Never mind GMO's.

[OldWiseGuy]

Without regard to the controversy surrounding GMO's should we be plowing up more land for annual crops at all? In view of global warming we should be returning acreage to permanent pasture, grassland, hay land, and forests wherever possible. Why encourage runaway population growth by means of overproducing foods when the annual cultivation of land contributes so heavily to global warming.

 

[Loudmouth]

Without regard to the controversy surrounding GMO's should we be plowing up more land for annual crops at all? In view of global warming we should be returning acreage to permanent pasture, grassland, hay land, and forests wherever possible. Why encourage runaway population growth by means of overproducing foods when the annual cultivation of land contributes so heavily to global warming.

If yields are higher with GMO's, then using GMO's would actually reduce the amount of land used for agriculture. Also, population growth is lowest in the countries with the most extra food.

 

[Michael]

If yields are higher with GMO's, then using GMO's would actually reduce the amount of land used for agriculture. Also, population growth is lowest in the countries with the most extra food.

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2013/02/do-gmo-crops-have-lower-yields
http://www.justlabelit.org/do-gmo-crops-really-have-higher-yields/

The operative word is "if". There's actually no evidence that GMOs provide higher crop yields.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If yields are higher with GMO's, then using GMO's would actually reduce the amount of land used for agriculture. Also, population growth is lowest in the countries with the most extra food.

Tell that the corn-for-ethanol farmers.

 

[Loudmouth]

Tell that the corn-for-ethanol farmers.

Tell them what? The ethanol they produced was not meant for human consumption. I thought we were talking about food?

 

[lesliedellow]

Without regard to the controversy surrounding GMO's should we be plowing up more land for annual crops at all? In view of global warming we should be returning acreage to permanent pasture, grassland, hay land, and forests wherever possible. Why encourage runaway population growth by means of overproducing foods when the annual cultivation of land contributes so heavily to global warming.

You first for a single meal a week.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Tell them what? The ethanol they produced was not meant for human consumption. I thought we were talking about food?

See the OP. The subject is climate change.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You first for a single meal a week.

No need. I eat a balanced diet that includes plenty of organically produced foods. I also limited my family to two kids. My son followed suit and has only two kids. My daughter has one (but I'm encouraging her to have one more). These are very impressive bona fides, wouldn't you say?

 

[Loudmouth]

See the OP. The subject is climate change.

Sorry, got it mixed up with this thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...-are-responsible-for-health-problems.7899272/

 

[The Cadet]

When was the last time you missed a meal, OP? Or went a day without eating anything? Also, not quite the same line of thought, but how do you feel about sex ed, condoms, and abortion?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

When was the last time you missed a meal, OP? Or went a day without eating anything? Also, not quite the same line of thought, but how do you feel about sex ed, condoms, and abortion?

I fast one day each week, and usually only eat two meals per day.

I think sex ed is good but needs to be taught more expansively. Condoms are good. Abortion is a 'bridge too far' to comment on.

 

[Loudmouth]

I found this map to be strangely intriguing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...Population_growth_rate_world_2005-2010_UN.PNG

It shows a world wide map for population growth. The places where food is most scarce has the highest growth rates. Why is that? In the First World countries there is far less growth even though food is ready at hand. In drought and famine stricken Africa, the population growth is some of the fastest on the planet.

I'm not sure what the connection is, but it does fascinate me.

 

[loveofourlord]

I found this map to be strangely intriguing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...Population_growth_rate_world_2005-2010_UN.PNG

It shows a world wide map for population growth. The places where food is most scarce has the highest growth rates. Why is that? In the First World countries there is far less growth even though food is ready at hand. In drought and famine stricken Africa, the population growth is some of the fastest on the planet.

I'm not sure what the connection is, but it does fascinate me.

probably part of that is due to low survival, you need alot of children just to have a couple survive, while in more well to do countries the drives isn't as heavy though still there a little.

 

[The Cadet]

I fast one day each week, and usually only eat two meals per day.

But you don't really want, do you?

I think sex ed is good but needs to be taught more expansively. Condoms are good. Abortion is a 'bridge too far' to comment on.

Well, can't fault you there at all. The point I was trying to get to is that I hear this sort of thing very often from people who don't tend to want in terms of food production. But the fact is, we have an ever-growing population (that we will hopefully stem the tide of with sex ed and solid birth control) and starvation is kinda crappy, all things considered. This whole "not supporting the population" thing? It's kind of really super unethical. The reduction in food production must necessarily follow the reduction in population.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I found this map to be strangely intriguing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...Population_growth_rate_world_2005-2010_UN.PNG

It shows a world wide map for population growth. The places where food is most scarce has the highest growth rates. Why is that? In the First World countries there is far less growth even though food is ready at hand. In drought and famine stricken Africa, the population growth is some of the fastest on the planet.

I'm not sure what the connection is, but it does fascinate me.

"One for the buzzard, one for the crow, one to rot, and one to grow". -Old English planting rhyme.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But you don't really want, do you?

That's not even a consideration. I do many things to stay healthy that I would prefer not having to do.

Well, can't fault you there at all. The point I was trying to get to is that I hear this sort of thing very often from people who don't tend to want in terms of food production. But the fact is, we have an ever-growing population (that we will hopefully stem the tide of with sex ed and solid birth control) and starvation is kinda crappy, all things considered. This whole "not supporting the population" thing? It's kind of really super unethical. The reduction in food production must necessarily follow the reduction in population.

The topic really climate change, not food production.

 

[ananda]

GMOs are a recipe for destruction. This movement suppresses biodiversity, and IMO it will be a disaster like the Irish Potato famine associated with food monoculture in the 1800s.

 

[Loudmouth]

probably part of that is due to low survival, you need alot of children just to have a couple survive, while in more well to do countries the drives isn't as heavy though still there a little.

Then their population numbers should be the same. It isn't. In order to have a growing population, they have to survive, so obviously they are surviving.

 

[Loudmouth]

"One for the buzzard, one for the crow, one to rot, and one to grow". -Old English planting rhyme.

See above.

 

[Loudmouth]

GMOs are a recipe for destruction. This movement suppresses biodiversity, and IMO it will be a disaster like the Irish Potato famine associated with food monoculture in the 1800s.

GMO's promote biodiversity since they can put the same genes in many varieties. Also, many GMO's are included in hybrids like those used for corn. It isn't like potatoes where every generation is a clone of the previous.