Export thread

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/16/national/main5673056.shtml

1 in 7 American is on the brink of "food insecurity" (which I think basically a fancy word for not getting enough food/hunger)

1 billion people world wide are going hungry

U.N is not committing 44 billion a year to help poor country in agriculture to feed themselves.... or pledge to end world hunger by 2025.

Why?
[opinion rage]
Cause there is no ROI in it (Return On Investment) i.e. no profit in it.

It is sad that we have planes and ships cost millions upon millions of dollars while we have people going hungry

[/opinion rage off]

Greed is killing World Hunger!!

Coincidently I am almost finished reading Atlas Shrugged .

?

Yah, the greed of the Organic Fudz movement.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDU3Njc3NDJlOTJiZDc2MDc2MWNkYzcxNjA2NTQ0OGI=

Also

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2375008/posts

But hey, I gotta go count my money from selling nothing to no one on another continent.

Dusty668 said:

Yah, the greed of the Organic Fudz movement.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDU3Njc3NDJlOTJiZDc2MDc2MWNkYzcxNjA2NTQ0OGI=

Also

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2375008/posts

But hey, I gotta go count my money from selling nothing to no one on another continent.

Click to expand...

so, you blame the anti-organic industry? I'm confuse here
(not sure of the sarcasm, but I don't understand the 1st sentence)

From the first article:

Some anti-GMO donors, meanwhile, are remarkably self-serving.

"A considerable part of the anti-biotech-activist bankroll comes from organic and other 'natural' food marketers who relish the thought of injuring their conventional competitors by supporting unscientific scaremongers," says David Martosko, research director at the Center for Consumer Freedom in Washington.

Indeed, GMO-phobic sponsors include the Organic Trade Association, Wild Oats Markets and Whole Foods Markets, which calls itself "the world's largest retailer of natural and organic foods." WFM, its website states, "believes in a virtuous circle entwining the food chain, human beings and Mother Earth: Each is reliant upon the others through a beautiful and delicate symbiosis."

Click to expand...

A lot of countries are refusing tons of foods from American donators, subsidized countries and self sufficiency organizations because of the 'frankenfood' scare tactics done in the late 90's, especially by Greenpeace. That is laid out in the second article. No sarcasm, just details a lot of media including Al Gore left out.


Ok yah the counting money part was a bit snippy.

Not just greed. Also "green energy."




http://gasbanditry.com/twg163/pictures/Politics/ethanol-starving.jpg

GasBandit said:

Not just greed. Also "green energy."

Click to expand...

Yes, because before green energy Africa was so well fed.

@Li3n;300637][quote=GasBandit said:

Not just greed. Also "green energy."

Click to expand...

Yes, because before green energy Africa was so well fed.[/QUOTE]

You have lots of corn. The price of corn is X, mostly due to government subsidies.

Do you:

A) No change
B) Drop subsidies, lowering the price of corn
C) Maintain subsidies AND enact a clean energy bill with an ethanol mandate, raising the price of corn severalfold?

Can you guess which our government did? How do you think it affected aid sent to africa?

GasBandit;301055][quote=@Li3n;300637][quote=GasBandit said:

Not just greed. Also "green energy."

Click to expand...

Yes, because before green energy Africa was so well fed.[/quote]

You have lots of corn. The price of corn is X, mostly due to government subsidies.

Do you:

A) No change
B) Drop subsidies, lowering the price of corn
C) Maintain subsidies AND enact a clean energy bill with an ethanol mandate, raising the price of corn severalfold?

Can you guess which our government did? How do you think it affected aid sent to africa?[/QUOTE]
After you drop subsidies on corn and farmers have to actually live off the price of the food they make, how low do you think all those products will be? You really think removing subsidies to farmers will lower prices?

Subsidies are the reason a box of cereal is under $5. It's why a 2 Liter of soda is still $1.50.

Krisken;301251][quote=GasBandit;301055][quote=@Li3n;300637][quote=GasBandit said:

Not just greed. Also "green energy."

Click to expand...

Yes, because before green energy Africa was so well fed.[/quote]

You have lots of corn. The price of corn is X, mostly due to government subsidies.

