularly since a lot of them have not been put through the same rigorous testing and safety checks that synthetic pesticides go through. Why should the organic food movement be taken seriously when it is doing the very same things normal farmers are doing? Whether the chemicals used are 'natural' means shit, because it stills needs to be tested and studied thoroughly before being put to use.
What you've brought up is problems with pesticides in general, particularly in their overuse. But that can be attributed to bad farming practice to begin with. Maybe we shouldn't treat food as a material to mass harvest, but that still does nothing to change the fact that there's a fucking huge number of humans that need to be fed. And thus, there's an effort to boost crop yields in order to cope with our dietary demands. And in that regard, organic farming practices alone are just not sufficient to meet that demand.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on May 3, 2010 6:16:29 GMT -5
"While the risks (of off-shore drilling) are great, the benefits to the American people are incalculable. Oil and natural gas fuel our economy, provide millions of jobs, provide chemicals for medicines and thousands of other consumer products that safeguard the health and well-being of all Americans." Well, frak that. Fortunately, this is dishonest. I say fortunately, because if what they impled was true, then all petroleum and natural gas would be found at sea or under the Alaska ice shelf. Since this isn't true, one does not have to weigh up all oil and NG products against huge enviromental catastrophe, just a tiny percentage or oil and NG against certain economic catastophe.
|
|
|
Post by Rime on May 3, 2010 6:49:26 GMT -5
Rime, even taking all that into consideration, the problem is we still need some form of pesticide in order to maintain good enough crop yields. The point of Vene's link was to show that 'natural' pesticides are not any safer then synthetic, particularly since a lot of them have not been put through the same rigorous testing and safety checks that synthetic pesticides go through. Why should the organic food movement be taken seriously when it is doing the very same things normal farmers are doing? Whether the chemicals used are 'natural' means shit, because it stills needs to be tested and studied thoroughly before being put to use. Yes, I know. That's called marketing, and I'm aware that people sneak "natural" on a label, one prominent (ab)use is in energy drinks. On the other hand, I fail to see how rotenone root and diatomaceous earth are somehow just as dangerous as Raid. What you've brought up is problems with pesticides in general, particularly in their overuse. But that can be attributed to bad farming practice to begin with. Maybe we shouldn't treat food as a material to mass harvest, but that still does nothing to change the fact that there's a fucking huge number of humans that need to be fed. And thus, there's an effort to boost crop yields in order to cope with our dietary demands. And in that regard, organic farming practices alone are just not sufficient to meet that demand. It might not hurt if the seed companies were trying to make it illegal for people to save their seeds, and equally difficult for them to use "stock seeds." Or requiring specific fertilizers to make their seeds sprout. I know this has nothing to do with the actual research, but seriously, the same companies that are supposed to be helping farmers maximize their yields seem to be dashing the hopes of farmers in who don't have a lot to spare to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on May 3, 2010 10:24:16 GMT -5
Rime, even taking all that into consideration, the problem is we still need some form of pesticide in order to maintain good enough crop yields. The point of Vene's link was to show that 'natural' pesticides are not any safer then synthetic, particularly since a lot of them have not been put through the same rigorous testing and safety checks that synthetic pesticides go through. Why should the organic food movement be taken seriously when it is doing the very same things normal farmers are doing? Whether the chemicals used are 'natural' means shit, because it stills needs to be tested and studied thoroughly before being put to use. Yes, I know. That's called marketing, and I'm aware that people sneak "natural" on a label, one prominent (ab)use is in energy drinks. On the other hand, I fail to see how rotenone root and diatomaceous earth are somehow just as dangerous as Raid. No, not marketing, naturalistic fallacy. If organic pesticides were more effective (safety is a part of effectiveness), there's every incentive to use them. Then again, we don't know for sure how effective they are because the organic farmers refuse to scientifically test them. That's the issue with having a monopoly, not anything inherently wrong with GMOs or non-"natural" farming techniques.
|
|
|
Post by Bluefinger on May 3, 2010 10:32:41 GMT -5
Yes, I know. That's called marketing, and I'm aware that people sneak "natural" on a label, one prominent (ab)use is in energy drinks. On the other hand, I fail to see how rotenone root and diatomaceous earth are somehow just as dangerous as Raid. But, has rotenone been tested rigorously to be checked for particular properties synthetic pesticides are screened against in order to maintain acceptable safety margins and ecological impact? Do we know how long it sticks around after being sprayed and its particular long-term effects? The problem here is testing, and remember, nature is plenty capable of creating some very nasty toxins on its own. Just because you fail to see how rotenone can be dangerous doesn't mean it won't be. A bit of an argument from personal incredulity, if I might point out. It might not hurt if the seed companies were trying to make it illegal for people to save their seeds, and equally difficult for them to use "stock seeds." Or requiring specific fertilizers to make their seeds sprout. I know this has nothing to do with the actual research, but seriously, the same companies that are supposed to be helping farmers maximize their yields seem to be dashing the hopes of farmers in who don't have a lot to spare to begin with. Like Vene said, what you've brought up is a different problem, that of a monopoly on GM crops. Maybe an argument for making work on genetically modified crops public domain, but for the most part, that's a problem to sort out with the company in question, not a wholesale argument against GM crops.
|
|
|
Post by worlder on May 3, 2010 11:07:15 GMT -5
Umm guys what do you have to say about the oil spill right now?
|
|
|
Post by Bluefinger on May 3, 2010 11:16:32 GMT -5
Umm guys what do you have to say about the oil spill right now? Oil spill, bad. Needs moar flames and EXPLOSIONS, with a pinch of Michael Bay. Yeah... I'm so going to hell.
