@tarasthelordofprawns Its not whether negative consequences "might happen", NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES HAVE ALREADY HAPPENED!!! Thousands of cases of GM contamination have already happened resulting in millions in economic losses. A survey showed 11% of organic farms tested had GM contamination. Herbicide resistant weeds caused by GM crops already exist and are so out of control that Monsanto has to gives rebates to farmers NOT to use roundup.
@myndy86 As I heard the GM corn can't reproduce to not let farmers grow their own to keep them buying more, so how come they blame the GM crops for herbicide resistance in their crops? Gaining resistance is a evolutionary process, just like bacteria are getting resistant to antibiotic.
@TheMalar GE corn can reproduce and contamination of Non-GE corn is constantly occurring. Terminator technology(stops plants from reproducing) is not currently being use. Farmers are forced to buy new seeds because in order to grow GE crops they must sign a contract that they will not save seeds. Herbicide resistant crops have caused herbicide resistant weeds. Previous to GE crops farmers rotated herbicides to stop resistance, GE crops do not allow for rotation increasing weed resistance.
@TheMalar Not specifically corn, but GE canola "stable incorporation of genes from one differentiated gene pool into another, of an herbicide resistance transgene from Brassica napus into the gene pool of its weedy relative, Brassica rapa, monitored under natural commercial field conditions." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17971090
@myndy86 OK, that I give you. But still I would say that the benefits greatly surpass the resistant weed problem. It sure beats using tons of more herbicides, pesticides and synthetic fertilisers.
@TheMalar Technically GE crops use more pesticides, etc., especially in comparison to organic. 100% of Bt crops are supposed to express cry proteins, in fact Bt crops themselves are classified as pesticides. So, if a conventional farmer doesn't have a pest problem they may not use pesticides but even if there was no pest problem Bt crops are always producing a pesticide. 52% of organic farmers use no pesticides whatsoever, they use virtually no herbicides and no synthetic fertilizers either.
@myndy86 But natural pesticides from bacteria, not synthetic ones. That saves our health, our environment and resources needed to produce chemicals. That saves us a lot of money.
@TheMalar Bt in GE crops are not the same as Bt spray. Bt in GE crops induce metabolic variations involving the primary nitrogen pathway, can make the crops expressing cry proteins phenotypically abnormal affecting growth and reproduction of the crops, high levels of nitrogen can significantly increase the level of cry proteins in the crops, increased potential for HGT, etc. compared to Bt spray, which is used less often than the 100% supposed expression in Bt crops and is more degradeable.
@TheMalar However, for corn, etc. the problem is, previous to GE crops farmers may first use use glyphosate, and then use glufosinate to kill the remaining weeds that were resistant to glyphosate. GE crops are only resistant to a specific herbicide, let' s say glyphosate, so farmers would just use glyphosate and not risk harming their GE crop by using glufosinate. So, the glyphosate resistant weeds were allowed to survive, replicate and contaminate, causing a herbicide resistant weed problem.
@tarasthelordofprawns The UN/World Bank Report International Assessment of Agricultural Science Technology Development by 400 scientists concluded that biotechnology has very little potential to alleviate hunger or poverty.
You really think "a few years of testing" is enough to blindly alter genes and spread it into the ecosystem ? You, my friend, are not a scientist. Or you'd realize that science is not perfect, tests are not perfect.
We're altering life forms we depend on in a way that can not be reverted.
Someday there will be a mistake, and there will be repercussions.
World-wide repercussions. It's statistically bound to happen.
And I'm saying this as a science student, not a new-age nutjob.
At what point exactly did the scientists claim that science is perfect? Granted, it isn't 100% accurate, and maybe (though the likeliness of this happening only decreasing as we gain better understanding of the science behind GM) there will be unexpected consequences. Whilsts negative outcomes might occur, refusing to utilize the technology that we possess in order to improve human life and feed the world is a silly idea to say the least, don't you think?
He did his research with ROCKEFELLER. Rockefeller= illuminati. He genetically modified food to make it "more pest resistant" a.k.a. poisoned so even the insects wouldn't eat it, Open your eyes to the atrocities of big business.
@1Dblade333 you are retarded, they mentioned very specifically in the video that all GE foods are extensively tested so they are safe for consumption. do you know any one who has been killed from eating GE foods? cuz i know hundreds of millions of people have died from crops failing after locust swarms...
I love Penn but seriously, what the hell does he know about GMO's? He didn't discuss any of the scientific studies that show how fucking terrible GMO's are. They cause genetic mutations in nearly every animal study and if you don't believe it look into the research. When you insert ANY genes into a cell you cannot tell where they're going to land hence the high likelihood of mutation. Look into more, this vid basically says, "Don't give a shit food is food" well thats just fucking wrong.
This video is lying. Many dies in the past 25 years in Africa from starvation. And it was not GMO's that made all the food grow, just better planning & teaching people how to care for the land. Most of the plants were naturally selected. If there was a plant that grew in a hot dry weather, then those seeds were brought to those other parts of the planet. Eating plants mixed with scorpio & human DNA is not healthy. See videos about this & other important information at website MayaBell (dot com)
GMO's what are they? We are eating it now in USA and the law is the government does not have to tell us what is in it. What is in it? Cabbage with human DNA. Rice with Scorpio genes. You are eating humans & scorpios. Swine was made in a lab with human blood & hybreed blood. That is how the evil scientists made the swine flu. Now in England they are growing a human being in a cow. These are all CRIMES AGAINST NATURE & HUMANITY. It can extinct our food supply & life on earth. MayaBell (dot com)
I don't have a problem with genetically engineered crops. I have a problem with huge corporations like Monsanto which copyright these crops and then cause poor 3rd world farmers to rely on them for each seasons seeds. Sustainable farming is not restricted to organic farming it can incorporate GM crops as well. It just needs to be able to be to be accessed fairly by all producers. Penn and Teller seem to be choosing the worst representatives of sustainability to prove their ill-informed point.
overpopulation is NOT a problem. First of all, lets say the US government instituted population control after WWI. What if Norman was culled? Or Einstein? With a larger population, there is more genetic variance and a greater chance for genius to pop up.
Also, as countries become richer, their birth rates plummet. Look at Europe. The birth rate there isn't high enough to support the mature people who are all retiring. In every case, raising income lowers birth rates!
RIP, Sir Norman. You did more for mankind than any piece of shit politician/activist piece of shit on earth. We will all miss you, but your legacy will live on. Thanks to you, children will be able to eat just enough to live a day longer, and thats what truly matters-- Survival. Thank you for your decades of blood, sweat, and tears. You are my hero.
is this some kind of a joke or you really mean it? who payed you to put that peace of shit , that beautiful lye, here. this is a propaganda, dude. Have you ever seen how MUCH food we through away every single day on this planet????'
Technology means "technique", not "machine". Here's the full dictionary definition. 1. the study of or a collection of techniques. 2. a particular technological concept 3. the body of tools and other implements produced by a given society.
