The tought you express does not hold into account the possibility that there might be other reasons why my use of words and derivatives is not perfect. May it help in lowering your annoyance if you know that it's not about sounding 'jargonistic' but merely the fact that I'm not native english?
That's why I said not to take it personally. Hopefully, you can take this on-board as someone who is learning English (we are all still learning). Then, you can probably teach native English speakers a thing or two. Because most native speakers also make this mistake.
Don't take it personally neither, but, superfluous syllables aside, I do think my english is on average probably a lot better then most english speaking dudes are able to speak and write my native language.;-)
Indeed. Knowing multiple languages is a great thing.
Well, no doubt about it. I never said anything else. But it *does* boil down to him chosing Bitkeeper because it was technological superior. I mean "anything close around" IS about being able to do the (technological) things that Bitkeeper could do, it's NOT 'comming close to the ideal of Free Software'.
I'm sorry to be a spelling/grammar Nazi, because you make some good points. However, I believe the word you are looking for is "technically," not "technological" or even "technologically."
This error really annoys me, because I would have thought that one who is interested in technology, would also be respectful of the use of this word and its derivatives. Don't take it personally. I'm just amazed at the way superfluous syllables are added to words in an effort to sound more "jargonistic."
Oh, that must be why you're posting on Slashdot while Linus and co are writing their own SCM software (called Git).;)
Oh yeah, I'll just whip up an equivalent to Photoshop on my own! Oh wait, the GIMP team have been trying for years and still haven't even come close. So I guess that means I'll have to stop making a living from digital images, while I spend the rest of my life learning to program advanced digital imaging software. Even though no single person would even be capable of writing Photoshop. OK, let me get right on that.
ure, he's a zealot, but at least he's consistent. You never get a mixed message out of RMS.
But that's also his biggest weakness - he's too stubbornly attached to his position. It's as if his ideals/thinking just got frozen in time years ago. His rhetoric has not really evolved, making him seem detached from the world, and as if he is not capable of listening or respecting other's viewpoints. Rigid consistency is not always (hardly ever?) a good thing.
I quite like RMS in many ways, but this stubborness to me shows that he has not matured. I would hope that most of us, by the time we had reached RMS's age, would be more flexible in our approaches, and more respectful of others.
This doesn't really have much bearing on his ideas, and whether they are right or wrong, and it's somewhat condescending, but I think RMS needs to grow up. As in, re-evaluate his interface with society and other people. And re-examine the real state of the world we live in today. I think he could be much more productive, and effective as a Free Software advocate if he lightens up, maybe takes a holiday, and does something new and different for a while. His ideas are good, but like I said, haven't evolved. If he gives himself time to experience different things, he might come up with some amazing new ideas! As it is, it seems he just continues to do the same things he's always been doing.
I would imagine the majority of people in boulder that talk the hippie talk to not walk the walk. But I am probably wrong. Nevertheless, I find it highly unlikely that six million people could live sustainably the hippie lifestyle.
I'm not sure why you are even bothering to talk about "hippies," as they are such a small percentage of the population, and not many people are advocating a "hippie lifestyle."
This is a discussion of environmentalism. Hippies have often proclaimed environmental goodwill. However, it has always been as much about fashion and lifestyle as anything else.
In fact, you might be surprised to find that many of the people you perceive as "hippies" would be horrified to be called as such. Hippies aren't even popular in the environmental movement any longer.
A lot of your perception might be due to the fashionable wearing of dreadlocks, and other granola-style fashion accessories. Many of those people are just middle-class kids who wanted to change their image to seem less like spoiled middle-class kids. Don't confuse image with ideology.
Others who look something like hippies are not middle-class kids - but many of them would also call themselves "anarchists" or punks or whatever, and would also be offended to be called a hippy.
Anyway, all these arbitrary social groupings are kinda stupid. It would be nice to get on with dealing with the issues facing us - rather than this constant game of labeling each other and focusing on superficial differences. No-one is perfect, but we can all do better.
Yes, of course monocultures are going to get you into a problematic state. Please do not assume that this is news to anyone. This is why you would rotate through several straints with different properties.