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on May 3, 2010 13:19:51 GMT -5
Or they could try to scoop up the water and wring out the oil from it...less waste that way. At least until they can fix the leak.
|
|
|
Post by Old Viking on May 3, 2010 14:26:53 GMT -5
If you haven't eaten for a week and somebody hands you a turnip, you are not going to be terribly concerned about pesticide residue.
|
|
|
Post by stormwarden on May 3, 2010 21:50:45 GMT -5
I had an idea for "skimmer" craft, that would skim the oil out of the water, filter it, and store it. Its design would be similar to a tanker. My only design issue is how to keep it afloat >>'
|
|
|
Post by Mira on May 3, 2010 21:52:15 GMT -5
I had an idea for "skimmer" craft, that would skim the oil out of the water, filter it, and store it. Its design would be similar to a tanker. My only design issue is how to keep it afloat >>' I am 99% sure that exists already, or something similar to that.
|
|
|
Post by Rime on May 4, 2010 7:26:19 GMT -5
No, not marketing, naturalistic fallacy. If organic pesticides were more effective (safety is a part of effectiveness), there's every incentive to use them. Then again, we don't know for sure how effective they are because the organic farmers refuse to scientifically test them. You're sure that no one has done studies about that? How about one on Rotenone, since I brought it up. Or do you need separately sourced scientific journals? The ones they won't let you verify are the ones about sacrificing highborn virgins. I'm sure the rest of their techniques have been looked into. Yes, that may not be as effective, but as booley mentioned earlier, their losses aren't as terrible as you're claiming. Diatomaceous Earth is something that has been also been tested. Its toxicity is about zero because it's just calcium husks of little sea creatures. On the other hand, I'm sure it's been called ineffective because dusting once a week is considered impractical. But I'm sure that in some cases, fortifying soil with calcium could have some definite benefits for calcium rich vegetables like crucifers. That's the issue with having a monopoly, not anything inherently wrong with GMOs or non-"natural" farming techniques. You're telling me there's nothing wrong with monoculture farming, but two posts back, I cited that PEI has an unusual cancer problem stemming from non-natural farming techniques which you didn't see fit to respond to? Fine. I'm content to let you have it both ways.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on May 4, 2010 11:12:23 GMT -5
Rime, I'm of the position that organic farming is based on a fallacy, that natural is always better. They do that, there's no disputing it, even if their pesticides are safer, it doesn't fucking matter because they got there through fallacious reasoning and have convinced people they don't use the bloody things (which is where this whole thing started, and which has been proven false). Now it appears to be a matter of which pesticides are more effective. I'm not ever going to say to go with 100% synthetic, I'm saying to study the issue and go with what is more effective. And about rotenone, the link I gave a bit back said in it: A recent study compared the effectiveness of a rotenone-pyrethrin mixture versus a synthetic pesticide, imidan. Rotenone and pyrethrin are two common organic pesticides; imidan is considered a "soft" synthetic pesticide (i.e., designed to have a brief lifetime after application, and other traits that minimize unwanted effects). It was found that up to 7 applications of the rotenone- pyrethrin mixture were required to obtain the level of protection provided by 2 applications of imidan. Considering the page is from the U of C-Berkley, I'm inclined to trust them. And, it continued to say It seems unlikely that 7 applications of rotenone and pyrethrin are really better for the environment than 2 applications of imidan, especially when rotenone is extremely toxic to fish and other aquatic life. Rotenone, fine, it could be a good pesticide, but don't treat it as something magical in comparison to the synthetic stuff. I will admit that I was wrong when you provided the link. But, I didn't say I supported monoculture farming. At least, I didn't think I did, can you quote where I supported it? What I do support is not immediately freaking out over current farming practices and jumping to organic farming because it's "natural" what I do support is using evidence based techniques that cause the least amount of harm and the most amount of gain. This is not what the organic movement does, they restrict themselves in very silly ways. And, if it makes you feel better, I don't support privatized farming. I don't support privatized anything that essential for a society. I don't support privatized farming for the same reasons I don't support privatized medicine. But, going to organic farming will not solve this, it's attacking a non-issue. GMOs are not inherently bad, natural pesticides are not strictly safer than synthetic.
|
|
|
Post by worlder on May 4, 2010 11:43:18 GMT -5
People forget about the farming and the vegetables.
Oil Spill!
We de-railed the thread.
|
|
|
Post by Rime on May 4, 2010 12:49:10 GMT -5
Fine, I'll settle this in PM, I have a concession or two to make.
|
|