Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Another Meme Post...And Poodles, you can look!

Posted by   + Show Post


Neon Washable Paint

by on Mar. 18, 2013 at 11:11 AM
Replies (161-168):
sweet-a-kins
by Emerald Member on Mar. 19, 2013 at 11:01 AM

 She'll feel more comfy if you make a rape meme and post it as funny

TerriAnne2606
by on Mar. 19, 2013 at 11:06 AM

I wish I were smart enough to figure it out.  How to weed out (no pun intended) the bad apples and how to ensure that everyone has enough to eat, and water and a safe environment.  probably not going to happen in my lifetime and probably not in my childrens.  But, we CAN keep hoping and trying to buld the perfect world.  

Quoting NWP:

Good points and very good questions. One must examine the abuses of power involved and the fact that whoever controls the worlds food and water supplies controls the world.

Quoting TerriAnne2606:

Say what? You don't want to see all the mouses run around when you turn on the black lights for the party at your house at night???  Sheesh.

Okay - I'm not very well versed in GMO's and I've learned quite a bit on this post.  Thank you to all who've shared their POV.  I think that some GMO's are good and can be benificial if used correctly.  The land does need to lay fallow for a time and you rotate crops.  Basic growing 101.  Could some of these crops encourage more planting, all the time year round?  Sounds like it.  And that's not a good thing.  

We need to be better at lots of things - not just growing the food.  But, harvesting the food, getting it to a distribution center and even more important, getting it to the people who need it the most.  With all brain power on here, surely there's a way we can figure it out.  Why is the food being grown today NOT making it to where it needs to go? Why are people STILL dying of starvation around the world.  If we can solve for that, then maybe there's no reason to try to gentically engineer foods to grow better.  Catch-22?  Maybe. 

I grow most of my own veggies - at least during the summer and Texas has a long growing season (picked cauliflower in February).  And, I use things like ladybugs to combat bugs (that and the native bats love mosquitos, ect).  So, there has to be ways to fix this issue.  Fighting about it won't fix it.  Just sayin'.



Quoting NWP:

Now THESE are GMO






Clairwil
by Ruby Member on Mar. 19, 2013 at 11:10 AM
Quoting krysstizzle:
Quoting Clairwil:
Quoting krysstizzle:

Is there any way to know that his work has prevented a billion deaths? That's seems quite the claim, particularly when the real issue of starvation is access and distribution, not production.

We say the issue is distribution nowdays but that is, in part, because of the increases in farm productivity brought about by the green revolution.

I think where the figure "1 billion" comes from is by calculating the number of people in China, India, etc who are living off his rice and wheat (and other crops inspired by his work), and then realising that if those crops were still the old strains, then 1 billion fewer people could be fed from those sources.

So some of the lives being counted as "saved" are in fact those of children who just wouldn't have been born, because the parents would have known there wouldn't have been enough food to feed them.


But, any way you want to calculate it, there are a lot more people alive today than would have been if he hadn't been born.   (I think it is safe to assume that it is unlikely that, if he hadn't been born, everyone would have turned into angels and solved the distribution problem from the kindness of their hearts.)

And, while you can argue that a lower population might actually be a good thing, given the Malthusian crisis at the time he did he work, it seems likely that there would (in addition to people just not being born) also have been starvation on the order of magnitude of the holodomor.

The angels part made me giggle. :)

I'm still not entirely buying it. For one, the dramatic increase in population created it's own host of problems, and there are fairly  high levels of starvation regardless (though, perhaps, not on the levels otherwise as you suggested, but that's still conjecture I think).

Regardless of that, (and this may be conjecture, as well) his work did give rise - at least in part - to the food system we have today, which is incredibly effecient for a few at a horrible expense to others, and it works exceptionally well for those few that it is designed to work for. 

If you could go back in time to alter things (eg by bribing him to work on something different), would you prefer to live in a world where farms produced only 20% the number of edible calories per acre that they do now?

krysstizzle
by DeepThought on Mar. 19, 2013 at 11:10 AM

A book that I'm always recommending is "Stuffed and Starved", by Raj Patel. It's a fantastic book on everything related to our food system. If you haven't read it, do! It makes things manageable and gives one a good grasp of why things are structured the way they are. 

