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

J. Clarke[_2_]

In article >,
says...
>
> In article ocal>,
> J. Clarke > wrote:
> >In article >,
> >says...
> >>
> >> J. Clarke > wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article >,
> >>
> >> >> 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?
> >>
> >> This isn't particularly related to anything I'm talking about.
> >> Economic activity generally results in pollution (chemical/microbial
> >> /radiological) that results in human mortality. This is the
> >> case regardless of whether anyone is starving to death, and I
> >> haven't claimed that the U.S. is starving anyone.
> >>
> >> The questions I have posed that you might want to consider are
> >> the following: how much human mortality is the result of pollution?
> >> (One source says 40%). How much of this is the U.S. responsible
> >> for? (My position is the U.S. is responsible proportionately to our
> >> consumption; Landon disagreed with this but he did not say why.)
> >>
> >> That the U.S. might be starving people through its policies is
> >> highly plausible but I haven't been asserting that in this thread.
> >>
> >> (A lot of pollution is traceable to agriculture, so if the U.S.
> >> has a disproportionately large agricultural industry as you state,
> >> that might make the U.S. more responsible rather than less responsible,
> >> depending on specifics.)
> >
> >So the US is more "responsible" than the part of the world that produces
> >maybe 10 times as much.
>
> >You're coming across as some kind of loon.
>
> I think what you're not factoring in is that the U.S. is responsible
> for a large amount of consumption, and a lot of it is imported goods, and
> so this causes pollution worldwide.

The US is a net exporter of food, so it's difficult to blame US imports
of food for any kind of problem the world is experiencing.

> All I'm stating is the U.S., being responsible for 21% of the world's
> consumption, is also responsible for the pollution/death/ecodisaster
> that is associated with that 21%.
>
> I realize it's not in America's DNA to see anything wrong with consuming.
> What you're expressing is very typical denial.

What you're expressing is irrational blame.