So yes, GE food is a technology. Just like irrigation, fertilizer, grafting and all sorts of other techniques which help food production.
GE is feeding people who wouldn't be fed otherwise. Through GE we can produce much stronger, healthier, and faster and greater growing crops. Genetic manipulation is not equal to selection, grafting, and natural farming. Its 3 billion times better. Unless you want to be the hungry one, SHUT THE FUCK UP.
@beekeeper96 "Living organisms are NOT MACHINES!" Hah! you must be yet another one of those greenpeace shitheads. Not only are they completely uneducated and misinformed. But their egos blind them without a cause. Living organisms can be considered to be just like Machines. They have an internal mechanics that drive them just like a machine. And GE right now is the only way to roll. Unless you have the ability to save 2 billion people with an alternate method go ahead Otherwise SHUT THE FUCK UP
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It may seem to be a great thing. Indeed for short term( feeding the hungry) is very humanitarian. In reality, what he did is a catastrophe: by increasing five fold the food production, in long term, he made countries like India have an explosion in population, that deplete the Earth resources. Eventually, in the future will be more deaths due to famine, due to growth in population, due to the billion that Mr Borlaug saved!!!
His advancements didn't cause population explosion. They did prevent the population growth from starving to death.
Should those people have been fed or should they have starved off for the greater good? I don't think a single person can make that moral judgement. Overpopulation is not a new debate.
@devious21 Sure the green revolution didn't cause overpopulation, but it surely promulgated it. The countries whose population was overshooting its ability to feed itself should have been required to have some sort of population control policy in place before these advances were given to them. Instead, they gave these countries free license to let their populations' growth go unchecked (by the carrying capacity, the fundamental limit to any species' population).
Norman Borlaug is my hero. Brilliant man who saved 1 billion people from starvation. He stands alone as the greatest person to ever live. Thank you, Dr. Borlaug.
@ghuegel Saved a billion individuals of ONE species, while driving millions into endangerment or extinction. Those billion were needed to keep labor prices low and spur sweatshops in these poor countries. How lucky they are...
@ashevillecat He didn't go around impregnating a billion women; he helped prevent mass starvation. It's all well and good to work against overpopulation, but doing so by allowing people to starve to death when it's preventable... is just evil. Even if they are a class of people you seem to find unworthy.
@ghuegel Did you read my comment? A class of life is known as a species, and this does not refer to a class of people at all. My point is that hunger is preferable to wage slavery. Are you suggesting there is no hunger or malnutrition today? Do you mourn when other animals starve to death after overpopulating themselves, or do you not consider Homo sapiens to be an animal?
@ashevillecat Yes, we're animals. And your previous comment referred to "ONE species" (humans), as opposed to other species. I can't tell... do you believe that human suffering is equivalent to non-human animal suffering?
"Hunger" isn't so bad, until you're starving to death... then it's worse than wage slavery. Choice was - many suffering and dying vs. many in poverty. Which option do you prefer?
And no, I don't mourn when non-human animals die off from overpopulation... it's just nature.
@ghuegel So if we're animals, shouldn't we be subjected to the same laws of nature as any other? Sure, the extinction of the human species should be averted at all costs, but this is not what we're talking about here. The options you describe are too simplistic. 1st, the reality was many (people) suffering and dying vs. many species going extinct. 2nd, famine is not necessarily an absolute shortage of food, but more a misallocation, with some consuming too much while others starve.
@ashevillecat We are subject, ultimately, to the same laws of nature as other animals. But we can avert these "laws" because we are intelligent and can plan for the future.
You're right that misallocation of resources is our modern food problem, thankfully! But that's only because the green revolution (and biotech) provide, in theory, enough food for all. If not for these advances, we'd have absolutely too little food to feed the world human population - ie starvation and mass death.
@ghuegel Sorry, but we can't "avert" the laws of nature, but merely ameliorate them by transforming, relocating or simply delaying the problem via technological "fixes" that address symptoms, but fail to get at the underlying problems. Between 1970 and 2000, while the amount of food per person did increase, the amount of hungry people increased everywhere in the world except China, which rejected the Green Revolution for its Red one. Clearly, land reform and population control is more effective.
@joekoe97 So if you repeat a lie enough times (or get enough people to accept it), it becomes the truth? I'm not asking what percentage of people believe in this number, but where does it come from? How can we attribute a billion lives to a single man when rates of hunger, starvation, and poverty have changed little despite the Green Revolution? This man is a poster child for chemical corporations to push their agendas, little more.
@ashevillecat If you want to make the corporation standpoint go ahead and throw some far left wing data out. Can't you just accept that a scientist from Northern Iowa wanted to save people from starving to death? People do have a soul and Borlaug had no known influence or stake in corporations, he did it for the common good. So the hell what if US companies profited off of it, he's a scientist and made a revolutionnary discovery that bettered mankind, of course people will profit off of it.
I hate those upper-middle class first world hippies who go on a moral rampages over something they don't understand. While their this could save the lives of thousand of third worlders
Thank you Norman Borlaug for your wonderful servive.
I can't believe the man who save a billion lives got so little fanfare compared to Michael Jackson and other celeberties who died in 2009.
Who had hours of news and documentries dedicated to them.
@DreamsOfGabija You only care about their lives so they can provide you with cheap food and consumer products. Cheap labor wouldn't exist without Borlaug. In fact, it can be inferred that the massive influx of Hispanics into the US can be attributed to this man.
@DreamsOfGabija Where do you get this billion people saved number? Might the the creation of a democratic, independent India have had more to do with averting mass-starvation than the intervention of the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations and Borlaug's miracle seeds? Probably. More people are hungry in India today than in 1970 despite India's leading position as a food producer, suggesting that alternative solutions would have worked just as well at preventing starvation.
@ashevillecat The number of one billion has been widely accepted as the number of lives Borlaug saved. This is not just a number Penn or anyone through out.
The solution to over-population is education, not starvation.
Anyway, the segment of the show in this video is quite probably one of the greatest in Penn and Teller ever. A shame about the racism comment right at the end though...that was a bit ridiculous.
Great video about a great man. What a shame the narrators opted to include bs and f words in the presentation which prevents me from recommending it to my online students or using it for educational purposes.
If you had the power to feed the starving people of the world would you? Norman Borlaug was a great scientist, he took his discovery and did the right thing with it, and feed billions of people. Whether or not you think the world is over populated is irrelevant. Norman did the right thing and worked damn hard to cut polical red tape to get his discovery into the hands of the people that needed it. Most scientist don't do that.
@Abricr Just like most scientists are unable or unwilling to be accountable for the social and political upheaval their innovations cause. Claiming the green revolution was a triumph of science overlooks the fact that these technological fixes for social and political problems brought about new social and political problems that these claimants fail to acknowledge.
@ashevillecat Following his discoveries there was really 2 choices; reveal it to the world or hide it and allow billions to die of starvation. Imagine the upheaval that would occur had such an advancement in science been kept hidden or only used for certain groups. There is a difference between scientists and politicians. Norman did the part as a scientists and made sure it was available to everyone. What you are asserting is the job of politicians.
