Are Bt GMOs ecological?

[sicetaitsimple]

Fortunately, some (all over the world) resist against the globalist dictatorship and its mortifying programs presented under idyllic outside while they are only destruction, misery, corruption and lies.

gotlib.jpg (15.26 KIO) Viewed 2910 times

[Ahmed]

Sicetaitsimple, you make us a fixation ...

[GuyGadebois]

Sicetaitsimple, you make us a fixation ...

Moreover, all this gives me more desire to hang me than to take my foot ...

[sicetaitsimple]

Sicetaitsimple, you make us a fixation ...

It's possible! But the sentence of Guygadebois is so beautiful ..... I think Christophe should close the site, and when we try to connect, we would fall on this monument.

[realistic ecology]

But here it is not a question of satisfying a request for additional comfort, it is a question of preparing to feed 3 billions of mouths and more.

The rebound effect does not only concern the comfort sector, it is valid in all areas.
So how do we stop the race for growth if we satisfy it?

It should not be confused.
- There is the race for growth, deleterious, in developed countries that have no need for growth, they already have the essential. This concerns two billion people.
- Next door there are more than five billion poor and emerging who pedal very hard to grow, because they have very little.
An example of what to do: in 2014 from Mr. Modi, the new Prime Minister of India promised that all Indian households would have toilets by the end of his term in 2019. It is estimated that more than 550 million people, or almost half of the population, practice open defecation in the country, causing health problems.
I do not know if the promise is kept.

Small developed countries (small = 2 billion), look at the belly button and make "small gestures to save the planet"they turn off the tap when they brush their teeth.
But how will they turn off the taps for those who have no running water, no clean water, no tap, no brush to brush their teeth, and sometimes even more teeth?

What to do ? I do not know. And I can't find any beginnings of an answer here (except dreams like "it would be enough" for men to act differently ... but without saying anything about how to make men change, and change fast enough before big problems. ... the big problems, we are already in the middle of it)

Especially since, as I have already said, the decrease in growth in developed countries is desirable in absolute terms, but beware. 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. That too many bricks come loose, that too many businesses disappear, and the castle collapses step by step in a chaos of wars and famines.
We must slow down in developed countries, but all together, and with the control of skidding.

[sen-no-sen]

It should not be confused.
- There is the race for growth, deleterious, in developed countries that have no need for growth, they already have the essential. This concerns two billion people.
- Next door there are more than five billion poor and emerging who pedal very hard to grow, because they have very little.

I am not confusing, but let us repeat the reasoning: if we satisfy the effort of food growth via biotechnologies we will artificially induce modes of food that would not be possible otherwise.
There is a strong risk of rebound effect: there or by conventional agriculture we would limit ourselves under the event constraint to an effective diet (essentially turned to vegetable proteins for example), with a surplus of growth it would be possible to note the coming or the maintenance of food modes in inadequacy of the events.
This presents a risk because in case of collapse of the dominant model, entire populations would be locked up in an obsolete system ... the extinction of a species is systematically linked to its inability to adapt to change.

What to do ? I do not know. And I can not find any answer here

Most human beings are persuaded to have a free will, they constantly strive to develop solutions for the future when in reality its solutions are generally captive ideological complexes that parasites their emancipation capabilities.
In reality we will do what we have done for hundreds of millennia, we will adapt with losses and noise.

[Janic]

Besides, there are more than five billion poor and emerging who pedal very hard to grow, because they have very little.
An example of what needs to be done: in 2014 by Mr. Modi, the new Prime Minister of India, promised that all Indian households would be provided with toilets by the end of his mandate in 2019. It is estimated that more than 550 million people, nearly half of the population, practice open defecation in the country, leading to health problems.

On the one hand, the installation of toilets in each household requires the construction of an immense sanitary network and the reprocessing of effluents, that is to say an investment well beyond the means of India (except to consider that the India would be only big cities!) And if its population increases the situation will be able to go only by getting worse and multiply the breeding for purposes only gastronomic will not settle more, the situation of possible scarcity, GMO or not.

It is estimated that more than 550 million people, nearly half of the population, practice open defecation in the country, leading to health problems.

It is not defecation that is a problem, but open air defecation that promotes the spread of contaminants

What to do ? I do not know. And I can't find any beginnings of an answer here (except dreams like "it would be enough" for men to act differently ... but without saying anything about how to make men change, and change fast enough before big problems. ... the big problems, we are already in the middle of it)

. The simplest and most effective solution is the burial of these effluents under a layer of earth, as recommended by the most accomplished hygiene book known and far from homes and drinking water. And that does not cost anything

The small developed countries (small = 2 billion), look at each other's navel and make "small gestures to save the planet", they turn off the tap when they brush their teeth But how will they turn off the tap those who do not have no running water, no drinking water, no tap, no brush to brush your teeth, and sometimes even more teeth ?.

No longer having teeth is not related to brushing teeth, other animals do not wash or brush their teeth and keep them intact all their life. Better to look for why humans would be different and in case of caries where do they come from?

[GuyGadebois]

No longer having teeth is not related to brushing teeth, other animals do not wash or brush their teeth and keep them intact all their life. Better to look for why humans would be different and in case of caries where do they come from?

It is often hereditary.

[Janic]

It is often hereditary.

cultural habits are above all "hereditary"!

[realistic ecology]

Sen-no-sen, you write:

The rebound effect does not only concern the comfort sector, it is valid in all areas.

Jevons discovered this phenomenon by noting that the improvement of steam engines (and therefore their lower unit coal consumption) resulted in a considerable increase in overall consumption. The interest of this observation is due to its absolutely general character.

Ideology liberal instrumentalizes these 3 billion people who could only be "saved" by GMOs, but admitting that it works * (?), the subsequent population increase that would result (within the framework of a purely theoretical reasoning, because reality ...) would justify even more sophisticated technologies and so on ... Far from resolving anything, GMOs and all the techniques which aim to control the food sovereignty of peoples can only increase the dependence of more deprived: this political aspect is carefully evacuated by this ideology which claims to summarize any problem only from a technical angle.

* School hypothesis!

=> subsequent population growth that would result would justify even more sophisticated technologies and so on
You describe well what has already happened, the tremendous upheavals of the XNUMXth century:
• Medicine has progressed all over the world, the population has increased, we had to feed it.
• The green revolution was invented, the population was nurtured.
• But, the population, properly cared for and nourished ... could increase again.
• Thus, the threat of food difficulties reappears.

What should have been done? What would you have done if you had had power at that time?

Today, we are basically faced with the same type of problem; but there is at least one difference in size.
- The population is still growing by virtue of the speed acquired - that is to say by virtue of all the young people already born, which means that there are 2 to 3 billion new arrivals "in the tube". But studies predict that the curve will reverse soon. Not for reasons of resources, but because cultures change, and the pill helps.
The availability of resources is no longer the engine of population.

Overpopulation yesterday and tomorrow

The population will stabilize and perhaps even decrease. But in the meantime, we must feed everyone with less and less land.
What to do ? What would you do if you had power?

=> GMOs and all the techniques that aim to control the food sovereignty of peoples
There you put a big dose of ideology in GMOs - that's probably why you find them stodgy. Why shouldn't GMOs simply be products like others, like cars or washing machines, because they provide a real service and there are a lot of demanders? People's food sovereignty! Who wants China's food sovereignty? (and can.)

=> this ideology which claims to summarize any problem only from a technical angle
This is not to summarize it at alone technical angle. But the technique is part of the problem, as much as the solution, and want to eliminate it without taking stock of the pros and cons, it's a fault as long as nothing better is proposed.