Topic: Social and Cultural Issues
Interestingly enough... Mutation always equals a loss of existent genetic make up within a species and historically world hunger has more to do with distribution than production...by Michael
(Libertarian)
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Interestingly enough, genetically and scientifically, as observed to date, a genetic mutation always equals a loss of existant genetic make up within a species. Despite the X-Men hype, the reality of mutation is that it is a phenoma of the inexplicable loss of a part of the existing genome of a particular species within a particular individual of that species. On very rare occasion this has afforded an adaptative advantage--for the most part the deprived mutation dies and does not reproduce. As observed to date mutation equals a loss within a defined species and a trans-species transfer of genetic materials does not occurr naturally.
But interestingly enough historically hunger, malnutrition and starvation among world populations has more to do with distribution logistics than with production logistics. There has never been a reason for world hunger and starving children other than an economic one. Research it for yourself.
With the recent advent of biotechnology we see within it the implications of using the land for a more profitable purpose rather than for a more humanitarian one. Plants can be genetically engineered to provide plastics or fuels or pharmaceuticals--I hate to see this. I would hate to see starving children in the world while farmers grow high-profit, genetically engineered crops which provide plastic, fuel and medicine to the high-paying end of society. Historically, even before this was possible, children died of starvation because of a distribution as opposed to a production equation.
Historically, primative agriculture could produce 1.5 tons to the acre. In the Modern Age we have introduced artificial, chemical and technological methods which have increased this to 2.0 tons to the acre and for the half ton per acre increase we have sacrificed our health which is based on a delicate, natural balance of nutrition based on organic compounds and we've replaced this with a chemical regimen that has poisoned our soils and ourselves.
Interestingly enough, despite the proclamations that genetically engineered crops could help feed a hungry world; if they didn't do it when they could have with conventional, natural crops what makes us think they will do it when they can have crops which yield products that afford an even higher margin of profit?...?...
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 3 thumbs so far
2008 Michael, all rights reserved.
Published: Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Last modified: Tuesday, March 11, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Michael only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Michael is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I'm not clear what your position is with this article.
Biofuels as i see it are a desperate (wrongheaded) measure to wean us (the USA) off of oil. The energy return is not, repeat not profitable. In other words it takes as much if not more energy to make the biofuel than what you get in return. Not to mention the insanity of trading food for fuel. Weird.
Distribution of food depends on .....you guessed it....oil. We are at the end of cheap oil. Evidence of this is the equally desperate and environmentally disastrous mining of the so called oil sands in Alberta, Canada. (Athabasca oil sands). They wouldn't be doing that if we weren't out of the so-called good stuff.
Like it or not c02 accumulations in the atmosphere are a reality. As a result water is becoming ..how shall we say...a problem. Recent wheat harvests were below expectations.
More food = more people = increased use of oil = more c02 emmissions = more warming = catastrophe.
We are in a catch 22.
We should draw down our military. Use the oil and money to retrofit our society for clean burning alternatives, mainly solar, wind, nuclear to a certain extent. That would be a start. But it's nearly too late. Massive, radical changes are going to be forced on this generation or the next.
Jim has a good point about biofuel having a negative ROI for the end-user -- but obviously those in power don't care about individuals because those in power are elite, global collectivists. Biofuel, GM seeds, etc. are incredibly profitable for certain people and certain companies. Not to mention the heinous amount of totalitarian control it gives them over people and Nations.
If we really cared about ending poverty, hunger, malnutrition, etc. we could have spent a trillion dollars on food and clothing for Iraqis, instead of spending that money on murdering them -- and spending that money on arming the different factions so they can murder each other and then calling this twisted surge a success.
Instead of practical, honest efforts at helping others we see such things as, for example, Obama pushing the so-called Global Poverty Act which allows the U.N. to tax Americans for the benefit of others.
The USA is becoming the most hated Nation in the world -- an object-lesson in how great Republics can be toppled. The saddest part (made most obvious by the choices made in the primary elections) is that we really just don't give a damn.
Posted By: Ivan from Oregon
Date: 2008-03-11 12:43:35
Man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 is negligible compared to natural sources. At any rate, the contribution to normal temperature cycles is also negligible. For a real scientific analysis go to Art Robinson's very comprehensive paper
Arthur B. Robinson disagrees with the teaching of evolution. The 19,000 or so signatories to his paper are reffered to as "self-described scientists".
His co-author Willie Soon doesn't deny global warming but he attributes it to solar activity. On top of that he gets his funding from the American Petroleum Institute.
Look at Greenland. I don't care what is melting the ice, oil or the sun, or whatever. But it's melting and that is a problem.http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060920-greenland-ice.html
We are running out of oil. Cheap oil is all but over. I wonder what Robinson has to say about that.
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2008-03-11 14:18:38
Corn is a genetically engineered crop. It was engineered by the South Americans (see Machu Pichu) over a long period of time.
Scientists are ardently working on the Global Warming problem. As in all healthy science, there is much debate and uncertainty.
Tossing out a single paper by a single source and making the claim that "Global warming is not caused by man." just shows the same kind of ignorance we have seen in the Bush administration for the last seven years.
There's plenty of food. I find using food as a weapon, such as the embargo of Cuba, as evil. As part of siege warfare, your goal is to starve your enemy in submission. The leaders are the last to starve. It's the peasant who goes first, the dictator last.
Our policies in this country both encourage food production, and then prevent it from coming to market with price supports--artifical booms and busts. The free market is only fair way to distribute food. Charities and governments could buy the food right at market much cheaper than trying to manipulate the prices. They can guarantee future quantities by buying forward contracts. That's what the commodity markets are there for!
Given the profit motive, a farmer will invest in genetically engineered seeds. He's pretty sharp. You don't need government funding of what the marketplace will provide naturally.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Michael, all rights reserved.