@Abricr Who needs to imagine? I can see the upheaval that has happened and continues to fester as a result of these changes. Having lived through the advent of the atomic bomb, Borloug should have understood that radical technological advances have equally radical sociopolitical consequences that scientists should consider, especially when the government isn't in charge of their dissemination. What if Oppenheimer had gone around sharing nuclear technology in the name of science and humanity?
@Abricr Why would hundreds of thousands risk a dangerous desert crossing just to find wage labor if Mexico had such a great economy? These technological advances didn't save millions, they merely made more people more vulnerable...as soon as the fossil fuels that enabled the green revolution to happen in the first place run out. Or are you convinced that an infinite energy source is right around the corner? What am i? A landless farmer who has experienced hunger and prefers it to wage slavery.
@ashevillecat I never said Mexico had a world class economy, but they did go from being an importer of wheat to being an exporter. That was good for them. I'm not buying your theory. You are proposing that great desparities in food availability to different classes should have been reinforced? The previous methods of producing food was inadequate to meet the demand. As a result only well-off people could afford to eat. These concepts are really simple.
@Abricr Hmm, I guess having done nothing would have probably resulted in wide scale Marxist revolt on the other side of the Rio Grande. That would have been bad for a handful of wealthy corporations who have been built on the subjugation of Latin America and the rest of the world. Forcing subsistence farmers and hunter-gatherers into a cash economy is only helpful to the wealthy. Why should we be forced to pay for basic necessities of life so a tiny minority can concentrate wealth into itself?
@Abricr 80 years ago or 80 years from now, there was and will be one simple truth: no oil. Providing food that relies on a short-term supply of cheap energy merely puts off the social upheaval that was coming to a head in the early 20th century. Now we will have to face it with a population 5 times as big. Do you believe the biblical fable that Earth is for humans alone? Until modern civilization is willing to impose limits on itself, it has no business circumventing those nature imposes.
@Abricr Oh wow, the Nazi accusation, the fall back for the non-argument. Actualy, according to population ecology, populations APPEAR to grow exponentially in early phases of expansion, but ultimately grow logistically, eventually reaching a plateau at its carrying capacity. According to world population figures, the global pop was leveling out around 1945. Sure these are tough decisions to make; maybe that's why most mainstream sustainability models don't include a political dimension.
@Abricr Apparently, you are a Cornucopian "crackpot realist" that believes infinite growth is possible on a finite planet. According to contemporary wisdom, the strong gets the resources and the rest get diddly. And I'M suggesting Nazi stuff? We'll face our limits sooner or later. I just don't understand how anyone can praise the Green Revolution, let alone Borlaug, as some kind of savior when most of the world STILL has a poor standard of living & malnutrition is common even in the 1st world.
Green peace really piss me off. They may be right on some issues, but they are basically anti-science, anti-technology, anti-progress extremists who let fear get in the way of their reasoning. I will never support them.
If Norman Borlaug is credited with saving 1 Billion people in an over crowded world, I don't see that as a beneficial thing. The major cause of starving people is too many people. Finding ways to continue the practice of overcrowding a given space, is to me a very stupid thing to do. I'm all for producing more food per acre but not for more people per acre.
From a different point of view maybe Norman Borlaug is the worst person to ever live.
andre, even though we all know now that greggthomas is a concentrated pile of human waste, we should be careful as to not tell someone to kill him or herself, no matter how ugly, fucked up their mind is. greggthomas will have it coming someday.
Hey Gregg, you're an asshole. Norman Borlaug did not cause overcrowding. Rather, he increased the world's food output so that Earth's carrying capacity has increased. Now the world can support more people, which actually lowers overcrowding.
@greggrthomas Here here; producing more food often entails using more water to grow them. Why should we expand our carrying capacity at the expense of other species?
A meaningful life isn't waiting in a line for the next handout.
When you feed and take care of a giving population that cannot do that for themselves, they will always increase their population requiring more and more care, making their situation more and more desperate.
@greggrthomas Not to throw myself into someone else's business, but you've heard the proverb "Give a man a fish, he eats for a day; teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime." What Norman Borlaug did was genetically cross-breading and modifying plants to survive under harsh conditions--such as growing in an African desert. He and his colleagues are not giving food handouts, they are/were giving the third world the means to feed itself over the long term.
Teach a man to fish and he will continue to breed and create more pressure on the fishery and within a few generations there will be no more fish.
You will never get at the root of the problem of human starvation by treating the symptom, the causes of starvation go much deeper then lack of available food per acre.
@greggrthomas "and create more pressure on the fishery and within a few generations there will be no more fish." Sounds like greenpeace propaganda. You are exactly what you are going against. And luftwafa was completely right on that one. You fuckheads are completely anti-human. At least if I'm anti-human. It is for a valid cause. But you fools are anti-human for a cause that doesn't exist in reality.
Dr. Borlaug's work helped to kick the production of food from the "fishery" so to speak. If the use of plants such as the Dr.'s quad-output grains are used widespread, we can meet the need of the growing population. In any case, I do not feel that it is my right to declare that starving people should starve for the benefit of others. I doubt that you often go hungry. I wonder, if you believe that some people need to die to save the rest, when will you be stepping up to offer yourself?
Luftwafa, it is refreshing to see some on internet can discuss a point and not just throw insults (as some do). I tend to look at problems from a big picture/long term view. My own daughter carries a PhD and works in genetics. I don't discount the value of increased production of food crops per acre, nor do I promote large scale starvation as a means of solving the "Population Monster" (Borlaug's pharse).
The cause of most human starvation is much more complex then a plant-per-acre issue. The solution will be equally complex. Our short-term solution of "Their starving...feed them" has been in place for many decades and the result has been an every increasing human population. The outcome has been more human starvation and suffering not less.
So when looked in the abstract long-term, Dr. Borlaug's efforts may have resulted in more human suffering not less. It is more akin to pouring more fuel on a fire then working on a means of putting the fire out. Over-population is a much bigger problem then the starvation that results. The continuing effort to feed our way out of human starvation will not make a better future for human kind.
@greggrthomas "Over-population is a much bigger problem then the starvation that results. " Then we should decrease the planets population by killing you first. It's a great start! and when thinking about it. We have one less human to deal with. isn't that what you are for? You made a statement about the problem being overpopulation and my solution to back up your shitty statement is for you to be the first one to go.
I agree with your comment about this being an open forum, and you are well within your rights to think and speak. I simply wish the same liberty to express my concern for the ease at which some can declare widespread starvation-based death a solution to overpopulation when they themselves do not usually go a day without a good meal. I merely believe that if one believes something enough to argue for it, they should be willing to make any sacrifice for it that they might ask others to.
Gregg, before posting an ignorant comment that reflects your obvious lack of intelligence, consider this: you are probably alive because of Dr. Borlaug. If you like shitting yourself, go somewhere else.
Whether you like it or not, this is an open forum and all with access may comment.