What? Your statement reads as "Monocultures are bad. this is why we rotate our monocultures every season."
I think you need to learn what 'monoculture' actually means. You are merely describing crop rotation - of monoculture crops. That's still monoculture! To avoid a mopnoculture, you would need to grow several complimentary crops together, simultaneously - not individual crops serially.
Allowing the same amount of food to be grown on less land, thus slowing natural habitat destruction.
Do you have any evidence that it does this? Sustainable farming techniques like permaculture actually achieve far better yields than GM monocultures. Sustainable farming also doesn't damage the land with chemicals as much, and doesn't advocate clearing the land. If we can do better without GM crops, then why use them?
Increasing local crop yield in developing countries that can't count on foreign crops to get to them.
Why would a developing country choose to be locked-in to the GM vendors, for a very small increase in productivity - when they can adopt permaculture for free, and increase their productivity more than using GM would?
Introducing natural pesticides that eliminate or reduce the use of man-made chemicals that injure both the environment and the health of the people consuming the food while lowering the cost of the food
Making crops more hardy, avoiding massive price spikes (and thus dietary swings for the poor), when weather or disease wipe out a crop.
Eliminating the need to selectively breed for survivability in cold storage, thus putting the selective breeding weight back on things like taste (tomatoes are a great example of the damage that such breeding has done... remember when they used to TASTE LIKE TOMATOES?)
Increasing shelf-life, and therefore the range at which food can be reasonably delivered (this directly impacts the price of food in the third world, as getting food in place before it rots is a huge cost).
Providing nutrients (e.g. iodine) which people in certain parts of the world tend to suffer from the lack of.
All of these things can be done with non-GM crops. So, why the need to give companies patents on future plants, and why the need to deal with the problems of GM food?
Furthermore, these are just claims for GM foods. For example, contrary to your first point, GM crops are associated with an increase in chemicals used in farming - not a decrease.
I'd like to see some evidence of the success of GM in meeting these claims. the technology seems to be used almost exclusively for profit - not to serve human needs.
Anyway, the "old school" plants can do everything we need, without wasting a bunch of money on research, licensing, and without spending years in court, or cross-contaminating other crops, or without getting "super weeds."
So, why the pressing need to invest so heavily in this technology, when it provides only very marginal benefits, if any, and comes with many risks?
And if you want tomatoes that taste like tomatoes - buy organic, or just grow your own. I just don't understand why the heck GM is needed to get a good-tasting fruit or vegetable. I'm surrounded by delicious vegetables that were grown organically. None of the GM foods or standard aqgricultural produce comes anywhere close in terms of quality.
The thing there, though, is that Roundup is one of the most environmentally friendly ways to kill weeds that I know of,
No. the environmentally friendly way to control weeds is through sustainability. Constantly fighting weeds by letting them grow, and then poisoning them, is not environmentally friendly, nor is it economical. It basically doesn't make much sense at all.
Use intelligent planting and weed-control schemes, allow the crops to build up their natural defenses, and protect diversity. Then there is no need whatsoever to pay good money for poisonous chemicals. Plus you get healthier crops! Roundup is like crack - "the first hit's free!" says the drug dealer.
This problem has been solved. The waste is processed into what amount to vitrified glass blocks [nap.edu] which have stable storage lifetimes in the thousands of years.
That doesn't solve all the problems. How do you transport the waste from the reactors to the processing and storage facilities?
He's referring to the "humanity is a cancer/virus" slogan, which appeared even in "The Matrix" and is now a common refrain in environmentalist circles. If you don't believe me read the terraforming Mars stories that periodically pop up on Slashdot. You'll always find several comments bitterly dencouning humanity's "rape" of another planet
Wat do you mean by "environmentalist circles"? Because this belief is only held by a minority fringe of environmentalists.
And how would you know if those random posters to slashdot are environmentalists? Why don't you just refer to them as "slashdot posters" - rather than trying to imply they are a part of mainstream environmentalism?
