Infinite resources
-
Here's a question: do you believe in only allowing everyone to have precisely one child? Isn't that a little over the top? Shouldn't people be free to live to have kids or not, and expect them to live freely without some nonrandom element controlling how many kids they can have, whether covertly or not? Aren't you asking a really screwed up question here? What you're really saying is, "shouldn't people die?" Are you serious?!
josda1000 wrote:
Here's a question: do you believe in only allowing everyone to have precisely one child?
Well, CSS, because he is a retard, often accuses me of wanting to enforce that, and all sorts of active genocide. What I actually did, was engage in a thought experiment of a possible way that such a policy may be enforcable, or that government can at least use taxes to discourage excessive breeding, instead of, as they do here, using welfare to encourage it.
josda1000 wrote:
Shouldn't people be free to live to have kids or not, and expect them to live freely without some nonrandom element controlling how many kids they can have, whether covertly or not?
In a perfect world, yes. The real question is, if man is going to reach a physical limit for how many people can be supported by the earth, do we a - rape the earth to feed this generation as best we can, with no concern for future generations, leaving them with an even bigger problem b - just let people in other countries die and hope our nukes will stop them from invading us for food c - enforce a China style policy of oppressing people who have more than one child d - have an intelligent discussion now about how to best work towards a goal that allows the human race to survive long term
josda1000 wrote:
Aren't you asking a really screwed up question here?
CSS claims that the discussion is moot b/c the earth can feed infinite people. That's the question I am asking
josda1000 wrote:
What you're really saying is, "shouldn't people die?" Are you serious?!
No, I said no such thing. I was not looking to discuss the obvious fact that the earth has a physical limit, based on number of people and the standard of living they desire. I've tried to discuss that in the past. In this case, I wanted to discuss why CSS does not believe the earth has any limits to how many people it can support.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Here's a question: Do you believe that people shouldn't have as many children as they can bear? Isn't that a little over the top? Shouldn't people be free to bring numerous kids into poverty and malnutrition without some nonrandom element showing how that could be avoided, if they chose to do so? Aren't you asking a really screwed up question here? What you're really saying is, "shouldn't children live?" Are you serious?!
Bob Emmett @ Ynys Thanatos
Bob Emmett wrote:
Here's a question: Do you believe that people shouldn't have as many children as they can bear?
You didn't say they 'should not be allowed', so the answer is yes. It's not an intelligent decision to have as 'many children as you can bear'. Do I believe we should have a china style system enforcing a limit ? No, and I've never said I do.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Shouldn't people be free to bring numerous kids into poverty and malnutrition without some nonrandom element showing how that could be avoided, if they chose to do so?
Well, that's a big question. The answer, as Bill Gates knows, and CSS does not, is that when people have security for their children and their welfare, they tend NOT to have as many children. So, improving the lot of hte third world is a real way to bring down population, although it's arguable that the net result is moot b/c they tend to starve to death anyhow. I am astounded when I am in the US, at people who seem to have 6 children or more. But, even when I've engaged in a thought experiment, I've made clear that I don't believe it's possible or acceptable for any policy that may be enacted out of necessity to ever suggest killing anyone, including forced abortion. Those are lies that CSS has put in my mouth, time and again/ The question remains - if the choice is to encourage people to have less children, or for the human race to face major food crisis, and resultant war, which is a better idea ? But, that's not what I was asking. CSS is on record to say that the earth's resources are infinite. That's what I'd like him to explain.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
Here's a question: Do you believe that people shouldn't have as many children as they can bear?
You didn't say they 'should not be allowed', so the answer is yes. It's not an intelligent decision to have as 'many children as you can bear'. Do I believe we should have a china style system enforcing a limit ? No, and I've never said I do.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Shouldn't people be free to bring numerous kids into poverty and malnutrition without some nonrandom element showing how that could be avoided, if they chose to do so?