I don't happen to see more food as a solution to an over populated world, some places on this planet cannot support the numbers of humans that occupy those areas.
BTW I have indoor plumbing at my house, thanks for you concern.
whether this is an open forum or not, my opinion about you is still the same: you are an ignorant idiot who posts stupid, outrageous bullshit to grab attention. you cant respect the dead and the man who saved millions you d rather see people die without food because you think that this world is overpopulated, so i guess no one should give a shit if u or ur mom or dad is dying of hunger, right?
problem is that good people are dying, and assholes like u r still alive
Very well stated my friend. It's also sad that when "celebrities" even as kind barely a celeb like Billy Manz dies, people talk about that for weeks. But when a great man like Norman Borlaug dies, no one really says much, that's sad. Don't get me wrong I'm a huge Micheal Jackson fan and was sadden by his death, but this man died, it should of gotten as much nation attention as Jackson's death.
But at least he lived a long full life. Helping others and truly making the world a better place.
The elephant in the room of our food production system is the rearing of animals for human consumption, feed on the high yield grains from the good Doctor (RIP).
Even if we don't care for the welfare of animals, we should care that food we grow find it's way DIRECTLY for human consumption.
We don't need to curb human population, this planet could potentially feed 15 billion humans, but not while we give priority to feeding billions of non-human animals. Go Veg & realize real freedom from famine
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Borlaug: hero or villain?
Answer: unwitting villain, who's heart was in the right place. Why villain? Because he abetted the uncontrolled growth of human population.
Saved a billion lives? More likely, he has helped seal the fate of the planet to a slow death from climate change. Frankenfoods aren't the problem. It's the massive fertilizer doses, and the diesel fuel needed to haul the foods around, that are the problem.
I suppose all those people don't have a right to exist, eh? I guess people like you would be the most "noble" to decide who gets what resources to "control population". Maybe we should get rid of all the undesirables like the crippled, the mentally defective, the poor brown people living in third world countries. But what if someone else were in charge and decided YOU waste too many resources. Ever think of that? It's thinking like this that disturbs me greatly.
@gcluk1200 We don't need a "final solution" to control population. But what gives human MORE of a right to exist than other species? My solution is a free market one: give every female the "rights" to one child upon reaching childbearing age. They can sell these rights when they are young, to invest in money-making activities or schooling regardless of their financial upbringing. Then they can buy one or two after they make it later in life. No one gets to decide but the individual!
You may want to get your head out of your ass and check what the other side has to say about over population before you describe it as absolute truth. But hey, if you MUST pompously preach doom and gloom, your best bet is technological singularity.
you dress like an idiot and want people to take you seriously. fuck green peace
DizLiKhmerKid 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I don't see how being picky about food is racist..
seantje4life 4 months ago
Comment removed
seantje4life 4 months ago
This man was God. He saved "God's" people.. he fed them... he deserves the title.
adeb0017 4 months ago
After seeing this episode of Bullshit, I vowed never to forget the name Norman Borlaug.
LoverofLiszt 4 months ago
"It's pretty easy to protest when you're not hungry"
EDD314614 7 months ago 6
@tarasthelordofprawns Its not whether negative consequences "might happen", NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES HAVE ALREADY HAPPENED!!! Thousands of cases of GM contamination have already happened resulting in millions in economic losses. A survey showed 11% of organic farms tested had GM contamination. Herbicide resistant weeds caused by GM crops already exist and are so out of control that Monsanto has to gives rebates to farmers NOT to use roundup.
myndy86 9 months ago
@myndy86 As I heard the GM corn can't reproduce to not let farmers grow their own to keep them buying more, so how come they blame the GM crops for herbicide resistance in their crops? Gaining resistance is a evolutionary process, just like bacteria are getting resistant to antibiotic.
TheMalar 2 months ago
@TheMalar GE corn can reproduce and contamination of Non-GE corn is constantly occurring. Terminator technology(stops plants from reproducing) is not currently being use. Farmers are forced to buy new seeds because in order to grow GE crops they must sign a contract that they will not save seeds. Herbicide resistant crops have caused herbicide resistant weeds. Previous to GE crops farmers rotated herbicides to stop resistance, GE crops do not allow for rotation increasing weed resistance.
myndy86 2 months ago
@myndy86 How can corn make weeds resistant? It is hard to cross two different plant species in the lab, not to say on the field.
TheMalar 2 months ago
@TheMalar Not specifically corn, but GE canola "stable incorporation of genes from one differentiated gene pool into another, of an herbicide resistance transgene from Brassica napus into the gene pool of its weedy relative, Brassica rapa, monitored under natural commercial field conditions." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17971090
myndy86 2 months ago
@myndy86 OK, that I give you. But still I would say that the benefits greatly surpass the resistant weed problem. It sure beats using tons of more herbicides, pesticides and synthetic fertilisers.
TheMalar 2 months ago
@TheMalar Technically GE crops use more pesticides, etc., especially in comparison to organic. 100% of Bt crops are supposed to express cry proteins, in fact Bt crops themselves are classified as pesticides. So, if a conventional farmer doesn't have a pest problem they may not use pesticides but even if there was no pest problem Bt crops are always producing a pesticide. 52% of organic farmers use no pesticides whatsoever, they use virtually no herbicides and no synthetic fertilizers either.
myndy86 2 months ago
@myndy86 But natural pesticides from bacteria, not synthetic ones. That saves our health, our environment and resources needed to produce chemicals. That saves us a lot of money.
TheMalar 2 months ago
@TheMalar Bt in GE crops are not the same as Bt spray. Bt in GE crops induce metabolic variations involving the primary nitrogen pathway, can make the crops expressing cry proteins phenotypically abnormal affecting growth and reproduction of the crops, high levels of nitrogen can significantly increase the level of cry proteins in the crops, increased potential for HGT, etc. compared to Bt spray, which is used less often than the 100% supposed expression in Bt crops and is more degradeable.
myndy86 2 months ago
@TheMalar However, for corn, etc. the problem is, previous to GE crops farmers may first use use glyphosate, and then use glufosinate to kill the remaining weeds that were resistant to glyphosate. GE crops are only resistant to a specific herbicide, let' s say glyphosate, so farmers would just use glyphosate and not risk harming their GE crop by using glufosinate. So, the glyphosate resistant weeds were allowed to survive, replicate and contaminate, causing a herbicide resistant weed problem.
myndy86 2 months ago
@tarasthelordofprawns The UN/World Bank Report International Assessment of Agricultural Science Technology Development by 400 scientists concluded that biotechnology has very little potential to alleviate hunger or poverty.
myndy86 9 months ago
You really think "a few years of testing" is enough to blindly alter genes and spread it into the ecosystem ? You, my friend, are not a scientist. Or you'd realize that science is not perfect, tests are not perfect.
We're altering life forms we depend on in a way that can not be reverted.
Someday there will be a mistake, and there will be repercussions.
World-wide repercussions. It's statistically bound to happen.