These people don't care about the evironment or sustaining a diverse biosphere, they simply hate the thought of human consumption
So, they're not actually environmentalists, then. So why are you calling them as such? I believe the correct term is "nutter."
I agree that religion is a very big problem - but most environmentalists are not religious. That cannot be said for the majority of politicians who oppose environmentalism, who are usually devoutly religious.
or they can leave things be and let the free market decide
In other words, we'd then be totally screwed, rather than half-screwed. What do you mean by "free market," anyway? I don't think there's ever been any such thing in history.
..libertarian socialism assumes that the masses will get sick of the corporate bullshit and take things into their own hands by developing alternative free industries or by unionising, or etc)
So, at what points do the unions start resembling government, anyway? A world run by unions would be little different than a government entirely run by industry lobby groups. This is similar to what we have now, except that you would not get any of the other benefits of government.
How is union rule any better than the governments we have now?
Anti-DRM leglisation is socialist and wrong. If citizens get too used to the government protecting them, they will have weak bullshit detectors
American consumers appear to have the weakest bullshit detectors on earth. After all, what country is more accepting of DRM and corporate media than America? The average US consumer doesn't give a shit about DRM or CSS, and probably doesn't know what region coding is. So, how has lack of government protection helped Americans to smell the bullshit and fight it?
the basic answer is: it hasn't. The people in those "socialist" countries appear to be a lot more aware of their freedoms, despite the government giving them many protections.
I would have thought it would be easier to have a weak BS detector in America, where we are bombarded with PR and spin until we are dizzy. Where salespeople dumb everything down, and people willingly give up their rights to corporations.
It was the stupid Hemos editorial add-on that inspired my post.
Well, then why don't you actually explain what is stupid about it? Your reply doesn't seem to have anything to do with what Hemos wrote. He never wroteanything about going back to some "agrarian past." He never mentioned hating mankind, hippies, or evil.
Basically, all he said is that it might be a good idea to change the way we approach the environment.
I do think his views are reflective of a distain that many in the environmental movement have for progress and mankind.
Can you actually tell me who these people with a disdain for humanity and progress specifically are? Hemos was advocating progress, not railing against it. And where was mankind mentioned as evil, or otherwise disparaged?
GM crops create MORE diverse plant that survive is more adverse, varied conditions.
What? Please explain, and tell me where you got this information. Many GM crops are only designed to be used in a specifically narrow range of conditions. It also leads to fewer species and varieties of plants being used.
Now, if people only plant one kind of plant, that is monoculture. Like they had in the potato famine. Of course, that was before GM crops.. You can't blame monocultures on GM crops.
No, GM did not create monocultures, but the way GM crops are being designed, actively promotes monocultures. In fact, some GM plants practically deamand monocultures! And not just any monocultures - monocultures designed to be grown and sprayed with a specific type of pesticide!
The GM advocates are saying basically we need more chemical-soaked monoculture crops - and they are using "feed the starving people" as their disingenuous justification. And this is precisely the wrong time for that - we should be moving to a more diverse and sustainable agriculture. The best thing for the starving masses in developing countries would be local permaculture crops - not imported GM crops.
In any case, GM itself is not "evil" - but it is currently being used for counterproductive things. And I haven't seen anyone explain exactly why we need to spend a fortune developing "new and improved" food, when the old-fashioned organic stuff works perfectly well and tastes great.
Exactly, but don't hate the science, hate the companies that are abusing it.
But who hates the science? I don't think I've ever come across anyone who hates science, except for the fundamentalist religious types who oppose things like teaching the theory of evolution. Amongst environmentalists, science is widely respected. Bad "junk science" and bogus industry-funded research is not.
GM crops have the potential, hell, they're *necessary* for a great number of third world countries to be able to grow enough food to feed their people
Why? Please explain this. Do you have a citation for it, or are you just making things up?
And these guys are trying to stop that for the sake of nonsensical political motivations.
What's nonsensical about farmers wanting to be able to re-use their seed each seaqson, rather than paying a company for it? What's nonsensical about not wanting to promote the overuse of pesticides? What's nonsensical about not wanting patent rights on plants? What's nonsensical about not wanting cross-contamination of crops?
