About the only reason 1/2 of the central plains are arable right now is water out of the ground.

 

Sure, but humans can alter their behavior as they are doing now - changing crops annually, changing irrigation patterns, water conservation, etc.

Groundwater doesn't come from rain/runoff? Water magically appears underground?

there are these really fascinating things called lakes, oceans, rivers, bays, estuaries, streams, creeks, (you get my point) and the ground does this really amazing thing where it absorbs all that water.

 

I guess you're right that thousands of years ago the lakes and rivers had to be filled somehow, but at this point, the reason farms exist where they do is because of irrigation, and without a nearby water source, that's much tougher.

 

purely relying on rainwater for irrigation in places like montana is going to be rather... unsuccessful

Edited January 23, 201313 yr by Reddy

To some extent there's a good point that our current agricultural practices are really inefficient because of how much meat we consume in our diets.

To some extent there's a good point that our current agricultural practices are really inefficient because of how much meat we consume in our diets.

Right...I think technology has and will continue to allow us better use of the land we have set aside for food production.

 

But at the pace we are multiplying...I just don't know that it matters.

Right...I think technology has and will continue to allow us better use of the land we have set aside for food production.

 

But at the pace we are multiplying...I just don't know that it matters.

Think about what that technology has been doing though.

 

It's effectively allowed our population to expand using fossil resources.

 

Fossil fuels and fossil water.

 

By definition, these can't be replenished. If their production slows down...or one of these water tables dries up, which th ey are doing...

To some extent there's a good point that our current agricultural practices are really inefficient because of how much meat we consume in our diets.

 

it's not "some" extent. it's a huge part of it.

I have to think that technological breakthroughs will allow us to do better than might seem possible today. It is somewhat troubling, though, that there is such a strong push against some of those technologies (like genetically modified crops, for instance)

Well the concern with GMO's is that they'll lead to ecological disaster. The Big Agri companies that develop them keep them tightly guarded and little or no independent research is done.

I have to think that technological breakthroughs will allow us to do better than might seem possible today. It is somewhat troubling, though, that there is such a strong push against some of those technologies (like genetically modified crops, for instance)

 

technological breakthroughs at this point in time have nothing to do with helping us do anything better except make more $$

 

GMO's aren't about healthier crops, they're about MORE, BIGGER crops so the farmers and industries make more $$

technological breakthroughs at this point in time have nothing to do with helping us do anything better except make more $$

 

GMO's aren't about healthier crops, they're about MORE, BIGGER crops so the farmers and industries make more $$

 

If they're FASTER, I'm going to swear that they're being sponsored by AT&T

There are reasons to inquire and be skeptical of GMOs, but you can't deny the utility of crops that are less likely to die and produce more food. This type of innovation will certainly extend the amount of time man can spend on Earth.

There are reasons to inquire and be skeptical of GMOs, but you can't deny the utility of crops that are less likely to die and produce more food. This type of innovation will certainly extend the amount of time man can spend on Earth.

sure, but if that food is less nutritious and potentially dangerous... well... not really worth it now is it?

 

my question is why does the FDA refuse to test GMOs?

Unless our monoculture crop gets hit by a bug or a disease it can't handle.

 

Potatoes were a godsend in Europe and greatly increased the food supply. Until the blights, of course.

sure, but if that food is less nutritious and potentially dangerous... well... not really worth it now is it?

 

my question is why does the FDA refuse to test GMOs?

 

Is it a refusal or a legal inability?

Is it a refusal or a legal inability?

the head of monsanto, who is now the head of the FDA, said "we see no reason to test GMOs at this time"

Monsanto is literally the devil.

Monsanto is literally the devil.

agreed.

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/food-safety.aspx#q1

 

There is no need for, or value in testing the safety of GM foods in humans. So long as the introduced protein is determined safe, food from GM crops determined to be substantially equivalent is not expected to pose any health risks. Further, it is impossible to design a long-term safety test in humans, which would require, for example, intake of large amounts of a particular GM product over a very large portion of the human life span. There is simply no practical way to learn anything via human studies of whole foods. This is why no existing food--conventional or GM--or food ingredient/additive has been subjected to this type of testing.

