Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Power and civilization

Expand Messages
  • Medievalbk@aol.com
    In a message dated 11/29/2012 6:47:33 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time, ... I never could get through Stapleton. What was destroyed; all other sources of power?
    Message 1 of 15 , Nov 30, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
       
       
      In a message dated 11/29/2012 6:47:33 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time, net_democracy@... writes:
      > The measure of a civilization could be said to be
      > its consumption of energy and how it uses resources. 
      > Conspicuous v. sustainable... 
      > Jon

      > > From: Medievalbk@...
      > Twas in Last And First Men, by Olaf Stapledon,
      > I think, where all future 
      > civilizations had their power based upon alcohol.
      > Nothing stored from the past was left.

      I never could get through Stapleton. 
      What was destroyed; all other sources of power? 
      How could that be?
      Atomic power (though not named exactly as such) burned of most of the crust. Mankind restarted from one Arctic scientific research boat.

       
    • Dan Minette
      ... keep the price up, ... I goggled for that in the US, and it referred to this happening during the Great Depression, when prices were so low during the
      Message 2 of 15 , Dec 1, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        >Unfortunately, we already have surplus crop and other produce. In order to
        keep the price up,
        >surplus is destroyed.

        I goggled for that in the US, and it referred to this happening during the
        Great Depression, when prices were so low during the deflationary era that
        it wasn't worth the cost of bringing them to market. Since then, farmers
        have been paid to leave land fallow. Lately, it's been much better.
        Farmers are paid to plant land with the greatest risk for erosion with
        grasses that are superior for soil retention. That's one reason why, on US
        farms, topsoil is increasing. My stepfather in law grew up on his family
        farm and farmed until he retired....and he's very familiar with how grains
        are grown.


        >Monsanto has proven that genetically modified crop is dangerous.

        I've seen some extraordinary sketchy studies on this, but nothing
        substantial. With 95% or so of the US eating food that has been genetically
        modified, then we should see the effects with real science. I've checked the
        latest study of organic food vs. non-organic, and absolutely no health
        benefits were found with organic foods. Yes, residue pesticides exist on
        non-organic food, but the linear hypothesis is required to assume danger.
        And, I drink to the great fellow who gave a beautiful illustration of the
        problems with the linear hypothesis.

        And, a friend of mine points out, India is self sufficient in food with > 2x
        the population it had when starvation was epidemic. He said that the person
        who created a the short stalk grain hybrid saved the lives of many of his
        friends.

        >Yes, genetic modifications have a long history. Yup, "trial & error
        breeding".

        Genes don't care how they are modified.

        >My problem with Monsanto is that they not only sell the crop, but also
        poison which kills every living >thing (except their genetically modified
        crop).

        The poison you talk about is roundup. And, yes, if I drank a bottle of it,
        I'd probably be sick. But, I've used it on weeds. Spray it on grass, and
        the grass dies, but spray it on weeds 3 inches from grass, and the small
        amount that gets on the grass doesn't hurt it. If Roundup were that bad,
        wouldn't we see the effects on the laws of folks who use it, on the animal
        life in the area, etc?

        Dan M.


        _______________________________________________
        http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
      • Klaus Stock
        ... Yup, I checked, right. In the EU the overproduction problem had been solved by 2007. However: regardless if we destroy surplus or get paid not to produce
        Message 3 of 15 , Dec 2, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          >>Unfortunately, we already have surplus crop and other produce. In order to
          > keep the price up,
          >>surplus is destroyed.

          > I goggled for that in the US, and it referred to this happening during the
          > Great Depression, when prices were so low during the deflationary era that
          > it wasn't worth the cost of bringing them to market. Since then, farmers
          > have been paid to leave land fallow. Lately, it's been much better.
          > Farmers are paid to plant land with the greatest risk for erosion with
          > grasses that are superior for soil retention. That's one reason why, on US
          > farms, topsoil is increasing.

          Yup, I checked, right. In the EU the overproduction problem had been
          solved by 2007. However: regardless if we destroy surplus or get paid
          not to produce it, it won't help feed more people.

