I don't think that you'll be able to break the subsistence cycle in Africa without first letting subsistence farmers have some income.
I thought I said a subsistence farmer should be able to make a living on the farm, yes here is it "By making sure people can make a decent living on farms more people will stay on them, then they could grow plenty for those would decide to live in cities". By allowing farmers to grow food they can then sale in cities they should be able to make a living. As it is one reason farmers can't afford to stay on farms is because they can't compeat with a big agribusiness that gets handouts from the EU, Japan, or the US. Ge rid of the subsides as I've said a number of tymes then indigenous farmers could make a living on their farms.
But something needs to happen to "kick off" the whole process. This happened in Asia during the green revolution - so we even have a model for it.
The Green Revolution only temporarily increased crop yields, crop yields have leveled off. Here's a paper with some of the problems of the Green Revolution. Then as this page says the boom in crop yield owns a lot to the use of petroleum. Petroleum is needed to fuel the machines, then herbicides and pesticides are made from petrochemicals. What happens when all the oil is pumped? No more herbicides and pesticides thats what. With the end of cheap petroleum the only way enough food will be grown is organically. Just a few hours ago I heard oil broke $90 a barrel, guess what that means for farmers who depend on it? Bad news. However organic farmers who don't use petro based herbicides and pesticides will still be able to grow food.
Africa needs the same type of thing, and I just feel like it is silly to delay the whole process by restricting yourself to old-fashioned breeding for no scientific reason... just fear.
Talking about science, as I have repeatedly laid out there is no scientific basis for a need for GMOs. Yet people keep saying they are needed despite being shown evidence, including scientific evidence, GMOs are NOT NEEDED.
Yes I am fixated on organics but despite being shown science you are fixated on GMOs. There is no fear involved, it comes like this, are GMOs needed to feed the world. And science has answered NO.
you don't get it, with the exception of rick boucher, NOBODY represents me.
Maybe you can run for office yourself.
-decreased military spending, funneling that cash into schools and alternative energy ...
-DMCA and drug law reform
-legalize downloading
-stop bailing out the airline industry
-finding and eliminating all laws designed to stifle competition and erect barriers to entry.
I too want these, that's why when I can I usually vote for the Libertarian candidate. The LP states are these and if more people like you and I voted for them they could have a significant impact. As far as I'm concerned anyone who doesn't make their positions known and vote has to reason to complain. You want to change things, either vote for those who support your position or run yourself. Sure you may not get everything you want but you may get some of it, and when you don't you have grounds to complain.
Oh, you may of noticed I deleted two things from your list, about health and religion. While I oppose health screening for insurance, I also oppose socialized medicine. Instead in order to make health insurance more affordable, if people don't associate a cost with something they want more of it as happens with socialized medicine, eliminate tax breaks employers get for offering health insurance to employees. Let employers pay employees more so they can afford to pay insurance themselves. With employer provided coverage people are locked into whatever coverage the employer offers which is usually offered only by one company. However when people can afford to pay for coverage they can shop around for the coverage they want or are willing to pay. If a person wants everything covered they will pay for it, however if they only want catastrophic coverage they will pay less. Then they can open a medical savings account to pay for normal medical expenses. With competition health insurance costs will go down. Another way to lower healthcare costs is to eliminate the monopolies doctors and other health care providers enjoy. For instance child birthing can be expensive with the doctors and hospital bills. But allowing Midwives to practice midwifery babes could be delivered at home eliminating bills. In the US more and more babies are delivered by the surgical procedure Caesarean section. In most cases a C section is not needed yet they are expensive.
The second thing I removed was religious tax exemption. If religious institution have to pay taxes then they should get a say in politics. Personally I'd rather they not pay taxes than that they have a say in politics. I don't want any fundamentalist of any persuasion trying to cram their beliefs down my throat.
Age eligible to vote?
Age eligible to drink?
Age eligible to join the military?
This brings up something I think is BS in the US. A person can vote and go into the military where their life is on the line at 18, yet they can't drink. When I first turned 18 I was legally able to drink for 1 month, but then a new state law went into effect that raised the legal drinking age to 19. Once it went into effect I was no longer legally able to drink. A couple of years later I was in Germany, stationed there while in the Army, and I became accustomed to seeing parents ordering a glass of wine for their children in restaurants, it was perfectly legal.
I think you sister rather makes my case for me. By being on her own she was forced to survive. At 17 I was working full time and sort of living between my parents and my girlfriends.
The difference was that she was not forced out of our mother's house, she wanted to live on her own. There was no force involved. Myself, I worked part time while in high school. Then planning on going to college, my sisters and I were the first in our family to go, I went into the army in part to save money to go to college.
the answer is in Jesus own words: "let the small children come to me". Children are raised to believe in God, and as a child, you are at your most gullible time in your life.