Well, that's a big question. The answer, as Bill Gates knows, and CSS does not, is that when people have security for their children and their welfare, they tend NOT to have as many children. So, improving the lot of hte third world is a real way to bring down population, although it's arguable that the net result is moot b/c they tend to starve to death anyhow. I am astounded when I am in the US, at people who seem to have 6 children or more. But, even when I've engaged in a thought experiment, I've made clear that I don't believe it's possible or acceptable for any policy that may be enacted out of necessity to ever suggest killing anyone, including forced abortion. Those are lies that CSS has put in my mouth, time and again/ The question remains - if the choice is to encourage people to have less children, or for the human race to face major food crisis, and resultant war, which is a better idea ? But, that's not what I was asking. CSS is on record to say that the earth's resources are infinite. That's what I'd like him to explain.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
CSS, you hate all discussion of population control. On what basis do you believe the earths resources to be infinite ? Do you believe in magic ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Josh Gray wrote:
small, fiercely independent farmers. [^]
Well, if the farmers were too large, or not independent, then I would rather die than take their seeds.....
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Josh Gray wrote:
small, fiercely independent farmers. [^]
Well, if the farmers were too large, or not independent, then I would rather die than take their seeds.....
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, if the farmers were too large, or not independent, then I would rather die than take their seeds.....
If they were independent they wouldn't sell their seeds through a third party. OMG, if that is a lie how can I put the future of my family in the hands of this company and their wonder product. Oh NOOOOO we're all doomed
-
josda1000 wrote:
Here's a question: do you believe in only allowing everyone to have precisely one child?
Well, CSS, because he is a retard, often accuses me of wanting to enforce that, and all sorts of active genocide. What I actually did, was engage in a thought experiment of a possible way that such a policy may be enforcable, or that government can at least use taxes to discourage excessive breeding, instead of, as they do here, using welfare to encourage it.
josda1000 wrote:
Shouldn't people be free to live to have kids or not, and expect them to live freely without some nonrandom element controlling how many kids they can have, whether covertly or not?
In a perfect world, yes. The real question is, if man is going to reach a physical limit for how many people can be supported by the earth, do we a - rape the earth to feed this generation as best we can, with no concern for future generations, leaving them with an even bigger problem b - just let people in other countries die and hope our nukes will stop them from invading us for food c - enforce a China style policy of oppressing people who have more than one child d - have an intelligent discussion now about how to best work towards a goal that allows the human race to survive long term
josda1000 wrote:
Aren't you asking a really screwed up question here?
CSS claims that the discussion is moot b/c the earth can feed infinite people. That's the question I am asking
josda1000 wrote:
What you're really saying is, "shouldn't people die?" Are you serious?!
No, I said no such thing. I was not looking to discuss the obvious fact that the earth has a physical limit, based on number of people and the standard of living they desire. I've tried to discuss that in the past. In this case, I wanted to discuss why CSS does not believe the earth has any limits to how many people it can support.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
OK, let's start a true discussion on this. Which resource(s) do you find that we are being deprived of that you find that this discussion is necessary? Starting from the bottom up, true. But I don't see the human race needing more land, food or water, so you're gonna have to let me in on this. I'm not saying that there's infinite land, but I definitely am saying that I think you and this "depopulation" agenda organization is really overreacting.
-
OK, let's start a true discussion on this. Which resource(s) do you find that we are being deprived of that you find that this discussion is necessary? Starting from the bottom up, true. But I don't see the human race needing more land, food or water, so you're gonna have to let me in on this. I'm not saying that there's infinite land, but I definitely am saying that I think you and this "depopulation" agenda organization is really overreacting.
josda1000 wrote:
Which resource(s) do you find that we are being deprived of that you find that this discussion is necessary?
Right now, food is harvested using a monoculture approach that assumes cheap and plentiful oil. If there's an issue, then it's people at the bottom of the chain who go hungry, not people in the West. The issues are: 1 - our approach to growing food involves providing fertilizer to make up for land that has been worked in an unsustainable way 2 - the run off from that fertilizer is polluting water ways 3 - in the meantime, the sort of fish we eat is changing simply because the stuff we used to eat, has been fished close to extinction 4 - the need for more farmland means we're deforesting, and using land that is marginal at best, thus speeding up the erosion process. For example, land in the Amazon is largely not that fertile, although it can support the forest it has indefinitely, deforesting and planting crops destroys that land in a few years, but they just cut down more forest and keep going.
josda1000 wrote:
But I don't see the human race needing more land, food or water,
To make 1 lb of beef or lamb takes 4 lb of grain. As most of our meat is grain fed, this means as more and more people eat more and more meat ( I'm not talking about in the West, but even here, our rate of meat eating continues to grow ), we are, in effect, consuming more and more grain, and requiring more and more farm land. That's without taking in to account that we need more food just because there's continually more of us to start with.
josda1000 wrote:
I'm not saying that there's infinite land, but I definitely am saying that I think you and this "depopulation" agenda organization is really overreacting.