Do you:

A) No change
B) Drop subsidies, lowering the price of corn
C) Maintain subsidies AND enact a clean energy bill with an ethanol mandate, raising the price of corn severalfold?

Can you guess which our government did? How do you think it affected aid sent to africa?[/quote]
After you drop subsidies on corn and farmers have to actually live off the price of the food they make, how low do you think all those products will be? You really think removing subsidies to farmers will lower prices?

Subsidies are the reason a box of cereal is under $5. It's why a 2 Liter of soda is still $1.50.[/QUOTE]
I lol'd.

Dropping all subsidies would be bad, but pushing for more corn to be raised for ethanol was a bad idea. Corn is way behind in harvest this year due to the weather. What they do have off the field is wetter than it should be and needs to get to the ethanol plants asap.

Problem is ethanol isn't turning out to be the next big thing and the plants don't want all the corn. So the farmers are spending a ton of money on natural gas to dry their corn, which will cause the price of that to go up even more for heating this winter. They only have a limited amount of driers though, so again, the corn sits in the fields.

A lot of the farmers are also reporting the corn is molding in the field. If you try to dry moldy corn it will burn up. So a lot of it will get reported to the insurance companies for a loss.

Corn based ethanol is gonna cause a lot more problems than it's worth. It's much more prone to price fluctuations due to weather than oil, and the only reason it's cheaper is because the government gives the ethanol producers a good chunk of money.

They ARE working on ways tog et ethanol from algae and grass though. Those will probably be much for successful for fuel needs, as they don't require the huge space that corn does (and with algae, you can just grow it in tanks just about anywhere).

Just a thought here... But it seems like a lot of the worlds problems would be solved if we just stuck to having one, MAYBE two kids per couple. Wouldn't that solve most of the problems of the world in oh, say... Two generations or so?

Yeah, cause that TOTALLY WORKS for the Chinese.

It's NOT a lack of food problem, it's a POLITICAL problem.

If we supply aid, the warlords take it and gain favor with families by doling it out, thus keeping them in power. Or the witches tell the villagers the food is cursed, so the witches retain their power. Or the thieves steal it and sell it.

We can't move food and expect it to do ANYTHING other than become a free bargaining chip for local leaders.

We can't come in and distribute it ourselves because the local leaders will see it as subverting their command, and fight against it.

We can teach them, to some degree, but what happens to those that learn? They too find themselves struggling against a political process that makes it difficult to earn a living.

Change has to come from within for those countries where food is particularly problematic.

TotalFusionOne said:

Just a thought here... But it seems like a lot of the worlds problems would be solved if we just stuck to having one, MAYBE two kids per couple. Wouldn't that solve most of the problems of the world in oh, say... Two generations or so?

Click to expand...

Good luck selling that concept. Heck it can't even be done in "modern" societies.



Although if it was enforced *koff koff at gunpoint koff*, it would help a lot in the promale child countries since no one would have a daughter and other countries could move in once the sad lonely men died off.

AshburnerX said:

They ARE working on ways tog et ethanol from algae and grass though. Those will probably be much for successful for fuel needs, as they don't require the huge space that corn does (and with algae, you can just grow it in tanks just about anywhere).

Click to expand...

Until they have a dependable source of it, I'll be doubtful. Grass will run into the same problems as corn. What is used as fields for livestock hay will be converted to grass needed for ethanol. Causing prices for meat to rise, and in a bad year the price of ethanol will rise again. Woodchips are a possibility, but will surplus woodchips ever be enough or will trees be chopped just for ethanol? Don't forget about how much oil is used up to plant, harvest, and convert these crops to ethanol.

In my opinion we don't need more ethanol, but we do need more food.

Dusty668;301372][quote=TotalFusionOne said:

Just a thought here... But it seems like a lot of the worlds problems would be solved if we just stuck to having one, MAYBE two kids per couple. Wouldn't that solve most of the problems of the world in oh, say... Two generations or so?

Click to expand...

Good luck selling that concept. Heck it can't even be done in "modern" societies.

Although if it was enforced *koff koff at gunpoint koff*, it would help a lot in the promale child countries since no one would have a daughter and other countries could move in once the sad lonely men died off.[/QUOTE]

Countries where populations are either limited by the gov't, or self limit, are having a very, very hard time right now.

