GMOs and sustainability

[phuckphace]

Donald's thread on animals and veganism (http://virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=207992) inspired me to make this thread.

I don't see an issue with GMO foods in theory, and I believe that the available evidence for their safety with regard to human health is conclusive. but that's hardly the only concern, of course.

for starters, the biotech companies like Monsanto that push GMOs and want them to be uncritically adopted by everyone are obviously not to be trusted. they have a long history of gaming the political system for their own benefit, and it can be safely assumed that whatever is good for Monsanto is probably not good for the rest of us. so what is the concerned citizen to do?

for some people, the obvious answer to the question of how to push back in protest at the corrupt system is to adopt veganism and consume only organic foods, so that the factory farms get less of our money and whereby we vote with our wallets. it's a start, I suppose, but the real issue is deeper down.

I think more people should be asking themselves the question that rarely gets asked, "why do we 'need' Big Ag and large scale factory farms to begin with?" the answer lies in our unsustainably large society that, as a direct consequence of its untenable size, consumes resources at rate that the environment can't sustain naturally. when Monsanto shills white-knight for the biotech companies and their plant patents, their defense begins and ends with "MOAR YIELDS" because that's the only thing they have. Monsanto is looking out for us, they say, because they've invented New Technology™ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_novelty) that gives us MOAR YIELDS and we should be grateful. but why do we need MOAR YIELDS in the first place? could it possibly be because the current reigning economic school of thought has decreed that unlimited growth is the only way forward? n-no citizen, you're mistaken! nothing to see here, move along...

with all that in mind, it becomes obvious that veganism, kind of like driving an electric car, is an oversimplified "solution" that makes you feel less guilty about being a part of "the system"....while still being a part of the system. until we abandon neoliberalism and its attendant doctrine of upward growth at any cost, veganism is just an empty fad.

[Harry Smith]

I honestly think that Golden rice for example shows that GMO crops can be a good thing, as they can help solve problems in the developing world-I mean deficiency of Vitamin A kills 670,000 children every year so if we can prevent that then it's a good thing.

I'd say the main problem with big agro-business is that they get subsidies that are simply too high from the government, and which they don't need. I mean as you say big agro business is not generally a great thing as they tend to not only abuse the workers but also pillage the environment just so people in Britian can have oranges in December

[Gamma Male]

Donald's thread on animals and veganism (http://virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=207992) inspired me to make this thread.

I don't see an issue with GMO foods in theory, and I believe that the available evidence for their safety with regard to human health is conclusive. but that's hardly the only concern, of course.

for starters, the biotech companies like Monsanto that push GMOs and want them to be uncritically adopted by everyone are obviously not to be trusted. they have a long history of gaming the political system for their own benefit, and it can be safely assumed that whatever is good for Monsanto is probably not good for the rest of us. so what is the concerned citizen to do?

for some people, the obvious answer to the question of how to push back in protest at the corrupt system is to adopt veganism and consume only organic foods, so that the factory farms get less of our money and whereby we vote with our wallets. it's a start, I suppose, but the real issue is deeper down.

I think more people should be asking themselves the question that rarely gets asked, "why do we 'need' Big Ag and large scale factory farms to begin with?" the answer lies in our unsustainably large society that, as a direct consequence of its untenable size, consumes resources at rate that the environment can't sustain naturally. when Monsanto shills white-knight for the biotech companies and their plant patents, their defense begins and ends with "MOAR YIELDS" because that's the only thing they have. Monsanto is looking out for us, they say, because they've invented New Technology™ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_novelty) that gives us MOAR YIELDS and we should be grateful. but why do we need MOAR YIELDS in the first place? could it possibly be because the current reigning economic school of thought has decreed that unlimited growth is the only way forward? n-no citizen, you're mistaken! nothing to see here, move along...

with all that in mind, it becomes obvious that veganism, kind of like driving an electric car, is an oversimplified "solution" that makes you feel less guilty about being a part of "the system"....while still being a part of the system. until we abandon neoliberalism and its attendant doctrine of upward growth at any cost, veganism is just an empty fad.

I'd like to point out that there are other reasons to be vegan other than sustainability. Also, I hardly see what eating organically and being vegan have to do with one another. I'm a vegan, but I eat plenty processed greasy shit. I tried kale once, it made me want to barf.:lol:

But other than that you're mostly right.

[phuckphace]

I honestly think that Golden rice for example shows that GMO crops can be a good thing, as they can help solve problems in the developing world-I mean deficiency of Vitamin A kills 670,000 children every year so if we can prevent that then it's a good thing.

actually, that solves nothing and only worsens things in the long run.