And I'm saying this as a science student, not a new-age nutjob.
Lywald 11 months ago
@Lywald
At what point exactly did the scientists claim that science is perfect? Granted, it isn't 100% accurate, and maybe (though the likeliness of this happening only decreasing as we gain better understanding of the science behind GM) there will be unexpected consequences. Whilsts negative outcomes might occur, refusing to utilize the technology that we possess in order to improve human life and feed the world is a silly idea to say the least, don't you think?
tarasthelordofprawns 11 months ago 8
Comment removed
Lywald 11 months ago
@xVancha When white people have surplus of food and niggers, mexicans and chincs are left all alone,I think that's very racist.
PopcornWithPorn 1 year ago
He did his research with ROCKEFELLER. Rockefeller= illuminati. He genetically modified food to make it "more pest resistant" a.k.a. poisoned so even the insects wouldn't eat it, Open your eyes to the atrocities of big business.
1Dblade333 1 year ago
@1Dblade333 you are retarded, they mentioned very specifically in the video that all GE foods are extensively tested so they are safe for consumption. do you know any one who has been killed from eating GE foods? cuz i know hundreds of millions of people have died from crops failing after locust swarms...
rawheas 1 year ago
@rawheas i think this is overall good.. but like.. in the short term.. it's fucking up our genetics and giving other ppl more control over us
1Dblade333 1 year ago
stfu!
epic ending lol
baka6660 1 year ago
I love Penn but seriously, what the hell does he know about GMO's? He didn't discuss any of the scientific studies that show how fucking terrible GMO's are. They cause genetic mutations in nearly every animal study and if you don't believe it look into the research. When you insert ANY genes into a cell you cannot tell where they're going to land hence the high likelihood of mutation. Look into more, this vid basically says, "Don't give a shit food is food" well thats just fucking wrong.
wttlawrence29 1 year ago
This video is lying. Many dies in the past 25 years in Africa from starvation. And it was not GMO's that made all the food grow, just better planning & teaching people how to care for the land. Most of the plants were naturally selected. If there was a plant that grew in a hot dry weather, then those seeds were brought to those other parts of the planet. Eating plants mixed with scorpio & human DNA is not healthy. See videos about this & other important information at website MayaBell (dot com)
candygir7 1 year ago
GMO's what are they? We are eating it now in USA and the law is the government does not have to tell us what is in it. What is in it? Cabbage with human DNA. Rice with Scorpio genes. You are eating humans & scorpios. Swine was made in a lab with human blood & hybreed blood. That is how the evil scientists made the swine flu. Now in England they are growing a human being in a cow. These are all CRIMES AGAINST NATURE & HUMANITY. It can extinct our food supply & life on earth. MayaBell (dot com)
candygir7 1 year ago
I had the honor of work along with Dr. Borlaug back in 1991 in Mexico since then he became my heroe
God Bless you amigo Norman RIP
fastlane59 1 year ago
He didn't risk his life like a combatant in the military, but...
He was still a hero...
KampferXeon 1 year ago
listening too a few of the Greenpeace remarks makes me just keep thinking of one phrase.... THE STUPID!! IT BURNS!!
TheODA2005 1 year ago
lol i love penn and teller every time I visit Vegas I like to catch there shows....
TheODA2005 1 year ago
I don't have a problem with genetically engineered crops. I have a problem with huge corporations like Monsanto which copyright these crops and then cause poor 3rd world farmers to rely on them for each seasons seeds. Sustainable farming is not restricted to organic farming it can incorporate GM crops as well. It just needs to be able to be to be accessed fairly by all producers. Penn and Teller seem to be choosing the worst representatives of sustainability to prove their ill-informed point.
therach1025 1 year ago
overpopulation is NOT a problem. First of all, lets say the US government instituted population control after WWI. What if Norman was culled? Or Einstein? With a larger population, there is more genetic variance and a greater chance for genius to pop up.
Also, as countries become richer, their birth rates plummet. Look at Europe. The birth rate there isn't high enough to support the mature people who are all retiring. In every case, raising income lowers birth rates!
wasatchwindows 1 year ago
RIP, Sir Norman. You did more for mankind than any piece of shit politician/activist piece of shit on earth. We will all miss you, but your legacy will live on. Thanks to you, children will be able to eat just enough to live a day longer, and thats what truly matters-- Survival. Thank you for your decades of blood, sweat, and tears. You are my hero.
mmmmmarcus 1 year ago
don't ever tell me to shut up again
freevborn 1 year ago
My forefathers survived because of the indian green revolution. Borlaug is a saint, anyone who thinks otherwise can go fuck themselves.
ru2118 1 year ago
ok beekeeper be the teacher. Tell us since you know the truth ? I do think Penn has the right to tell you to shut the fuck up but I will listen....
JboogieAV8 2 years ago
is this some kind of a joke or you really mean it? who payed you to put that peace of shit , that beautiful lye, here. this is a propaganda, dude. Have you ever seen how MUCH food we through away every single day on this planet????'
dezirra 2 years ago
EXCUSE ME, but FOOD IS NOT TECHNOLOGY!
Living organisms are NOT MACHINES!
GE is not the solution, but the cause of starvation!
Genetic manipulation is BY NO MEANS equal to selection, grafting and natural farming practices in human agricultural history!
Stop lieing!
And don't you tell us to shut up before you have understood what GE actually is!
beekeeper96 2 years ago
Technology means "technique", not "machine". Here's the full dictionary definition. 1. the study of or a collection of techniques. 2. a particular technological concept 3. the body of tools and other implements produced by a given society.
So yes, GE food is a technology. Just like irrigation, fertilizer, grafting and all sorts of other techniques which help food production.
tynansylvester 2 years ago 2
GE is feeding people who wouldn't be fed otherwise. Through GE we can produce much stronger, healthier, and faster and greater growing crops. Genetic manipulation is not equal to selection, grafting, and natural farming. Its 3 billion times better. Unless you want to be the hungry one, SHUT THE FUCK UP.
Dethkill14 1 year ago
@beekeeper96 "Living organisms are NOT MACHINES!" Hah! you must be yet another one of those greenpeace shitheads. Not only are they completely uneducated and misinformed. But their egos blind them without a cause. Living organisms can be considered to be just like Machines. They have an internal mechanics that drive them just like a machine. And GE right now is the only way to roll. Unless you have the ability to save 2 billion people with an alternate method go ahead Otherwise SHUT THE FUCK UP
EpiDemic117 1 year ago 2
I had the honor to meet Dr Norman and work along with him in Mexico ....the great man I ever meet ...hi was my heroe RIP
fastlane59 2 years ago
Just by saying bullshit to others, you don't prove that: in long term( generations) there is no Effect in feeding humans with GMOs.
ciuzdamm 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It may seem to be a great thing. Indeed for short term( feeding the hungry) is very humanitarian. In reality, what he did is a catastrophe: by increasing five fold the food production, in long term, he made countries like India have an explosion in population, that deplete the Earth resources. Eventually, in the future will be more deaths due to famine, due to growth in population, due to the billion that Mr Borlaug saved!!!
ciuzdamm 2 years ago
Pretty easy for you to say when you have enough to eat, huh?