China is faced with an undercurrent of unattached young men with no prospect to marry since males are prized over females. These young men get antsy, and China spends a lot of energy trying to keep them happy so they don't cause problems. There's a reason internet cafes and gaming is so popular there...

Japan has had a somewhat self-limiting population due to crowding, but they are now seeing a huge looming issue with an aging populace that will need extraordinary resources for health care and elder-care.

Even the US, since the birth control pill, has a greatly reduced birth rate which has led to projections of a huge retiring baby boomer generation that will necessarily be supported by the smaller rising generations.

Sorry, but zero population has fallen out of favor for a reason.

Unfortunately, if every last person in the world were turned into a saint overnight, and we distributed food fairly, it would only be a matter of a decade before we had starving people again. The problem is that we as a race reproduce faster than we die, so we will always expand to our limit. Right now (as it has been for most of history) our limiting factor is food.

New agricultural techniques, or more efficient distribution will never curb world hunger. Population control is the only thing that will.

---------- Post added at 02:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:21 AM ----------

Apparently I took too long in responding, and people have been discussing the population thing already. With regards to how population control should be executed, I feel like the answer is less government restrictions, and more empowerment of women.

I have been hesitant to support such ideas, mainly because I hate cultural imperialism, but the fact is that cultures with empowered women have less children.

GasBandit said:

Can you guess which our government did? How do you think it affected aid sent to africa?

Click to expand...

Sure, but that's just another small drop in an ocean of misery.


Plus, aid sent to Africa is at best a band aid... solving the problem would require a local solution as the main thing.

B) Drop subsidies, lowering the price of corn

Click to expand...

YOU FAIL ECONOMY FOREVER.... food is cheaper in countries where make 10 times more medium income wise then here... care to guess why?

I'm hungry

Have some ethanol...

stienman said:

Countries where populations are either limited by the gov't, or self limit, are having a very, very hard time right now.

China is faced with an undercurrent of unattached young men with no prospect to marry since males are prized over females. These young men get antsy, and China spends a lot of energy trying to keep them happy so they don't cause problems. There's a reason internet cafes and gaming is so popular there...

Japan has had a somewhat self-limiting population due to crowding, but they are now seeing a huge looming issue with an aging populace that will need extraordinary resources for health care and elder-care.

Even the US, since the birth control pill, has a greatly reduced birth rate which has led to projections of a huge retiring baby boomer generation that will necessarily be supported by the smaller rising generations.

Sorry, but zero population has fallen out of favor for a reason.

Click to expand...

Erm... I'm not following you at all. You seem to be using confirmation logic to make your point.

China is in the problem they're in now because of the way that they viewed female births in the past, oh, couple of centuries. Not because of population restrictions at all. Or gender restrictions. Just the cultural restrictions that said females weren't "Worth" taking care of. So problems based on population restrictions there are non-existent and don't really support your cause that they're invalid.

As for Japan and the US you're pointing out current problems as to why that system won't work. I don't understand, are you just looking for solutions in this decade? The next decade? Or long term? Yes, the Social Security is borked in the US right now. But the next generation won't have the same issue. Yes, our current generation will be fucked financially. But... I really don't have a problem with that if the long term goals work.

Japans problem is going to be solved in the next 50 years. The US' problem... Well whenever the economy ACTUALLY collapses instead of this false collapse we just had, or some other major change I can't see. OR When the baby-boom generation dies and the lower population becomes the elder population. Either way the long-term views on population restrictions are sound. We just need to educate people to make them willingly follow this instead of making it government mandated.

It's actually pretty easy. Take the closest "eco-friendly" person you can find and convince them that the best way to preserve earths natural resources is to have less people populating. Rinse, repeat.

stienman;301377][quote=Dusty668;301372][quote=TotalFusionOne said:

Just a thought here... But it seems like a lot of the worlds problems would be solved if we just stuck to having one, MAYBE two kids per couple. Wouldn't that solve most of the problems of the world in oh, say... Two generations or so?

Click to expand...

Good luck selling that concept. Heck it can't even be done in "modern" societies.