I was born and raised as a Catholic however as a child I consciously converted to Buddhism. There were no Buddhist evangelicals or anyone else involved. Instead, growing up my mom encouraged my sisters and I to read and one of the things I read a lot about was religion, about different ones and the differences between them. Eventually I came to believe in Buddhism and did for a long tyme. Now I don't believe in anything religious or spiritual. I wish I did, it's make my life so much easier.
Also of importance is the fact that religious communities form a frame of security among their individual members. Your friends and family are members. You have a sense of community, "us" against "them", and so on... And it feels meaningful, spiritual, all those are basic human needs. Rejecting that is hard, probably a lot harder than stopping to believe in Santa when you were six.
There is that, "Us" versus "them" however more than most I'd have to say scientists are supposed to question things, why don't they question their beliefs in a "God"? It's not particularly logical or rational. But Pascal's Wager is kind of logical. My sister, who I'm the closest to in my family, is Christian and attends church regularly. She used to drag me to church with her and one day asked if I thought about joining a church, I think I freaked her out when I said I was thinking about joining a local Wiccancoven. I hadn't thought or said it purposefully I only said it spontaneously.
Then why do you believe it should convince any others? I've never even heard about anyone who found Pascals wager convincing. Except perhaps Pascal, of course.
Neither have I found it convincing however people, including scientists, hold beliefs that are not logical or rational.
What I'm saying is that it needs to be made more productive in order to feed the world. Specifically, it needs to be more productive while not increasing the labor or cost.
A truly free market would take care of this. Many people leave farms, such as in China and India, to move to cities where they can make more money. However if food prices would rise more people would have the motivation to live on farms, in small communities, or grow some of their own food. Throughout the world city farms are cropping up. In Cuba a lot of food is grown in city farms. After the collapse of the Soviet Union Castro encouraged residents of Havana and other cities to start growing food. Here's a link to a page on urban agriculture from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations with what's being done or is capable of being done throughout the world.
The solution to feeding the world is to improve the root cause of starvation not to create something to sale. By making sure people can make a decent living on farms more people will stay on them, then they could grow plenty for those would decide to live in cities. And with city farms those in cities can grow some of their own food. Actually this past summer there was an article on/. about building a highrise tower farm. Using/.'s search I didn't find it but Goolge has another about how Cities Built on Fertile Lands Affect Climate. These cities built on fertile land take the land out of food production.
Organic production is the ONLY option for subsistence farmers, since they have little or no access to chemicals. I am only asking that GMOs not be dismissed out-of-hand, since they may provide a much quicker path to creating plants that are suitable for Africa than traditional breeding.
Africa is quite capable of growing more food without GMOs. For instance I'll refer back to what I said previously in this tread about what President Robert Mugabe did in Zimbabwe. Here's another post I wrote on it on 19 April 2007. Simply when Mugabe came to power he took Zimbabwe from being a net food exporter, agricultural produce was Zimbabwe's largest foreign exchange earner, into a nation that needs aid to import food to feed the population. Politics created a nation that couldn't feed itself out of a nation that could feed not only itself but others as well.
But somehow you've turned this into an organic discussion, when we WERE talking about GMOs. My hope is that subsistence - and by extension organic - farming can be improved by GMOs
I brought in organics to show that the world can be fed without any need for GMOs. Since the topic is GMOs showing organic farming, which bars GMOs, can feed the world it means that GMOs are NOT needed. Simply solve the root causes of starvation; conflicts, politics, and massive subsidies, and GMOs are not needed. Thinking like this is similar to what a systems analyst does and includes a life cycle analysis.
No one knows how to make an online survey statistically representative. To call any of those percentages "of Americans" is a foul lie. Zogby has turned into the kind of "research" into their own preconceived conclusions that we get from, say, Jupiter Research on Microsoft.
The survey, being only online does distort the stats. Limiting it to those who use the net does not reflect the general population's perceptions, only those who participated online.
And under your system stations won't try to overpower each other?
Such a thing as trying to overpower the competition would lead to an arms race none of those trying could win. It's rather easy to add power to a radio station up to a point. With a number of different stations broadcasting on the same frequency all anybody listening would hear is a bunch of garbage, interfering signals. Since there would be no clear signal advertisers would not pay to advertise. However by shifting the frequency a little there would be no interference, with today's technology radio stations can use much closer frequencies than was possible in 1934. The only reason to limit radio, and tv stations and require licenses is to limit competition. And of course big media like Clear Channel wants to limit competition.
