That's a reason but I don't think it's a great reason any more. Farmers worldwide are so productive and shipping is so efficient that it's really unlikely we'll have a world-wide famine. Or any famine, for that matter. It's quite safe to just depend on remote farmers.
"Don't talk to the cops" is doubly true for the FBI, whether as an informer, a suspect, or even as a decent human being. Those guys are rather messed up.
There's no good reason for the government to constantly exempt farmers from the normal law of supply and demand.
There's a very good national security reason:
We want to keep sufficient food production in the United States so that if we are at war, or just if there is a global food crisis, we won't have people starving to death.
That doesn't mean we necessarily have to fund milk producers, but it makes sense to ensure you have enough good food production. It's better than buying another stealth F-22 Raptor, and much cheaper.
It's worth mentioning that sometimes Americans come to Canada for treatment, and sometimes Canadians go to America for treatment. Why? Because the other side has better treatment.
"Better" is difficult to quantify, and each side is better in some situations.
So the obvious solution is to do nothing and everything will be all fine forever?
The obvious solution, to any scientist, is to do more research and figure out what is happening. Fearmongering and hysteria (which you are promoting) helps nothing.
Americans won't work hard for shit money. Illegals have been fucked so hard that our shit money looks like good money to them. So we get yet another race to the bottom as those willing to hire illegals outcompete those not willing to do so.
Seriously, stop this game where you pretend there's no scientific consensus
I didn't. There's no consensus on what feedbacks are important, or how large they might be.
Here's another one for you that will show how ignorant we are: there is no consensus on how much the atmosphere warms the earth compared to if it weren't there. We know to within ~10 degrees, but that's a huge margin of error. Look it up.
I think it's important to note this is just one study. While the evidence for global warming as a whole is pretty overwhelming it doesn't mean that every bit of climate related research is correct.
Specifically, the idea that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming is well-supported by experiment.
The predictions of disaster are not well-supported at all.
Oh yeah? The ancient Roman civilization collapsed because of dependence on grains? It didn't just evolve into what we now know as Italy? That is what you think?
Yeah, fake data can be sent to any journal. The whole point of research is to find something that isn't known, so you don't know what right data would look like. Don't get me wrong, social sciences have serious issues, but this effort didn't demonstrate it.
There's nothing exceptional about America, other than America is still here. We could say the same about many other plant-based cultures that are still here. Eventually America will collapse, if history is a guide, but it will not be because they depended on annual plants as a staple food crop.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a reason but I don't think it's a great reason any more. Farmers worldwide are so productive and shipping is so efficient that it's really unlikely we'll have a world-wide famine. Or any famine, for that matter. It's quite safe to just depend on remote farmers.
I really don't believe you at all.
"Don't talk to the cops" is doubly true for the FBI, whether as an informer, a suspect, or even as a decent human being. Those guys are rather messed up.
In every organization, there's always someone who has too much access. And there's not really a good way to avoid it.
There's no good reason for the government to constantly exempt farmers from the normal law of supply and demand.
There's a very good national security reason:
We want to keep sufficient food production in the United States so that if we are at war, or just if there is a global food crisis, we won't have people starving to death.
That doesn't mean we necessarily have to fund milk producers, but it makes sense to ensure you have enough good food production. It's better than buying another stealth F-22 Raptor, and much cheaper.
The links I've shared are from practitioners
I'm a practitioner, too. I've worked for over 10 years on a farm, living there. Don't tell me what is right and wrong.
It makes him money. That is the real reason, any other that he gives is just window dressing to make you (and maybe himself) feel good.
It's worth mentioning that sometimes Americans come to Canada for treatment, and sometimes Canadians go to America for treatment. Why? Because the other side has better treatment.
"Better" is difficult to quantify, and each side is better in some situations.
And where did the government get this guideline from?
Actuaries, most likely.
We're either listening to podcasts from morons, or we're reading books from scientists and becoming wise. You're obviously doing the former.
Frankly, if you're frying me I don't give a shit whether it's at 200 or at 220 degrees.
What are you talking about? The earth is going up to 200 degrees? Do you think that's science? Do you think?
So the obvious solution is to do nothing and everything will be all fine forever?
The obvious solution, to any scientist, is to do more research and figure out what is happening. Fearmongering and hysteria (which you are promoting) helps nothing.
Logic is useless without evidence to give it foundation, just like your post.
Oh, so now agriculture is responsible for the Mongol invasion? And hunting nomads never need to worry about invaders?
Americans won't work hard for shit money. Illegals have been fucked so hard that our shit money looks like good money to them. So we get yet another race to the bottom as those willing to hire illegals outcompete those not willing to do so.
That's true, too.
Seriously, stop this game where you pretend there's no scientific consensus
I didn't. There's no consensus on what feedbacks are important, or how large they might be.
Here's another one for you that will show how ignorant we are: there is no consensus on how much the atmosphere warms the earth compared to if it weren't there. We know to within ~10 degrees, but that's a huge margin of error. Look it up.
That climate change will accelerate due to feedbacks is controversial to the public, but not among the only people who seriously investigate it.
What blog did you read that on?
I think it's important to note this is just one study. While the evidence for global warming as a whole is pretty overwhelming it doesn't mean that every bit of climate related research is correct.
Specifically, the idea that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming is well-supported by experiment.
The predictions of disaster are not well-supported at all.
It was totally fine until foreign invaders entered in.
Yeah that one is pretty hilarious.
Which paper had obviously flawed data? I didn't see him making a point about bad statistics.
Which paper that he wrote, in your opinion, is like perpetual motion?
Oh yeah? The ancient Roman civilization collapsed because of dependence on grains? It didn't just evolve into what we now know as Italy? That is what you think?
Yeah, fake data can be sent to any journal. The whole point of research is to find something that isn't known, so you don't know what right data would look like. Don't get me wrong, social sciences have serious issues, but this effort didn't demonstrate it.
Which culture are you thinking of that failed because it depended on annual plants?
There's nothing exceptional about America, other than America is still here. We could say the same about many other plant-based cultures that are still here. Eventually America will collapse, if history is a guide, but it will not be because they depended on annual plants as a staple food crop.