Raviotar 2 years ago
Would you say the same thing if it was you saved from starvation?
MidgardEagle 2 years ago
His advancements didn't cause population explosion. They did prevent the population growth from starving to death.
Should those people have been fed or should they have starved off for the greater good? I don't think a single person can make that moral judgement. Overpopulation is not a new debate.
devious21 2 years ago
@devious21 Sure the green revolution didn't cause overpopulation, but it surely promulgated it. The countries whose population was overshooting its ability to feed itself should have been required to have some sort of population control policy in place before these advances were given to them. Instead, they gave these countries free license to let their populations' growth go unchecked (by the carrying capacity, the fundamental limit to any species' population).
ashevillecat 1 year ago
Norman Borlaug is my hero. Brilliant man who saved 1 billion people from starvation. He stands alone as the greatest person to ever live. Thank you, Dr. Borlaug.
ghuegel 2 years ago
@ghuegel Saved a billion individuals of ONE species, while driving millions into endangerment or extinction. Those billion were needed to keep labor prices low and spur sweatshops in these poor countries. How lucky they are...
ashevillecat 1 year ago
@ashevillecat He didn't go around impregnating a billion women; he helped prevent mass starvation. It's all well and good to work against overpopulation, but doing so by allowing people to starve to death when it's preventable... is just evil. Even if they are a class of people you seem to find unworthy.
ghuegel 1 year ago
@ghuegel Did you read my comment? A class of life is known as a species, and this does not refer to a class of people at all. My point is that hunger is preferable to wage slavery. Are you suggesting there is no hunger or malnutrition today? Do you mourn when other animals starve to death after overpopulating themselves, or do you not consider Homo sapiens to be an animal?
ashevillecat 1 year ago
@ashevillecat Yes, we're animals. And your previous comment referred to "ONE species" (humans), as opposed to other species. I can't tell... do you believe that human suffering is equivalent to non-human animal suffering?
"Hunger" isn't so bad, until you're starving to death... then it's worse than wage slavery. Choice was - many suffering and dying vs. many in poverty. Which option do you prefer?
And no, I don't mourn when non-human animals die off from overpopulation... it's just nature.
ghuegel 1 year ago
@ghuegel So if we're animals, shouldn't we be subjected to the same laws of nature as any other? Sure, the extinction of the human species should be averted at all costs, but this is not what we're talking about here. The options you describe are too simplistic. 1st, the reality was many (people) suffering and dying vs. many species going extinct. 2nd, famine is not necessarily an absolute shortage of food, but more a misallocation, with some consuming too much while others starve.
ashevillecat 1 year ago
@ashevillecat We are subject, ultimately, to the same laws of nature as other animals. But we can avert these "laws" because we are intelligent and can plan for the future.
You're right that misallocation of resources is our modern food problem, thankfully! But that's only because the green revolution (and biotech) provide, in theory, enough food for all. If not for these advances, we'd have absolutely too little food to feed the world human population - ie starvation and mass death.
ghuegel 1 year ago
@ghuegel Sorry, but we can't "avert" the laws of nature, but merely ameliorate them by transforming, relocating or simply delaying the problem via technological "fixes" that address symptoms, but fail to get at the underlying problems. Between 1970 and 2000, while the amount of food per person did increase, the amount of hungry people increased everywhere in the world except China, which rejected the Green Revolution for its Red one. Clearly, land reform and population control is more effective.
ashevillecat 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ashevillecat One billion is the widely accepted number of lives Borlaug saved. This is not just a number Penn or anyone for that matter threw out.
joekoe97 1 year ago
@joekoe97 So if you repeat a lie enough times (or get enough people to accept it), it becomes the truth? I'm not asking what percentage of people believe in this number, but where does it come from? How can we attribute a billion lives to a single man when rates of hunger, starvation, and poverty have changed little despite the Green Revolution? This man is a poster child for chemical corporations to push their agendas, little more.
ashevillecat 1 year ago
@ashevillecat If you want to make the corporation standpoint go ahead and throw some far left wing data out. Can't you just accept that a scientist from Northern Iowa wanted to save people from starving to death? People do have a soul and Borlaug had no known influence or stake in corporations, he did it for the common good. So the hell what if US companies profited off of it, he's a scientist and made a revolutionnary discovery that bettered mankind, of course people will profit off of it.
joekoe97 1 year ago 2
Thank goodness for this!!!
I hate those upper-middle class first world hippies who go on a moral rampages over something they don't understand. While their this could save the lives of thousand of third worlders
Thank you Norman Borlaug for your wonderful servive.
I can't believe the man who save a billion lives got so little fanfare compared to Michael Jackson and other celeberties who died in 2009.
Who had hours of news and documentries dedicated to them.
DreamsOfGabija 2 years ago 2
one thing for sure, he'll go down in history as more important than any celebrity or politician of recent times.
those hippies, yeah i saw 'em on the episode of P&T, bunch of hypocrites.
mana2432 2 years ago
@DreamsOfGabija You only care about their lives so they can provide you with cheap food and consumer products. Cheap labor wouldn't exist without Borlaug. In fact, it can be inferred that the massive influx of Hispanics into the US can be attributed to this man.
ashevillecat 1 year ago
@DreamsOfGabija Where do you get this billion people saved number? Might the the creation of a democratic, independent India have had more to do with averting mass-starvation than the intervention of the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations and Borlaug's miracle seeds? Probably. More people are hungry in India today than in 1970 despite India's leading position as a food producer, suggesting that alternative solutions would have worked just as well at preventing starvation.
ashevillecat 1 year ago
@ashevillecat The number of one billion has been widely accepted as the number of lives Borlaug saved. This is not just a number Penn or anyone through out.
joekoe97 1 year ago
The solution to over-population is education, not starvation.
Anyway, the segment of the show in this video is quite probably one of the greatest in Penn and Teller ever. A shame about the racism comment right at the end though...that was a bit ridiculous.
xVancha 2 years ago 2
@xVancha It was just made for impact's sake I think.
Luftwafa 2 years ago
Great man. Great TV Show
zbadd 2 years ago
Great video about a great man. What a shame the narrators opted to include bs and f words in the presentation which prevents me from recommending it to my online students or using it for educational purposes.
teachret 2 years ago
If you had the power to feed the starving people of the world would you? Norman Borlaug was a great scientist, he took his discovery and did the right thing with it, and feed billions of people. Whether or not you think the world is over populated is irrelevant. Norman did the right thing and worked damn hard to cut polical red tape to get his discovery into the hands of the people that needed it. Most scientist don't do that.