Excuse me, but we've been genetically modifying our crops for millenia. We've just gotten more sophisticated about it.
No, humans have been interbreeding plant species for millenia. Although this results in genetic modifications, it is NOT the same thing as genetic engineering as we know it today. You might want to learn a few things about the field - because basically, you have just repeated a bunch of industry PR that is always trotted out to obscure the real issues.
I think this is part of the environmental religious focus. Man is inheritably evil and unnatural. We are as natural as any other animal.
So, which one are you claiming that most environmentalists believe - that we are inherently evil, or that we are just like other animals? Most environmentalists believe the latter. It's the religious (Christians, Muslims, etc) who believe in inherent evil - and the US government is mostly comprised of people who believe in inherent evil and are opposed to environmentalism.
There are too many of us to go back to some agrarian past.
Right - but who is suggesting that we go back to some agrarian past? Certainly not the vast majority of environmentalists. So, who exactly are you responding to by making this argument?
We will need to use technology to sustain the population levels expected while we minimize our footprint.
And this is exactly what most environmentalists are arguing! Modern environmentalism is inextricably intertwined with technology. In fact, you will hear some of the most interesting and innovative proposals for technology from environmentalists. In contrast, listen to how unimaginitave, low-tech and wasteful most of the ideas coming out of the energy industry are! Or even the computer industry!
The stinking hippie mankind-haters have no solutions other than a time machine to take us back to a past that never existed.
Who the heck are you talking to? I don't see anyone in the linked article suggesting we go back to the past, or hate mankind. I don't see modern environmentalists making these arguments, either. In fact, I don't even hear this argument from "stinking hippies." Not to mention that hippies, stinking or otherwise, are extremely rare people to come across. There aren't very many of them around.
So, I wonder why you mention this stereotype so prominently. Is it "stinking hippies" you know who have put forth these arguments? Or is it just a stereotype that you have been fed by the media and politicians?
Your complaint is really out of touch of what environmentalists are actually doing and saying today. It reads like the same kind of propaganda heard daily from industry mouthpieces.
You talk about "mankind hating" - but what is your stereotype if not hateful? How are are we to make any progress as a society, and work together towards common goals, if we keep on feeding ugly stereotypeslike this? Sooner or later we have to stop bitching about people who look different than ourselves, and get to work fixing our problems together!
I mean, seriously, why bother? 150,000 people are dying a year from environmental change. It's obvious drastic action needed to be taken YEARS ago. What the heck is the point?
Well, one reason is to consider our quality of life before we are wiped off the face of the planet (if that even happens). This kind of attitude is like saying "I'm going to die eventually anyway, so why bother keeping myself healthy and enjoying life?"
It is also unecessarily alarmist. Environmentalists are often accused of being hysterical - but most of them don't believe in this "apocalypse" scenario, like you do. Yes, we are upset about environmental degradation. Yes, people are suffering because of it. But only the most lunatic fringe believes in a sudden impending doom, or stocking up on shotguns for when the revolution comes, or the energy runs out. It's because environmentalists are interested in survival that they don't just give up in the face of overwhelming odds.
(OT: I always find it amazing how the political extremes on both right and left, adopt this "sudden extiction" rhetoric from opposite angles - religious and environmental)
Basically, we are perfectly capable of humans of adapting to changes in our lifestyles, and we are capable of slowing, and even reversing the damage we have done. We can survive and change if we want to. Sure, people don't like change, but I think most people would prefer survival to wallowing in our own filth, when they are faced with the inevitable.
Throughout history, there have been people who have predicted total doom, and those who predicted total utopia. I don't believe any of them have ever been correct. Meanwhile, most of us live in a difficult, complicated world that has many shades of gray - and do our best to cope with what we have. The visions of some future paradise or hell, are used to manipulate the dreams and fears of people, to draw them away from the difficult contradictions of reality.
It has long been very frustrating to see environmentalist romantics fly in the face of reason in railing against genetically-modified plants as a possible solution to population pressures, or arguing against nuclear power as a clean energy source.