Although if it was enforced *koff koff at gunpoint koff*, it would help a lot in the promale child countries since no one would have a daughter and other countries could move in once the sad lonely men died off.[/quote]

Countries where populations are either limited by the gov't, or self limit, are having a very, very hard time right now.

China is faced with an undercurrent of unattached young men with no prospect to marry since males are prized over females. These young men get antsy, and China spends a lot of energy trying to keep them happy so they don't cause problems. There's a reason internet cafes and gaming is so popular there...

Japan has had a somewhat self-limiting population due to crowding, but they are now seeing a huge looming issue with an aging populace that will need extraordinary resources for health care and elder-care.

Even the US, since the birth control pill, has a greatly reduced birth rate which has led to projections of a huge retiring baby boomer generation that will necessarily be supported by the smaller rising generations.

Sorry, but zero population has fallen out of favor for a reason.[/QUOTE]

Says the guy with a baseball team of kids.

I always love the anti-population control arguments... because they're all about how it's gonna require sacrifices... yeah, no shit. But don't worry, i bet some magical solution that requires no effort at all will show up soon...

Yea, I like having a brother and sister.

So....... this has gotten a bit complex that I thought.

When the U.S. is willing to donate food, receiving country don't want "genetic engineer" food cause it is bad?

It is because the sustainable agriculture people tell the leaders of poor countries that 'frankefood' is bad.

The main cause of famine is not lack of rain, ethanol, or organic food crazies, it mostly stems from warfare. If you want to kill the enemy, it is easier to kill the unprotected farmers than it is to kill the armed forces or the villagers they protect.

I watched this 1940's spy film, that predates the Cold War, with my mother. The "hero" of the story was a food scientist that went to Germany after the war to find a way to help feed the Germans. My mom made some snarky remark about how he should have stayed at home to feed the hungry in America at that time. I told her that the reason the Germans were starving in '46-'47 was that they just went through 6 years of tanks rolling across the country side, and the analogy of killing farmers to kill even more citizens and soldiers.

Chibibar said:

So....... this has gotten a bit complex that I thought.

When the U.S. is willing to donate food, receiving country don't want "genetic engineer" food cause it is bad?

Click to expand...

Pert' much.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIvNopv9Pa8]Penn and Teller: Bullshit! about GE food featuring Norman Borlaug, a personal hero of mine.[/ame]

@Li3n said:

I always love the anti-population control arguments... because they're all about how it's gonna require sacrifices... yeah, no shit. But don't worry, i bet some magical solution that requires no effort at all will show up soon...

Click to expand...

What exactly is the argument for a population growth based model? Is it that we're not going to be around when it gets bad, so who cares, or is it that we're just betting everything that a magical easy no sacrifice solution will show up before we run out of room and resources?

Chibibar said:

So....... this has gotten a bit complex that I thought.

When the U.S. is willing to donate food, receiving country don't want "genetic engineer" food cause it is bad?

Click to expand...

because they think it's bad due to propaganda by pinko greenpeace idiots. Yes.

The most that is done to genetically engineered crops is the introduction to pest resistance genes and pesticide resistance. I had an idiot at the bar try to convince me that he won't eat genetically engineered corn because they use fish DNA in it. I just rolled my eyes in the pure ignorance that I was bathed in.

FYI: when you eat anything, your digestive system breaks down your food into amino acids, fats, and sugars and then builds using those basics. Free floating DNA/RNA nucleic acids are broken down by shitloads of DNases and RNases everywhere.

I swear to God, I can't begin to describe to the lay person how hard it is to keep RNA stable.

Chazwozel;301867][quote=Chibibar said:

So....... this has gotten a bit complex that I thought.

When the U.S. is willing to donate food, receiving country don't want "genetic engineer" food cause it is bad?

Click to expand...

because they think it's bad due to propaganda by pinko greenpeace idiots. Yes.

The most that is done to genetically engineered crops is the introduction to pest resistance genes and pesticide resistance. I had an idiot at the bar try to convince me that he won't eat genetically engineered corn because they use fish DNA in it. I just rolled my eyes in the pure ignorance that I was bathed in.

FYI: when you eat anything, your digestive system breaks down your food into amino acids, fats, and sugars and then builds using those basics. Free floating DNA/RNA nucleic acids are broken down by shitloads of DNases and RNases everywhere.

