Ducks Attack Message Board Forum

Biggus Duckus wrote:If people want to eat non-GMO food they better be prepared to not have more than one or two children as well.

That's ridiculous.

Hybridization by any definition is a Genetic manipulation of the genome of the plant. You artificially choose characteristics to breed for in that plant/animal. Sometimes you cross genomes to bring in desired traits from other plants or animals. It may be done by more primitive means but the result is a genetic plant that would not and could not exist without human genetic manipulation. Again, I have no bone to pick with you disagreeing with the current method of creating new "super" plants and animals, in fact I think we would agree on a lot, but we have been changing the genome of our surroundings pretty much from the beginning.

Tray Dub wrote:

Biggus Duckus wrote:If people want to eat non-GMO food they better be prepared to not have more than one or two children as well.

That's ridiculous.

It's hyperbolic, and simplistic, but there is a World wide food security issue that shouldn't be ignored. It is a complicated topic that involves issues in distribution, equity, economic development, price, and demographic trends. Many today like to argue that changes in the former listed issues are sufficient to mitigate many of the global hunger issues; when used in concert with, frankly, pollyanna-ish notions of localized small production agriculture.

I don't dismiss any of these suggestions entirely. I think there is undisputed need to solve issues in food distribution and equity, and a focus on building domestic agricultural industries in booming population centers is important. That being said, the practical realities are such that not all these problems will be solved, and to meet food demand by 2050 or 2100 our global food production is probably going to need to rise something like 50% (using very rough estimates). That leaves us with even more important questions. Most notably concerning a lack of arable land, lack of fresh water, rising input costs, and a disappearing labor supply. Top that off with a population that is only recently becoming more engaged with the origins of their food while simultaneously maintaining a blissful ignorance towards the realities associated with producing food on a scale necessary to ensure food security domestically, let alone on a global scale. Do GMO's play a role in developing that food supply? They certainly can. As QuietDuck has already mentioned, the notion that humans haven't been genetically modifying food for a very long time is naive. Hybridization at its most basic level is the genetic manipulation of species to isolate desirable genetic traits. Granted, the genetic modifications happening now are at a level far more advanced, and far more complicated than that. These practices certainly demand scrutiny, but it is unwise to dismiss them as "evil" outright.

Elduderino wrote:It's hyperbolic, and simplistic, but there is a World wide food security issue that shouldn't be ignored. It is a complicated topic that involves issues in distribution, equity, economic development, price, and demographic trends. Many today like to argue that changes in the former listed issues are sufficient to mitigate many of the global hunger issues; when used in concert with, frankly, pollyanna-ish notions of localized small production agriculture.

I don't dismiss any of these suggestions entirely. I think there is undisputed need to solve issues in food distribution and equity, and a focus on building domestic agricultural industries in booming population centers is important. That being said, the practical realities are such that not all these problems will be solved, and to meet food demand by 2050 or 2100 our global food production is probably going to need to rise something like 50% (using very rough estimates). That leaves us with even more important questions. Most notably concerning a lack of arable land, lack of fresh water, rising input costs, and a disappearing labor supply. Top that off with a population that is only recently becoming more engaged with the origins of their food while simultaneously maintaining a blissful ignorance towards the realities associated with producing food on a scale necessary to ensure food security domestically, let alone on a global scale. Do GMO's play a role in developing that food supply? They certainly can. As QuietDuck has already mentioned, the notion that humans haven't been genetically modifying food for a very long time is naive. Hybridization at its most basic level is the genetic manipulation of species to isolate desirable genetic traits. Granted, the genetic modifications happening now are at a level far more advanced, and far more complicated than that. These practices certainly demand scrutiny, but it is unwise to dismiss them as "evil" outright.

The first problem is the Jevon's Paradox which as we become more efficient at using resources the faster we consume them. Big-Agra is terrible at using fertilizers as the majority of them (phosphorous, nitrogen and potassium) run into the ground water and pollute those streams. So as we become more efficient at using those fertilizers, we won't use less but actually more. I know you'll probably disagree about Peak Phosphorus but the fact remains that our current industrial methods of farming are not sustainable, let alone practical. When you comb into the Corn PAC's and the sheer amount of Farm Welfare we give so farmers can keep growing a product that doesn't sell your left wondering why we'd continue to give them the aid.

Again, remember we live in a country that supposedly LOVES free trade.

Back in 2002, Camargo went to the WTO with his complaint, arguing that the U.S. was illegally subsidizing its cotton farmers. He won. The U.S. appealed the decision, and lost again.

As the fight went on, Brazil threatened to retaliate with trade sanctions if the U.S. didn't stop subsidizing cotton.

And finally, in 2010, U.S. representatives made Brazil an unusual offer. They said: The subsidies to U.S. cotton farmers are part of U.S. law, and will continue for as long as the current Farm Bill is in place. So, the negotiators said, until the next Farm Bill passes, the U.S. will pay Brazilian cotton farmers $147 million a year.http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/01/ ... on-farmers

This brings me to the much larger issue of where is society progressing, what are our goals and are we even capable of uniting under a common good? (Ronald Dregan sure thought so if Aliens ever arrived but its too late at that point, Cochise.)

The rest of the world cannot live like we do in the United States, it is simply not possible. Nor does it seem possible for us to continue this way of living for very long either. Almost every thing we do revolves around a concept (money) that is not essential to life but the concept still overrides every action we make. We take the resources we do have and pour them into facetious things (this board and what it represents is a great example, we all struggle to extricate ourselves from our fan-dom) when there are much more pressing needs for us to turn our attention to. (Husky Stadium sure looks nicer than it did, but what else could have happened with a 1/4B$? How about that cluster#$% Bertha, that was never going to solve any actual traffic issues but instead be used as a project so more wealthy people could be smashed into downtown.)