How does this fly in the face of reason? Nobody has yet demonstrated how genetically-modified crops will reduce population pressures. No-one has found a way to make nuclear energy 'clean' yet. You still have to do something about mining the uranium, and disposing of the waste.
Those who are claiming that biotechnology and nuclear power are some sort of magical solution to these problems are generally just marketing their industry's product. Real scientists, and others using reason and logic, realize that the issues aren't as simple as the "solutions" the marketers are pushing.
For once, I would like to see the advocates of these solutions, explain their reasoning. For some reason, details or explanations are rarely forthcoming, and important problems are ignored. Instead, we see a lot of bashing and stereotyping of environmentalists, combined with exagerration of the effectiveness of the industry-proposed solutions.
Why is there so little science and fact used by those who claim that these are the obvious solutions?
2. Google is going to finally allow AdWords advertisers to decide what content network sites their ads are published on. (R1) Now we can decide NOT to place our ads on shady sites and fall victim to click fraud.
While that's great for preventing click-fraud, doesn't it also remove some major advantages of Adwords?
For example, one of the best thing about Adwords is the way that ads are matched up with different sites and content. If advertisers routinely restrict distribution - then that diminishes effectiveness - and is much like the old model of advertisers taking out ads on specific sites. So what's the point of Google being involved?
Additionally, the fact that Adwords is often used to support smaller sites, is also one of the reasons it is so popular. If we have to put up with advertising - then we want that advertising to benefit the small, struggling sites that we like.
It all just sounds like going back several years in internet advertising history, to an environment where certain sites, users and advertisers get all the rewards, but most don't - while having to tolerate increasingly graphical and intrusive advertising..
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but you'd have to load them into the cargo bay perpendicularly to get the highest bandwidth.
Worse than Hitler?
That's why I said not to take it personally. Hopefully, you can take this on-board as someone who is learning English (we are all still learning). Then, you can probably teach native English speakers a thing or two. Because most native speakers also make this mistake.
Don't take it personally neither, but, superfluous syllables aside, I do think my english is on average probably a lot better then most english speaking dudes are able to speak and write my native language. ;-)
Indeed. Knowing multiple languages is a great thing.
I'm sorry to be a spelling/grammar Nazi, because you make some good points. However, I believe the word you are looking for is "technically," not "technological" or even "technologically."
This error really annoys me, because I would have thought that one who is interested in technology, would also be respectful of the use of this word and its derivatives. Don't take it personally. I'm just amazed at the way superfluous syllables are added to words in an effort to sound more "jargonistic."
Oh yeah, I'll just whip up an equivalent to Photoshop on my own! Oh wait, the GIMP team have been trying for years and still haven't even come close. So I guess that means I'll have to stop making a living from digital images, while I spend the rest of my life learning to program advanced digital imaging software. Even though no single person would even be capable of writing Photoshop. OK, let me get right on that.
But that's also his biggest weakness - he's too stubbornly attached to his position. It's as if his ideals/thinking just got frozen in time years ago. His rhetoric has not really evolved, making him seem detached from the world, and as if he is not capable of listening or respecting other's viewpoints. Rigid consistency is not always (hardly ever?) a good thing.
I quite like RMS in many ways, but this stubborness to me shows that he has not matured. I would hope that most of us, by the time we had reached RMS's age, would be more flexible in our approaches, and more respectful of others.
This doesn't really have much bearing on his ideas, and whether they are right or wrong, and it's somewhat condescending, but I think RMS needs to grow up. As in, re-evaluate his interface with society and other people. And re-examine the real state of the world we live in today. I think he could be much more productive, and effective as a Free Software advocate if he lightens up, maybe takes a holiday, and does something new and different for a while. His ideas are good, but like I said, haven't evolved. If he gives himself time to experience different things, he might come up with some amazing new ideas! As it is, it seems he just continues to do the same things he's always been doing.
I'm not sure why you are even bothering to talk about "hippies," as they are such a small percentage of the population, and not many people are advocating a "hippie lifestyle."
This is a discussion of environmentalism. Hippies have often proclaimed environmental goodwill. However, it has always been as much about fashion and lifestyle as anything else.