I swear to God, I can't begin to describe to the lay person how hard it is to keep RNA stable.[/QUOTE]

Well, I don't know/understand the inner workings of my body THAT well but I figure our body is design to break down pretty much what we eat. Of course excessive stuff (like Alcohol) can cause damage to liver in the long run but I didn't think engineer food will do harm (at least not that I know of)

It is hard NOT to encounter engineer food one form or another. Even if you eat all organic, I'm sure restaurant use some engineer veggies to keep the cost down.

The only "frankenfood" thing I don't get is seedless fruits. If they're seedless, how do they produce new generations?

Bowielee said:

The only "frankenfood" thing I don't get is seedless fruits. If they're seedless, how do they produce new generations?

Click to expand...

hehe.. who cares! it was made to be eaten..... I love watermelon without seeds.

Of course there are times where WITH seeds are fun too (spitting contest)

Bowielee said:

The only "frankenfood" thing I don't get is seedless fruits. If they're seedless, how do they produce new generations?

Click to expand...

Fun fact, he one you're eating isn't going to be producing the next generation in the first place...

Fun fact, if you swallow watermelon seeds they will begin to grow in your intestine and sprout out of your butt. It's true, I swear.

Bowielee said:

The only "frankenfood" thing I don't get is seedless fruits. If they're seedless, how do they produce new generations?

Click to expand...

Graft. but not corruption.

@Li3n;301944][quote=Bowielee said:

The only "frankenfood" thing I don't get is seedless fruits. If they're seedless, how do they produce new generations?

Click to expand...

Fun fact, he one you're eating isn't going to be producing the next generation in the first place...[/QUOTE]

So, what does the "parent" strain produce two different types of offspring? Ones with seeds, and ones without?

RealBigNuke said:

What exactly is the argument for a population growth based model? Is it that we're not going to be around when it gets bad, so who cares, or is it that we're just betting everything that a magical easy no sacrifice solution will show up before we run out of room and resources?

Click to expand...

Neither. It's that people don't want any authority telling them they can or can't have kids.

What's the argument for growth control? So far we've had, and surpassed, numerous predictions over the last century or two that we'd run out of food/room/resources/energy/etc.

The one thing we do know is that humans adapt to their environment, or make their environment adapt to them.

We now have food crops and methods of agriculture that are producing at a significantly higher output than previous crops and methods which we couldn't have imagined in the 70's when zero population was popular.

Yes, we should make sure we're not painting ourselves into a corner, but even the worst predictions merely say that some people in some parts of the world will have a more difficult time affording food and water in the near future, because as the demand goes up, so do the costs.

As costs go up, though, people will self-restrict their family size. No one wants to choose which child should get less food and die because they can't afford to feed all their children, so they will choose not the have another child in the first place.

This fits in very well with empowering women in societies where women are marginalized.

A global ideological (possibly) thermonuclear war would probably also solve a lot of our population problems...

GasBandit said:

A global ideological (possibly) thermonuclear war would probably also solve a lot of our population problems...

Click to expand...

You only say that because there's nothing worth nuking in Texas.

Krisken;302030][quote=GasBandit said:

A global ideological (possibly) thermonuclear war would probably also solve a lot of our population problems...

Click to expand...

You only say that because there's nothing worth nuking in Texas.[/QUOTE]

Except a lot of space:

According to the U.N. Population Database, the world's population in 2010 will be 6,908,688,000. The landmass of Texas is 268,820 sq mi (7,494,271,488,000 sq ft).

So, divide 7,494,271,488,000 sq ft by 6,908,688,000 people, and you get 1084.76 sq ft/person. That's approximately a 33' x 33' plot of land for every person on the planet, enough space for a town house.

Given an average four person family, every family would have a 66' x 66' plot of land, which would comfortably provide a single family home and yard -- and all of them fit on a landmass the size of Texas. Admittedly, it'd basically be one massive subdivision, but Texas is a tiny portion of the inhabitable Earth.

Such an arrangement would leave the entire rest of the world vacant. There's plenty of space for humanity.

Click to expand...

