im sorry but there is no way to support even half the people in the world using Old fashioned conventional methods. it produces too little yield and to vunerable to pests and disease. theres a reason why famine was wide spread back in the day because there was no way to stop it, once some locusts or rust mold came by you family and friends died.
use technology for good, there are great ferts that arent based on oil, lets convert.
@constantlychangin gasoline is the viable fuel for transport right now, use technology to promote green technology for vehicles, lets go green as we can, science is our greatest weapon against poverty. going "old fashioned" will kill the majority of us. you can choose to eat organic food which is great but alot of people dont get a choice.
By the way almost everyone in the 3rd world knows how to farm, but there still hungry. any type of cultivation of plants is unnatural btw. if we didnt do
@constantlychangin what was necessary to survive when we took plants out of there natural habitat and cultivated them for our consumption we would still be in caves. most people that oppose green rev. technology haven't ever produced a measurable amount of food. you can choose to live your life however you want but substantially shortening the food supply because you've been jaded by a couple of tech mishaps will only send us backward, we need to move forward checking ourselves along the way.
the earth isn't in crisis; people are in crisis. focus all our(people's) troubles onto the earth. an abstract idea is better than a real idea of how PEOPLE could get get along. we can't expect people(individuals) to get along and get together, we have to pass laws based on ideas and opinions rather than facts.
The difference is that the first Green Revolution was public sector driven. ..olled
The second 'Green Revolution' is driven by Monsanto; ...
The second big difference is that the first Green Revolution did have a hidden objective of selling more chemicals, but it's first objective was providing food, it was food security. ...The second G.R. has nothing to do with food security.
It's not about food security, it is about returns to Monsanto's profits, that's all it is about.
Yes maybe we should have stopped the Green Revolution and let 2 billion people starve to death, that's the Enviromoron's wet dream. Lets stop the next green revolution too and let 5 billion people starve to death, it helps the PLANET!!! Only the increased living standards enabled by the GR lead to increased education, urbanization and thus a decrease in fertility rates and pop growth, while still reducing child mortality. Go to hell Enviromurderers.
@linghun No one is advocating murder. They are only suggesting that if we keep increasing our food supply, the world will no longer be able to hold our population. A balanced food supply keeps our population in balance ~shrugs~ Sounds none murderish to me.
Besides - if you do research, you can tell that our G.R. agriculture wastes nearly 50% of it's food. None of it go to starving people. And for how long the GR has been around, it has done NOTHING to slow population growth.
"There are enormous efficiency gains to be had in the energy sector "
Ignoring for a second that energy is not the whole problem:
"Efficiency" will not replace fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are millions of years of photosynthetic energy compacted and changed over millions more years by extremely powerful processes within the earth.
When you understand how fossil fuel is made, what it actually is, what time it originated, what it represents, etc, you will understand why it's such a huge deal.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
No one has to hunger. It is just the elite oppressing the masses, the waste, the carnivorism, the over-the-top calorie intake, the ignorance towards algae, aqua cultures, funghi, bacteria, etc.
Only scientists and grassroots can save us from the banksters, the superrich, the politicians, the military, the secret mob, organized religion, the mafia, the drug lords, the war lords, the MIC, etc. Their fuck-ups vs. our solutions.
@DemonosZXZ I would say that culture in itself, especially the empire culture that runs more or less to all corners of the world today, is the disease! This planet with all its earthlings would be better off in a heartbeat if this culture would be destroyed.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
There are enormous efficiency gains to be had in the energy sector - that might get us through the rough times ahead. I think, just for sanity's sake, yes we're overcrowded, but best to work on solutions as much as we can. Solar desalination systems and solar pumping in dry regions like Somalia and Ethiopia could help (even using ocean water), and then people have fewer children when they have health and food security. Technology may save the day, so we live to see another.
@JurkoffJay@JurkoffJay Blaming technology is irresponsible. We cant abandon all technology, because there are always people who have an idea how to use it in a good, benefiting way. We have our technology because of our immense gift of creativity. What got us in this mess in the first place was not the technology or industrial technology. not money, not organized religion or any particular thing. It was, and still is, because of our irresponsible usage of these things.
@JurkoffJay the "we" refers to people like you and me, living in modern civilization. Please explain, how come the technology itself contain irresponsible qualities? To me it sounds rather weird. The responsibility, which is highly needed today, doesn't come from anything outside ourselves. I am saying that even atom bomb itself is just an object with certain qualities, but it is us (the people) who give it purpose and decide to use for this purpose.