In fact, you might be surprised to find that many of the people you perceive as "hippies" would be horrified to be called as such. Hippies aren't even popular in the environmental movement any longer.
A lot of your perception might be due to the fashionable wearing of dreadlocks, and other granola-style fashion accessories. Many of those people are just middle-class kids who wanted to change their image to seem less like spoiled middle-class kids. Don't confuse image with ideology.
Others who look something like hippies are not middle-class kids - but many of them would also call themselves "anarchists" or punks or whatever, and would also be offended to be called a hippy.
Anyway, all these arbitrary social groupings are kinda stupid. It would be nice to get on with dealing with the issues facing us - rather than this constant game of labeling each other and focusing on superficial differences. No-one is perfect, but we can all do better.
What? Your statement reads as "Monocultures are bad. this is why we rotate our monocultures every season."
I think you need to learn what 'monoculture' actually means. You are merely describing crop rotation - of monoculture crops. That's still monoculture! To avoid a mopnoculture, you would need to grow several complimentary crops together, simultaneously - not individual crops serially.
Do you have any evidence that it does this? Sustainable farming techniques like permaculture actually achieve far better yields than GM monocultures. Sustainable farming also doesn't damage the land with chemicals as much, and doesn't advocate clearing the land. If we can do better without GM crops, then why use them?
Increasing local crop yield in developing countries that can't count on foreign crops to get to them.
Why would a developing country choose to be locked-in to the GM vendors, for a very small increase in productivity - when they can adopt permaculture for free, and increase their productivity more than using GM would?
All of these things can be done with non-GM crops. So, why the need to give companies patents on future plants, and why the need to deal with the problems of GM food?
Furthermore, these are just claims for GM foods. For example, contrary to your first point, GM crops are associated with an increase in chemicals used in farming - not a decrease.
I'd like to see some evidence of the success of GM in meeting these claims. the technology seems to be used almost exclusively for profit - not to serve human needs.
Anyway, the "old school" plants can do everything we need, without wasting a bunch of money on research, licensing, and without spending years in court, or cross-contaminating other crops, or without getting "super weeds."
So, why the pressing need to invest so heavily in this technology, when it provides only very marginal benefits, if any, and comes with many risks?
And if you want tomatoes that taste like tomatoes - buy organic, or just grow your own. I just don't understand why the heck GM is needed to get a good-tasting fruit or vegetable. I'm surrounded by delicious vegetables that were grown organically. None of the GM foods or standard aqgricultural produce comes anywhere close in terms of quality.
No. the environmentally friendly way to control weeds is through sustainability. Constantly fighting weeds by letting them grow, and then poisoning them, is not environmentally friendly, nor is it economical. It basically doesn't make much sense at all.
Use intelligent planting and weed-control schemes, allow the crops to build up their natural defenses, and protect diversity. Then there is no need whatsoever to pay good money for poisonous chemicals. Plus you get healthier crops! Roundup is like crack - "the first hit's free!" says the drug dealer.
That doesn't solve all the problems. How do you transport the waste from the reactors to the processing and storage facilities?
Wat do you mean by "environmentalist circles"? Because this belief is only held by a minority fringe of environmentalists.
And how would you know if those random posters to slashdot are environmentalists? Why don't you just refer to them as "slashdot posters" - rather than trying to imply they are a part of mainstream environmentalism?
These people don't care about the evironment or sustaining a diverse biosphere, they simply hate the thought of human consumption
So, they're not actually environmentalists, then. So why are you calling them as such? I believe the correct term is "nutter."
I agree that religion is a very big problem - but most environmentalists are not religious. That cannot be said for the majority of politicians who oppose environmentalism, who are usually devoutly religious.
In other words, we'd then be totally screwed, rather than half-screwed. What do you mean by "free market," anyway? I don't think there's ever been any such thing in history.
So, at what points do the unions start resembling government, anyway? A world run by unions would be little different than a government entirely run by industry lobby groups. This is similar to what we have now, except that you would not get any of the other benefits of government.
