Clearly how we eat and farm has a lot to do with what kind of future we are going to have. http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/04/08-0
I read your link. The thesis is that the population is going to grow so large we will have mass starvation. Those types have been making that claim for 100+ years - if their claims were correct we would be dead several times over but the deadline for disaster always comes and goes with no disaster. Throw the current lefty excuse for domination (global warming) on top and the thesis is only good for the toilet.
Just to get clear, it's all a conspiracy to take away your freedom and property rights, am I correct? I thought so. Edit. By the way you obviously didn't read the article with any discernment. The emphasis is not on overpopulation but better land and water management. Ideologues do seem to "read in" more than read.
If I say I read the link, then I read it, and some of the links and references within. And I always try to find the original source. You should do the same. Reread the article. These types link overpopulation, land use, pollution, farming methods, and the latest eco fad (global warming in this one) to predict disaster if we dont shed our evil ways and get back to Mother Earth. That all ways means giving up freedom, quality of life, and property. I've heard it all before, and being an older guy, I've somehow lived through certain death 4 or 5 times by now based on these nutty people. And if you dont want your freedom and property rights, feel free to give it all away.
Not really it was a breakthrough in the early 70s with plant genetics that enabled us to push back the mass starvation by a reasonable amount
Somehow we always avoid the disaster that the eco chicken littles predict. Whether its crop genetics, improvements in farming methods, technological advancements, or just plain human ingenuity, we avoid the "disaster" over and over again. Assuming there was a pending disaster anyway - it seems these seers can only see disaster and solutions that aligns with the eco/socialist political agenda. Somehow they always are blind to human resiliency.
The perspective of the author is not based on population growth. Your reading skills are obviously wanting. Do you have any interest in science or do you rely on ouija boards? If something wasn't a problem during your brief time on this earth then of course it couldn't ever happen. You would have been a good candidate for the Titanic. I already figured out your sentiments there. Any attempt to keep the planet from frying is really a conspiracy to take away your freedom and property. Almost without a fail that is the mantra that connects with head-in-the-sand denialists.
It is very relevant to the discussion ("how we eat and farm") so I will treat it as "I am a hypocrite who says to do as I say, not as I do". Which do you think emits more greenhouse gas--you driving to Whole Foods a couple times a week or the process that gets your food from field to Whole Foods?
Whether I have a little organic farm or not is irrelevant. Most folks are going to have to buy most of their food from the market. This article is about industrial farming practices that pretty much dictate our future. Whether they grow in a sustainable way is meaningful. It seems so characteristic of denialists that they always want to sidetrack discussions into the personal. The endless diversions are a back door way of saying lets keep business as usual.
Yep. Hypocrisy. If one does not grow their own food or source local grown foods they are increasing carbon output and contributing to food waste that the article refers to. If one does not support heritage seeds then they are creating further demand for genetically modified crops with growing yield demands that the article frowns upon. One can grow a tremendous about of veg on even 1/4 acre of land with high-density best practices, but let's not make any effort to actually reduce our own carbon footprint and demand that evil corporations reduce our own carbon footprints for us. Let us keep on supporting agribusiness and then screaming about the evils of agribusiness because that is more convenient then doing something ourselves, like a little work. Why the hell should I have an apple tree in my yard when those Japanese Maples are so much more trendy?
Your logic is overwhelming. Until you get yourself an apple tree you have no business criticizing agribusiness practices, which is to say most people shouldn't criticize agribusiness. The denialist passion for the status quo always keeps showing up. Same thing with AGW. Ride a bike - right? By the way, how many people living in a city have a quarter acre?
