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

Re: [pfaf] Why pesticides?

Expand Messages
  • ewt
    I think the simple answer is that a lot of people in different businesses are more interested in making a quick buck than in the long-term health of consumers
    Message 1 of 8 , May 25 3:55 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      I think the simple answer is that a lot of people in different
      businesses are more interested in making a quick buck than in the
      long-term health of consumers or welfare of the planet. The only thing
      I can see to do about it is make sure they don't get my money by not
      purchasing those products.

      ewt

      On 25/05/06, chosen1446 <chosen1446@...> wrote:
      > Stevia, Fluoride, MSG
      >
      > Could anyone give me a believable & sensible reason WHY our food
      > supply (across the whole spectrum) is being poisoned?
      >
      > For example, our grandmothers matured at much latter ages (before the
      > use of growth hormones in our meat supply).
      >
      > Special interest groups don't explain it because they'd ALL have to
      > be involved (i.e., not just the sugar lobby, in regards to Stevia,
      > but also, everything else (i.e., water, pesticides, etc.)
      >
      > Thanks, Tony
      >
      > My 2 cents - I think Deer Park water is the best bottled water.
      >
      > PS Could anyone tell me what other foods that I should be wary of?
      > PS 2 I need prayer. Thanks.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • Sean Maley
      ... Agriculture leads to land ownership. Land ownership creates poverty. Poverty drives surpluses. Surpluses drive population. Over time, it becomes clear
      Message 2 of 8 , May 26 11:26 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        --- chosen1446 <chosen1446@...> wrote:
        > Stevia, Fluoride, MSG
        >
        > Could anyone give me a believable & sensible reason WHY our food
        > supply (across the whole spectrum) is being poisoned?
        >
        > For example, our grandmothers matured at much latter ages (before the
        > use of growth hormones in our meat supply).
        >
        > Special interest groups don't explain it because they'd ALL have to
        > be involved (i.e., not just the sugar lobby, in regards to Stevia,
        > but also, everything else (i.e., water, pesticides, etc.)
        >
        > Thanks, Tony

        Agriculture leads to land ownership. Land ownership creates poverty. Poverty drives surpluses.
        Surpluses drive population. Over time, it becomes clear that the military/aristocracy would
        become corrupted and power would shift to whomever created the best logic, or story, that kept
        people working like the Judeo-Christian and Buddhist religions (you suffer today for salvation
        tomorrow and take pity on your soul for not working hard). It's no mistake that "savages" were
        prime targets for the slave trade, or the state that looses the war gets to work the fields for
        both.

        How do we get away from this economic system, which only a few can benefit while the rest of us
        slog stones up the pyramid? This is a fundamentally cultural issue based, initially, upon the
        concept of agriculture. What you see at the store isn't what you should settle eating. Going it
        alone isn't going to be helpful either. By banding together in a tribal fashion we can establish
        our own rhizomes for living outside of the hierarchy. This isn't even about living communally,
        but rather about "making a living" together in small groups like in a circus; one for all and all
        for one.

        For some, it would be easier to support the tribe if the tribe could secure homes for it's
        members, as land ownership economics prevails around us while we establish this new/old culture.
        This could be in one community (ecovillage/IC model) or split between various city and country
        locations (a tribal network), depending upon the families involved. A charitable network to
        coordinate tribes would also be helpful to getting the rhizome collective started in your area.
        For further information, you can check out what other people are doing:

        http://www.newtribalventures.com
        http://www.jeffvail.net
        http://www.anthropik.com

        For how the land ownership pyramid works:

        http://henrygeorge.org/rent1.htm

        >
        > My 2 cents - I think Deer Park water is the best bottled water.
        >
        > PS Could anyone tell me what other foods that I should be wary of?
        > PS 2 I need prayer. Thanks.

        I prefer Poland Springs

        Beware of any, even "organic", food bought at a store (selected for appearance and shelf life, not
        nutritional value)

        Beware of prayer, unless you can resolve it into a rhizome context. The dominion meme creeps in
        on this concept, so this whole concept can nuke a person's religious beliefs. It is for this
        reason that the word "antichrist" slips into the discussion, as in "The Story of B" by Daniel
        Quinn.


        -Sean.