How is union rule any better than the governments we have now?
Maybe this is not about what is easy or cheap? Maybe the people supporting this feel that freedom is more important?
American consumers appear to have the weakest bullshit detectors on earth. After all, what country is more accepting of DRM and corporate media than America? The average US consumer doesn't give a shit about DRM or CSS, and probably doesn't know what region coding is. So, how has lack of government protection helped Americans to smell the bullshit and fight it?
the basic answer is: it hasn't. The people in those "socialist" countries appear to be a lot more aware of their freedoms, despite the government giving them many protections.
I would have thought it would be easier to have a weak BS detector in America, where we are bombarded with PR and spin until we are dizzy. Where salespeople dumb everything down, and people willingly give up their rights to corporations.
Ummm, this is France - they have hot lesbian scenes in darned toothpaste commercials.
Well, then why don't you actually explain what is stupid about it? Your reply doesn't seem to have anything to do with what Hemos wrote. He never wroteanything about going back to some "agrarian past." He never mentioned hating mankind, hippies, or evil.
Basically, all he said is that it might be a good idea to change the way we approach the environment.
I do think his views are reflective of a distain that many in the environmental movement have for progress and mankind.
Can you actually tell me who these people with a disdain for humanity and progress specifically are? Hemos was advocating progress, not railing against it. And where was mankind mentioned as evil, or otherwise disparaged?
What? Please explain, and tell me where you got this information. Many GM crops are only designed to be used in a specifically narrow range of conditions. It also leads to fewer species and varieties of plants being used.
Now, if people only plant one kind of plant, that is monoculture. Like they had in the potato famine. Of course, that was before GM crops.. You can't blame monocultures on GM crops.
No, GM did not create monocultures, but the way GM crops are being designed, actively promotes monocultures. In fact, some GM plants practically deamand monocultures! And not just any monocultures - monocultures designed to be grown and sprayed with a specific type of pesticide!
The GM advocates are saying basically we need more chemical-soaked monoculture crops - and they are using "feed the starving people" as their disingenuous justification. And this is precisely the wrong time for that - we should be moving to a more diverse and sustainable agriculture. The best thing for the starving masses in developing countries would be local permaculture crops - not imported GM crops.
In any case, GM itself is not "evil" - but it is currently being used for counterproductive things. And I haven't seen anyone explain exactly why we need to spend a fortune developing "new and improved" food, when the old-fashioned organic stuff works perfectly well and tastes great.
But who hates the science? I don't think I've ever come across anyone who hates science, except for the fundamentalist religious types who oppose things like teaching the theory of evolution. Amongst environmentalists, science is widely respected. Bad "junk science" and bogus industry-funded research is not.
Why? Please explain this. Do you have a citation for it, or are you just making things up?
And these guys are trying to stop that for the sake of nonsensical political motivations.
What's nonsensical about farmers wanting to be able to re-use their seed each seaqson, rather than paying a company for it? What's nonsensical about not wanting to promote the overuse of pesticides? What's nonsensical about not wanting patent rights on plants? What's nonsensical about not wanting cross-contamination of crops?
Excuse me, but we've been genetically modifying our crops for millenia. We've just gotten more sophisticated about it.
No, humans have been interbreeding plant species for millenia. Although this results in genetic modifications, it is NOT the same thing as genetic engineering as we know it today. You might want to learn a few things about the field - because basically, you have just repeated a bunch of industry PR that is always trotted out to obscure the real issues.
So, which one are you claiming that most environmentalists believe - that we are inherently evil, or that we are just like other animals? Most environmentalists believe the latter. It's the religious (Christians, Muslims, etc) who believe in inherent evil - and the US government is mostly comprised of people who believe in inherent evil and are opposed to environmentalism.
There are too many of us to go back to some agrarian past.
Right - but who is suggesting that we go back to some agrarian past? Certainly not the vast majority of environmentalists. So, who exactly are you responding to by making this argument?
We will need to use technology to sustain the population levels expected while we minimize our footprint.