 

The China Study, and plenty of other studies, all say hi and would like to smack you in the face.

The China Study was pretty much bulls*** IIRC

The China Study was pretty much bulls*** IIRC

in what way? i think it's pretty legit

There is not sufficient evidence to show that organic food (which is necessarily non-GMO) is more nutritious than non-organic (which is usually, though not always, GMO). The following study, which was actually an analysis of 250 other studies, from Stanford found that there is no demonstrable difference in nutrient density between these two sorts of foods. There were more pesticides in non-organic foods, though both had acceptable amounts. There were more instances of antibiotic resistant bacteria in non-organic foods, though both were considered acceptable amounts. They were equal in terms of the organisms that cause food poisoning.

 

I highly doubt that most GMOs could harm humans, but I am not against researching things. Lots of things that make sense don't hold up to scientific inquiry.

 

edit: link for perusal http://annals.org/mobile/article.aspx?articleid=1355685

Edited January 24, 201313 yr by Jake

There is not sufficient evidence to show that organic food (which is necessarily non-GMO) is more nutritious than non-organic (which is usually, though not always, GMO). The following study, which was actually an analysis of 250 other studies, from Stanford found that there is no demonstrable difference in nutrient density between these two sorts of foods. There were more pesticides in non-organic foods, though both had acceptable amounts. There were more instances of antibiotic resistant bacteria in non-organic foods, though both were considered acceptable amounts. They were equal in terms of the organisms that cause food poisoning.

 

I highly doubt that most GMOs could harm humans, but I am not against researching things. Lots of things that make sense don't hold up to scientific inquiry.

 

edit: link for perusal http://annals.org/mobile/article.aspx?articleid=1355685

 

Organic is a piece of crap term in general. Buying local from farmers markets is the way to go.

 

and regardless, we're not really talking about nutrients, but the "extras" like those pesticides that come with it. And no, in small doses, the pesticides probably don't matter. But my concern is over continued low-dose exposure over a LONG period of time. Obviously that's harder to test, but I just feel like 50 years from now we'll be looking at GMOs the same way we look at leaching. That was good for you too. ...

Organic is a piece of crap term in general. Buying local from farmers markets is the way to go.

 

and regardless, we're not really talking about nutrients, but the "extras" like those pesticides that come with it. And no, in small doses, the pesticides probably don't matter. But my concern is over continued low-dose exposure over a LONG period of time. Obviously that's harder to test, but I just feel like 50 years from now we'll be looking at GMOs the same way we look at leaching. That was good for you too. ...

 

I'm certainly not against the organic movement, the notion of buying local, etc. but we must also insist on efficiency and not be anti-science because of fuzzy notions on what is and is not natural and the idea that unnatural=bad. It makes sense as a consumer to not consume things that logically could harm AND are not researched. As a keeper of the Earth, we must also not shut out artificial methods of sustaining human life, though.

 

Basically -- watch the Penn and Teller Bullsh!t episode on Organic Food and then watch Food, Inc. and then tell me how your brain feels

I'm certainly not against the organic movement, the notion of buying local, etc. but we must also insist on efficiency and not be anti-science because of fuzzy notions on what is and is not natural and the idea that unnatural=bad. It makes sense as a consumer to not consume things that logically could harm AND are not researched. As a keeper of the Earth, we must also not shut out artificial methods of sustaining human life, though.

 

Basically -- watch the Penn and Teller Bullsh!t episode on Organic Food and then watch Food, Inc. and then tell me how your brain feels

 

i'm pretty sure i said organic is a piece of crap term.

 

and maybe this is like our modern day version of natural selection. people who buy local and eat better will outlive the fatties. only downside is they'll still probably live long enough to reproduce. dumb.

i'm pretty sure i said organic is a piece of crap term.

 

and maybe this is like our modern day version of natural selection. people who buy local and eat better will outlive the fatties. only downside is they'll still probably live long enough to reproduce. dumb.

 

Ohhhh really?

 

Tell that to Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak.

 

...oh, wait a minute. Needless to say, eating properly can help, but that doesn't mean it actually will. Moderation, moderation, moderation. Seems to me people tend to go off one deep end or the other, no matter how much they talk about moderation/balance, they don't actually have much of it.