Real Pickles

Originally posted by joe beyser
Not to mention GMO crops and the negative side effects that this food has.

Such as?

Originally posted by joe beyser
Not to mention GMO crops and the negative side effects that this food has.

There is nothing whatsoever specifically negative about GMO crops. What is negative is the fact that some companies have been allowed to obtain rights over their GMO crops to a much higher degree than was possible with crops genetically modified using traditional methods.

Originally posted by twhitehead
If we are going to measure environmental damage, then we have to count the beans. It is your refusal to count the beans that makes your dreamy eyed claims a load of nonsense. Producing a lot of food cheaply on the minimum amount of land causes the minimum amount of environmental damage. Its as simple as that.

There are of course better ways to farm tha ...[text shortened]... m may or may not incorporate practices that are better for the environment than other farms.

While it's true that the term 'organic' is open to a certain amount of abuse, it is much more preferable to the colossal disaster of industrialized agriculture, with its excessive reliance on fossil fuels and pesticides and the litany of abuses that have followed in its wake. Topsoil loss, land degradation, pollution, loss of biodiversity, monocropping's increased susceptibility to pests and blight, the throwing of whole populations into wage slavery, the list goes on and on. The most revolutionary act any community can take is to reclaim its food supply from the control of big agribusiness.

Originally posted by rwingett
While it's true that the term 'organic' is open to a certain amount of abuse, it is much more preferable to the colossal disaster of industrialized agriculture, with its excessive reliance on fossil fuels and pesticides and the litany of abuses that have followed in its wake.

Repeating the same false statement does not make it right. 'Organic' is just as much an industrialized form of agriculture as any other. It is just as much susceptible to colossal disaster. If anything it is merely a step forward on the colossal disaster road of industrial madness.
And you seem to be under the delusion that 'organic' implies less reliance on fossil fuels. Not so - other than for the production of fertilizers.

Topsoil loss, land degradation, pollution, loss of biodiversity, monocropping's increased susceptibility to pests and blight, the throwing of whole populations into wage slavery, the list goes on and on.
And you are yet to mention anything that is not equally possible on an organic farm.

The most revolutionary act any community can take is to reclaim its food supply from the control of big agribusiness.
Revolutionary, maybe. Stupid, certainly. In reality all you are doing is putting it into the hands of another more deceptive big agribusiness. It just sounds better now that its called 'organic'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Repeating the same false statement does not make it right. 'Organic' is just as much an industrialized form of agriculture as any other. It is just as much susceptible to colossal disaster. If anything it is merely a step forward on the colossal disaster road of industrial madness.
And you seem to be under the delusion that 'organic' implies less relianc ...[text shortened]... her more deceptive big agribusiness. It just sounds better now that its called 'organic'.

Duplicating the post was my way of telling you that I have no interest in what you're saying. At all. Your posts on this topic are so nonsensical that I'd think you were joking if you didn't keep repeating them. Needless to say, our views on appropriate agriculture are completely at odds with one another. And they appear likely to remain so.

Originally posted by rwingett
Duplicating the post was my way of telling you that I have no interest in what you're saying. At all. Your posts on this topic are so nonsensical that I'd think you were joking if you didn't keep repeating them. Needless to say, our views on appropriate agriculture are completely at odds with one another. And they appear likely to remain so.

I am not surprised. All you have ever been interested in is pushing your agenda without any supporting argument. You are so convinced that industrialization is bad that you refuse to see any good in it and you are easily fooled by anyone saying they are anti-establishment - even when, in reality, they are just an alternative establishment.
The very fact that you have no interest in what other people may say in opposition to your views tells us a lot about your position.

Originally posted by rwingett
Duplicating the post was my way of telling you that I have no interest in what you're saying. At all. Your posts on this topic are so nonsensical that I'd think you were joking if you didn't keep repeating them. Needless to say, our views on appropriate agriculture are completely at odds with one another. And they appear likely to remain so.

