Are Bt GMOs ecological?

[sicetaitsimple]

I read "sausages" ...

That's the very low-meat diets, at times you can have hallucinations ...

[Janic]

as you did not seem to have read it, I repeat the only solution:

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

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

[sicetaitsimple]

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

Do you want to create a kitty to pay you some plane tickets so that you can go and preach the good word in a certain number of countries?
Get a passport right now: Janic Watson should be fine.

[realistic ecology]

"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.

=> Your previous reasoning actually corresponds to a reality that cannot be disputed and that I largely share
OK

=> but this is the complete drift to self-justify the agribusiness that you defend.
I justify meeting the demand for food from all these people, if possible with less pesticides and without deforestation.

=> So before our pseudo Western agri-food scientists got involved, these populations had much smaller food portions than with us, but nutritious, and were not doing worse.
Were there no famines?
“When the fat people are thin, the skinny died a long time ago. A connoisseur, Lao-Tseu, around six centuries BC.
It was still true a century ago.

=> "Scientific nickname"
Another anti science. I suppose that you are not using the electricity invented by scientific pseudos, nor antibiotics, and that you will never enter a hospital full of scientific pseudos ...

=> The first thing to do is not to try to impose OUR cultural and therefore also food model on them.
Ah, the illusion that we still have influence. We would impose OUR cultural model and also food, on China, India, etc ...
Come on, let's be modest, the Chinese make fun of what we do. They are big boys ... although we say that they are not that big ... but in short they are big boys who do what they want.
And for example, while the small French (small in number) are bent on vilifying Monsanto, the Chinese do not care about Monsanto (and small French) and create their own GMOs (public research), without being imposed on them anything. And offer them to all of Asia.

=> they want to impose themselves on populations who do not need their way of doing things
See above

[sicetaitsimple]

Were there no famines?

No, no, there were no famines .... But it was "before".

[GuyGadebois]

Were there no famines?

No, no, there were no famines .... But it was "before".

There are none nowadays either ... all thanks to GMOs

[sicetaitsimple]

There are none nowadays either ... all thanks to GMOs

You will notice if you reread this thread that I have at no time taken a position on "pro-GMO" or "anti-GMO".
What do you want, I am limited, there are areas where I think I can give my opinion without risking too much error because I have practiced widely, and there are others where I consider myself incompetent, and in this case actually I observe, I read, but I avoid opening my mouth. All the more when the subject is the food of all the inhabitants of the planet.
This is actually not the case for everyone, big mouths it necessarily has a relevant opinion on everything.

[GuyGadebois]

There are none nowadays either ... all thanks to GMOs

You'll notice if you reread ... my answer

That I outbid a mess ...

[sicetaitsimple]

Sorry if I misunderstood ..... but it could be misinterpreted.
But when the subject mentioned is "famine", I have a little trouble messing around .....

[Ahmed]

Yes, there is something deeply disturbing about instrumentalizing the poor, nature, the forest to promote an industrial system that works to destroy them ... Unfortunately, it is only on these occasions that we concerned, at least apparently ...