No, not at all. I think you completely missed my point - which was a snarky jab/continuation of a previous argument in another thread.
And with that I bid this thread adieu.
Sure but being too reductionist isn’t necessarily helpful. If the business suit guy lobbies government for regulation (or lack of regulation) to bias market conditions to favor his fracking enterprise over competing enterprises, then there are lots of villains involved but it doesn’t seem intuitive that the main villain in that story is the guy running the fracking drill.
I can hardly apologise enough for not getting a meta-reference to a post in another thread I probably haven’t read.
4 Likes
UP is best experienced by neglecting your family, health, career, etc so that you are spending enough time here to get all the inside jokes.
3 Likes
Best and worst, because it portends a spiral into depression and ultimately insanity.
Not fair. Some of us are manic and insane.
1 Like
I went back and reread some of your earlier posts, and it looks to me like your position is that capitalism is - for lack of a more precise term - bad, and that agriculture in a capitalist society will have the same types of bad results as the capitalist system as a whole.
So the argument seems to me to be more of a criticism of capitalism than of agriculture. For example, I suppose your position is that agriculture in another type of economic order, say socialism or communism, could be good. If that’s what you’re saying, then I’m not confused.
so you’re going full luddite. ok
por que no los siete?
1 Like
I think this is right. Animals have always been a big part of agriculture and farming – pigs and cows were integral in the management of the farm. Pigs were fed skim milk, scraps, spent grain from making mash, and anything else that was left over. Cows grazed on grassland, and the manure of both were used as fertilizer for whatever was being grown. Obviously you’re still killing animals, which maybe isn’t great but a pig or cow had it much better on a family farm in the nineteenth century than they do today.
So when that same cycle is mechanized and concentrated, you get the inhumane system of factory farming if you don’t take into account the morality of the conditions of the animals. Factory farm animals are still largely filling the same ecological niche – eating less desirable food byproducts – just in a system designed for maximum efficiency, without regard for their well-being.
Of course, you don’t have to go to socialism to change this, and it doesn’t necessarily follow that socialism would change this. You just have to consider the conditions of the animals. There’s a reason why factory farms go to such great lengths to keep their practices hidden from the public. It’s because they know that people do care about animals and care about the conditions under which they are raised.
2 Likes
My God, it’s full of trolls!
i didn’t mean to be an ass there. my view is that of 100% of scientists out there, there’s 1% who are heroes, 19% who are there to help them, and the rest who are doing a ton of busy work which involves checking and rechecking what prior groups do, because mistakes and bad actors obviously still happen.
usually, when consensus builds, they (scientists) also bring up environmental and ethical concerns. noone is really banned from participation. every ai researcher i have known has both read isaac asimov and had many an internet argument about it. gmo scientists have absorbed the stories of both borlaug and lysenko for decades. but there is the other side of the coin when someone who instagrams a nice loaf of organic sourdough from their local bakery goes around shopping for politicians, who will ban a variety of wheat on the premise that it’s too gmo.
You are way overestimating the number of scientists who check the experiments of others. There are not nearly enough of those.
3 Likes
Yeah, it’s the honor system here, no time for double-checking the other guy’s experiments to see if they work.
There’s basically no money in that.
I readily admit that I am using guilt by association in pointing out the synergy between anti-GMO and anti-vaxxer arguments.
What I would like to see is some measure of the consensus among scientists in the relevant fields on the safety of GMO foods because I basically don’t care enough about biology to learn the science for myself.
1 Like
ok that’s fair
When you make ironic troll posts it makes me really goddamn grateful you’re not a full time troll.
I think nothing like a climate change denier. I prefer passive-aggressive behavior to denial as a defense mechanism.
When you say “pro gmo” do you mean pro-Monsanto? I ask because GMOs themselves can be great. What could possibly be wrong with a strain of tomato that uses 1/2 as much water, grows twice as big, and can survive higher temperatures?
When you’re railing against this, I suspect you’re really just against the demon spawn corporations that have twisted this science to evil purposes. If not, I just don’t understand what’s wrong with trying to feed more people while using less resources.