What 'agenda organization' ? The fact is, our way of producing food is unsustainable, even assuming that there's no limit to oil supplies, and even assuming that the population does not grow. I'm not part of an organization, I've just done the research.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Here's a question: do you believe in only allowing everyone to have precisely one child? Isn't that a little over the top? Shouldn't people be free to live to have kids or not, and expect them to live freely without some nonrandom element controlling how many kids they can have, whether covertly or not? Aren't you asking a really screwed up question here? What you're really saying is, "shouldn't people die?" Are you serious?!
josda1000 wrote:
Here's a question: do you believe in only allowing everyone to have precisely one child? Isn't that a little over the top? Shouldn't people be free to live to have kids or not, and expect them to live freely without some nonrandom element controlling how many kids they can have, whether covertly or not? Aren't you asking a really screwed up question here?
Didn't give him much of a chance to answer there...
josda1000 wrote:
What you're really saying is, "shouldn't people die?" Are you serious?!
Is he? Is he really saying that, or are you parrotting CSS?
I don't have ADHD, I have ADOS... Attention Deficit oooh SHINY!! If you need a laugh, check out my Vodafone World of Difference application | If you like cars, check out the Booger Mobile blog | If you feel generous - make a donation to Camp Quality!!
-
josda1000 wrote:
Here's a question: do you believe in only allowing everyone to have precisely one child? Isn't that a little over the top? Shouldn't people be free to live to have kids or not, and expect them to live freely without some nonrandom element controlling how many kids they can have, whether covertly or not? Aren't you asking a really screwed up question here?
Didn't give him much of a chance to answer there...
josda1000 wrote:
What you're really saying is, "shouldn't people die?" Are you serious?!
Is he? Is he really saying that, or are you parrotting CSS?
I don't have ADHD, I have ADOS... Attention Deficit oooh SHINY!! If you need a laugh, check out my Vodafone World of Difference application | If you like cars, check out the Booger Mobile blog | If you feel generous - make a donation to Camp Quality!!
Looks like he's fled the vicinity. Shame, I was hoping he wasn't like CSS at all.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Looks like he's fled the vicinity. Shame, I was hoping he wasn't like CSS at all.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
josda1000 wrote:
Which resource(s) do you find that we are being deprived of that you find that this discussion is necessary?
Right now, food is harvested using a monoculture approach that assumes cheap and plentiful oil. If there's an issue, then it's people at the bottom of the chain who go hungry, not people in the West. The issues are: 1 - our approach to growing food involves providing fertilizer to make up for land that has been worked in an unsustainable way 2 - the run off from that fertilizer is polluting water ways 3 - in the meantime, the sort of fish we eat is changing simply because the stuff we used to eat, has been fished close to extinction 4 - the need for more farmland means we're deforesting, and using land that is marginal at best, thus speeding up the erosion process. For example, land in the Amazon is largely not that fertile, although it can support the forest it has indefinitely, deforesting and planting crops destroys that land in a few years, but they just cut down more forest and keep going.
josda1000 wrote:
But I don't see the human race needing more land, food or water,
To make 1 lb of beef or lamb takes 4 lb of grain. As most of our meat is grain fed, this means as more and more people eat more and more meat ( I'm not talking about in the West, but even here, our rate of meat eating continues to grow ), we are, in effect, consuming more and more grain, and requiring more and more farm land. That's without taking in to account that we need more food just because there's continually more of us to start with.
josda1000 wrote:
I'm not saying that there's infinite land, but I definitely am saying that I think you and this "depopulation" agenda organization is really overreacting.
What 'agenda organization' ? The fact is, our way of producing food is unsustainable, even assuming that there's no limit to oil supplies, and even assuming that the population does not grow. I'm not part of an organization, I've just done the research.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
1 - our approach to growing food involves providing fertilizer to make up for land that has been worked in an unsustainable way
I don't assume to know if this is true or not; however, I have an option: how about just growing food at your home? A garden? Plus, you could have a chicken coop or something.
Christian Graus wrote:
2 - the run off from that fertilizer is polluting water ways
This is just a pollution problem; not the fact that we're losing water. If you had told me that we don't have enough water for the animal kingdom, I would have had to txt-punch you somehow lol But yeah, what does this have to do with a loss in resources? We just have to de-pollute the water, IMO.