Abricr 2 years ago 29
@Abricr Just like most scientists are unable or unwilling to be accountable for the social and political upheaval their innovations cause. Claiming the green revolution was a triumph of science overlooks the fact that these technological fixes for social and political problems brought about new social and political problems that these claimants fail to acknowledge.
ashevillecat 1 year ago
@ashevillecat Following his discoveries there was really 2 choices; reveal it to the world or hide it and allow billions to die of starvation. Imagine the upheaval that would occur had such an advancement in science been kept hidden or only used for certain groups. There is a difference between scientists and politicians. Norman did the part as a scientists and made sure it was available to everyone. What you are asserting is the job of politicians.
Abricr 1 year ago
@Abricr Who needs to imagine? I can see the upheaval that has happened and continues to fester as a result of these changes. Having lived through the advent of the atomic bomb, Borloug should have understood that radical technological advances have equally radical sociopolitical consequences that scientists should consider, especially when the government isn't in charge of their dissemination. What if Oppenheimer had gone around sharing nuclear technology in the name of science and humanity?
ashevillecat 1 year ago
Comment removed
Abricr 1 year ago
@Abricr Why would hundreds of thousands risk a dangerous desert crossing just to find wage labor if Mexico had such a great economy? These technological advances didn't save millions, they merely made more people more vulnerable...as soon as the fossil fuels that enabled the green revolution to happen in the first place run out. Or are you convinced that an infinite energy source is right around the corner? What am i? A landless farmer who has experienced hunger and prefers it to wage slavery.
ashevillecat 1 year ago
@ashevillecat I never said Mexico had a world class economy, but they did go from being an importer of wheat to being an exporter. That was good for them. I'm not buying your theory. You are proposing that great desparities in food availability to different classes should have been reinforced? The previous methods of producing food was inadequate to meet the demand. As a result only well-off people could afford to eat. These concepts are really simple.
Abricr 1 year ago
@Abricr Hmm, I guess having done nothing would have probably resulted in wide scale Marxist revolt on the other side of the Rio Grande. That would have been bad for a handful of wealthy corporations who have been built on the subjugation of Latin America and the rest of the world. Forcing subsistence farmers and hunter-gatherers into a cash economy is only helpful to the wealthy. Why should we be forced to pay for basic necessities of life so a tiny minority can concentrate wealth into itself?
ashevillecat 1 year ago
Comment removed
Abricr 1 year ago
@Abricr 80 years ago or 80 years from now, there was and will be one simple truth: no oil. Providing food that relies on a short-term supply of cheap energy merely puts off the social upheaval that was coming to a head in the early 20th century. Now we will have to face it with a population 5 times as big. Do you believe the biblical fable that Earth is for humans alone? Until modern civilization is willing to impose limits on itself, it has no business circumventing those nature imposes.
ashevillecat 1 year ago
Comment removed
Abricr 1 year ago
@Abricr Oh wow, the Nazi accusation, the fall back for the non-argument. Actualy, according to population ecology, populations APPEAR to grow exponentially in early phases of expansion, but ultimately grow logistically, eventually reaching a plateau at its carrying capacity. According to world population figures, the global pop was leveling out around 1945. Sure these are tough decisions to make; maybe that's why most mainstream sustainability models don't include a political dimension.
ashevillecat 1 year ago
@Abricr Apparently, you are a Cornucopian "crackpot realist" that believes infinite growth is possible on a finite planet. According to contemporary wisdom, the strong gets the resources and the rest get diddly. And I'M suggesting Nazi stuff? We'll face our limits sooner or later. I just don't understand how anyone can praise the Green Revolution, let alone Borlaug, as some kind of savior when most of the world STILL has a poor standard of living & malnutrition is common even in the 1st world.
ashevillecat 1 year ago
@Abricr "Most scientist don't do that."
I take issue with that line... how do you make that claim?
MOST?
A more accurate term would be "many"
Saying MOST implies you know the number, and it's the MAJORITY
TheReasonWhyGuy 5 months ago
Green peace really piss me off. They may be right on some issues, but they are basically anti-science, anti-technology, anti-progress extremists who let fear get in the way of their reasoning. I will never support them.
GuyTM 2 years ago 21
This has been flagged as spam show
If Norman Borlaug is credited with saving 1 Billion people in an over crowded world, I don't see that as a beneficial thing. The major cause of starving people is too many people. Finding ways to continue the practice of overcrowding a given space, is to me a very stupid thing to do. I'm all for producing more food per acre but not for more people per acre.
From a different point of view maybe Norman Borlaug is the worst person to ever live.
Gregg
greggrthomas 2 years ago
Sure, why don't you kill yourself and help the world?
andrecarlucci 2 years ago 4
:) Awe how sweet. :)
greggrthomas 2 years ago
andre, even though we all know now that greggthomas is a concentrated pile of human waste, we should be careful as to not tell someone to kill him or herself, no matter how ugly, fucked up their mind is. greggthomas will have it coming someday.
iakny 2 years ago
Hey Gregg, you're an asshole. Norman Borlaug did not cause overcrowding. Rather, he increased the world's food output so that Earth's carrying capacity has increased. Now the world can support more people, which actually lowers overcrowding.
Scrizzard 2 years ago
There is more to the overpopulation problem then just food.
In the coming years more and more people will have to deal with a lack of drinkable water.
The picture is much bigger then just growing more food per acre of land that will support crops.
greggrthomas 2 years ago
@greggrthomas Here here; producing more food often entails using more water to grow them. Why should we expand our carrying capacity at the expense of other species?
ashevillecat 1 year ago
So your more or less saying that trying to let people live, saving their lives, is "to me a very stupid thing to do."
Making it possible to feed more people while using up less space is what get's rid of overcrowding.
"The major cause of starving people is too many people" -Too much food keeps those "too many" people fed, therefore eliminating starvation.
This man is a hero. Unfortunately he is not a household name, but he more than deserves to be one.
polko59 2 years ago
Everyone dies.
There is no escape.
A meaningful life isn't waiting in a line for the next handout.
When you feed and take care of a giving population that cannot do that for themselves, they will always increase their population requiring more and more care, making their situation more and more desperate.
greggrthomas 2 years ago
@greggrthomas Not to throw myself into someone else's business, but you've heard the proverb "Give a man a fish, he eats for a day; teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime." What Norman Borlaug did was genetically cross-breading and modifying plants to survive under harsh conditions--such as growing in an African desert. He and his colleagues are not giving food handouts, they are/were giving the third world the means to feed itself over the long term.
Luftwafa 2 years ago
Teach a man to fish and he will continue to breed and create more pressure on the fishery and within a few generations there will be no more fish.
You will never get at the root of the problem of human starvation by treating the symptom, the causes of starvation go much deeper then lack of available food per acre.
greggrthomas 2 years ago
Even Dr. Borlaug knew what he was doing wasn't a solution to the problem of over-population, his words:
he says, "a temporary success in man's war against hunger and deprivation," a breathing space in which to deal with the "Population Monster".
greggrthomas 2 years ago
Comment removed
Luftwafa 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@greggrthomas "and create more pressure on the fishery and within a few generations there will be no more fish." Sounds like greenpeace propaganda. You are exactly what you are going against. And luftwafa was completely right on that one. You fuckheads are completely anti-human. At least if I'm anti-human. It is for a valid cause. But you fools are anti-human for a cause that doesn't exist in reality.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
Dr. Borlaug's work helped to kick the production of food from the "fishery" so to speak. If the use of plants such as the Dr.'s quad-output grains are used widespread, we can meet the need of the growing population. In any case, I do not feel that it is my right to declare that starving people should starve for the benefit of others. I doubt that you often go hungry. I wonder, if you believe that some people need to die to save the rest, when will you be stepping up to offer yourself?
