In article <f537cf9d-8c51-407c-a4c9-175d5e8b1d24
@k6g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, says...
>
> Ran e at Arabian Knits > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > *Doug Freyburger > wrote:
> >
> > > If they actually are trademarked that's wrong. *Patents expire
> > > trademarks do not. *The point of patents is to give enough profit to a
> > > developer to make it worth opening the product to the public after a
> > > while. *The point of trademarks is to identify a company and its
> > > products.
> >
> > * *There's a little of both. *There are patented plants like the
> > Honeycrisp apple was (which is part of why we wouldn't buy that
> > variety), and there are actual trademarked seeds like Monsanto sells.
>
> Seeds should not be trademark-able. That's an abuse that should
> fail at the first court test. If there's some loophole that allows it
> it
> needs to be closed.

Monsanto can trademark all the seeds they want to. All someone has to
do to circumvent a trademark is to change the name. If they were
relying on trademark they'd have had their butts handed to them by the
courts a long time ago.

In article >,
says...
>
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 07:56:28 -0700, Ranee at Arabian Knits
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > Landon > wrote:
> >
> >> Do yourself a favor before arguing this. Look up "World Starvation"
> >> and start reading the numbers involved around the world.
> >
> > And do yourself a favor and learn what the reasons behind that
> >starvation is. It isn't population. It is corrupt governments,
> >political policies that harm workers and farmers and families.
>
> You and I are saying the same thing differently.
>
> Taking the political situations into perspective, those countries with
> the worst starvation would be much better off if they would lessen
> their populations so that even considering the politics, there would
> be more food for everyone.
>
> The politics are not going to suddenly change into something that will
> allow more food per/person.
>
> IF there were less people in the worst of the cases, then there would
> HAVE TO BE more food per/person.
>
> In that case, population is an absolute factor.

The countries with "the worst starvation" have relatively small
populations. I don't see how reducing them further will address the
problem.

You might want to read up on the history of Zimbabwe from 1990-2010--
it's a good case in point. In 1999 it was a net exporter of food. Now
it can't feed itself, not because the population has grown but because
government policies pretty much destroyed agriculture. They had another
change of government last year and things seem to be improving but it
will take a long time to undo the damage.

Something similar happened in China during Mao's "Great Leap Forward",
and in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge.

Right now the major famine in the world is in central Africa and is due
to a drought. While several of the countries in the region have had
significant population increases in the past 10 years, those were due to
taking in refugees from Darfur and the like and other than shooting half
the population there is little that can be done to "reduce the
population".

In any case, there is plenty of food to feed those populations
available, it just isn't in those countries.

In article >,
says...
>
> Landon > wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 21:38:52 -0700, Ranee at Arabian Knits
>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>In article >,
> >> Landon > wrote:
> >>
> >>> If you have more than 3 children, YOU are why GMO plants are
> >>> necessary. Period. End of story. Don't like it? Then stop having
> >>> children when you have your third child. If you don't, then don't
> >>> whine about what it takes to feed them all.
> >>
> >> That's amazing since my family of nine does not buy or eat GMO
> >>products. We have a smaller "carbon footprint" than most single people
> >>(according to those how to reduce your carbon footprint websites, etc),
> >>we produce less trash than most folks, use less gasoline, aren't huge
> >>consumers.
> >
> >I'm happy for you and your family of nine.
> >
> >I'm not so sure that the six million children who die each year from
> >starvation would think so highly of you however.
> >
> >Is it the "End of the world"?
> >
> >No.
> >
> >Will it be?
> >
> >No.
> >
> >However, the world has ended prematurely for six million children in
> >the last 12 months because they didn't have enough to eat.
> >
> >Six million children.
> >
> >That's just the children.
> >
> >A BILLION people are malnourished on our planet right this minute.
>
> I think it's important to point out that what's driving starvation
> and disease worldwide -- at least in the immediate sense -- is
> overconsumption in the first world, not overpopulation per se.

It's more a matter of difficulty of distribution. To distribute food in
Somalia the UN had to send a military expedition and finally gave up
trying. There was plenty of food to distribute but the warlords wanted
to control the distribution so they could systematically starve their
opponents.

> To the extent that additional persons (e.g. children) become
> overconsumers, they become part of the problem; but if a given household
> is consuming below-average amounts of energy and consumer products
> generally, then they are not a disproportionate part of the problem.
> So it is not particularly fair to heap criticism on a resource-conserving
> household with a high head-count.

Consumption isn't the issue. You can have enough food reserves to feed
everybody a hundred times over and until you find a way to get it to
where it's needed people will continue to starve.