Christian Graus wrote:
3 - in the meantime, the sort of fish we eat is changing simply because the stuff we used to eat, has been fished close to extinction
This is just straight-up survival of the fittest here. If we catch fish, we eat them, usually. But take into account that we're not the only fish eaters. Though I can see that the pollution into the water can cause this as well, so it's just another reason to keep pollution down.
Christian Graus wrote:
4 - the need for more farmland means we're deforesting, and using land that is marginal at best, thus speeding up the erosion process. For example, land in the Amazon is largely not that fertile, although it can support the forest it has indefinitely, deforesting and planting crops destroys that land in a few years, but they just cut down more forest and keep going.
Disagreed. The need for more housing caused this deforesting. But in any case, it's happened. But how does farming the land cause it to be destroyed? Are you saying that farmland is not fertile, for example, the land in Iowa used for corn and other such crops? To me, those trees shouldn't have been destroyed, but it's up to the people who live there, not us.
Christian Graus wrote:
To make 1 lb of beef or lamb takes 4 lb of grain. As most of our meat is grain fed, this means as more and more people eat more and more meat ( I'm not talking about in the West, but even here, our rate of meat eating continues to grow ), we are, in effect, consuming more and more grain, and requiring more and mo
-
have that stoopid American Pie version as well. :laugh:
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. or "Drink. Get drunk. Fall over." - P O'H
-
have that stoopid American Pie version as well. :laugh:
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. or "Drink. Get drunk. Fall over." - P O'H
-
Christian Graus wrote:
1 - our approach to growing food involves providing fertilizer to make up for land that has been worked in an unsustainable way
I don't assume to know if this is true or not; however, I have an option: how about just growing food at your home? A garden? Plus, you could have a chicken coop or something.
Christian Graus wrote:
2 - the run off from that fertilizer is polluting water ways
This is just a pollution problem; not the fact that we're losing water. If you had told me that we don't have enough water for the animal kingdom, I would have had to txt-punch you somehow lol But yeah, what does this have to do with a loss in resources? We just have to de-pollute the water, IMO.
Christian Graus wrote:
3 - in the meantime, the sort of fish we eat is changing simply because the stuff we used to eat, has been fished close to extinction
This is just straight-up survival of the fittest here. If we catch fish, we eat them, usually. But take into account that we're not the only fish eaters. Though I can see that the pollution into the water can cause this as well, so it's just another reason to keep pollution down.
Christian Graus wrote:
4 - the need for more farmland means we're deforesting, and using land that is marginal at best, thus speeding up the erosion process. For example, land in the Amazon is largely not that fertile, although it can support the forest it has indefinitely, deforesting and planting crops destroys that land in a few years, but they just cut down more forest and keep going.
Disagreed. The need for more housing caused this deforesting. But in any case, it's happened. But how does farming the land cause it to be destroyed? Are you saying that farmland is not fertile, for example, the land in Iowa used for corn and other such crops? To me, those trees shouldn't have been destroyed, but it's up to the people who live there, not us.
Christian Graus wrote:
To make 1 lb of beef or lamb takes 4 lb of grain. As most of our meat is grain fed, this means as more and more people eat more and more meat ( I'm not talking about in the West, but even here, our rate of meat eating continues to grow ), we are, in effect, consuming more and more grain, and requiring more and mo
josda1000 wrote:
I don't assume to know if this is true or not; however, I have an option: how about just growing food at your home? A garden? Plus, you could have a chicken coop or something.
Okay. Over 50% of the human population is now urban. There is little to no land for a garden let alone a chicken coup. The garden still needs fertilizer and the chicken coup is a negative production system in every case. Whenever you have a creature that you feed to gain food you lose something from the system. Simple thermodynamics come into effect here. You cannot gain energy in a system, you merely convert it. The chickens have to eat food, that food is produced somewhere and they aren't going to produce eggs or be nummy enough to break even with the resources used to make that food for them.
josda1000 wrote:
This is just a pollution problem; not the fact that we're losing water. If you had told me that we don't have enough water for the animal kingdom, I would have had to txt-punch you somehow lol But yeah, what does this have to do with a loss in resources? We just have to de-pollute the water, IMO.