No no. I don't fit the decription of the "we" in your previous comment. Moreover, I choose to abort this colloquy due to the fact that you're a crude thinker. No hard feelings I hope.
@JurkoffJay Okay. No hard feelings, or what so ever, but I get the feeling that you want to flee just because you don't want to face any differing perspectives due to the fact that they cause conflicts in you (I wasn't saying that you were wrong or anything like that). That's fine though, you can always do that. And now that you said I should read something, I can recommend you to check out Terence Mckenna's and Robert Anton Wilson's visionary ideas. Thanks.
@JurkoffJay Same thing with anything that can use as a tool. Industrial technology, in it's principle, is just a big system of tools for civilization to work in a certain way, which now is turning out to be unsustainable. This was just provocative example, I am not saying that we need any atom bombs at all.
@thoimis yes indeed. but we have come to live through our gadgetry... and nobody can be tech free without major consequences. the problem is that all our tech. relies on expoitation of fossil fuels and that is a dead end.
perhaps, technology will evolve in some other way? a teacher once said to me: if you want to follow the history of humanity, follow the building of Walls. what gets inside and what is left outside the walls. until we arrive here, with completely controlled environments.
How do you propose we use fossil fuels responsibly? How about nuclear weapons? Genetic engineering? What clear plan do you have to ensure that these technologies are used responsibly?
@JurkoffJay Could you please be more specific? Technology is everywhere, and it is deeply ingrained into the human way of life. Technology is inseparable and almost indistinguishable from our civilization and our culture. You could say the plow initially got us into this mess. Fast-forward 10,000 and everyone's lives rely on this complicated system of technologies. Calling for an end to new technology is both absurd and impossible.
A plow is a localized technology that takes one or two people to make. A car requires thousands of people to make, an advanced division of labor and all the ecological and social problems that entails.
Interesting! Natural strains of corn, even sweet corn, are much, much higher in B vitamins than their hybridized counterparts - what we gain in productivity, we often loose in nutrition, flavor, and overall healthfulness. But here we all are today - somehow, we've got to make it work sustainably , and gradually lower population - education, women's rights, and better food & healthy economics have proven the better route.
75% of human nutrition today is from just 3 grains!
the people that originally ate corn wheat and rice (before those cultures were destroyed and before those crops were stolen) ate genetically diverse corn wheat and rice.
the modern staples are deformed modified and unsustainable. eat blue, red, black, white corn and not just yellow!
incidentally, the indigenous peeps up in the andes survived the conquistadores by running to the hills growing a lot of different plants to ensure harvest.
the evolutionary equation is pretty clear:
diversity means life. monoculture means death.
apply this maxim wherever you find people thinking they can flout nature's laws if you like to call it that, or the tao if you like to call it that.
im sorry but there is no way to support even half the people in the world using Old fashioned conventional methods. it produces too little yield and to vunerable to pests and disease. theres a reason why famine was wide spread back in the day because there was no way to stop it, once some locusts or rust mold came by you family and friends died.
use technology for good, there are great ferts that arent based on oil, lets convert.
constantlychangin 6 days ago
@constantlychangin gasoline is the viable fuel for transport right now, use technology to promote green technology for vehicles, lets go green as we can, science is our greatest weapon against poverty. going "old fashioned" will kill the majority of us. you can choose to eat organic food which is great but alot of people dont get a choice.
By the way almost everyone in the 3rd world knows how to farm, but there still hungry. any type of cultivation of plants is unnatural btw. if we didnt do
constantlychangin 6 days ago
@constantlychangin what was necessary to survive when we took plants out of there natural habitat and cultivated them for our consumption we would still be in caves. most people that oppose green rev. technology haven't ever produced a measurable amount of food. you can choose to live your life however you want but substantially shortening the food supply because you've been jaded by a couple of tech mishaps will only send us backward, we need to move forward checking ourselves along the way.
constantlychangin 6 days ago
the "green" revolution is EVIL! it promises good things for the EARTH, but also promises huge sacrifices by the human population! it's a CULT!
smellyfooty 2 months ago
the earth isn't in crisis; people are in crisis. focus all our(people's) troubles onto the earth. an abstract idea is better than a real idea of how PEOPLE could get get along. we can't expect people(individuals) to get along and get together, we have to pass laws based on ideas and opinions rather than facts.
smellyfooty 2 months ago
Soooooooo.... what exactly was this dudes plan after fossil fuels are gone? Just stating there is going to be problem doesn't solve anything.