"developing country" is neoliberal Newspeak for a third-world country which is undergoing positive growth in its economy, which is often said to be a good thing but isn't. with economic growth comes increased population size, which negates the benefits of the former since already scarce resources must be spread ever more thinly across a larger population.

take sub-Saharan Africa for example, we've been hearing for years that positive economic growth would bring wealth and prosperity for more Africans. that didn't happen, instead Africans just had more and more children which resulted in more starving Africans who then require even more resources to keep alive. it's a deadly cycle with diminishing returns. the grisly AIDS epidemic that culls a large number of the African population is the only thing standing in the way of Africa becoming a full-on ecumenopolis with people packed together in mega-slums like sardines (that's already true of many of Africa's major cities.)

the nightmare that Africa is currently undergoing wouldn't be happening on the same scale if those 670,000 children weren't being birthed in the first place, but they are thanks to the current political climate and the economic practices that enable and encourage it. the best solution for solving third-world starvation isn't MORE YIELDS, it's about avoiding the kind of practices that lead to MORE YIELDS being deemed necessary in the first place.

[Vlerchan]

I agree with the OP. Though it's expected that the world population will start stabilising by 2050.

I'd add however that GMO crops should be opposed on the grounds that the current monopolization of crop production etc. by a few oligarchs means that crops then become less diversified and then so more susceptible to blight (which is bad). That's why we shouldn't be so quick to shift away from traditional farming methods.
... could it possibly be because the current reigning economic school of thought has decreed that unlimited growth is the only way forward
It's not just the reigning economic school (neo-liberalism or the neo-classical school) that promotes constant growth. It's all market-centric (read: pro-markets, pro-capitalist) schools of economic thought. In capitalism your economy needs to keep growing year-on-year or else it slumps.

we've been hearing for years that positive economic growth would bring wealth and prosperity for more Africans. that didn't happen
Just be patient: the wealth needs to trickle down yet. It'll happen. Trust me. I know it will happen.

Note: I'm serious about the wealth needing to trickle down before you see falls in average family sizes.

[Stronk Serb]

I heard that the seeds you buy from Monsanto last for one generation. The seeds your crops produced are useless. I think we shouldn't shift from the old farming techniques, the problem is not the quantity, the problem is where the food is getting eaten.

[Harry Smith]

actually, that solves nothing and only worsens things in the long run.

"developing country" is neoliberal Newspeak for a third-world country which is undergoing positive growth in its economy, which is often said to be a good thing but isn't. with economic growth comes increased population size, which negates the benefits of the former since already scarce resources must be spread ever more thinly across a larger population.

take sub-Saharan Africa for example, we've been hearing for years that positive economic growth would bring wealth and prosperity for more Africans. that didn't happen, instead Africans just had more and more children which resulted in more starving Africans who then require even more resources to keep alive. it's a deadly cycle with diminishing returns. the grisly AIDS epidemic that culls a large number of the African population is the only thing standing in the way of Africa becoming a full-on ecumenopolis with people packed together in mega-slums like sardines (that's already true of many of Africa's major cities.)

the nightmare that Africa is currently undergoing wouldn't be happening on the same scale if those 670,000 children weren't being birthed in the first place, but they are thanks to the current political climate and the economic practices that enable and encourage it. the best solution for solving third-world starvation isn't MORE YIELDS, it's about avoiding the kind of practices that lead to MORE YIELDS being deemed necessary in the first place.

The two main problems for Africa are Global warming and the debt burden that's placed on (mainly through SAP), the problem is that the debt burden that been imposed is making it even harder for Afrirca to respond to the future threat of Global warming.

And to be pedantic the rice example was really only in place in Asia to my knowledge-not Africa

[phuckphace]

my point applies to Asia as well.

I heard that the seeds you buy from Monsanto last for one generation. The seeds your crops produced are useless. I think we shouldn't shift from the old farming techniques, the problem is not the quantity, the problem is where the food is getting eaten.

yeah, it's called "terminator" technology. another concern is that the terminator-engineered plants might form hybrids with other plants and eventually out-compete the normal seed bearing plants and end up eradicating our food supply. that's an inherent risk with bioengineering...you can design an engineered organism the way you want it but once it leaves the lab the course of its evolution is out of your hands. once pressures in the environment cause the organisms to evolve, the outcome might be unexpected (and bad).

this is the same reason that government experiments in race-targeted bioweapons were canned...the virus might work on the intended targets for a while but who's to say it couldn't evolve enough to jump to unintended populations? we've seen simian (HIV) and avian (influenza) viruses jumping from monkeys and birds to humans, for example.

the risks are many and they're formidable.