Imagine if newspaper publishers and printers had to have a license, those granted licenses could have kept competition out. It being easy and cheap to print is responsible for creating thousands of newspapers and magazines. Heck, with DTP software anyone can create and publish a broadsheet. About 20 years ago a writers group I was in put together several short stories we had written and ran off copies, well Barnes and Noble ran them off, to hand out. Some publish broadsheets of only a few pages, or maybe only one or two pages, they can then sale small ads and hand out the broadsheet.
Now imagine someone starting up a small special interest radio station. A person with an interest in calypso, reggae, music could start up a station and sell ads to local businesses that sale the music, to a Cajun restaurant, or to a local band that plays the music. Another person could startup a talk radio station that is about model railroads and sale ads to hobby shoppes.
Neither do I have information on when 'In God We Trust' was first added to US currency or coinage - I merely pointed out that the motto certainly was put on some coins before 1956, which was contrary to the statement you'd made in the post I'd first replied to.
You're right, the act I cited basically required the phrase on US coin and currency. You said you have a 1909 gold half-eagle with it on. Are you a collector or is it something you hang onto? Years ago I collected both coins and currency, I used to have a few old bills with both red and blue seals. I've noticed lately a lot of new ones with these seals.
I'd love to know what percentage of those people who say the government should censor Internet content are among the percentage who don't use the Internet.
Seeing as how it was an online survey I bet all of the people used the internet.
You're evading the point. All I'm saying is that if you want to demonstrate that corporations are bad or that GMOs are dangerous, choose an example that actually shows that, instead of trying to use deceptive phrasing to make good behavior look bad.
I posted, more than once, about super weeds created by Roundup Ready seeds. And seeing as how TFA was A=about GMOs, it directly applies. However I didn't ask you just what is the need for ANY GMO? Answer is there is no need.
Only a total complete idiotic fuckwit moron would have ANYTHING implanted in their brain without an overriding medical reason.
Being a survivor of a Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI, I would be willing to have an implant if it helped me. Not some sort of net connection, but something that would help me with my memory and improve my impulse control among other things.
Of course, you'd think that true "conservative" justices would be more apt to strike down any gov't regulation of the internet, but I bet if you toss the words pornography, children, and deviant around enough they'll be happy to help turn the intertube as we know it into glorified cable-television with email.
Originally it was liberals who would have opposed any of this, the Classical Liberal being against big government and for small government. On the other hand, Teddy Roosevelt's Republican party's conservativism was for small government as well. However the Republican Party has morphed into a big government party.
It would stop a lot of the teenage problems if at 14 they had to fend for themselves. This extended childhood so prevalent in the US is giving us children aged twenty five who are unable to function on their own.
The US isn't the only country with an age of 18 as the age of majority, age of consent, or legal drinking age. Most of the countries listed on the first page has 18 as the age of majority. Also not all teenagers are unable to function on their own. I have a sister who moved out when she was 16 or 17, I was in the Army at the tyme so I'm not sure what her age was. She lived through her own resources, finished high school then went to college. Now she has her Masters degree and runs her own businesses, yes plural as she has more than one business.
If a restaurant's food gives you salmonella, and you come back the next day for more, they won't fix the issue.
So vote for another party's candidates, or an independent. I am registered No Party Preference because I vote for the person not the party. I've voted for Democrats, independents with a small "i" and Independents with a large "I", Libertarians, Reform Party, and Republican candidates. Of the candidates for a given office I look at how each candidate stands on the issues that I care about and then I'll vote for the candidate that comes the closest on the issues to my position.
There is also no party supporting dmca reform, or dedicating a small fraction of military spending toward the many viable options for clean sustainable energy, or even possibly reqiurements for ecological responsibility
The Libertarian party, LP, wants to reduce military spending. As does the Green Party. The LP also calls the DMCA unconstitutional. The Green Party is all about sustainable energy and the environment.
First I would like to cut their social security off. I mean, come on. How can we go for lower taxes and less onerous government if these old fogeys keep going to the elections and keep voting for either a tax-and-spend Democrats or borrow-and-spend Republicans?
I'd prefer to have Social Security privatized, but how much do you save and invest? If the average "old fogey" had invested the money that was deducted from their pay they would have been in better shape today, they'd have more invested than they'll ever collect from Social Security. A person could start saving $2000 a year when they turn 18 until they turn 25 then save no more and when they reached 65 they'd have almost a million dollars, ah the wonders of compound interest. Even if they go to college and don't start saving until after graduating, they would then start investing when 22, or maybe 25. But then they would be making a lot more money therefore they could invest more. Whether a person waits or not they can still keep investing 'til they near retirement. Some may say but not everyone can save and invest any amount. However with more people investing more money there would be more jobs created and pay would therefore increase.
