So Ive been thinking. We as a nation reject climate science. In fact, we are comfortable saying the climate had been changing always. Sort of a non sequitur really. However, aside from modeling we have a raft if peer reviewed independent really cream of the crop scientists in all disciplines and countries saying at minimum, we can point to fossil fuels, increased methane, and industrialization, deforestation, and desertification as a contributor. But to that we shrug and say well its not in my lifetime anyway and we ride the high of current cheap fuel prices. Gleeful that a Tesla stock is falling. Go frack yourself! And here is another, we know that we are in a trajectory to having 9 billion people on the planet, and science ( well agri- biz science) says the only answer is to create GMO seed to feed these coming 9 billion people. Again, we mostly shrug and continue to eat what we are given which creates demand for these products that are owned ( yes life is now owned) by corporate science that tells us its fine, we do not require actually peer review because the results are materially the same. With no independent review as its a secret patent protected process. So on one hand we think scientists are lying or creating a hoax to force us to rethink our behavior about climate and on the other we just assume that paid corporate science is accurate and there is no concern for long term effects of additional herbicide use. Please dont repeat the fallacy farmers use less. They must in fact, now use more potent glycophosphate with added chemicals to get the former spray effect. Or what of the LONG TERM concern over genetic cross contamination that we know happens because Monsanto et al sues farmers if they find their genes in neighboring non GMO fields. Bees dont really listen well to sit! Stay! So heres a thought to help mitigate both issues. How about a scientific approach to birth control? How about some research and heart of the issue questions about managing population so we dont get to critical mass? Is it too scary to consider first taking care of the orphans and children in the world already before continuing to create new human lives that we will not be able to feed? Why is it ok to use up every last resource and head to a trajectory of self destruction through famine and poverty and resource loss? Oh, and for the sake of argument, we already produce enough food to feed the world and when I hear smart people say we need GMOs because people are starving on the Continent of Africa I really find that disingenuous - people are starving in America, and Mexico, and Japan, and Israel, and Kurdistan - all for the same reason. Lack of access both in terms of poverty or water. Period. Its not because we dont grow enough food. We throw away enough food to feed all the worlds hungry. It is access and poverty. Not the myopic view of production. The equation of GMOs as a necessity to feed a hungry world is smoke and mirrors. The equation to feed 9 billion people is access or essentially the great divide between poverty and wealth. I repeat. The adage give a man a fish and he eats for a day - teach a man to fish and he feeds his village can be summed up like this: export owned Corporate seed and herbicide and make slaved of the poor and the poor nations . Teach human family planning, preventive care, remove the religiosity that fuels endless reproduction and poverty and then instead of selling them seed offer to teach skills to feed themselves not our idea of food - but what is food for their culture. We are blind to our cultural imperialism and in that may very well be Collapse.
Posted on: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 21:37:56 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015