Of course, we absolutely can continue our way of life as we know it for centuries to come, we just have to pare down the world's population to around 500 million or so either through war, pandemic or something worse than we can even imagine!

My heart just breaks for this father. As a parent myself, I cannot imagine the horror he is going through. I would gladly give my very last breath to take my child's place.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=664f0INxNbM#t=94

MFRDuckFan wrote:My heart just breaks for this father. As a parent myself, I cannot imagine the horror he is going through. I would gladly give my very last breath to take my child's place.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=664f0INxNbM#t=94

And another person on SSRI drugs ends up killing people. There is an industry to go after here and it isn't the gun industry but Big Pharma. Maybe they should sue GlaxoSmithKline since they payout in the Billions!

So sad. Looks like the perpetrator's father could be in for a long haul with law suits, but nevertheless.........horrible for everybody.

Duck07 wrote:

MFRDuckFan wrote:My heart just breaks for this father. As a parent myself, I cannot imagine the horror he is going through. I would gladly give my very last breath to take my child's place.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=664f0INxNbM#t=94

And another person on SSRI drugs ends up killing people. There is an industry to go after here and it isn't the gun industry but Big Pharma. Maybe they should sue GlaxoSmithKline since they payout in the Billions!

Duck07 wrote:

MFRDuckFan wrote:My heart just breaks for this father. As a parent myself, I cannot imagine the horror he is going through. I would gladly give my very last breath to take my child's place.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=664f0INxNbM#t=94

And another person on SSRI drugs ends up killing people. There is an industry to go after here and it isn't the gun industry but Big Pharma. Maybe they should sue GlaxoSmithKline since they payout in the Billions!

Maybe having mental health problems is the cause of both SSRI use and mass shootings? I know of zero reason to think otherwise. It's like saying, "Oh look, another person on blood pressure medicine dies of a heart attack!" when the problem is the guy was overweight, not that he was taking medication for his problem.

Tray Dub wrote: Maybe having mental health problems is the cause of both SSRI use and mass shootings? I know of zero reason to think otherwise. It's like saying, "Oh look, another person on blood pressure medicine dies of a heart attack!" when the problem is the guy was overweight, not that he was taking medication for his problem.

Maybe they only ended up with any "mental health" problems because they were forced to take poison that has no business in people's bodies.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/ ... S720120702

The company went to extreme lengths to promote the drugs, such as distributing a misleading medical journal article and providing doctors with meals and spa treatments that amounted to illegal kickbacks, prosecutors said.In a third instance, GSK failed to give the U.S. Food and Drug Administration safety data about its diabetes drug Avandia, in violation of U.S. law, prosecutors said...
...The GSK settlement surpasses what had been the largest criminal case involving a drugmaker in U.S. history. In 2009, Pfizer Inc agreed to pay $2.3 billion to settle allegations it improperly marketed 13 drugs.

Those are clearly the actions of a company out for the best interests of the people with whom they service their products. I don't disagree with your premise at all but where the "mental health" industry is headed is real f'in scary. Things like "oppositional defiant disorder" is just another way to sign young kids up for these same type of poisons.

Sooo I guess we can call of the hounds on Edward Snowden now, yeah? I mean that is one hell of an egg in the face for Obama having released the name of the top CIA official in Afghanistan to over 6,000 journalists. Comparing the two "security breaches," you've got give it to Snowden, at least he was revealing criminal activity.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/26/politics/ ... ?hpt=hp_t1

Obama?

Tray Dub wrote:

Duck07 wrote:

MFRDuckFan wrote:My heart just breaks for this father. As a parent myself, I cannot imagine the horror he is going through. I would gladly give my very last breath to take my child's place.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=664f0INxNbM#t=94

And another person on SSRI drugs ends up killing people. There is an industry to go after here and it isn't the gun industry but Big Pharma. Maybe they should sue GlaxoSmithKline since they payout in the Billions!

Maybe having mental health problems is the cause of both SSRI use and mass shootings? I know of zero reason to think otherwise. It's like saying, "Oh look, another person on blood pressure medicine dies of a heart attack!" when the problem is the guy was overweight, not that he was taking medication for his problem.

That is simply too logical. Knee jerk emotional reactions, man. That's what we need.

Duck07 wrote:Sooo I guess we can call of the hounds on Edward Snowden now, yeah? I mean that is one hell of an egg in the face for Obama having released the name of the top CIA official in Afghanistan to over 6,000 journalists. Comparing the two "security breaches," you've got give it to Snowden, at least he was revealing criminal activity.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/26/politics/ ... ?hpt=hp_t1

It's also interesting to note the fury that the Plame scandal drew in relation to the reaction the exact same action has drawn under this administration.

Elduderino wrote:

Duck07 wrote:Sooo I guess we can call of the hounds on Edward Snowden now, yeah? I mean that is one hell of an egg in the face for Obama having released the name of the top CIA official in Afghanistan to over 6,000 journalists. Comparing the two "security breaches," you've got give it to Snowden, at least he was revealing criminal activity.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/26/politics/ ... ?hpt=hp_t1

It's also interesting to note the fury that the Plame scandal drew in relation to the reaction the exact same action has drawn under this administration.

The Plame scandal was an intentional leak done for petty political retribution. The Obama one was by all accounts just a dumb accident.

So much depends on who is writing the tale...