My one concern with privatizing SS is what to do with those already retired or close to retirement. One possibility would be to allow all of those "illegal immigrants" or aliens to work legally, then have them pay into SS but without being able to collect SS. Because of the passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 some 8 million immigrants were able to get SS cards and pay more than $50B into SS. Double or triple that should help keep SS afloat.
Calories is a stupid measure. How about protein/acre?
Calories is a stupid measure, yes. While protein/acre would be better it still leaves out vitamins and minerals. However whereas modern conventional western agriculture depends on a monoculture organic farming as well as permaculture best uses a mix of plants or produce. Instead of growing just say corn, strawberries can be grown on the same land. And/or squash. In temperate zones where citrus will grow, underneath the orange trees other fruits and veggies can be grown. The same with other fruit trees. Using companion planting one crops' pest can be repelled by other plants. For instance marigolds repels aphids which feed on other plants. Or plants that attract Coccinellidae, or ladybugs can be used, aphids are natural prey of ladybugs. At the same tyme ladybugs control pests they also pollinate the crop.
I noted the last paragraph has this to say, with no rebuttal:
Patrick Holden of the Soil Association, which promotes organic farming, said "business as usual" intensive farming would not be possible in future because of the fossil fuel costs and the greenhouse gas emissions associated with nitrogen fertilisers. Organic farming could equal and sometimes even exceed the yields of chemical intensive farming systems. "The challenge that global agriculture confronts today is to research and develop these systems, because we are on the threshold of a post-fossil fuel era."
Scientific American
Organic or Conventional? For Wheat, It Might Not Matter ...Although some organic crops have proved more nourishing than their conventional counterparts, wheat--one of the world's biggest cereal crops--shows no difference, according to the results of a new study.
Organic Farming Generates Longer-Lived Plants
When Mary was asked How does your garden grow, she didn't compare the relative merits of conventional versus organic farming. But results published online this week by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggest that her silver bells and cockleshells could have lived longer and better under sustainable agriculture techniques.
Organic Farms More Fertile, Study Finds
Organic farms are more efficient than their conventional cousins and leave soils far healthier, researchers report today in the journal Science. In a long-term study comparing productivity, environmental health, biodiversity and energy consumption of organic cultivation to conventional methods, Paul Mder of the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture in Switzerland and his colleagues discovered that the organic approach used significantly less energy to produce the same quantity of crop. Although organic farms typically produce lower overall yields than common plots do, their ecological benefits are greater--a larger number of pest-eating creatures and other advantageous organisms live in soil farmed organically, and decomposition occurs more efficiently on these lands, releasing much needed nutrients into the soil.
What I think this study is saying, more alarmingly, is that a decent percentage of people are considering the internet a substitute for the non-sexual part of a relationship. That is terribly depressing, as there are a lot of things besides sex to be had from a SO.
For some the net is the only viable option. I am on disability and don't work so I'd have the opportunity for personal interactions those who work have. And my disability income barely covers my living expenses. If it weren't for the fact that someone else pays for my housing my income would not be enough to live on. I have to watch my budget and can't justify hanging out at the bar or cafe and I haven't been able to make friends where I live. I used to have friends but had to leave them when I moved so I could get the therapy I needed, and the people around here, while polite, aren't particularly friendly.
If Ron Paul is the R then D or R we can't lose in 2008. Register as a Republican and vote for him in the primaries!
That's what I plan on. I'm registered as No Party Preference but if I have to to vote for Ron Paul in the primary I'll change the party affiliation to Republican. Of course right after the primary I'll change it back to No Party Affiliation.
Perhaps that's because of Pascal's Wager. Then again it could be because whereas science seeks to answer "how" a belief in a Supreme Deity answers "why". Myself, I have a problem with Pascal's Wager, it's easy enough to decide on whether a "God" exists or not but it becomes much harder when a person has to decide which "God" to believe in. The Semitic based religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all believe in a jealous "God" and forbid the worship of idols. Well what if the "God" a person worships is nothing but an idol?
I had absolutely no idea that so many people lived in their basements.
Living alone and having a disability, I find the net provides me with something to do for a significant amount of tyme, which because I don't work I need something to occupy my tyme. Without the net I'd have no reason to get out of bed. I'd like to of had seen how many of those who participated are in some way disabled as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok.
FalconI don't think that you'll be able to break the subsistence cycle in Africa without first letting subsistence farmers have some income.
I thought I said a subsistence farmer should be able to make a living on the farm, yes here is it "By making sure people can make a decent living on farms more people will stay on them, then they could grow plenty for those would decide to live in cities". By allowing farmers to grow food they can then sale in cities they should be able to make a living. As it is one reason farmers can't afford to stay on farms is because they can't compeat with a big agribusiness that gets handouts from the EU, Japan, or the US. Ge rid of the subsides as I've said a number of tymes then indigenous farmers could make a living on their farms.