By the by: Those numbers up there? From the UN Population Database (http://esa.un.org/unpp/)

Espy;302031][quote=Krisken;302030][quote=GasBandit said:

A global ideological (possibly) thermonuclear war would probably also solve a lot of our population problems...

Click to expand...

You only say that because there's nothing worth nuking in Texas.[/quote]

Except a lot of space:

According to the U.N. Population Database, the world's population in 2010 will be 6,908,688,000. The landmass of Texas is 268,820 sq mi (7,494,271,488,000 sq ft).

So, divide 7,494,271,488,000 sq ft by 6,908,688,000 people, and you get 1084.76 sq ft/person. That's approximately a 33' x 33' plot of land for every person on the planet, enough space for a town house.

Given an average four person family, every family would have a 66' x 66' plot of land, which would comfortably provide a single family home and yard -- and all of them fit on a landmass the size of Texas. Admittedly, it'd basically be one massive subdivision, but Texas is a tiny portion of the inhabitable Earth.

Such an arrangement would leave the entire rest of the world vacant. There's plenty of space for humanity.

Click to expand...

By the by: Those numbers up there? From the UN Population Database (http://esa.un.org/unpp/)[/quote]
Cool, that leaves food and water needs of the people outside of that area. I say we send the muties after it. They're already freaks, after all.

Of course it's only making a point about space Krisken. I'm not providing an answer to the problem of food for the world, just showing how we often tend to think of the planet practically EXPLODING with people when it's really not.

Espy said:

Of course it's only making a point about space Krisken. I'm not providing an answer to the problem of food for the world, just showing how we often tend to think of the planet practically EXPLODING with people when it's really not.

Click to expand...

Ya know, i was just being silly, not trying to have a serious debate (with nuking everything but Texas). You could have played along.

Krisken;302058][quote=Espy said:

Of course it's only making a point about space Krisken. I'm not providing an answer to the problem of food for the world, just showing how we often tend to think of the planet practically EXPLODING with people when it's really not.

Click to expand...

Ya know, i was just being silly, not trying to have a serious debate (with nuking everything but Texas). You could have played along.[/QUOTE]

I'm not arguing AGAINST nuking it. I've lived there. Yikes.

Espy;302070][quote=Krisken;302058][quote=Espy said:

Of course it's only making a point about space Krisken. I'm not providing an answer to the problem of food for the world, just showing how we often tend to think of the planet practically EXPLODING with people when it's really not.

Click to expand...

Ya know, i was just being silly, not trying to have a serious debate (with nuking everything but Texas). You could have played along.[/QUOTE]

I'm not arguing AGAINST nuking it. I've lived there. Yikes.[/QUOTE]

But... but my uncles live in Texas.

Don't we have anything stronger?

Humans have been frankenfooding since like the second year we discovered planting things we like near the house is a great way to find the things we like near the house. Then we got all techie, and built a fence for keeping sheep in. We've gone to greenpeace hell ever since.

The hunger issue is not just getting food for people, we can do that, world war I, world war II, Korean War, countries all over the world stepped up farming outputs and techniques and delivered humanitarian aid by the bushel, it shows too, look at the Hawaiian & British love of spam from the time they were not allowed/able to fish due to WWII.

Food is a method of control for power "Don't eat that poison food, only I and (insert deity) can guide you in these uncertain times. There's a reason most fundamental religions have strong kosher/clean traife/unclean food laws and regulations.

The olive tree branch is a sign of peace because it takes like 20 years for the tree to grow enough to have a crop, armies on the move cut down trees for fuel, strip them for fodder/shelter, or kill/conscript the farmer. Got an olive tree? you've had a long peaceful spell.

Man is an animal that moves, give him a supply of something he will expand numbers to use all of that supply, grain, water, mineral wealth it don't matter, we are locusts with committees. You want to see some anger on a subject, google up 'generational welfare state'. People living on a dole for generations and expecting it to last all their lives, because it's always been there. Starving? no, but some of the same roots that cause starvation en masse feed this too.

We can make enough food, we can get the food to everyone, we can't make them eat, we can't keep them feeling safe, and if we try some just eat the food and breed up more starving folks the next year.