Easier to just cut his head off. That would solve the problem.

It's fun doing well. You should try it sometime. You wind up happy.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
Such as?

There is tons of info out there on it. It was fast tracked past the FDA and now testing has shown it causes allergies, sterilization, and auto immune diseases. Donald Rumsfeld was involved with it of course. Not only is it bad for you but it is an attempt by monsanto to monopolize the food supply. Google it if you are interested.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not surprised. All you have ever been interested in is pushing your agenda without any supporting argument. You are so convinced that industrialization is bad that you refuse to see any good in it and you are easily fooled by anyone saying they are anti-establishment - even when, in reality, they are just an alternative establishment.
The very fact ...[text shortened]... est in what other people may say in opposition to your views tells us a lot about your position.

I have mentioned many of the horrors that go along with big, industrialized agriculture. Several times. From (once again) topsoil loss, land degradation, pollution*, loss of biodiversity, monocropping's increased susceptibility to pests and blight, the throwing of whole populations into wage slavery - Big Agribusiness is an unmitigated disaster. You could try addressing one of those issues instead of just whining about my distaste for Big Ag. Those enormous, externalized costs, which have been successfully hidden for so long, are going to start seriously impacting Big Ag's "miraculous" yields. It's an unsustainable road that's eventually going to lead to complete ecological devastation and the realization that we paid an enormous cost for all that "cheap" food. Monsanto will reap all the profits, while the rest of us get stuck with all the wreckage they've left behind in their wake.

Your idiotic response has been to claim that small, localized, organic farms are guilty of the same litany of crimes is so bizarre as to be laughable. Monsanto and such a farm have absolutely nothing in common. Nothing. I honestly don't know how you can utter such nonsense with a straight face. And the funny thing is that you call yourself a "socialist." What kind of socialist defends Big Ag with the same demented fervor as you? Only some kind of contemptible establishment bureaucrat who can see no farther than his cherished trainwreck of agricultural system he's been nursing along for the last several decades.


*As for fossil fuel, Big Ag is swimming in it. From fertilizers to pesticides to transporting food to the four corners of the earth, every facet of industrialized agriculture is awash with fossil fuels. It may be "cheap" in the short run to raise food that way, but it consumes an enormous amount of resources to do so. A local, organic farm breaks that complete dependance on fossil fuels. And while the yields may not be as spectacular (although the gap is closing), and it may cost a little more (but for whom?), it uses far fewer resources, consumes far less energy, and generates far less waste in doing so.

Originally posted by rwingett
I have mentioned many of the horrors that go along with big, industrialized agriculture. Several times. From (once again) topsoil loss, land degradation, pollution*, loss of biodiversity, monocropping's increased susceptibility to pests and blight, the throwing of whole populations into wage slavery - Big Agribusiness is an unmitigated disaster. You could t ...[text shortened]... er resources, consumes far less energy, and generates far less waste in doing so.

You're missing the point. This is true of the vast majority of Liberals.

You don't deal with the world as it is. You deal with it as you wish it to be. The vast majority of what Liberals want to accomplish - universal health care, for example - is noble. But it doesn't take into account human nature. You're like women. You don't think, you feel, and you're ruled by your emotions (usually anger).

You're also arrogant. You think that you can change systems, people, ways of thinking, so you don't bother working inside systems, and with people you disagree with, to effect change. Politics is supposed to be played between the 30-yard lines. Obama wants to play down at the goal line - and I call compelling commerce playing at the goal line.

You also lack real-world experience. This is why you enact legislation that fails miserably; because you don't consider the consequences of your actions, you don't bother to get all the necessary people on your side when you make a major decision, and you fail to anticipate reactions of people affected by your decisions. So you wind up with a raft of Unintended consequences, you get more angry that things aren't going your way, and you decide that the people opposing you are even more evil than you thought.

