GM

[Stuart]

I've travled and lived in many poor and desperate countrys, and like Jake seen the misery brought about by overpopulation, but i see the other side of the argument.

1.an area of land is capable of sustaining 2000 people.
2.the population rises to 4000.
3.Result, Famine
4.The westen charitys provide food to keep th 4000 alive for a year.
5.next year the population rises to 5000.
the land can still only support 2000
6. result even worse fammine than the first, with appalling loss of life
7.The western charitys provide food to keep 4000 alive for a year
(they cant supply enough for all of them)
8. the population rises to 5500 and the land can still only support 2000
9. the west forgets about them, as public intrest moves to another
country
10.Result Famine, loss of life 3500


supplying food to keep this population alive and therefor growing only made matters worse in the future, this may sound terrible (and when you see it in person it is!) but this how nature works, the land can only support 2000, thats it, cold, calculating and....... balanced


I think what gary met by polluting the earth was not that these extra people are porducing pollution, but we as human beings are the pollution by over population

I realize that this is a very emotive topic but both sides of this should be understood

 

[boaty]

1.an area of land is capable of sustaining 2000 people.
2.the population rises to 4000.
3.Result, Famine

Sorry to be pedantic when we're talking about human tradgedy, but by what mechanism did you get from step 1 to 2? If the land was capable of sustaining 2000 how come the population rose to 4000, or even 2100?

I'm sure this is just shorthand for

1. an are of land capable of sustaining 4000 people
2. the population rises to 4000
2a. a disaster (flood, drought, war) reduces the capability of the land to sustain life
3. Result: famine

But whatever the mechanism, the analysis is chillingly accurate

This is why a step 4a is so necessary:

4a. The western charities work with the local population to ensure appropriate population density (perhaps by improving the land)

 

[Stuart]

the mechanism for getting from 1. to 2. can be any number of things war, famine, etc etc

in the case of flood, war etc these are temporary and the land will soon regain its ability to sustain, what i was refuring to was mainly drought and simple over population (massive imagration lack of education/contraception)

how does the western charity work with the local population to ensure appropriate population density???

education and free contraception is the most effective way of preventing over population but once it has happened, the population has to return to the number that the land can sustain somehow.

if somone can work out how to reduce the population without anyone dieing that would be great

 

[boaty]

how does the western charity work with the local population to ensure appropriate population density???

education and free contraception is the most effective way of preventing over population but once it has happened, the population has to return to the number that the land can sustain somehow.

Being cyncial, and turning the thread full circle, this is where the locals get sold the super-productive GM crops...

if somone can work out how to reduce the population without anyone dieing that would be great

Amen to that. Though in parts of Africa the Aids epidemic is de-populating the land anyway

 

[JakeR]

In africa alone, one person dies from HIV/AIDS every 20 seconds. It will take 25 years before the deaths in africa (from this moment) will equal the british population.

Over-population is a great cause for concern. The biggest killer is however, AIDS. The west do not do enough about it. If it wasnt for the intervention of other countries (Germany, France etc) George W Bush would have closed down the HIV/AIDS office in USA.

Lack of education does effect population growth/decline and famine, but what people fail to realise, that alot of it is the lack of education HERE, UK, USA, Europe.

People die because they get themselves into situations (through no fault of there own) and cannot get out. They dont *want* to be helped, but they *need* it.

Thats where we come in. GM crops could save lives,

'we could feed the starving millions'

. Seeds are so valuable. They can "grow" themeselves out of poverty..........i have seen it happen.

I really dont want to create tension, or difficulties.

But it is hard to see that these people dont get the respect that they deserve.
It would cost £1000 pounds for a freshwater well in an african village. That alone is a life saver.

When i travelled down from Jo'burg to Capetown by car (with my Father, and more recently, myself) i saw what people do for the most basic things.
a mother walk for 5 hours through the blazing african sun to fetch water from a pond that might kill her. This is real, we couldnt just forget about them. It is happening *right now*.

Thanks for your intrest, and im sorry if i sound abrupt.
Cheers,

Jake

 

[bushwacker bob]

Why do we need GM food to feed the starving millions.It is my understanding that the developed word produces and wastes,stores or throws away sufficient food to feed the third world.The only reason its not given to them is because there would be no profit in it. IF ENOUGH OF US GET TOGETHER OVER SOME BEERS WE COULD PUT THE WORLD TO RIGHTS

 

[JakeR]

Why do we need GM food to feed the starving millions.It is my understanding that the developed word produces and wastes,stores or throws away sufficient food to feed the third world.The only reason its not given to them is because there would be no profit in it. IF ENOUGH OF US GET TOGETHER OVER SOME BEERS WE COULD PUT THE WORLD TO RIGHTS

Very well said. But the governmet would never agree. It may be more cost effective to supply them with the raw materials (seed, grain etc) than the finished goods (bread, pasta etc)

These people would also, if given the raw materials, be able to stop themeselves faling deeper into trouble.