But something needs to happen to "kick off" the whole process. This happened in Asia during the green revolution - so we even have a model for it.
The Green Revolution only temporarily increased crop yields, crop yields have leveled off. Here's a paper with some of the problems of the Green Revolution. Then as this page says the boom in crop yield owns a lot to the use of petroleum. Petroleum is needed to fuel the machines, then herbicides and pesticides are made from petrochemicals. What happens when all the oil is pumped? No more herbicides and pesticides thats what. With the end of cheap petroleum the only way enough food will be grown is organically. Just a few hours ago I heard oil broke $90 a barrel, guess what that means for farmers who depend on it? Bad news. However organic farmers who don't use petro based herbicides and pesticides will still be able to grow food.
Africa needs the same type of thing, and I just feel like it is silly to delay the whole process by restricting yourself to old-fashioned breeding for no scientific reason... just fear.
Talking about science, as I have repeatedly laid out there is no scientific basis for a need for GMOs. Yet people keep saying they are needed despite being shown evidence, including scientific evidence, GMOs are NOT NEEDED.
Yes I am fixated on organics but despite being shown science you are fixated on GMOs. There is no fear involved, it comes like this, are GMOs needed to feed the world. And science has answered NO.
you don't get it, with the exception of rick boucher, NOBODY represents me.
Maybe you can run for office yourself.
-decreased military spending, funneling that cash into schools and alternative energy
...
-DMCA and drug law reform
-legalize downloading
-stop bailing out the airline industry
-finding and eliminating all laws designed to stifle competition and erect barriers to entry.
I too want these, that's why when I can I usually vote for the Libertarian candidate. The LP states are these and if more people like you and I voted for them they could have a significant impact. As far as I'm concerned anyone who doesn't make their positions known and vote has to reason to complain. You want to change things, either vote for those who support your position or run yourself. Sure you may not get everything you want but you may get some of it, and when you don't you have grounds to complain.
Oh, you may of noticed I deleted two things from your list, about health and religion. While I oppose health screening for insurance, I also oppose socialized medicine. Instead in order to make health insurance more affordable, if people don't associate a cost with something they want more of it as happens with socialized medicine, eliminate tax breaks employers get for offering health insurance to employees. Let employers pay employees more so they can afford to pay insurance themselves. With employer provided coverage people are locked into whatever coverage the employer offers which is usually offered only by one company. However when people can afford to pay for coverage they can shop around for the coverage they want or are willing to pay. If a person wants everything covered they will pay for it, however if they only want catastrophic coverage they will pay less. Then they can open a medical savings account to pay for normal medical expenses. With competition health insurance costs will go down. Another way to lower healthcare costs is to eliminate the monopolies doctors and other health care providers enjoy. For instance child birthing can be expensive with the doctors and hospital bills. But allowing Midwives to practice midwifery babes could be delivered at home eliminating bills. In the US more and more babies are delivered by the surgical procedure Caesarean section. In most cases a C section is not needed yet they are expensive.
The second thing I removed was religious tax exemption. If religious institution have to pay taxes then they should get a say in politics. Personally I'd rather they not pay taxes than that they have a say in politics. I don't want any fundamentalist of any persuasion trying to cram their beliefs down my throat.
FalconAge eligible to vote?
Age eligible to drink?
Age eligible to join the military?
This brings up something I think is BS in the US. A person can vote and go into the military where their life is on the line at 18, yet they can't drink. When I first turned 18 I was legally able to drink for 1 month, but then a new state law went into effect that raised the legal drinking age to 19. Once it went into effect I was no longer legally able to drink. A couple of years later I was in Germany, stationed there while in the Army, and I became accustomed to seeing parents ordering a glass of wine for their children in restaurants, it was perfectly legal.
I think you sister rather makes my case for me. By being on her own she was forced to survive. At 17 I was working full time and sort of living between my parents and my girlfriends.
The difference was that she was not forced out of our mother's house, she wanted to live on her own. There was no force involved. Myself, I worked part time while in high school. Then planning on going to college, my sisters and I were the first in our family to go, I went into the army in part to save money to go to college.
Falconthe answer is in Jesus own words: "let the small children come to me". Children are raised to believe in God, and as a child, you are at your most gullible time in your life.
I was born and raised as a Catholic however as a child I consciously converted to Buddhism. There were no Buddhist evangelicals or anyone else involved. Instead, growing up my mom encouraged my sisters and I to read and one of the things I read a lot about was religion, about different ones and the differences between them. Eventually I came to believe in Buddhism and did for a long tyme. Now I don't believe in anything religious or spiritual. I wish I did, it's make my life so much easier.