          >>Monsanto has proven that genetically modified crop is dangerous.

          > I've seen some extraordinary sketchy studies on this, but nothing
          > substantial. With 95% or so of the US eating food that has been genetically
          > modified, then we should see the effects with real science. I've checked the
          > latest study of organic food vs. non-organic, and absolutely no health
          > benefits were found with organic foods. Yes, residue pesticides exist on
          <snip>

          That wasn't the danger I meant.

          >>Yes, genetic modifications have a long history. Yup, "trial & error
          > breeding".

          > Genes don't care how they are modified.

          Dan, you still think like a scientist. You need to think like a greedy
          idiot to understand what I mean. :-)

          In historic times, 232 different races of domestic pigs could be found
          in Germany. In more modern times, this was reduced to one single race (the
          most efficient, short-term money-wise). Nowadays, a few "old races"
          seem to have re-appeared.

          The real problem is that if you base you base your country-wide
          farming on a single race of crop, diseases can lead to crop failure or
          mass mortality. Country-wide. Diverse redundancy would have helped.

          The problem are not genetic modifications by themselves, but the
          reasons *why* and *how* it is employed.

          It's used to maximize short-term profits. There's a risk to it, as
          mentioned above. But, what the heck, if anything fucks up, the state
          will bails us out again. Yup, not only bankers think that way, farmers
          as well.

          > The poison you talk about is roundup. And, yes, if I drank a bottle of it,
          > I'd probably be sick. But, I've used it on weeds. Spray it on grass, and
          > the grass dies, but spray it on weeds 3 inches from grass, and the small
          > amount that gets on the grass doesn't hurt it. If Roundup were that bad,
          > wouldn't we see the effects on the laws of folks who use it, on the animal
          > life in the area, etc?

          That's what they said about DDT, too.

          However, I'm still suspicious. Monsanto apparently prefers buying
          politicians over addressing my doubts and concerns. While their
          product safety tests have their merits, I find them a bit...simplistic
          for a technology on which a complete country relies on for feeding
          its population.

          - Klaus


          _______________________________________________
          http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
        • ALBERTO VIEIRA FERREIRA MONTEIRO
          ... That s not how slow poison works. People don t die for smoking a cigarette, or for smoking 100 cigarettes a day for 30 years. But then they die in the 31st
          Message 4 of 15 , Dec 3, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Dan Minette wrote:
            >
            > The poison you talk about is roundup. And, yes, if I drank a bottle of it,
            > I'd probably be sick. But, I've used it on weeds. Spray it on grass, and
            > the grass dies, but spray it on weeds 3 inches from grass, and the small
            > amount that gets on the grass doesn't hurt it. If Roundup were that bad,
            > wouldn't we see the effects on the laws of folks who use it, on the animal
            > life in the area, etc?
            >
            That's not how slow poison works. People don't die for smoking a
            cigarette, or for smoking 100 cigarettes a day for 30 years. But then
            they die in the 31st year.

            Alberto Monteiro

            PS: is bringing "cigarettes" to the discussion like bringing Hitler?

            _______________________________________________
            http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
          • Dan Minette
            ... or for smoking 100 ... The difference, of course, is that there were a large number of symtoms, very statistically significant differences in longevity,
            Message 5 of 15 , Dec 3, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              >That's not how slow poison works. People don't die for smoking a cigarette,
              or for smoking 100
              >cigarettes a day for 30 years. But then they die in the 31st year.

              The difference, of course, is that there were a large number of symtoms,
              very statistically significant differences in longevity, etc. with cigarette
              smoking. Even with simple studies, it was easy to see.

              With DDT, much more sophisticated studies were done. It's impossible to
              prove that no-one is hurt by exposore to DDT, Roundup, etc. But, Roundup
              has been subjected to the tumor prone mice study. What hasn't, is natural
              supplements. It is likely that there are dangerous things sold in health
              food stores that we could check for, but by law they are not checked because
              they are natural.

              Dan M.


              _______________________________________________
              http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.