Quoting TerriAnne2606:

I wish I were smart enough to figure it out.  How to weed out (no pun intended) the bad apples and how to ensure that everyone has enough to eat, and water and a safe environment.  probably not going to happen in my lifetime and probably not in my childrens.  But, we CAN keep hoping and trying to buld the perfect world.  

Quoting NWP:

Good points and very good questions. One must examine the abuses of power involved and the fact that whoever controls the worlds food and water supplies controls the world.

Quoting TerriAnne2606:

Say what? You don't want to see all the mouses run around when you turn on the black lights for the party at your house at night???  Sheesh.

Okay - I'm not very well versed in GMO's and I've learned quite a bit on this post.  Thank you to all who've shared their POV.  I think that some GMO's are good and can be benificial if used correctly.  The land does need to lay fallow for a time and you rotate crops.  Basic growing 101.  Could some of these crops encourage more planting, all the time year round?  Sounds like it.  And that's not a good thing.  

We need to be better at lots of things - not just growing the food.  But, harvesting the food, getting it to a distribution center and even more important, getting it to the people who need it the most.  With all brain power on here, surely there's a way we can figure it out.  Why is the food being grown today NOT making it to where it needs to go? Why are people STILL dying of starvation around the world.  If we can solve for that, then maybe there's no reason to try to gentically engineer foods to grow better.  Catch-22?  Maybe. 

I grow most of my own veggies - at least during the summer and Texas has a long growing season (picked cauliflower in February).  And, I use things like ladybugs to combat bugs (that and the native bats love mosquitos, ect).  So, there has to be ways to fix this issue.  Fighting about it won't fix it.  Just sayin'.



snip
TerriAnne2606
by on Mar. 19, 2013 at 11:12 AM

Thank you - looking on Amazon now.  :)

Quoting krysstizzle:

A book that I'm always recommending is "Stuffed and Starved", by Raj Patel. It's a fantastic book on everything related to our food system. If you haven't read it, do! It makes things manageable and gives one a good grasp of why things are structured the way they are. 

Quoting TerriAnne2606:

I wish I were smart enough to figure it out.  How to weed out (no pun intended) the bad apples and how to ensure that everyone has enough to eat, and water and a safe environment.  probably not going to happen in my lifetime and probably not in my childrens.  But, we CAN keep hoping and trying to buld the perfect world.  

Quoting NWP:

Good points and very good questions. One must examine the abuses of power involved and the fact that whoever controls the worlds food and water supplies controls the world.

Quoting TerriAnne2606:

Say what? You don't want to see all the mouses run around when you turn on the black lights for the party at your house at night???  Sheesh.

Okay - I'm not very well versed in GMO's and I've learned quite a bit on this post.  Thank you to all who've shared their POV.  I think that some GMO's are good and can be benificial if used correctly.  The land does need to lay fallow for a time and you rotate crops.  Basic growing 101.  Could some of these crops encourage more planting, all the time year round?  Sounds like it.  And that's not a good thing.  

We need to be better at lots of things - not just growing the food.  But, harvesting the food, getting it to a distribution center and even more important, getting it to the people who need it the most.  With all brain power on here, surely there's a way we can figure it out.  Why is the food being grown today NOT making it to where it needs to go? Why are people STILL dying of starvation around the world.  If we can solve for that, then maybe there's no reason to try to gentically engineer foods to grow better.  Catch-22?  Maybe. 

I grow most of my own veggies - at least during the summer and Texas has a long growing season (picked cauliflower in February).  And, I use things like ladybugs to combat bugs (that and the native bats love mosquitos, ect).  So, there has to be ways to fix this issue.  Fighting about it won't fix it.  Just sayin'.



snip



krysstizzle
by DeepThought on Mar. 19, 2013 at 11:15 AM
1 mom liked this


Quoting Clairwil:

Quoting krysstizzle:
Quoting Clairwil:
Quoting krysstizzle:

Is there any way to know that his work has prevented a billion deaths? That's seems quite the claim, particularly when the real issue of starvation is access and distribution, not production.

We say the issue is distribution nowdays but that is, in part, because of the increases in farm productivity brought about by the green revolution.