And this is exactly what most environmentalists are arguing! Modern environmentalism is inextricably intertwined with technology. In fact, you will hear some of the most interesting and innovative proposals for technology from environmentalists. In contrast, listen to how unimaginitave, low-tech and wasteful most of the ideas coming out of the energy industry are! Or even the computer industry!
The stinking hippie mankind-haters have no solutions other than a time machine to take us back to a past that never existed.
Who the heck are you talking to? I don't see anyone in the linked article suggesting we go back to the past, or hate mankind. I don't see modern environmentalists making these arguments, either. In fact, I don't even hear this argument from "stinking hippies." Not to mention that hippies, stinking or otherwise, are extremely rare people to come across. There aren't very many of them around.
So, I wonder why you mention this stereotype so prominently. Is it "stinking hippies" you know who have put forth these arguments? Or is it just a stereotype that you have been fed by the media and politicians?
Your complaint is really out of touch of what environmentalists are actually doing and saying today. It reads like the same kind of propaganda heard daily from industry mouthpieces.
You talk about "mankind hating" - but what is your stereotype if not hateful? How are are we to make any progress as a society, and work together towards common goals, if we keep on feeding ugly stereotypeslike this? Sooner or later we have to stop bitching about people who look different than ourselves, and get to work fixing our problems together!
Well, one reason is to consider our quality of life before we are wiped off the face of the planet (if that even happens). This kind of attitude is like saying "I'm going to die eventually anyway, so why bother keeping myself healthy and enjoying life?"
It is also unecessarily alarmist. Environmentalists are often accused of being hysterical - but most of them don't believe in this "apocalypse" scenario, like you do. Yes, we are upset about environmental degradation. Yes, people are suffering because of it. But only the most lunatic fringe believes in a sudden impending doom, or stocking up on shotguns for when the revolution comes, or the energy runs out. It's because environmentalists are interested in survival that they don't just give up in the face of overwhelming odds.
(OT: I always find it amazing how the political extremes on both right and left, adopt this "sudden extiction" rhetoric from opposite angles - religious and environmental)
Basically, we are perfectly capable of humans of adapting to changes in our lifestyles, and we are capable of slowing, and even reversing the damage we have done. We can survive and change if we want to. Sure, people don't like change, but I think most people would prefer survival to wallowing in our own filth, when they are faced with the inevitable.
Throughout history, there have been people who have predicted total doom, and those who predicted total utopia. I don't believe any of them have ever been correct. Meanwhile, most of us live in a difficult, complicated world that has many shades of gray - and do our best to cope with what we have. The visions of some future paradise or hell, are used to manipulate the dreams and fears of people, to draw them away from the difficult contradictions of reality.
How does this fly in the face of reason? Nobody has yet demonstrated how genetically-modified crops will reduce population pressures. No-one has found a way to make nuclear energy 'clean' yet. You still have to do something about mining the uranium, and disposing of the waste.
Those who are claiming that biotechnology and nuclear power are some sort of magical solution to these problems are generally just marketing their industry's product. Real scientists, and others using reason and logic, realize that the issues aren't as simple as the "solutions" the marketers are pushing.
For once, I would like to see the advocates of these solutions, explain their reasoning. For some reason, details or explanations are rarely forthcoming, and important problems are ignored. Instead, we see a lot of bashing and stereotyping of environmentalists, combined with exagerration of the effectiveness of the industry-proposed solutions.
Why is there so little science and fact used by those who claim that these are the obvious solutions?
While that's great for preventing click-fraud, doesn't it also remove some major advantages of Adwords?
For example, one of the best thing about Adwords is the way that ads are matched up with different sites and content. If advertisers routinely restrict distribution - then that diminishes effectiveness - and is much like the old model of advertisers taking out ads on specific sites. So what's the point of Google being involved?
Additionally, the fact that Adwords is often used to support smaller sites, is also one of the reasons it is so popular. If we have to put up with advertising - then we want that advertising to benefit the small, struggling sites that we like.
It all just sounds like going back several years in internet advertising history, to an environment where certain sites, users and advertisers get all the rewards, but most don't - while having to tolerate increasingly graphical and intrusive advertising..