In the business world, it works this way: you have an idea, you try the idea out with a few colleagues. Then you float it to your boss. If she likes it, she makes a few modification based on her experience, then you present it to her colleagues. You give everybody who could be affected the chance to comment and buy in. You give what you can to the losers, and you rein in the winners. Then you start small, with a pilot program. After you run the pilot, demonstrate success, and gain credibility, you expand the program.

What you don't do is issue a dictatorial decree from your imperial throne without any agreement from your opposition and then get surprised when people resist.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
You're missing the point. This is true of the vast majority of Liberals.

You don't deal with the world as it is. You deal with it as you wish it to be. The vast majority of what Liberals want to accomplish - universal health care, for example - is noble. But it doesn't take into account human nature. You're like women. You don't think, you fe ...[text shortened]... ithout any agreement from your opposition and then get surprised when people resist.

The ecological devastation being wrought by industrial agriculture is happening in the real world. The world we both inhabit. When your cherished business model runs up against that reality, guess what's going to happen? Your "real world experience" is going to end up in history's trash bin, along with every other failed social model that its participants assumed would last forever. An agricultural system run by the likes of Monsanto is wholly unsustainable. We can either voluntarily change that system ourselves, or change will be forced upon us when whole ecosystems start collapsing around us. Either way, the world will not remain "as it is" for very much longer.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
You don't deal with the world as it is. You deal with it as you wish it to be.

Well, yeah, that is kind of what separates rational beings from animals. It's the wishers and dreamers who gave us the U.S. Constitution, which you profess to hold dear. It's the wishers and dreamers who ultimately compelled amendments to the Constitution which abolished slavery and gave women the vote. Such strivings to elevate the human condition above "the way things are" is the essence of civilization and the progressive philosophy. Your attitudes are at war with the very foundations of democracy and any sense of balance between man and nature. Indeed, it is more realistic to demand that humans adopt a lifestyle that is sustainable in a finite world than to cling to the insane calculus (the "wishful thinking''😉 of endless growth and ever-increasing consumption. You are the real dreamer of fantasy.

Originally posted by rwingett
While it's true that the term 'organic' is open to a certain amount of abuse, it is much more preferable to the colossal disaster of industrialized agriculture, with its excessive reliance on fossil fuels and pesticides and the litany of abuses that have followed in its wake. Topsoil loss, land degradation, pollution, loss of biodiversity, monocropping's in ...[text shortened]... t any community can take is to reclaim its food supply from the control of big agribusiness.

Perhaps you'ld like to regress to the late 19th century when around 80% of the population was employed in agriculture, compared to about 2% these days.

Industrialized agriculture isn't the colossal disaster you portray. Sure there are problems, but more of them have been solved or improved that worsened.

Originally posted by rwingett
The ecological devastation being wrought by industrial agriculture is happening in the real world. The world we both inhabit. When your cherished business model runs up against that reality, guess what's going to happen? Your "real world experience" is going to end up in history's trash bin, along with every other failed social model that its partici ...[text shortened]... llapsing around us. Either way, the world will not remain "as it is" for very much longer.

When is the last time you actually set foot on a farm?

Originally posted by Soothfast
Well, yeah, that is kind of what separates rational beings from animals. It's the wishers and dreamers who gave us the U.S. Constitution, which you profess to hold dear. It's the wishers and dreamers who ultimately compelled amendments to the Constitution which abolished slavery and gave women the vote. Such strivings to elevate the human condition abov ...[text shortened]... of endless growth and ever-increasing consumption. You are the real dreamer of fantasy.

True about the US Constitution, but the framers were realists, nor utopians, and as you point out weren't able to solve everything at once.

The notion of worker owned production has been floated and tried many times, and with very limited success. One of the most stunning failures in recent memory was Enron, where workers and management owned most of the companies stock, and so took most of the losses when the business model failed.

No rational person believes that this planets resources are not finite. That is a far cry from Malthusian dismay or chicken little fear mongering.