        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
        http://mail.yahoo.com
      • pattyfastforward
        ... Decades ago insects were known to wipe out entire crops. The amount of plants per acerage was much less back then compared to today. By using pesticides
        Message 3 of 8 , May 26 6:10 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In pfaf@yahoogroups.com, "chosen1446" <chosen1446@...> wrote:
          >
          > Stevia, Fluoride, MSG
          >
          > Could anyone give me a believable & sensible reason WHY our food
          > supply (across the whole spectrum) is being poisoned?
          >
          > For example, our grandmothers matured at much latter ages (before the
          > use of growth hormones in our meat supply).
          >
          > Special interest groups don't explain it because they'd ALL have to
          > be involved (i.e., not just the sugar lobby, in regards to Stevia,
          > but also, everything else (i.e., water, pesticides, etc.)
          >
          > Thanks, Tony
          >
          > My 2 cents - I think Deer Park water is the best bottled water.
          >
          > PS Could anyone tell me what other foods that I should be wary of?
          > PS 2 I need prayer. Thanks.
          >

          Decades ago insects were known to wipe out entire crops. The amount of
          plants per acerage was much less back then compared to today. By using
          pesticides and fertilizers, the farmer could raise a lot more crops on
          that one acre. And when was the last time you heard of locusts eating
          entire fields?

          As for hormones - again, way back when there were no refrigerators. To
          eat beef, you had to cook it for hours or age it. Aging requires
          somewhere around 36 degrees for 2 weeks. The alternative is feeding
          the beef corn and marbling the fat. It's cheaper to give the cow corn.
          And the hormones will take a calf to market in quit a lot less time
          then just feeding it for years. Also, they get paid by the pound, and
          the hormones make the cattle fatter faster. Faster return on their
          investment.

          As for food: chickens have a lot of germs on them because of
          processing. Some don't. Hard to know when you're in the grocery store.
          Veggies that have been fertilized with cow manure may have ecoli on
          them. Face it - unless you grow it yourself or know the farmer that
          grows all this - you have no idea what you're eating.
        • Gloria C. Baikauskas
          ... Insects only invade plants that are in some way stressed. In the years that hordes of insects, i.e.,locusts, grasshoppers, destroyed entire crops it was
          Message 4 of 8 , May 27 11:20 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In pfaf@yahoogroups.com, "pattyfastforward"
            <pattyfastforward@...> wrote:
            >
            Insects only invade plants that are in some way stressed. In the
            years that hordes of insects, i.e.,locusts, grasshoppers, destroyed
            entire crops it was usually a drought year, or years. These crops
            would most likely have been a loss anyway.

            If instead the crops had been mulched in some way, instead of soil
            laid bare by the plow/tilling, it might not have been so
            devastating. Not just because there would have been less moisture
            loss, but also because predator insects, the natural enemies of the
            invading ones, would have had a place to hide so they could better
            attack.

            If companion plants had been in the fields that would have attracted
            the right kind of birds, the insect hordes would also have been
            nulled to a large factor.

            We create deserts by the way we plant....or in many cases now did
            plant. The soil blows off in the wind now in drought years just as
            it did in the 1930s in the US.

            In the devastated corn crop in California a few years back it was
            finally noticed that when the wheat straw had been left on the field
            instead of removed, or plowed into the soil, the whiteflies that
            spread the disease were stopped by their natural predators who did
            hide in that same wheat straw. Only those farms with the wheat straw
            on the soil were unaffected by the devastation. The rest lost
            everything. Even their chemical sprays did them no use.

            It is not whether we should use these things on our food. It is that
            we need to be better stewards of the land...learn to farm/garden in a
            better way that means we will not need such sprays....organic, or
            not.

            Gloria, Texas
            USA

            > Decades ago insects were known to wipe out entire crops. The amount
            of
            > plants per acerage was much less back then compared to today. By
            using
            > pesticides and fertilizers, the farmer could raise a lot more crops
            on
            > that one acre. And when was the last time you heard of locusts
            eating
            > entire fields?
            >
            > As for hormones - again, way back when there were no refrigerators.
            To
            > eat beef, you had to cook it for hours or age it. Aging requires
            > somewhere around 36 degrees for 2 weeks. The alternative is feeding
            > the beef corn and marbling the fat. It's cheaper to give the cow
            corn.
            > And the hormones will take a calf to market in quit a lot less time
            > then just feeding it for years. Also, they get paid by the pound,
            and
            > the hormones make the cattle fatter faster. Faster return on their
            > investment.
            >
            > As for food: chickens have a lot of germs on them because of
            > processing. Some don't. Hard to know when you're in the grocery
            store.
            > Veggies that have been fertilized with cow manure may have ecoli on
            > them. Face it - unless you grow it yourself or know the farmer that
            > grows all this - you have no idea what you're eating.
            >
          • Pat Meadows
            ... I don t know all that much about Christianity or Judaism, but that is a *total, complete misconception* of Buddhism. To the exact contrary, the Buddha
            Message 5 of 8 , May 28 5:45 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              On Fri, 26 May 2006 11:26:40 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:

              >Agriculture leads to land ownership. Land ownership creates poverty. Poverty drives surpluses.
              >Surpluses drive population. Over time, it becomes clear that the military/aristocracy would
              >become corrupted and power would shift to whomever created the best logic, or story, that kept
              >people working like the Judeo-Christian and Buddhist religions (you suffer today for salvation
              >tomorrow and take pity on your soul for not working hard).

              I don't know all that much about Christianity or Judaism,
              but that is a *total, complete misconception* of Buddhism.

              To the exact contrary, the Buddha taught that suffering can
              be overcome in this life, in this world, and he taught his
              students the way to overcome suffering.

              Pat
              --
              Gardening in northern Pennsylvania.

              Eat local food, change the world for the better!
            • Sean Maley
              ... But there is suffering that must be overcome for some reason. Why should there have to be suffering? To an Australian Aboriginal, why should they care to
              Message 6 of 8 , May 29 11:13 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                --- Pat Meadows <pat@...> wrote:
                > On Fri, 26 May 2006 11:26:40 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:
                >
                > >Agriculture leads to land ownership. Land ownership creates poverty. Poverty drives
                > surpluses.
                > >Surpluses drive population. Over time, it becomes clear that the military/aristocracy would
                > >become corrupted and power would shift to whomever created the best logic, or story, that kept
                > >people working like the Judeo-Christian and Buddhist religions (you suffer today for salvation
                > >tomorrow and take pity on your soul for not working hard).
                >
                > I don't know all that much about Christianity or Judaism,
                > but that is a *total, complete misconception* of Buddhism.
                >
                > To the exact contrary, the Buddha taught that suffering can
                > be overcome in this life, in this world, and he taught his
                > students the way to overcome suffering.


                But there is suffering that must be overcome for some reason. Why should there have to be
                suffering? To an Australian Aboriginal, why should they care to distinguish further? They don't
                see suffering as a part of everyday life, to be overcome for any reason. It is this conception of
                necessary toil that distinguishes agriculture from hunter-gatherer/cultivator culture. It is an
                important distinction, because agri-culture takes so much effort and must justify such effort,
                while insisting the hunter-gatherer/cultivator culture is worst (which it isn't).

                Nobody needs to be saved. We are fine the way we are.

                __________________________________________________
                Do You Yahoo!?
                Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                http://mail.yahoo.com
              • Pat Meadows
                ... Buddhism doesn t teach that there should be suffering. It merely recognizes that it exists, and teaches the way to overcome it. If you don t recognize
                Message 7 of 8 , May 30 5:40 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Mon, 29 May 2006 11:13:28 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:


                  >
                  >
                  >But there is suffering that must be overcome for some reason. Why should there have to be
                  >suffering?

                  Buddhism doesn't teach that there 'should be' suffering. It
                  merely recognizes that it exists, and teaches the way to
                  overcome it.

                  If you don't recognize that suffering exists even among
                  non-agricultural peoples, we will have to agree to differ on
                  this point.

                  Non-agricultural peoples are not exempt from the laws of
                  physics or of biology: when one of them falls off a cliff
                  he breaks his legs, just as you and I would. He suffers
                  just as you and I would. Non-agricultural people die and
                  their children sometimes die too, and they experience grief
                  for their loved ones, just as you and I do.

                  Not all suffering is agriculture-related. I don't
                  personally accept agriculture as the cause of most human
                  suffering, but you may do so of course, if you wish.

                  It's a useless discussion, really, because the sad fact is
                  that there are billions of humans on the earth and there is
                  no other way to feed this many humans.

                  If you advocate a return to a hunter-gatherer way of life,
                  you must also advocate the die-off of billions of humans. I,
                  for one, am not willing to encourage that in any way.

                  Not only is this off-topic, it's silly and useless (in my
                  opinion) so you may have the last word; I have nothing else
                  to say on the subject.

                  Cheers,
                  Pat
                  --
                  Gardening in northern Pennsylvania.

                  Eat local food, change the world for the better!
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.