KracknCorn 11 months ago
The difference is that the first Green Revolution was public sector driven. ..olled
The second 'Green Revolution' is driven by Monsanto; ...
The second big difference is that the first Green Revolution did have a hidden objective of selling more chemicals, but it's first objective was providing food, it was food security. ...The second G.R. has nothing to do with food security.
It's not about food security, it is about returns to Monsanto's profits, that's all it is about.
-- Vandana Shiva
wda013 1 year ago
Yes maybe we should have stopped the Green Revolution and let 2 billion people starve to death, that's the Enviromoron's wet dream. Lets stop the next green revolution too and let 5 billion people starve to death, it helps the PLANET!!! Only the increased living standards enabled by the GR lead to increased education, urbanization and thus a decrease in fertility rates and pop growth, while still reducing child mortality. Go to hell Enviromurderers.
linghun 1 year ago
@linghun No one is advocating murder. They are only suggesting that if we keep increasing our food supply, the world will no longer be able to hold our population. A balanced food supply keeps our population in balance ~shrugs~ Sounds none murderish to me.
Besides - if you do research, you can tell that our G.R. agriculture wastes nearly 50% of it's food. None of it go to starving people. And for how long the GR has been around, it has done NOTHING to slow population growth.
crashedsky 10 months ago
CULTURE IS NOT YOUR FRIEND
bluefly28 1 year ago
Will agriculture always lead to overpopulation? I'm worried that any type of agriculture will put humans back into civilization.
gtrplyr5204 1 year ago
Petrochemical agriculture is insane.
gearlockT 1 year ago
Live simply and start permaculture farming.
gearlockT 1 year ago
he is correct, we are all psychotic
stett99 1 year ago
free masons, the esoteric nature is a huge component to this. human beings dont destroy their natural environment. what else is at work here ?
stett99 2 years ago
"There are enormous efficiency gains to be had in the energy sector "
Ignoring for a second that energy is not the whole problem:
"Efficiency" will not replace fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are millions of years of photosynthetic energy compacted and changed over millions more years by extremely powerful processes within the earth.
When you understand how fossil fuel is made, what it actually is, what time it originated, what it represents, etc, you will understand why it's such a huge deal.
withindarkness 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No one has to hunger. It is just the elite oppressing the masses, the waste, the carnivorism, the over-the-top calorie intake, the ignorance towards algae, aqua cultures, funghi, bacteria, etc.
Only scientists and grassroots can save us from the banksters, the superrich, the politicians, the military, the secret mob, organized religion, the mafia, the drug lords, the war lords, the MIC, etc. Their fuck-ups vs. our solutions.
And sometimes they dig their own graves.
Look at what you're looking.
trakkaton 3 years ago
destruction of culture is the worlds most deadly disease.
DemonosZXZ 3 years ago 4
@DemonosZXZ I would say that culture in itself, especially the empire culture that runs more or less to all corners of the world today, is the disease! This planet with all its earthlings would be better off in a heartbeat if this culture would be destroyed.
kingxciter 9 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
There are enormous efficiency gains to be had in the energy sector - that might get us through the rough times ahead. I think, just for sanity's sake, yes we're overcrowded, but best to work on solutions as much as we can. Solar desalination systems and solar pumping in dry regions like Somalia and Ethiopia could help (even using ocean water), and then people have fewer children when they have health and food security. Technology may save the day, so we live to see another.
chuckkottke 3 years ago
Technology got us in this mess in the first place. Please, no more technology.
JurkoffJay 3 years ago 6
your answer is with wisdom.
qualqui 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Yeah, and let's get rid of that "fire" stuff too. Outlaw it. I mean, look what it does to houses! Stop the madness!
solvecoagule 3 years ago
I meant industrial technology.
JurkoffJay 3 years ago 2
@JurkoffJay @JurkoffJay Blaming technology is irresponsible. We cant abandon all technology, because there are always people who have an idea how to use it in a good, benefiting way. We have our technology because of our immense gift of creativity. What got us in this mess in the first place was not the technology or industrial technology. not money, not organized religion or any particular thing. It was, and still is, because of our irresponsible usage of these things.
wugm 1 year ago
@wugm
The "irresponsibility" comes with industrial technology itself. And who the fuck is the "we" you keep refering to anyways?