I think where the figure "1 billion" comes from is by calculating the number of people in China, India, etc who are living off his rice and wheat (and other crops inspired by his work), and then realising that if those crops were still the old strains, then 1 billion fewer people could be fed from those sources.

So some of the lives being counted as "saved" are in fact those of children who just wouldn't have been born, because the parents would have known there wouldn't have been enough food to feed them.


But, any way you want to calculate it, there are a lot more people alive today than would have been if he hadn't been born.   (I think it is safe to assume that it is unlikely that, if he hadn't been born, everyone would have turned into angels and solved the distribution problem from the kindness of their hearts.)

And, while you can argue that a lower population might actually be a good thing, given the Malthusian crisis at the time he did he work, it seems likely that there would (in addition to people just not being born) also have been starvation on the order of magnitude of the holodomor.

The angels part made me giggle. :)

I'm still not entirely buying it. For one, the dramatic increase in population created it's own host of problems, and there are fairly  high levels of starvation regardless (though, perhaps, not on the levels otherwise as you suggested, but that's still conjecture I think).

Regardless of that, (and this may be conjecture, as well) his work did give rise - at least in part - to the food system we have today, which is incredibly effecient for a few at a horrible expense to others, and it works exceptionally well for those few that it is designed to work for. 

If you could go back in time to alter things (eg by bribing him to work on something different), would you prefer to live in a world where farms produced only 20% the number of edible calories per acre that they do now?

Not necessarily; but there are ways to ramp up production without relying on gm crops that reduce food sovereignty and require extensive and expensive inputs. There are better ways, it's not an either/or question, imo. Conventional farming is destroying soil and degrading the environment now, as it is. Is that the trade-off? If it's kept up, as is, we won't be able to produce no matter the type of seed planted. 


Raintree
by Ruby Member on Mar. 19, 2013 at 11:36 AM


Quoting krysstizzle:


Quoting Clairwil:

Quoting krysstizzle:
Quoting Clairwil:
Quoting krysstizzle:

Is there any way to know that his work has prevented a billion deaths? That's seems quite the claim, particularly when the real issue of starvation is access and distribution, not production.

We say the issue is distribution nowdays but that is, in part, because of the increases in farm productivity brought about by the green revolution.

I think where the figure "1 billion" comes from is by calculating the number of people in China, India, etc who are living off his rice and wheat (and other crops inspired by his work), and then realising that if those crops were still the old strains, then 1 billion fewer people could be fed from those sources.

So some of the lives being counted as "saved" are in fact those of children who just wouldn't have been born, because the parents would have known there wouldn't have been enough food to feed them.


But, any way you want to calculate it, there are a lot more people alive today than would have been if he hadn't been born.   (I think it is safe to assume that it is unlikely that, if he hadn't been born, everyone would have turned into angels and solved the distribution problem from the kindness of their hearts.)

And, while you can argue that a lower population might actually be a good thing, given the Malthusian crisis at the time he did he work, it seems likely that there would (in addition to people just not being born) also have been starvation on the order of magnitude of the holodomor.

The angels part made me giggle. :)

I'm still not entirely buying it. For one, the dramatic increase in population created it's own host of problems, and there are fairly  high levels of starvation regardless (though, perhaps, not on the levels otherwise as you suggested, but that's still conjecture I think).

Regardless of that, (and this may be conjecture, as well) his work did give rise - at least in part - to the food system we have today, which is incredibly effecient for a few at a horrible expense to others, and it works exceptionally well for those few that it is designed to work for. 

If you could go back in time to alter things (eg by bribing him to work on something different), would you prefer to live in a world where farms produced only 20% the number of edible calories per acre that they do now?

Not necessarily; but there are ways to ramp up production without relying on gm crops that reduce food sovereignty and require extensive and expensive inputs. There are better ways, it's not an either/or question, imo. Conventional farming is destroying soil and degrading the environment now, as it is. Is that the trade-off? If it's kept up, as is, we won't be able to produce no matter the type of seed planted. 


Conventional water is ruining the water that comes out of my taps right now. How sustainable is that, really? For any of us?

NWP
by guerrilla girl on Mar. 19, 2013 at 11:50 AM
I posted this for myself as a distraction from the rape threads but I am now loving this conversation!
Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)



Featured