This is no where near as easy as you make it sound. In this state the water pollution is a major issue. Run off is checked a ton because if it is not stopped the people downstream start having health problems and wildlife is greatly effected. Cleaning the rivers isn't easy nor is it cheap. It is far more cost effective to stop the problem at the source. This means less crops for those farmers as they have to keep certain levels of fertilizers and pesticides and their habits of how they do farm are changed. But the alternative is a very costly clean up. Who pays for this clean up? The tax payers, rarely the farmers doing it unless caught, and even then, barely.
josda1000 wrote:
This is just straight-up survival of the fittest here. If we catch fish, we eat them, usually. But take into account that we're not the only fish eaters. Though I can see that the pollution into the water can cause this as well, so it's just another reason to keep pollution down.
There is no survival of the fittest in a situation where the fish have no survivors. We have the ability to get any fish that exist up to a certain depth and eat them. Add pollution and introducing new species that are harmful to the local environment and we stand to lo
-
Christian Graus wrote:
1 - our approach to growing food involves providing fertilizer to make up for land that has been worked in an unsustainable way
I don't assume to know if this is true or not; however, I have an option: how about just growing food at your home? A garden? Plus, you could have a chicken coop or something.
Christian Graus wrote:
2 - the run off from that fertilizer is polluting water ways
This is just a pollution problem; not the fact that we're losing water. If you had told me that we don't have enough water for the animal kingdom, I would have had to txt-punch you somehow lol But yeah, what does this have to do with a loss in resources? We just have to de-pollute the water, IMO.
Christian Graus wrote:
3 - in the meantime, the sort of fish we eat is changing simply because the stuff we used to eat, has been fished close to extinction
This is just straight-up survival of the fittest here. If we catch fish, we eat them, usually. But take into account that we're not the only fish eaters. Though I can see that the pollution into the water can cause this as well, so it's just another reason to keep pollution down.
Christian Graus wrote:
4 - the need for more farmland means we're deforesting, and using land that is marginal at best, thus speeding up the erosion process. For example, land in the Amazon is largely not that fertile, although it can support the forest it has indefinitely, deforesting and planting crops destroys that land in a few years, but they just cut down more forest and keep going.
Disagreed. The need for more housing caused this deforesting. But in any case, it's happened. But how does farming the land cause it to be destroyed? Are you saying that farmland is not fertile, for example, the land in Iowa used for corn and other such crops? To me, those trees shouldn't have been destroyed, but it's up to the people who live there, not us.
Christian Graus wrote:
To make 1 lb of beef or lamb takes 4 lb of grain. As most of our meat is grain fed, this means as more and more people eat more and more meat ( I'm not talking about in the West, but even here, our rate of meat eating continues to grow ), we are, in effect, consuming more and more grain, and requiring more and mo
josda1000 wrote:
I don't assume to know if this is true or not
Try 'The End of Food' as a good first book to read
josda1000 wrote:
: how about just growing food at your home? A garden? Plus, you could have a chicken coop or something.
As I've mentioned before, I grow my own food and have chickens and sheep. That's not the point. Like corn for fuel, or bacteria for fuel, or whatever, the problem with all these solutions is that they do not scale. I could feed my entire family off my land, but I am very much in a minority. What would someone who lives in NYC do ?
josda1000 wrote:
But yeah, what does this have to do with a loss in resources? We just have to de-pollute the water, IMO.
It's not that easy, and in the meantime, we've lost resources in the form of fish life, as well as fresh water. Which IS something that's hitting a crisis point, it's one of the points of weakness in our food system. Water scarcity is very much in the future of the whole human race, at current numbers.
josda1000 wrote:
This is just straight-up survival of the fittest here.
Humans have a history of building unsustainable societies who then starve to death, we're just doing it on a global scale now. Do you know the history of the Mayans ? How about Easter Island ?
josda1000 wrote:
The need for more housing caused this deforesting.
In the Amazon, you are dead wrong. But yes, housing does cause the loss of farm land.
josda1000 wrote:
But how does farming the land cause it to be destroyed?