Luftwafa 2 years ago
Luftwafa, it is refreshing to see some on internet can discuss a point and not just throw insults (as some do). I tend to look at problems from a big picture/long term view. My own daughter carries a PhD and works in genetics. I don't discount the value of increased production of food crops per acre, nor do I promote large scale starvation as a means of solving the "Population Monster" (Borlaug's pharse).
greggrthomas 2 years ago
The cause of most human starvation is much more complex then a plant-per-acre issue. The solution will be equally complex. Our short-term solution of "Their starving...feed them" has been in place for many decades and the result has been an every increasing human population. The outcome has been more human starvation and suffering not less.
greggrthomas 2 years ago
So when looked in the abstract long-term, Dr. Borlaug's efforts may have resulted in more human suffering not less. It is more akin to pouring more fuel on a fire then working on a means of putting the fire out. Over-population is a much bigger problem then the starvation that results. The continuing effort to feed our way out of human starvation will not make a better future for human kind.
greggrthomas 2 years ago
@greggrthomas "Over-population is a much bigger problem then the starvation that results. " Then we should decrease the planets population by killing you first. It's a great start! and when thinking about it. We have one less human to deal with. isn't that what you are for? You made a statement about the problem being overpopulation and my solution to back up your shitty statement is for you to be the first one to go.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117 That's your reasoned retort? Have you heard the term "weaksauce"?
greggrthomas 1 year ago
I agree with your comment about this being an open forum, and you are well within your rights to think and speak. I simply wish the same liberty to express my concern for the ease at which some can declare widespread starvation-based death a solution to overpopulation when they themselves do not usually go a day without a good meal. I merely believe that if one believes something enough to argue for it, they should be willing to make any sacrifice for it that they might ask others to.
Luftwafa 2 years ago
As I said to the poster above, would you say the same thing if it were you starving?
MidgardEagle 2 years ago
Gregg, before posting an ignorant comment that reflects your obvious lack of intelligence, consider this: you are probably alive because of Dr. Borlaug. If you like shitting yourself, go somewhere else.
iakny 2 years ago
Whether you like it or not, this is an open forum and all with access may comment.
I don't happen to see more food as a solution to an over populated world, some places on this planet cannot support the numbers of humans that occupy those areas.
BTW I have indoor plumbing at my house, thanks for you concern.
greggrthomas 2 years ago
Comment removed
iakny 2 years ago
oh ok. it was 3 weeks ago.
whether this is an open forum or not, my opinion about you is still the same: you are an ignorant idiot who posts stupid, outrageous bullshit to grab attention. you cant respect the dead and the man who saved millions you d rather see people die without food because you think that this world is overpopulated, so i guess no one should give a shit if u or ur mom or dad is dying of hunger, right?
problem is that good people are dying, and assholes like u r still alive
iakny 2 years ago 2
i know you will like to have the last word, gregg, but here is my last words to you first. go fuck yourself.
and now, continue with your blah, blah, blah.........Done with you.
iakny 2 years ago
Wonder what they will say on judge met day? Maybe they think it will never happen. Good luck with that.
StigmataBOB1 2 years ago
What they are saying is GOD had it all wrong. They know better. Hmmm
StigmataBOB1 2 years ago
RIP
DRnab1983 2 years ago
Kill millions and the world will remember your name....(Hitler, Stalin, Mao..)
Kill several people with your bare hands and the world will remember your name (Ted Bundy)
Kill a famous person and the world remembers your name (Charlie Manson)
Save a billion lives and your barely a footnote in history.
What is wrong with this picture?
Nexus974 2 years ago 38
So true but sad, the thing with bad stories is that its more powerful than any positive news
lfg323 2 years ago
Very well stated my friend. It's also sad that when "celebrities" even as kind barely a celeb like Billy Manz dies, people talk about that for weeks. But when a great man like Norman Borlaug dies, no one really says much, that's sad. Don't get me wrong I'm a huge Micheal Jackson fan and was sadden by his death, but this man died, it should of gotten as much nation attention as Jackson's death.
But at least he lived a long full life. Helping others and truly making the world a better place.
Musiclover19 2 years ago 5
Everything.
iakny 2 years ago
@Nexus974 well said
MrGforGreen 1 year ago
@Nexus974 According to Malthus, Borlaug is a major problem. More food means more people.
brianpadraic 1 year ago
RIP Dr. Borlaug - you're a hero to anyone who values modern civilization.
sczurek75 2 years ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
The elephant in the room of our food production system is the rearing of animals for human consumption, feed on the high yield grains from the good Doctor (RIP).
Even if we don't care for the welfare of animals, we should care that food we grow find it's way DIRECTLY for human consumption.
We don't need to curb human population, this planet could potentially feed 15 billion humans, but not while we give priority to feeding billions of non-human animals. Go Veg & realize real freedom from famine
veganath 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Borlaug: hero or villain?
Answer: unwitting villain, who's heart was in the right place. Why villain? Because he abetted the uncontrolled growth of human population.
Saved a billion lives? More likely, he has helped seal the fate of the planet to a slow death from climate change. Frankenfoods aren't the problem. It's the massive fertilizer doses, and the diesel fuel needed to haul the foods around, that are the problem.
Elvisdogg 2 years ago
I suppose all those people don't have a right to exist, eh? I guess people like you would be the most "noble" to decide who gets what resources to "control population". Maybe we should get rid of all the undesirables like the crippled, the mentally defective, the poor brown people living in third world countries. But what if someone else were in charge and decided YOU waste too many resources. Ever think of that? It's thinking like this that disturbs me greatly.
gcluk1200 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
ashevillecat 1 year ago
@gcluk1200 We don't need a "final solution" to control population. But what gives human MORE of a right to exist than other species? My solution is a free market one: give every female the "rights" to one child upon reaching childbearing age. They can sell these rights when they are young, to invest in money-making activities or schooling regardless of their financial upbringing. Then they can buy one or two after they make it later in life. No one gets to decide but the individual!
ashevillecat 1 year ago
You may want to get your head out of your ass and check what the other side has to say about over population before you describe it as absolute truth. But hey, if you MUST pompously preach doom and gloom, your best bet is technological singularity.
SatanTheMiner 2 years ago
RIP Professor Borlaug.
Riehlthing 2 years ago 3
Guy's voice is so awesome.
FreeInquisition 2 years ago 2
awesome video.
Xoroaster 2 years ago
RIP Norman.
texano123 2 years ago 3