Also of importance is the fact that religious communities form a frame of security among their individual members. Your friends and family are members. You have a sense of community, "us" against "them", and so on... And it feels meaningful, spiritual, all those are basic human needs. Rejecting that is hard, probably a lot harder than stopping to believe in Santa when you were six.
There is that, "Us" versus "them" however more than most I'd have to say scientists are supposed to question things, why don't they question their beliefs in a "God"? It's not particularly logical or rational. But Pascal's Wager is kind of logical. My sister, who I'm the closest to in my family, is Christian and attends church regularly. She used to drag me to church with her and one day asked if I thought about joining a church, I think I freaked her out when I said I was thinking about joining a local Wiccan coven. I hadn't thought or said it purposefully I only said it spontaneously.
Then why do you believe it should convince any others? I've never even heard about anyone who found Pascals wager convincing. Except perhaps Pascal, of course.
Neither have I found it convincing however people, including scientists, hold beliefs that are not logical or rational.
FalconWhat I'm saying is that it needs to be made more productive in order to feed the world. Specifically, it needs to be more productive while not increasing the labor or cost.
A truly free market would take care of this. Many people leave farms, such as in China and India, to move to cities where they can make more money. However if food prices would rise more people would have the motivation to live on farms, in small communities, or grow some of their own food. Throughout the world city farms are cropping up. In Cuba a lot of food is grown in city farms. After the collapse of the Soviet Union Castro encouraged residents of Havana and other cities to start growing food. Here's a link to a page on urban agriculture from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations with what's being done or is capable of being done throughout the world.
The solution to feeding the world is to improve the root cause of starvation not to create something to sale. By making sure people can make a decent living on farms more people will stay on them, then they could grow plenty for those would decide to live in cities. And with city farms those in cities can grow some of their own food. Actually this past summer there was an article on /. about building a highrise tower farm. Using /.'s search I didn't find it but Goolge has another about how Cities Built on Fertile Lands Affect Climate. These cities built on fertile land take the land out of food production.
Organic production is the ONLY option for subsistence farmers, since they have little or no access to chemicals. I am only asking that GMOs not be dismissed out-of-hand, since they may provide a much quicker path to creating plants that are suitable for Africa than traditional breeding.
Africa is quite capable of growing more food without GMOs. For instance I'll refer back to what I said previously in this tread about what President Robert Mugabe did in Zimbabwe. Here's another post I wrote on it on 19 April 2007. Simply when Mugabe came to power he took Zimbabwe from being a net food exporter, agricultural produce was Zimbabwe's largest foreign exchange earner, into a nation that needs aid to import food to feed the population. Politics created a nation that couldn't feed itself out of a nation that could feed not only itself but others as well.
But somehow you've turned this into an organic discussion, when we WERE talking about GMOs. My hope is that subsistence - and by extension organic - farming can be improved by GMOs
I brought in organics to show that the world can be fed without any need for GMOs. Since the topic is GMOs showing organic farming, which bars GMOs, can feed the world it means that GMOs are NOT needed. Simply solve the root causes of starvation; conflicts, politics, and massive subsidies, and GMOs are not needed. Thinking like this is similar to what a systems analyst does and includes a life cycle analysis.
FalconNo one knows how to make an online survey statistically representative. To call any of those percentages "of Americans" is a foul lie. Zogby has turned into the kind of "research" into their own preconceived conclusions that we get from, say, Jupiter Research on Microsoft.
The survey, being only online does distort the stats. Limiting it to those who use the net does not reflect the general population's perceptions, only those who participated online.
FalconAnd under your system stations won't try to overpower each other?
Such a thing as trying to overpower the competition would lead to an arms race none of those trying could win. It's rather easy to add power to a radio station up to a point. With a number of different stations broadcasting on the same frequency all anybody listening would hear is a bunch of garbage, interfering signals. Since there would be no clear signal advertisers would not pay to advertise. However by shifting the frequency a little there would be no interference, with today's technology radio stations can use much closer frequencies than was possible in 1934. The only reason to limit radio, and tv stations and require licenses is to limit competition. And of course big media like Clear Channel wants to limit competition.
Imagine if newspaper publishers and printers had to have a license, those granted licenses could have kept competition out. It being easy and cheap to print is responsible for creating thousands of newspapers and magazines. Heck, with DTP software anyone can create and publish a broadsheet. About 20 years ago a writers group I was in put together several short stories we had written and ran off copies, well Barnes and Noble ran them off, to hand out. Some publish broadsheets of only a few pages, or maybe only one or two pages, they can then sale small ads and hand out the broadsheet.
Now imagine someone starting up a small special interest radio station. A person with an interest in calypso, reggae, music could start up a station and sell ads to local businesses that sale the music, to a Cajun restaurant, or to a local band that plays the music. Another person could startup a talk radio station that is about model railroads and sale ads to hobby shoppes.
