Ecology on France 2: the preachers of the apocalypse

Books, television programs, films, magazines or music to share, counselor to discover ... Talk to news affecting in any way the econology, environment, energy, society, consumption (new laws or standards) ...
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79112
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 20/02/09, 10:54

Leave concrete c moa, there is Image in the air!

As for the documentary it was indeed VERY oriented: the good of man (therefore the reason for the economy, and in particular for multinationals) before everything else. Here is the niche, hop the mass is said!

The main (only?) Argument of the defenders of the thesis of overconsumption, therefore overproduction, was that the earth's population was going to grow further, and its food needs with (both in quality and quantity with the rise in living standards) and that it was therefore necessary to produce more to feed it. Purely mathematical!

On the other hand, nothing, necessarily, on the current waste (30% of meat in the USA is wasted!), On the possibility of consuming less and better, on the fact that the system "population earth", on the fact that the production current could feed 8 billion people if wealth were better shared: then 10 billion in 2050 is more than playable!

In fact it was a very good doc for those who live with blinders in an ever stronger logic of consumerism and the use of resources and who are above all convinced in their certainties that there is no alternative to their mode of consumption ...

The doc said absolutely nothing on the impact of the scarcity of oil by 2050 on agriculture (which will be increasingly petro-dependent, fertilizer, and mechanized if we want to further boost area yields).

It's funny to see, in the end credits, that this show is actually based on a "book" ... I wonder how its author makes a living ... : Cheesy:
0 x
noobmemphis
I discovered econologic
I discovered econologic
posts: 3
Registration: 20/02/09, 11:25




by noobmemphis » 20/02/09, 11:34

Christophe wrote:I will watch and record!



Hello, do you plan to make your recording available? I only saw too late that this documentary was playing and I would have watched it.

Thank you in advance
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79112
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 20/02/09, 11:45

Well if it does not appear on the France 2 site, yes I will put it on the EconoTV: http://www.dailymotion.com/group/econologie
0 x
noobmemphis
I discovered econologic
I discovered econologic
posts: 3
Registration: 20/02/09, 11:25




by noobmemphis » 20/02/09, 12:08

OK, thanks :-)

I will already go see your videos on Daylimotion, there is apparently something to do :!: :D
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79112
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 20/02/09, 12:11

Yes, we are starting to have a lot of them ... besides, you can join the group to suggest some if you want!

8)
0 x
noobmemphis
I discovered econologic
I discovered econologic
posts: 3
Registration: 20/02/09, 11:25




by noobmemphis » 20/02/09, 18:07

Ok, I will already see what you have, and if I see that I have more no worries, I will share this :-)
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963




by Ahmed » 20/02/09, 20:34

nonoLeRobot wrote :
"I don't like fundamentalists of all stripes either, but there is still no mention of the real drawbacks and risks of GMOs.. "
I find it hard to understand the meaning of your sentence. Fundamentalism is a literal application, without nuances, of religious dogmas or not.

This does not mean in any way that the truth (or the good) would necessarily be median, as the Roman adage proclaims rather quickly: “In media stat virtus ".
It is necessary to distinguish between a formal examination which pushes to consider the advantages and disadvantages of everything, then the final judgment which involves a moral criterion.

For example, in the case of field GMOs, the advantages fall into 2 categories: those proven, which are the enrichment and the increase in the power of the seed companies (and, to a much lesser extent of their distributors) , those claimed which would be a gain for the users (?), I dare not speak of the argument of the fight against famine, so dishonest and absurd it is.

In comparison, the disadvantages are more numerous: economic dependence of the peasants, genetic pollution of normal varieties, harmful effects over the long term *, increase in the spreading of weedkillers and insecticides (habituation effect), corruption of political decision-makers ...

But it is not the number of advantages or disadvantages which is decisive in this matter, it is the weight that is attributed to each factor.
Depending on whether one favors the financial or human aspect, the answer will be different but will not be median: there is no happy medium, or to put it another way, the middle is not the right place.

What I am trying to express is that an extreme position does not necessarily amount to extremism and that if something is very good or very bad, one can only be very favorable or very hostile.



* As with many controls, the tests focus on immediate toxicity, which is largely insufficient: for example, Simazine which was a weedkiller widely used in corn cultivation had very low toxicity, yet it is today prohibited because it has serious long-term effects.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
nonoLeRobot
Master Kyot'Home
Master Kyot'Home
posts: 790
Registration: 19/01/05, 23:55
Location: Beaune 21 / Paris
x 13




by nonoLeRobot » 20/02/09, 22:29

Well, I have the impression that you have understood exactly what I just wanted to say and I quite agree with your analysis.

But yes I was thinking of those who say GMO is bad because it is not natural (dogma, on that account nothing that man does is natural) what the show seemed to want to fight.
Last edited by nonoLeRobot the 21 / 02 / 09, 13: 31, 1 edited once.
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963




by Ahmed » 21/02/09, 08:50

I'm not sure I understand your last sentence:

"But yes I was thinking of those (ux) who say GMO is bad because it is not natural (dogma, on this account nothing that man does is natural) ... "

Of course, the unnatural argument is not opposable to these techniques.
The production of insulin via GMOs, in a confined environment, does not pose any particular problem insofar as the method is well supervised. Furthermore, the GM organism used is only a transformer, eliminated during the insulin purification phase.

In addition, many natural things are dangerous: eg, getting a rock over your head is natural, but particularly unhealthy. :frown:
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79112
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 21/02/09, 09:16

Toutafait, ca does not hold the debate: natural / not natural.

Oil has a natural origin ... so is there not much on earth that is not of natural origin? Apart from the "products" of the particle accelerator I do not see ...

Must we remember that Nature is hostile by nature to man ... and that he has spent about 50 years trying to survive it?

ps: ahmed you should use the "quote" button you will be easier!
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Media & News: TV shows, reports, books, news ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 184 guests