FoodBanter.com - View Single Post - The collusion of federal regulators and Monsanto

J. Clarke[_2_]

In article >,
says...
>
> Landon > wrote:
> >On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 22:57:50 +0000 (UTC),
> >(Steve Pope) wrote:
> >
> >>Landon > wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 20:11:22 +0000 (UTC),
> >>
> >>>I understand where you're going with the stats you've used
> >>
> >>Thank you
> >>
> >>>but I
> >>>still see nothing that supports the geographical results you've drawn.
> >>>Just because the USA is responsible for "X" amount of resources used
> >>>doesn't mean that the same percentage of all parts is due to USA
> >>>involvement.
> >>>
> >>>Do you see what I mean? The 21% of the worlds resources doesn't mean
> >>>that 21% of water pollution is USA caused or that the power
> >>>consumption of the USA equates to the same flow-down of results of the
> >>>same amount of power usage from 3rd world countries.
> >>
> >>The way I see it, unless there is evidence that resource usage
> >>and energy usage attributable to U.S. consumers is less environmentally
> >>destructive than the worldwide average, we must assume its effects are
> >>approximately average.
> >>
> >>A goodly fraction of U.S. consumption has worldwide impact due to
> >>our import economy, and we are not so clean and green in our own practices
> >>here on the home front.
> >>
> >>And, even if we are say two times cleaner than the rest of the world,
> >>or some such (which I doubt), we're still killing a hella lotta people
> >>by consuming as much as we do.
> >>
> >>Steve
> >
> >Please don't misinterpret what I mean. I have a hard time believing
> >that the percentages follow across the board. I'd have to see
> >supporting data.
>
> Well, in the absence of supporting data, what do you believe?
> That excessive U.S. consumption is only killing 500 people annually
> instead of the 500,000 you have stated?
>
> >It seems that you're saying "Unless something is proven to make my
> >assumption inaccurate, then I'll believe what I have assumed to be
> >true."
>
> >That isn't how science works. Assumptions are not allowed in science.
>
> That's not at ALL what I'm saying. I'm saying that if a sample is
> behaving in a certain way, then unless there's a reason to believe
> otherwise, that behavior also best any describes any sub-sample. You
> would need positive evidence to assert that the U.S. is different
> from the rest of the world. You're claiming the U.S. is different;
> so you're the one who's on the hook for presenting said evidence.
>
> >Proof by Peer reviewed analysis and review is what is accepted.
> >
> >You've not supplied any proof. Just assumptions.
>
> Your argument is very very weak. If you want to attack the original
> source (the 40% figure) then fine, but given that result and the
> absence of contrary evidence, I have stated the logical conclusions.
> You're just resisting those conclusions because you don't want to
> believe them.

You might want to look up the numbers for US vs world agricultural
production and US agricultural imports vs exports. You'll find that US
agricultural production is a small percentage of the whole and that the
US is a net exporter of food. The US isn't "starving" _anybody_. Their
local governments are the ones that art starving them. Remember
"Blackhawk Down"? Remember why that Blackhawk was there to begin with?