"Jean B." wrote:
>
> Pete C. wrote:
> > "Jean B." wrote:
> >> Pete C. wrote:
> >>> "Jean B." wrote:
> >>>> modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
> >>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/bu...l?ref=business
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It just ain't right.
> >>>> Sure it is. Farmed fish isn't right.
> >>> So you'd also suggest we should subsist on nuts and berries foraged in
> >>> the wild?
> >> Obviously, that is not practical.
> >>
> >> BS, farmed fish, farmed (ranched) cattle, farmed vegetables,
> >>> etc. are all quite right.
> >> That depends.... For one thing, how are those things produced?
> >
> > The same way we're been farming for millennia.
>
> Like with antibiotics and hormones?

Sure, whatever you want to believe...

> >
> >> How do the nutritional benefits compare?
> >
> > The same as any other source. I take it you're one of the folks who
> > believes the myth that "organic" produce is more nutritious than
> > conventional.
>
> Sometimes. I do tend to gravitate toward organic produce. It's
> also a matter of what is good for this planet.

I tend to gravitate away from "organic" as I consider it overpriced
hype. I will be getting my own garden going for next year, so it won't
be an issue anyway, and no, I won't be doing anything special for
"organic".

>
> >
> >> What has human
> >> intervention introduced?
> >
> > Efficiency.
>
> True--but at what cost?

Overpopulation.

> >
> >> Also, what is the impact on the environment?
> >
> > It supports overpopulation.
>
> Not following. Current agricultural etc. practices do support
> overpopulation. That's a problem, which will come home to roost.

All farming supports overpopulation, be it organic or conventional.

> >
> >>>> I suppose, though, that
> >>>> given the condition of the seas
> >>> Certainly farming fish can relieve some of the pressure on wild stocks.
> >> I agree--but again, I question what is in these things?
> >
> > Protein and nutrients.
>
> And what else?

Nothing that you don't also find in everything else on the planet.

> >
> >> How has
> >> farming altered them?
> >
> > It hasn't, that's a myth.
>
> I don't believe that.

Believe what you want. People have been believing in myths with no
supporting evidence for millennia...

> >
> >> What is the impact on the environment?
> >
> > It supports overpopulation.
>
> And you think that's good?

Nope, but all farming supports overpopulation. So does food aid, medical
aid and other forms of support for overpopulated regions that do nothing
to solve the underlying overpopulation and change the culture to a
sustainable self sufficient one.

> >
> >>>> and the population of the world,
> >>>> it may be necessary.
> >>> That population issue should resolve, at least temporarily, when we
> >>> finally get the next pandemic, be it bird flu or whatever.
> >> Or it will resolve as result of food and water shortages and other
> >> disasters.
> >
> > Disasters like failing schools producing a population that lacks the
> > critical thinking skills to research and analyze actual facts, and
> > instead relies on unsubstantiated rumors.
>
> I gather that's a comment directed at me. Well, we shall see....
> --
> Jean B.