grufty jim
|
Re: possibilities (part 1)
Jul 14, 2004, 21:45
|
Yeah, me too. I'm also in the "no" camp if the suggestion is to use GM crops to keep our fleet of cars on the road. That's the sort of plan which - if taken seriously and implemented (or an attempt was made to do so) - would signal for once and for all the iredeemable stupidity of modern humanity.
The question becomes more fuzzy the day that some laboratory delivers clear proof that their corn, for instance, uses half the fertiliser and pesticides (no *really* does, not just claims to) is less damaging to the soil, gives twice the yield and remains fresher for longer after harvest (allowing for longer distribution chains in a slower world).
For me, *that* is when the GM debate suddenly becomes relevant. For me, *that* is when we need to ask questions about the feasibility of field trials, and whether we want to take the risk. But - despite the claims of the GM lobby - we're quite a way off that sadly. And I say "sadly", because whichever way we choose, *that* would be a debate worth having.
I don't have an automatic "no" stance on GM. I'm not against transgenics on principle or anything. But I do think we should demand that major, demonstrable social benefits (and not economic benefits to corporate interests) will be delivered; beyond all but the most slender of doubts; before we head down such a precarious path.
|
TomBo
|
|
"uses half the fertiliser and pesticides (no *really* does, not just claims to) is less damaging to the soil, gives twice the yield and remains fresher for longer after harvest (allowing for longer distribution chains in a slower world)."
Leaving the yield and freshness after harvest out of it, surely the answer to the first two is organic farming?
|
grufty jim
|
Re: GM
Jul 14, 2004, 22:24
|
I'm not entirely sure that organic farming methods can feed 6, or 8 billion people. To feed that many people - the majority of whom live in congested urban population centres (I seem to recall reading that the UN now classifies over 50% of the global population as "city dwellers") - requires fairly efficient systems. Getting a city-full of fresh food into every city, every day is a task that should not be underestimated.
For cities of today's scale, I would argue that it is a process that requires a large degree of mechanisation and industrialisation. Organic farming should be practiced wherever possible (I'd like to think that goes without saying). But I'm not sure it's possible to feed the world that way.
|
TomBo
|
Re: Thomas Bearden
Jul 14, 2004, 22:33
|
"Euclid, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Einstein. That represents (*I* would argue) the total number of times in western science where the kinds of shifts in understanding required by cold fusion (for example) have occurred."
I'm not sure I agree, Jim, although it could just be that my little knowledge is a dangerous thing. That list seems, to my relatively untrained eye, to be a bit biased towards physics. What about Darwin? And Lavoisier's discovery of oxygen and disproving of the phlogiston theory?
Ever read Thomas Khun? His "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" is one of those very worthy books that are incredibly hard to read.
|
grufty jim
|
Re: Thomas Bearden
Jul 14, 2004, 22:44
|
Sorry Tom, I was unclear. When I emphasised the *I* in "I would argue", it was an attempt to indicate that the list was merely a personal one. You could argue back and forth as to which were the most paradigm-shifting moments in scientific thought; but I figured a list from Physics was appropriate given the subject matter.
But you're right. It'd be hard to exclude Darwin, for instance.
|
TomBo
|
population
Jul 14, 2004, 22:45
|
|
Yes, you've got a point. Overpopulation is behind so many of our problems. Surely in the long run the answer has to be less people, though, not GM. Or am I wrong, and the growth of the world's population at its current rate is sustainable? I must qualify all this by saying that if GM became a life and death issue, if people were dying of starvation and GM was the only answer, then I would advocate the use of GM. Nature has means of population control, and starvation, surely, has to be at the top of that list (ie. if too many people live in one area then there's not enough food for them so people end up going hungry and dying). But nature is red in tooth and claw, and as a human I can only say that I would never see someone starve to death if they could be fed, even if only with GM. Limiting the number of children being born would be a more foresightful way of controlling population, I suppose. But even there there's a small part of me that's uncomfortable with, say, a government dictating the number of children a family is allowed, as China's dictators do. Its a thorny problem, that's for sure.
|
Merrick
|
Re: GM
Jul 14, 2004, 22:48
|
> I'm not sure it's possible to feed the >world that way.
Depnds how it's done. The use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides certainly increase yields, but they are largely the tools of massive monoculture agriculture. In such methods, much of the increase is offset by the inefficencies of working on such a grand scale.
The thing with organics is that it's often done small-scale, and using complementary crops, so that yields are actually comparable or even higher than chemical farming.
It's a thing I touched on in the middle of the 'Why GM Won't Feed The World' article
http://www.headheritage.co.uk/uknow/features/index.php?id=17
and is dealt with in more depth by George Monbiot in his article 'Organic Farming Will Feed The World'
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2000/08/24/organic-farming-will-feed-the-world/
Incidentally, how weird that there's two complementary articles - right down to the titles - written completely independantly.
In reply to:
Re: GM (grufty jim) |
|
grufty jim
|
Re: population
Jul 14, 2004, 22:48
|
>
> Surely in the long run the answer has
> to be less people, though, not GM.
>
Couldn't agree more. Sadly we may not have as long as "the long run" to solve the problem.
Which puts us in a bit of a to-do. Any day now, wars are going to start breaking out to control resources.
Oh. Yeah.
|
ron
|
Re: possibilities
Jul 15, 2004, 00:57
|
au contraire' mon fererre...'
http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=25&sid=227361
x
|
cancer boy
|
Re: possibilities (part 1)
Jul 15, 2004, 10:05
|
>And that we have to obliterate large amounts of wild land and the life it supports to grow this crop (current food land will still
>be needed for food; in fact more of it, as oil fertilisers/pesticides become expensive and yeidls drop)?
...
>And all so we can keep driving a ton of metal with us every time we wan>t to go somewhere?
I didn't mean to maintain the status quo (my relationship with traffic typically involving shaking my fist at it when it nearly clips me on the A3 - why do people always assume any discussion of biodiesels etc. is aimed at preserving things as they are now), I meant to provide the infrastructure for survival, especially if this thing happens quickly. As far as the obliterating land goes, surely this is an argument for it not against it, as if you had to obliterate less land...
|