Is there a single answer this side of the mythical Starfleet replicator? I dunno. Even that would only help most folks, cause some would say they ain't eating artificial food. Maybe have everyone in the world line up and take a good solid cluebat whack upside the haid. Think I'll need one on both sides.

Bowielee said:

The only "frankenfood" thing I don't get is seedless fruits. If they're seedless, how do they produce new generations?

Click to expand...

Seedless fruits still have seeds, just not many. I think a lot of them are also crossbreeds i.e. fruit that has been bred to be sterile (seedless) from seeded fruits, kinda like a how you get a mule in terms of animals. I think other plants like pumpkins and watermelons naturally use runner shoots that spread a single plant over a large area with lots of offspring fruit.

I dunno...I'm just making conclusions up off the top of my head. I'm no plant geneticist.

Bowielee;301971][quote=@Li3n;301944][quote=Bowielee said:

The only \"frankenfood\" thing I don't get is seedless fruits. If they're seedless, how do they produce new generations?

Click to expand...

Fun fact, he one you're eating isn't going to be producing the next generation in the first place...[/quote]

So, what does the "parent" strain produce two different types of offspring? Ones with seeds, and ones without?[/quote]

I'm assuming that they just keep the original strain around for when they run out.

And here we go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seedless_fruit#Biology

You're eating clones mostly.

Also, seedless bananas?! What? How does a real banana looks like then?!

@Li3n;302206][quote=Bowielee;301971][quote=@Li3n;301944][quote=Bowielee said:

The only \"frankenfood\" thing I don't get is seedless fruits. If they're seedless, how do they produce new generations?

Click to expand...

Fun fact, he one you're eating isn't going to be producing the next generation in the first place...[/quote]

So, what does the "parent" strain produce two different types of offspring? Ones with seeds, and ones without?[/quote]

I'm assuming that they just keep the original strain around for when they run out.

And here we go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seedless_fruit#Biology

You're eating clones mostly.

Also, seedless bananas?! What? How does a real banana looks like then?![/QUOTE]

MAN, those are some pink, monkey hands...

Empowering women isn't, specifically, what causes less children to be born. There's a positive, nut weak, correlation.
Lower infant death rates and higher average income lowers birth rate. We tend to have lots of children because half of them DIE, and the other half is needed to sustain us later on. There's a much stronger positive correlation between infant and youth survival and lower birth rates.

Bowielee said:

Click to expand...

Espy said:

just showing how we often tend to think of the planet practically EXPLODING with people when it's really not.

Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, if you added roads, parking, stores, government and commercial structures, factories, dumps, and, of course, enough farms for the 10 billion chickens and however many other animals we have alive at one time and the crops to feed them and crops to feed us...

It might be a lot more accurate to say that if you covered every flat surface on North America with waste and the moving parts of civilization, you could then give every family in the world a small house in Texas, probably.

Wildly tangential, I know, but ah well.

I think Espy's point is that Texas could be much more useful than it is currently if we tried.

stienman;302020][quote=RealBigNuke said:

What exactly is the argument for a population growth based model? Is it that we're not going to be around when it gets bad, so who cares, or is it that we're just betting everything that a magical easy no sacrifice solution will show up before we run out of room and resources?

Click to expand...

Neither. It's that people don't want any authority telling them they can or can't have kids.

What's the argument for growth control? So far we've had, and surpassed, numerous predictions over the last century or two that we'd run out of food/room/resources/energy/etc.

The one thing we do know is that humans adapt to their environment, or make their environment adapt to them.

We now have food crops and methods of agriculture that are producing at a significantly higher output than previous crops and methods which we couldn't have imagined in the 70's when zero population was popular.

Yes, we should make sure we're not painting ourselves into a corner, but even the worst predictions merely say that some people in some parts of the world will have a more difficult time affording food and water in the near future, because as the demand goes up, so do the costs.

As costs go up, though, people will self-restrict their family size. No one wants to choose which child should get less food and die because they can't afford to feed all their children, so they will choose not the have another child in the first place.

This fits in very well with empowering women in societies where women are marginalized.[/QUOTE]

Dude, no.

This fits in very well with empowering women in societies where women are marginalized.

Click to expand...

Problem is this isn't the case in many regions of the world which is why Africa still has a horrible AIDS problem as well as population.