FalconNeither do I have information on when 'In God We Trust' was first added to US currency or coinage - I merely pointed out that the motto certainly was put on some coins before 1956, which was contrary to the statement you'd made in the post I'd first replied to.
You're right, the act I cited basically required the phrase on US coin and currency. You said you have a 1909 gold half-eagle with it on. Are you a collector or is it something you hang onto? Years ago I collected both coins and currency, I used to have a few old bills with both red and blue seals. I've noticed lately a lot of new ones with these seals.
FalconI'd love to know what percentage of those people who say the government should censor Internet content are among the percentage who don't use the Internet.
Seeing as how it was an online survey I bet all of the people used the internet.
FalconYou're evading the point. All I'm saying is that if you want to demonstrate that corporations are bad or that GMOs are dangerous, choose an example that actually shows that, instead of trying to use deceptive phrasing to make good behavior look bad.
I posted, more than once, about super weeds created by Roundup Ready seeds. And seeing as how TFA was A=about GMOs, it directly applies. However I didn't ask you just what is the need for ANY GMO? Answer is there is no need.
FalconWell sure, but if you meet a girl and you want to get together later, what's clumsy about a phone call, e-mail or IM message?
Finding her to begin with!
FalconSocial networking sites haven't really caught on in Europe, as far as I can tell.
I hear social networking sites are hugh in Japan and South Korea.
FalconOnly a total complete idiotic fuckwit moron would have ANYTHING implanted in their brain without an overriding medical reason.
Being a survivor of a Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI, I would be willing to have an implant if it helped me. Not some sort of net connection, but something that would help me with my memory and improve my impulse control among other things.
FalconOf course, you'd think that true "conservative" justices would be more apt to strike down any gov't regulation of the internet, but I bet if you toss the words pornography, children, and deviant around enough they'll be happy to help turn the intertube as we know it into glorified cable-television with email.
Originally it was liberals who would have opposed any of this, the Classical Liberal being against big government and for small government. On the other hand, Teddy Roosevelt's Republican party's conservativism was for small government as well. However the Republican Party has morphed into a big government party.
FalconIt would stop a lot of the teenage problems if at 14 they had to fend for themselves. This extended childhood so prevalent in the US is giving us children aged twenty five who are unable to function on their own.
The US isn't the only country with an age of 18 as the age of majority, age of consent, or legal drinking age. Most of the countries listed on the first page has 18 as the age of majority. Also not all teenagers are unable to function on their own. I have a sister who moved out when she was 16 or 17, I was in the Army at the tyme so I'm not sure what her age was. She lived through her own resources, finished high school then went to college. Now she has her Masters degree and runs her own businesses, yes plural as she has more than one business.
FalconIf a restaurant's food gives you salmonella, and you come back the next day for more, they won't fix the issue.
So vote for another party's candidates, or an independent. I am registered No Party Preference because I vote for the person not the party. I've voted for Democrats, independents with a small "i" and Independents with a large "I", Libertarians, Reform Party, and Republican candidates. Of the candidates for a given office I look at how each candidate stands on the issues that I care about and then I'll vote for the candidate that comes the closest on the issues to my position.
FalconThere is also no party supporting dmca reform, or dedicating a small fraction of military spending toward the many viable options for clean sustainable energy, or even possibly reqiurements for ecological responsibility
The Libertarian party, LP, wants to reduce military spending. As does the Green Party. The LP also calls the DMCA unconstitutional. The Green Party is all about sustainable energy and the environment.
FalconFirst I would like to cut their social security off. I mean, come on. How can we go for lower taxes and less onerous government if these old fogeys keep going to the elections and keep voting for either a tax-and-spend Democrats or borrow-and-spend Republicans?
I'd prefer to have Social Security privatized, but how much do you save and invest? If the average "old fogey" had invested the money that was deducted from their pay they would have been in better shape today, they'd have more invested than they'll ever collect from Social Security. A person could start saving $2000 a year when they turn 18 until they turn 25 then save no more and when they reached 65 they'd have almost a million dollars, ah the wonders of compound interest. Even if they go to college and don't start saving until after graduating, they would then start investing when 22, or maybe 25. But then they would be making a lot more money therefore they could invest more. Whether a person waits or not they can still keep investing 'til they near retirement. Some may say but not everyone can save and invest any amount. However with more people investing more money there would be more jobs created and pay would therefore increase.
My one concern with privatizing SS is what to do with those already retired or close to retirement. One possibility would be to allow all of those "illegal immigrants" or aliens to work legally, then have them pay into SS but without being able to collect SS. Because of the passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 some 8 million immigrants were able to get SS cards and pay more than $50B into SS. Double or triple that should help keep SS afloat.