Cheers,

Jake

 

[Fluxus]

Where to start?

What is being discussed is the carrying capacity of the earth as a whole and estimates of productive land use suggest that the planet could support about 13 billion people. ( the number for the UK is about 200million if we were all vegetarian). As I have been taught and still teach, the major causes of famine and starvation in the third world are not overpopulation or natural disasters but the global economic system in which these countries have very little power over the prices of their exports. The development model applied by the world bank and IMF pushes industrialisation and exprts of manufactured goodsa as a route to improving the lives of the populations. From watching the news one can see that it doesn't really work.

A rather simplistic analysis but the argument that these folk are in trouble because they have too many kids doesn't wash.

BTW GM food - there is no need for it at all apart from to line the pockets of very few already rich business men.

 

[Roving Rich]

Sorry but i have Faith in nature and what she is doing. She has got the planet through the past couple of million years OK, so I guess she must be doing something right.
GM is a short term solution that will only end in disaster. Messing with a very delicate Eco system is a recipe for disaster. We may be able to engineer plants to be immune to one or two pests or diseases, but they have evolved over thousands of years and have encoded resistance to thousands of diseases we have never encountered. By altering their structure we negate this genetic history, evolution and wisdom and fly in the face of nature itself. The plants will fail, some small chink the scientists have overlooked. By which time man will be dependent on them and millions will starve (as Stuart pointed out). I have faith in this giant green brain that somehow sustains all living creatures. I have been to the jungle and seen just how well it works without mans intervention.
Humans in the short time we have been here have succeeded in rapidly destroying the planet with our ignorance and greed.
Politics is to blame. Pure and simple. no one would stay in an area that could not sustain them if there were no political boundaries.
Sorry there is NO need for GM.
Just a political revolution!
Cheers
Rich

 

[Fluxus]

Wey Hey Rich !!
When does it start?

 

[Jamie]

Ultimately, we are only killing the planet for ourselves and a range of species that currently 'coexist' with us.

As Rich said, the planet has seen through millenia without our interference and has seen massive upheavals and changes in the past. The planet will rebound after we have gone - it really is a question of protecting what we have for our descendants - not a great deal to ask one might think!

 

[JakeR]

I understand that GM food may cause alot of natural problems......But my arguement lies with the suffering of people. I get so angry with western politicians (Bush, Blair.......) and i agree that most of the problem is caused by politics.

I wish there was a solution that would make everybody happy, but there aint, we have to go with the greater good for the greater number, situation ethics, and the greater number are the starving *millions*

cheers,

Jake

 

[Wayne]

Hi.

I agree there is a need to help the starving massess. The world bank and IMF have a lot to answer for as does EU and US trade pactices.

The question of GM has little to do with volume of food production for we have vast over production on most food staples. The GM and Chemical industries are looking for new markets as they have their shareholders interests to cater for.

Can we as reasponsible people allow the enviroment to be permanently damaged with crops that have a small improvement in productivity.
In The US I believe the Monarch butterfly is already suffering from GM and lose of habitat. Yes its just a butterfly, so what? Insects are very good indicators of our planets health and we need biodiversity for all.

Hoodoo is the biologist amongst us, he maybe able to shed more light on the subject.

Today animal and plant diversity is expendable tomorrow those starving massess you so rightly worry about may become even more expendable as their ablilty to pay is further reduced by their debt burden.

Change in attitudes are needed from us all if global problems are to be resolved. It is obscene that I am willing to pay £200 for an Alan Wood blade when children are going blind for the want to clean drinking water.

That said I am totally against GM and industrial scale farming. However I shop most of the time in supermarkets and as an engineer have worked on weapons projects. Guess i'm a hypocrite.

 

[bushwacker bob]

There is a consensus of common sense in this forum. So who wants to stand for parliament? :idea:

 

[Stew]

Aah, the Monster Raving Bushcraft Party!

 

[Wayne]

its got my vote :notworthy

 

[Roving Rich]

quote " Guy Falks - the only man to enter parliment with honest intentions"

Rich

 

[JakeR]

Change in attitudes are needed from us all if global problems are to be resolved. It is obscene that I am willing to pay £200 for an Alan Wood blade when children are going blind for the want to clean drinking water.

You're so right......It is so hard to see what is going on. We all know that it is happening, but we only really comprehend it when we see the living faces, the children playing like our kids, the way people *try* to make things better and are still able to smile.

We spend in a day what they earn in years, literally.

We complain that the bus is late! Yet we can still come home to food.

It really is amazing how much you realise how absolutely lucky we are, completely, 100% blessed.

Yet B.liar is only out to fight a few crooked wars, find some WMD's and somehow sleep at night. Bush is worse, but i havent got the time to go on a Bush rant!

Our foriegn policies is what is killing these people, trade, aid, and research etc etc.

When people say (or think) that it is not our business, you would be suprised to see how much of the suffering is due to us.

Cheers,

Jake

 

[Roving Rich]

Here Here :-|
Rich