To the PETA...

[Preacher]

Actually, the third world *can* support feeding itself. It just turns out because of the way the first world is handling things, it causes the famine.

Not completely correct, bub.

You forgot to note about how the corrupt gov'ts in many of these nations will take the food produced and squirrel it away for the use mainly of the military and/or the ruling party elite. Moreover, they may also withold it from "the people" as a means of controlling and/or punishing them...

 

[Quarto]

You forgot to note about how the corrupt gov'ts in many of these nations will take the food produced and squirrel it away for the use mainly of the military and/or the ruling party elite. Moreover, they may also withold it from "the people" as a means of controlling and/or punishing them...

Actually, that's a myth. You're partially right, in that the shortages often are caused by mismanagement - but no government would be idiotic enough to intentionally make things worse when it comes to food. I don't think I could even count the number of successful revolutions that started off when people decided a food shortage was the last straw.

 

[Death]

The various warlords (overglorified thugs in command of other thugs with guns, really) of Somalia were a myth?

Saddam Hussein's re-equipped armed forces and umpteen presidential palaces built with the oil money that was supposed to go to humanitarian supplies were a myth?

I submit that the regular citizens (or whatever the local terminology is) of Somalia and Iraq would beg to differ, and have done so when it didn't result in them or their family members winding up "disapeared" for their troubles. The world of totalitarian dictatorships isn't exactly known for a great tolerance of disagreement, especially not of public disagreement.

 

[Worf]

Actually, that's a myth. You're partially right, in that the shortages often are caused by mismanagement - but no government would be idiotic enough to intentionally make things worse when it comes to food. I don't think I could even count the number of successful revolutions that started off when people decided a food shortage was the last straw.

*Cough* Zimbabwe *cough* Iraq *cough*

You see, goverments often exploit the *PAIN AND SUFFERING* of its people for political purposes.

Zimbabwe - Whites own too much farmland. Let's drive them out, forgetting that whoever becomes the new owners has no skills in farming. Also known to reject first world food aid based on some activists belief that GM food is bad, and it's better to starve (yes, they rejected a shupment of corn products from the US for that very reason).

Iraq - you know, they had oil sanctions? Guess why they were put in place? (Hint: to provide iraqis with money so they can import food, medicine, etc). Guess where the money really ended up? (hint: military, or the brother's lavish lifestyle).

When it comes to politics, hurting anyone and everyone to further a political goal is key. Especially if the anyone and everyone can't overthrow government.

Like I said - it's mismanagement, FUD, artificial subsidies (in first world nations) that are the main causes. Another smaller one (overhyped, and often the result of the former causes) is globalization (causing monoculture and subsequent depletion of land). Yes, globalization is very minor (don't believe a word of anyone who claims otherwise - third world nations *want* free trade!), but the problems result from the former causes.

 

[Quarto]

The various warlords (overglorified thugs in command of other thugs with guns, really) of Somalia were a myth?

The various warlords, you mean, who blocked access to food supplies to the people under the control of other warlords, but never their own people? I'm certainly not disagreeing about these warlords being despicable and such, but they only did this to the populations that weren't under their control, and never to their own people.

Saddam Hussein's re-equipped armed forces and umpteen presidential palaces built with the oil money that was supposed to go to humanitarian supplies were a myth?

Yup, that's a definite myth. The money that Hussein got out of oil export never actually went back to Iraq - Hussein had no control over what it was spent on. His government notified the UN what they wanted to buy, and if this request was approved, the goods were shipped. And yes, Hussein also did smuggle oil specifically to get money for rearmament. This, however, was a relatively small portion of Iraq's entire oil export, so he wasn't blocking the Iraqi food supplies. There can be no doubt whatsoever that the Iraqis are a thousand times better off now than they were when he was in charge, but that doesn't mean that everything the media says Hussein did was actually true.

(on a sidenote, for those citizens that Hussein wasn't busy exterminating, pre-Gulf War Iraq was actually a pretty good place to live in terms of food and healthcare)

As for Zimbabwe, Worf, that's actually a good example of these kinds of myths. That isn't a case of Mugabe thinking "Mwahaha! I shall destroy our food production and then my people will fear me even more! I am so evil!" Rather, his government simply didn't consider the consequences. So, gross mismanagement, definitely - but not intentional malevolence (except towards the white farmers).

 

[Preacher]

The various warlords...of Somalia were a myth?

Saddam Hussein's re-equipped armed forces...were a myth?

I submit that the regular citizens (or whatever the local terminology is) of Somalia and Iraq would beg to differ...

Thx, Death; you said it better'n I coulda.

On the other hand, I was gonna say something like this:

Actually, that's a myth. You're partially right...

If I'm partially right, then there's no "myth" to speak of.

...And as it happens, I'm closer to being "completely" right than just "partially" right: See the other responses to your reply prior to this.

I stand correct.

 

[Quarto]

If I'm partially right, then there's no "myth" to speak of.

That's some good not listening you've got going there, buddy. But whatever, think what you want.

 

[Lynx]

GM food isn't bad, but it shouldn't be spread all over the world without actually knowing what impact it could have on the nature. If the implanted genes, which is possible, jump to other plants, it could wreak havoc on the biosphere in the worst case. Therefore it should be carefully tested what consequences it could have.

 

[t.c.cgi]

If the implanted genes, which is possible, jump to other plants, it could wreak havoc on the biosphere in the worst case.

Yes, because Mixmaster from the new Tremors show is a real and present danger.