Trees bind the soil together. So does grass. That's why the dust bowl occured in the 20s, because the grass that had lived there for thousands of years was holding the soil together. Removing it caused erosion. Corn in particular is a gross feeder. It ripens based on hours of sunlight, not on time. It strips all nutrients from soil, i've actually stopped growing it here. But, a traditional farmer would rotate his crops, and grow a cover crop between seasons, something like alfalfa, which would do two things: 1 - bind the soil to stop erosion 2 - alfalfa, beans, peas, etc, bind nitrogen into the soil Rotating plants restores the soil. Having animals on t
-
josda1000 wrote:
I don't assume to know if this is true or not; however, I have an option: how about just growing food at your home? A garden? Plus, you could have a chicken coop or something.
Okay. Over 50% of the human population is now urban. There is little to no land for a garden let alone a chicken coup. The garden still needs fertilizer and the chicken coup is a negative production system in every case. Whenever you have a creature that you feed to gain food you lose something from the system. Simple thermodynamics come into effect here. You cannot gain energy in a system, you merely convert it. The chickens have to eat food, that food is produced somewhere and they aren't going to produce eggs or be nummy enough to break even with the resources used to make that food for them.
josda1000 wrote:
This is just a pollution problem; not the fact that we're losing water. If you had told me that we don't have enough water for the animal kingdom, I would have had to txt-punch you somehow lol But yeah, what does this have to do with a loss in resources? We just have to de-pollute the water, IMO.
This is no where near as easy as you make it sound. In this state the water pollution is a major issue. Run off is checked a ton because if it is not stopped the people downstream start having health problems and wildlife is greatly effected. Cleaning the rivers isn't easy nor is it cheap. It is far more cost effective to stop the problem at the source. This means less crops for those farmers as they have to keep certain levels of fertilizers and pesticides and their habits of how they do farm are changed. But the alternative is a very costly clean up. Who pays for this clean up? The tax payers, rarely the farmers doing it unless caught, and even then, barely.
josda1000 wrote:
This is just straight-up survival of the fittest here. If we catch fish, we eat them, usually. But take into account that we're not the only fish eaters. Though I can see that the pollution into the water can cause this as well, so it's just another reason to keep pollution down.
There is no survival of the fittest in a situation where the fish have no survivors. We have the ability to get any fish that exist up to a certain depth and eat them. Add pollution and introducing new species that are harmful to the local environment and we stand to lo
I'd pay money for a 5 right now. I didn't read this until after I replied, but you've said it better than me, esp the analogy at the end. The big issue IMO is that so many people are so disconnected from where food comes from, that they really have no idea what is involved, or what is needed. And certainly people in the West have no idea how the third world is being denuded and exploited to keep us in year round strawberries.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
I'd pay money for a 5 right now. I didn't read this until after I replied, but you've said it better than me, esp the analogy at the end. The big issue IMO is that so many people are so disconnected from where food comes from, that they really have no idea what is involved, or what is needed. And certainly people in the West have no idea how the third world is being denuded and exploited to keep us in year round strawberries.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Hey, I know EXACTLY how it works! I learn everything I know about agriculture from Tropico 3[^]! See, first you build a farm, and pick what you want to grow... Then in a little while, a bunch of guys drive up in trucks and build it for you for slave wages, driven by teamsters who also get slave wages... Then people start working there, also for slave wages, and eventually food starts coming out of it, which I sell to the world market for drastically-inflated prices. Easy! Anyone can do it! (If anyone takes this post seriously, I invite you to compete in the Darwin Awards)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
Hey, I know EXACTLY how it works! I learn everything I know about agriculture from Tropico 3[^]! See, first you build a farm, and pick what you want to grow... Then in a little while, a bunch of guys drive up in trucks and build it for you for slave wages, driven by teamsters who also get slave wages... Then people start working there, also for slave wages, and eventually food starts coming out of it, which I sell to the world market for drastically-inflated prices. Easy! Anyone can do it! (If anyone takes this post seriously, I invite you to compete in the Darwin Awards)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)least you didn't use Farmville...
-
I'd pay money for a 5 right now. I didn't read this until after I replied, but you've said it better than me, esp the analogy at the end. The big issue IMO is that so many people are so disconnected from where food comes from, that they really have no idea what is involved, or what is needed. And certainly people in the West have no idea how the third world is being denuded and exploited to keep us in year round strawberries.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
I have sat in the corn fields and HEARD the corn growing at night. It's scary when you realize just how much energy is required to do that. You can hear the stalks stretching as they hit the night cycle of photosynthesis and go nuts. The amount of nutrients they leech out of the soil is stupidly bad. Thanks for the comment.