Are Bt GMOs ecological?

[realistic ecology]

"realistic ecology" considers that the growth in meat consumption must continue "

Do not make me say what I never said. I read reports that seem to me to be worthy of attention, that do not say that meat consumption DOIT continue but who believe that it will increase, given the increase in populations and incomes in emerging countries; (it's concrete)

Roh but what a nuance !!!

You drown the fish there !! Aren't you heavier or more serious as a counter argument there? Because it's light ...

It is not because incomes increase that we are forced to eat more meat ... We can simply eat better (and more expensive) by eating organic (without GMO please but there it might not help your business ...) ... !! And Bam!!

"It is not because income increases that we are forced to eat more meat ..."
Indeed ... But that's what's going on : without being obliged to eat more meat, those who eat little, consume more and more. Facts described by the FAO are these:
“Globally, the tendency for meat consumption to increase with income level will outweigh its tendency to decrease in countries where per capita consumption is already high. "
Come out of your cloud, out of your dreams, and look at the facts, the reality. Look at the diagram I gave you, the FAO reports, these are facts : it is not because incomes increase that one is obliged to eat more meat ... but this is how it happens, these are facts, whether you like them or not.

"We can simply eat better (and more expensive)"
Well done ! You want to eat better and more expensive 5 billion poor and emerging? !
I wish you courage if you are going to preach the good word to them "poor friends, I ask you to eat better ... it will be more expensive, but you are not going to dwell on such low, down-to-earth considerations! Okay I'm leaving you, it's time my organic dinner, but in the meantime, enjoy your meal ..."

It is from the facts that we can decide what actions to take, not from wishes, prejudices, dreaming that men would be different from what they are, and that they could do other than what that they do. You have to do with what you have on hand, men as they are.
And since the facts show that we eat more and more meat, we must therefore produce more food, that is to say, go to farms that produce more while respecting the environment.
Otherwise it is guaranteed deforestation, it has already started.

[Janic]

"We can simply eat better (and more expensive)"

Well done ! Do you want to make 5 billion poor and emerging poor eat better and more expensive? !

Your previous reasoning does indeed correspond to a reality that cannot be disputed and that I largely share, but here it is the complete drift to self-justify the agribusiness that you defend.
Eating better and eating more are not synonymous. However, our Westerners have got into the habit of reasoning in terms of weight and calories, but not in terms of quality or nutritional efficiency. So before our pseudo western food scientists got involved, these populations had much smaller food portions than here, but nutritious, and were not worse off. As for the cost of the 5 billion more, it is not them these "poor", compared to us, who will suffer the most, but OUR companies of overabundant consumption and not only in food.

I wish you good luck if you are going to preach the good word to them "poor friends, I ask you to eat better ... it will be more expensive, but you are not going to dwell on such low earthly considerations all the same. on the ground! Well, I'm leaving you, it's time for my organic dinner, but in the meantime, enjoy your meal ... "

The first thing to do is already not to try to impose OUR cultural model and therefore also food. If we did not show them our examples of biters and wasters, via our media, they would not ask YOUR questions.
However before we do shit shit at home (namely sell them our shit) they cultivated in almost organic like all the generations which preceded them, without our business of transformation of products, raw and nourishing, into whitened, refined, and polluted products , the top of the top of westerners.

It is from the facts that we can decide what actions to take, not from wishes, prejudices, dreaming that men would be different from what they are, and that they could do other than what that they do. You have to do with what you have on hand, men as they are.

This is what your realistic but not eco-friendly friends do, they want to impose themselves on populations who do not need their way of destroying life ... the organic in question.

And since the facts show that we eat more and more meat, we must therefore produce more food, that is to say, go to farms that produce more while respecting the environment.
Otherwise it is guaranteed deforestation, it has already started.

It is to take the problem backwards! Since they are inspired by the Western model, it is up to this Westerner to show that eating junk food is not a biological necessity, on the contrary, and that a more vegetated model would fully meet their needs, without GMOs. . As for deforestation, it is precisely OUR model of Western madmen that must be changed, not supported and developed among our “friends” as you say and whose “friendship” consists in selling them OUR industrial products! So if WE don't want to change, why would THEY do it?
Hypocrites that we are!
PS: let us remember the American model of conquest of lands belonging to the Indians and which "civilized" them, (that is to say decimated) with great blows of whiskey and diseases of white people.

[dede2002]

In relation to these statistics, it would be interesting to compare the number of inhabitants of the two "zones" concerned, as well as the surface of the territories.

Also, the figures for the OECD countries are probably correct, since all the meat goes through the trade circuit, but for the rest, how is the calculation made since many small farmers eat their chickens or catch fish without be bought or sold?