 

[steampunk]

If the implanted genes, which is possible, jump to other plants, it could wreak havoc on the biosphere in the worst case.

Um, no. Such cross breeding would only occur within similar speicies. Even then its really not as bad as everybody thinks. Really, you don't think they thought about these things?

 

[Worf]

You realize that the food Zimbabwe rejected was the same food that we put on the table everyday, buy from the supermarkets without a second though, etc. So if it kills us in the future, oh well, it'll kill all of us then.

Frankly, I think the world would probably be better off if it kills all of us in the next 50 years.

 

[dextorboot]

Hhhmmm, in 50 yrs I'll be in my 70s.... yeah, it's ok to die then.

 

[cff]

Um, no. Such cross breeding would only occur within similar speicies. Even then its really not as bad as everybody thinks. Really, you don't think they thought about these things?

Some of the GM stuff has genes from more then one organism, so it would very well be possible that also different species are affected. As far as bad goes who knows. You know the inventor of X-Rays died because of them and they thought it was perfectly safe as well. Genetics as it is done today is an extremely young science. It is far too soon to judge the problems.

A word to Worf BTW: It might be the same food YOU eat everyday. Fortunately it isn't the same food I eat everyday. My country is free of GM manipulated food and I am extremely glad it is. We burned donw the crops of whole regions because of <1% of contaminated (read genemanipulated) seeds had been mixed into the natural ones to ensure it stays so.

Genetics in medicine is fine, but it really doesn't have any place in the food chain. Not as long as it raises a present surplus....

 

[ck9791]

I'm going to form a a group of "meatatarians." Because i think its cruel to eat defenceless plants. They're alive too. Anyone want to join?

 

[t.c.cgi]

I'm going to form a a group of "meatatarians." Because i think its cruel to eat defenceless plants. They're alive too. Anyone want to join?

I'm game. When is our first extremist rally? Those vegitarians will rot in hell for what they do to those poor defenseless plants!

 

[dextorboot]

Save a plant, eat a cow. I want beef, I want it now. - RBF

 

[Ripper]

How do you greet your hamburger?


How now, ground cow?

 

[steampunk]

Genetics in medicine is fine, but it really doesn't have any place in the food chain. Not as long as it raises a present surplus....

It is not simply to increase yield but to allow plants to thrive in climates they wouldn't normally grow in, make them hardier to pests etc.

As I understand it we modify the plants to have different traits. But this would be like inserting a gene or two. I doubt the changes are large enough that a species jump would be possible... or maybe there are enough changes. But stop being so negative, it is still new and so we need to do more research before we can make a final descision.

 

[Worf]

Actually, I was reading the Globe today and came across these lines by a WTO protester:

"The damages were a minute part of what [corporations] make in profit each day," Patrick Cadorette said.

"We will continue for sure," another organizer, Mélanie Sylvestre, said. "We won't stop here."

(Context: Montreal WTO protests, about protesters vandalizing shops and such.
Article)

I don't know about you, but destroying some guy's shop because they can afford it is certainly the *wrong* reason to do so. Especially if it's some small business - the owner is probably working 12-18 hour days trying not to go under, and then these people come along and triple his insurance premiums! Talk about fighting for the little guy. Sure, Starbucks can probably afford a few broken windows, but it's also hurting everyone else (insurance goes up for that block, hurting small businesses).

Oddly enough, though, the largest anti-trade protesters are large multinational corporations (and unions, which are so large these days they're effectively unaccountable corporations). Face it - GM and Ford and the like - they hate competing with Honda, Toyota and such. Unions hate it because they don't realize how they've priced themselves out of the workforce.

(And yes, I can tell you, I know of one small business that benefits greatly from free trade. There are many others. And free trade actually helps many nations - imagine getting rid of farm subsidies so African farmers can actually sell their products in North America instead of being priced out by artificially low local products. But of course, there are downsides, environmental and legislative being one. NAFTA has benefited all countries (some more than others, I'd admit... due to cherrypicking), but it's forced people to adapt, which is probably one of the hardest things to do.).

Article's good, btw, to show how some just "don't get it" (as do PETA and most environmental groups and such).

 

[cff]

It is not simply to increase yield but to allow plants to thrive in climates they wouldn't normally grow in, make them hardier to pests etc.

Point 1 is debatable. Sides that most likely the taste/consistency/... will be altered as well (usually for the worse) you could also argue that this simply shouldn't be done. Stick to the plants that grow in your climate?!
Point 2 is bull**** proposed by the pesticide producers. That is the biggest stupidity one can do. Make plants more endurable just to b able to sell more evil posion... *shakes head*

As I understand it we modify the plants to have different traits. But this would be like inserting a gene or two. I doubt the changes are large enough that a species jump would be possible... or maybe there are enough changes. But stop being so negative, it is still new and so we need to do more research before we can make a final descision.

I am not negative. And I very much agree on your last sentence "it is still new and so we need to do more research before we can make a final descision". Problem is once I seed one field with the maipulated crop I'll have it in all fields in a couple of years due to bees, etc. Now what if we learn that it is indeed harmful?! It would be worse then nuclear waste.
What I say (and what is pretty much the stance of Europe as whole) is that you should first experiment and then use. Not put everyones life in danger and then notice "oops something went wrong, we should react somehow". Think and then act, not act and then think.

I am not against GM per se, not even against GM manipulated food per se. But we are rushing things extremely here IMNSHO especially considereing that there is NO outside pressure like a worldwide famine.