Chemical fertilizers are to thank for that.
Of which a huge fraction come from fossil fuels!
VFS,
Are you Dessin/ecriture/Max? I don’t have the patience to wait to see if you write “alot” for confirmation.
1 Like
Not really. The green revolution, at least the start of it in the 40s, was primarily the application of the scientific method to breeding and agricultural methods (like crop rotation). See Henry A. Wallace.
here, he said it will be most likely be worse, and lab-coats didn’t think about consequences. he also claimed that overwhelming percentage is done to maximize something that doesn’t align with being more sustainable. our understanding of sustainable changed since the 90s but it’s just patently untrue.
he doesn’t trust corporations? fine. hire more lab-coats at universities.
There could be a lot wrong with that tomato, if we are even assuming those traits are what is being engineered. Things such as worse nutritional value, dependence on chemical support to combat pests that become resistant and require more with collateral damage to both the environment and humans who are exposed. The encouragement to reduce sustainable farming practices based on economic efficiency. Then there is the fairytale that the motivation for any of this is to feed hungry people rather than economic scale.
But that’s not even most of the focus of the labs when it comes to genetic engineering, just like it mostly wasn’t when people were just using traditional breeding to modify crops. The difference is some pretty dangerous things can be done with modern genetic modification that requires a compete dependance on regulation and corporations to be good stewards of the technology. They are not.
I like you and have read the thread having no idea what your position is. It read like you came out gun blazing and I still don’t understand what your position is.
i’m done with this. you are not arguing in good faith. you can rotate crops without wasting my time.
1 Like
He said something along the lines of 70% of this and most of that is bad and you proved him wrong with two counter examples. QED!!!1!
I’m kind of shook by this actually. No sarcasm.
2 Likes
You’re obviously flirting with some kind of blasphemy. Smart play to just take the opposite side here.
Because you’re arguing vehemently against someone who writes things I agree with and your posts read a lot like posts I disagree.
Otoh you keep writing that people don’t understand your position, so i’m asking.
1 Like
Johnny. If every person itt doesn’t understand your position that is not our fault, it’s yours.
1 Like
the whole fucking thing started with meat is bad, that went into gmo is bad, that went into lab-coats get paid by evil profit motives. along the way you went “70% of all gmo engineering is for herbicides”, “gmo encourages bad behavior”, “nutritional value” nonsense, and finally “organic practices”. no thanks, you are living in a century where you think you already knew all the answers 60 years ago and everyone else is just maximizing profits.
It’s a blank statement. It isn’t “benign” unless everything is.
But i feel this already got into “lol sheeps” territory so i’ll stay out.
Dude you just stated that everyone disagree with you because of blind faith and then compared yourself to BLM and everyone else to a Police family.
My intentions with “lol sheeps” is that you are calling us sheeps. I don’t see how this is disrespectful based on your previous messages.
I have no idea what you’re saying, but I disagree with it because other people said you were wrong. Also, I am not a sheep.
One week before the election and that’s when you attack science!!! You may as well have cast a thousand votes for Trump.
Next thing you’re going to say the media has biases.
I don’t think you attacked science. I think you attacked genetics research. I disagree with the statement that we don’t need to research tomatoes, nor that we have enough food.
I’m all for attacking capitalism but I think you are the one making it as abstract as both things are the same. Or at least that’s how i understood your arguments to my limited abilities.
1 Like
You are completely and unnecessarily trolling up this thread. Nobody is making any claims anything like you keep posting.
you cited a source that showed gmo’s are mostly safe, which i guess went opposite what you wanted to cite.
i’ll save you a few decades and pay for a gmo beer of your choice now.