FalconCalories is a stupid measure. How about protein/acre?
Calories is a stupid measure, yes. While protein/acre would be better it still leaves out vitamins and minerals. However whereas modern conventional western agriculture depends on a monoculture organic farming as well as permaculture best uses a mix of plants or produce. Instead of growing just say corn, strawberries can be grown on the same land. And/or squash. In temperate zones where citrus will grow, underneath the orange trees other fruits and veggies can be grown. The same with other fruit trees. Using companion planting one crops' pest can be repelled by other plants. For instance marigolds repels aphids which feed on other plants. Or plants that attract Coccinellidae, or ladybugs can be used, aphids are natural prey of ladybugs. At the same tyme ladybugs control pests they also pollinate the crop.
We can play the "point to studies game" if you want. Here's a British study from 2007.
I noted the last paragraph has this to say, with no rebuttal:
Patrick Holden of the Soil Association, which promotes organic farming, said "business as usual" intensive farming would not be possible in future because of the fossil fuel costs and the greenhouse gas emissions associated with nitrogen fertilisers. Organic farming could equal and sometimes even exceed the yields of chemical intensive farming systems. "The challenge that global agriculture confronts today is to research and develop these systems, because we are on the threshold of a post-fossil fuel era."
Scientific American
Organic or Conventional? For Wheat, It Might Not Matter
...Although some organic crops have proved more nourishing than their conventional counterparts, wheat--one of the world's biggest cereal crops--shows no difference, according to the results of a new study.
Organic Farming Generates Longer-Lived Plants
When Mary was asked How does your garden grow, she didn't compare the relative merits of conventional versus organic farming. But results published online this week by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggest that her silver bells and cockleshells could have lived longer and better under sustainable agriculture techniques.
Organic Farms More Fertile, Study Finds
Organic farms are more efficient than their conventional cousins and leave soils far healthier, researchers report today in the journal Science. In a long-term study comparing productivity, environmental health, biodiversity and energy consumption of organic cultivation to conventional methods, Paul Mder of the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture in Switzerland and his colleagues discovered that the organic approach used significantly less energy to produce the same quantity of crop. Although organic farms typically produce lower overall yields than common plots do, their ecological benefits are greater--a larger number of pest-eating creatures and other advantageous organisms live in soil farmed organically, and decomposition occurs more efficiently on these lands, releasing much needed nutrients into the soil.
Analysis Finds Greater Profits from Organic Farming
Doing the right thing can be profitable after allat least when it comes to g
What I think this study is saying, more alarmingly, is that a decent percentage of people are considering the internet a substitute for the non-sexual part of a relationship. That is terribly depressing, as there are a lot of things besides sex to be had from a SO.
For some the net is the only viable option. I am on disability and don't work so I'd have the opportunity for personal interactions those who work have. And my disability income barely covers my living expenses. If it weren't for the fact that someone else pays for my housing my income would not be enough to live on. I have to watch my budget and can't justify hanging out at the bar or cafe and I haven't been able to make friends where I live. I used to have friends but had to leave them when I moved so I could get the therapy I needed, and the people around here, while polite, aren't particularly friendly.
FalconIf Ron Paul is the R then D or R we can't lose in 2008. Register as a Republican and vote for him in the primaries!
That's what I plan on. I'm registered as No Party Preference but if I have to to vote for Ron Paul in the primary I'll change the party affiliation to Republican. Of course right after the primary I'll change it back to No Party Affiliation.
FalconNeil Degrasse Tyson made a similar observation about the statistic that 93% of members of the Academy of Sciences doubt or actively disbelieve in the existence of a personal god . The 93% isn't really all that surprising. That makes sense. What is surprising to me is that 7% do.
Perhaps that's because of Pascal's Wager. Then again it could be because whereas science seeks to answer "how" a belief in a Supreme Deity answers "why". Myself, I have a problem with Pascal's Wager, it's easy enough to decide on whether a "God" exists or not but it becomes much harder when a person has to decide which "God" to believe in. The Semitic based religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all believe in a jealous "God" and forbid the worship of idols. Well what if the "God" a person worships is nothing but an idol?
FalconOnce again, I am reminded of why I will never have kids. I simply don't want to put my offspring out into a population so inscrutably stupid.
Perhaps your kids could of changed the population for the better.
FalconI had absolutely no idea that so many people lived in their basements.
Living alone and having a disability, I find the net provides me with something to do for a significant amount of tyme, which because I don't work I need something to occupy my tyme. Without the net I'd have no reason to get out of bed. I'd like to of had seen how many of those who participated are in some way disabled as well.
Falcon