JurkoffJay 1 year ago
@JurkoffJay the "we" refers to people like you and me, living in modern civilization. Please explain, how come the technology itself contain irresponsible qualities? To me it sounds rather weird. The responsibility, which is highly needed today, doesn't come from anything outside ourselves. I am saying that even atom bomb itself is just an object with certain qualities, but it is us (the people) who give it purpose and decide to use for this purpose.
wugm 1 year ago
@wugm
No no. I don't fit the decription of the "we" in your previous comment. Moreover, I choose to abort this colloquy due to the fact that you're a crude thinker. No hard feelings I hope.
Read Derrick Jensen's "Endgame" vol.1
JurkoffJay 1 year ago
@JurkoffJay Okay. No hard feelings, or what so ever, but I get the feeling that you want to flee just because you don't want to face any differing perspectives due to the fact that they cause conflicts in you (I wasn't saying that you were wrong or anything like that). That's fine though, you can always do that. And now that you said I should read something, I can recommend you to check out Terence Mckenna's and Robert Anton Wilson's visionary ideas. Thanks.
wugm 1 year ago
@wugm
Another Robert Wilson follower. What a surprise. >8^(
JurkoffJay 1 year ago
@JurkoffJay That's right, my darling! But hey, what am I exactly following? Beautiful and functioning ideas, not Wilson, not Derrick nor McKenna.
wugm 1 year ago
@JurkoffJay Same thing with anything that can use as a tool. Industrial technology, in it's principle, is just a big system of tools for civilization to work in a certain way, which now is turning out to be unsustainable. This was just provocative example, I am not saying that we need any atom bombs at all.
wugm 1 year ago
@JurkoffJay And thanks to Youtube, electricity, electronics, you can express your flawless, non-contradictory logic!
linghun 1 year ago
@JurkoffJay
please tell me that you realize the irony in writing "no more technology" on your computer.
technology doesn't get us into messes. the way people use technology does.
thoimis 7 months ago
@thoimis yes indeed. but we have come to live through our gadgetry... and nobody can be tech free without major consequences. the problem is that all our tech. relies on expoitation of fossil fuels and that is a dead end.
perhaps, technology will evolve in some other way? a teacher once said to me: if you want to follow the history of humanity, follow the building of Walls. what gets inside and what is left outside the walls. until we arrive here, with completely controlled environments.
antoniozart 6 months ago
@thoimis
How do you propose we use fossil fuels responsibly? How about nuclear weapons? Genetic engineering? What clear plan do you have to ensure that these technologies are used responsibly?
duckdown1993 2 months ago
@JurkoffJay Could you please be more specific? Technology is everywhere, and it is deeply ingrained into the human way of life. Technology is inseparable and almost indistinguishable from our civilization and our culture. You could say the plow initially got us into this mess. Fast-forward 10,000 and everyone's lives rely on this complicated system of technologies. Calling for an end to new technology is both absurd and impossible.
42concon 2 months ago
@42concon
A plow is a localized technology that takes one or two people to make. A car requires thousands of people to make, an advanced division of labor and all the ecological and social problems that entails.
duckdown1993 2 months ago
@JurkoffJay Or perhaps we should instead try to use technology to help get us out of it.
HorenziAndTheAlps 2 months ago
Food security = LESS people??? WHAT???¡¡!!!
sacredthornapple 3 years ago
Interesting! Natural strains of corn, even sweet corn, are much, much higher in B vitamins than their hybridized counterparts - what we gain in productivity, we often loose in nutrition, flavor, and overall healthfulness. But here we all are today - somehow, we've got to make it work sustainably , and gradually lower population - education, women's rights, and better food & healthy economics have proven the better route.
chuckkottke 3 years ago 3
great post.
a 5 star fav.
dnHooligan 3 years ago 2
75% of human nutrition today is from just 3 grains!
the people that originally ate corn wheat and rice (before those cultures were destroyed and before those crops were stolen) ate genetically diverse corn wheat and rice.
the modern staples are deformed modified and unsustainable. eat blue, red, black, white corn and not just yellow!
mikezephyr 3 years ago
incidentally, the indigenous peeps up in the andes survived the conquistadores by running to the hills growing a lot of different plants to ensure harvest.
the evolutionary equation is pretty clear:
diversity means life. monoculture means death.
apply this maxim wherever you find people thinking they can flout nature's laws if you like to call it that, or the tao if you like to call it that.
mikezephyr 3 years ago 3