And what is the "non-OECD" agricultural area used to feed farm animals consumed by the inhabitants of the OECD?

[sen-no-sen]

According to OECD Statistics (The OECD is roughly equal to all developed countries)

The increase in meat consumption is initially correlative * to the increase in GDP, an increase itself to be linked to the increase in energy consumed.
The reasoning of a continuous growth cannot be held indefinitely due in particular to the future depletion of fossil fuels, except with a decrease in world growth we will see a drop in meat production and a readjustment to this trend.
With GMOs the objective is to maintain current trends over time, rather than taking alternative paths.
As already explained this strategy is used in all areas (Economy, ENR, politics etc ...) this is what we can call the worst-case principle.



* In the long term it tends to stagnate in developed countries, differences may be noticed with regard to certain cultures.

[realistic ecology]

The increase in meat consumption is initially correlative * to the increase in GDP, an increase itself to be linked to the increase in energy consumed.
The reasoning of a continuous growth cannot be held indefinitely due in particular to the future depletion of fossil fuels, except with a decrease in world growth we will see a drop in meat production and a readjustment to this trend.
With GMOs the objective is to maintain current trends over time, rather than taking alternative paths.
As already explained this strategy is used in all areas (Economy, ENR, politics etc ...) this is what we can call the worst-case principle.



* In the long term it tends to stagnate in developed countries, differences may be noticed with regard to certain cultures.

=> "The increase in meat consumption is initially correlative * to the increase in GDP."
OK for me even if Cristophe does not accept this link (correlation, causality ...).

=> "The reasoning of continuous growth cannot be held indefinitely, in particular because of the coming depletion of fossil fuels"
OKAY. Indeed, not only fossil fuels, but also topsoil, the water, a number of metals, etc.
See here an overview of what I say:
Sustainable growth… a frog bigger than the planet

And with regard to purchasing power:
Can we escape global warming?

So we go into the wall.

=> "With GMOs, the objective is to maintain current trends over time, rather than to take alternative paths."
More ... GMOs ARE an alternative path! Classical agriculture is less and less able to meet current needs, organic agriculture even less. Many needs are artificial, fashion (which requires cotton), SUV, meat in quantity, etc. But this is artificial only in the developed consumer countries. But the needs of five billion, soon seven, in Africa, Asia, Central and South America, are not artificial. We can not afford not to meet those needs.
Other alternative paths? the most popular route now is to raze the forest.

How to stop this race towards the wall, with men as they are? I do not know. But we will certainly not get out of it by going back to the good old days with hoe and hoe, we can only move forward.

You hope "a decrease in world growth will result in a decline in meat production and a readjustment to this trend"
- The problem is that current global growth is essentially the result of the work of poor and emerging countries. They are the ones who need growth the most (I'm not just talking about meat), and who would be the most affected.
- On the other hand, the decrease in growth is desirable in absolute terms, but be careful. Our societies and economies are closely intertwined; each producer or service is dependent on a multitude of other producers, themselves dependent on other producers. A house of cards. The foundations of this castle, it is the energy - you noted it - which makes it possible to produce but also to ensure the exchanges between the various producers. That the energy supply can no longer be done everywhere, and the castle collapses step by step in a chaos of wars and famines.

=> "* In the long term it tends to stagnate in developed countries."
Indeed, this is what the curves and the reports that I have quoted show.

[realistic ecology]

In relation to these statistics, it would be interesting to compare the number of inhabitants of the two "zones" concerned, as well as the surface of the territories.

Also, the figures for the OECD countries are probably correct, since all the meat goes through the trade circuit, but for the rest, how is the calculation made since many small farmers eat their chickens or catch fish without be bought or sold?

And what is the "non-OECD" agricultural area used to feed farm animals consumed by the inhabitants of the OECD?

Your requests are relevant.
Thank you for placing your trust in me to respond.
But I think it would be better to go to the primary news sources, the FAO, the World Bank stats, etc.
I would like to take this opportunity to point out that I made a mistake in a recent response regarding the 2018 figures. This is why I reconstructed my curve, adding a few intermediate points to better show the changes.

[sicetaitsimple]

The abscissa with variable geometry, it is still not terrible!

[Janic]

- You have to face the facts, the consumption meat increases, so you have to produce more, with less and less soil. Do you have a solution ?

it's simple produce less meat, which actually reduces consumption. Elementary my dear Watson!

[GuyGadebois]

The abscissa with variable geometry, it is still not terrible!

I read "sausages" ...

[realistic ecology]

The abscissa with variable geometry, it is still not terrible!

Sorry.
Thank you for letting me know.
(there are some who follow ...)