In article >,
says...
>
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 17:35:26 +0000 (UTC),
> (Steve Pope) wrote:
>
> >I think it's important to point out that what's driving starvation
> >and disease worldwide -- at least in the immediate sense -- is
> >overconsumption in the first world, not overpopulation per se.
> >
> >To the extent that additional persons (e.g. children) become
> >overconsumers, they become part of the problem; but if a given household
> >is consuming below-average amounts of energy and consumer products
> >generally, then they are not a disproportionate part of the problem.
> >So it is not particularly fair to heap criticism on a resource-conserving
> >household with a high head-count.
> >
> >Steve
>
> The math is easy.
>
> Two adults have 4 children.
>
> If those four children consume everything in the same manner that
> their parents do, then there is a 200% increase in the amount of
> resources used as a result of those children growing to adults.
>
> If those parents have 8 children, then it's a 400% increase over what
> the parents consumed.
>
> If this isn't a population driven problem, then what else could you
> call it?
>
> The world cannot feed a 400% increase in demand for resources. It
> can't even support a 200% increase.
>
> What will happen as a result?
>
> More people will die each year of starvation.
>
> Fact.
>
> We could delay or lessen that effect by using a world government (not
> going to happen), or a fair and impartial distribution of food
> world-wide (isn't going to happen) or by teaching the world to grow
> more produce per/sq ft of area (this can happen).
>
> In the future, you will see Hydroponic towers that will look much like
> the current "sky-scrapers" like office buildings or apartment
> buildings now.
>
> Each one could produce 250 thousand pounds of produce per/month,
> per/floor. (200' x 200' floor space).
>
> I already know how to do this. (No kidding)
>
> So, why isn't it being done? I'm surely not the only person with the
> knowledge of how this is done.
>
> For the doubters, that's 10 pounds per/sq ft of available area minus
> 33% for support functions (works out to 6.7 pounds per/sq ft.of total
> area)
>
> I can grow 6.7 pounds of produce per/sq ft/month, on any scale.
>
> Growing vertically is the only method that will work inside a city.
> Land is too precious.
>
> MY method would work to feed those who need it. Will it ever be done?
> I doubt it.

Your brilliant idea isn't being done because there is no purpose served
by it. The people in the world who are starving due to lack of nearby
food sources are not living adjacent to skyscrapers. The people who
live adjacent to skyscrapers and are starving are starving because
either there isn't a social services program to feed them or they've
slipped through the cracks of it. Growing hideously expensive food in
hydroponic skyscrapers won't feed them.

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?

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.)

Steve

"Steve Pope" > ha scritto nel messaggio

> (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.)

And the agriculture isn't feeding anybody for free.
Thing is you can't get a certain sector of the population to even see a
problem let alone support a solution. There are surely some of them here.
Michelle Bachman will stand up there denying climate change as a tornado
whips her and her audience off the face of the earth. She will then blame
it on the Maker's rage that gays are allowed to live and thrive.

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.

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.

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.

Steve

On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 01:38:42 +0000 (UTC),
(Steve Pope) wrote:

>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?

What I'm saying is that using the method of responsibility assignment
you've used isn't science, it's guessing. You GUESS the percentages
would be the same. You've offered no proof of it.
>
>>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.

No, that isn't the way it works. You've submitted that you THINK,
based on a logical assumption, that the percentage numbers match all
aspects of the argument.

Thinking something is true and assuming it so based on logical
assumption is not science.

Evidence supporting your assumptions is proof. You've offered none.
>
>>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.
>
>Steve

No, my argument is as solid as concrete. It's yours that is weak.

Sorry.

You've presented nothing but your own assumptions. No data, no science
to back them.

Actually, you have no argument worth consideration. Show me the data
that supports your claims. Then I'll consider your assumptions after
viewing the support data.

Logical conclusions are not facts or support data.

It's a fancy way of saying; "I have no proof, but here is my guess
based on what I *think* is happening".

It's you that needs to either put this to bed or show your evidence
that supports your guesses.

On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 05:32:56 +0000 (UTC),
(Steve Pope) wrote:

>That the U.S. might be starving people through its policies is
>highly plausible but I haven't been asserting that in this thread.

The policies of every government on the planet right now are
contributing to world hunger and starvation.

It's a result of humans being nasty, greedy little monkeys still.

In Ten Thousand Years, perhaps we will have evolved into something
better.

On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 06:47:22 +0000 (UTC),
(Steve Pope) wrote:

>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.

I was wondering how long it would take you to work to the "typical
denial" claim.

Of course, you're wrong about that. The fact is that you've done
nothing more than guess about the percentages. You have no supporting
data and no proof that anything you've guessed is accurate.

Failure on your part to admit that, is typical denial.

Now THAT'S funny!

Let's end this bullshit and get back to what this group is about.

Landon > wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 01:38:42 +0000 (UTC),
>(Steve Pope) wrote:
>
>>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?
>
>What I'm saying is that using the method of responsibility assignment
>you've used isn't science, it's guessing. You GUESS the percentages
>would be the same. You've offered no proof of it.
>>
>>>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.
>
>No, that isn't the way it works. You've submitted that you THINK,
>based on a logical assumption, that the percentage numbers match all
>aspects of the argument.
>
>Thinking something is true and assuming it so based on logical
>assumption is not science.
>
>Evidence supporting your assumptions is proof. You've offered none.
>>
>>>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.
>
>No, my argument is as solid as concrete. It's yours that is weak.
>
>Sorry.
>
>You've presented nothing but your own assumptions. No data, no science
>to back them.
>
>Actually, you have no argument worth consideration. Show me the data
>that supports your claims. Then I'll consider your assumptions after
>viewing the support data.

Let's try an analogy.

Suppose we have a pond full of fish. I take out 1000 fish, weigh
them and find their average weight is 5 pounds.

After tossing them back in, I take out another 20 fish, and tell
you that my best estimate of their weight is an average of 5 pounds.

Your position would be that of saying "no, that's not the best estimate.
These are not the same fish". Which would be okay if you had
some rationale that supported this -- but you don't.

This is not being scientific. A scientist believes the most likely
explanation for the observations at hand.

In this case, it's likely that the U.S. is producing its proportionate
fraction of worldwide pollution. If you want to believe it is
different from this, you will have to tell me why.

Steve

On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:51:55 +0000 (UTC),
(Steve Pope) wrote:

>In this case, it's likely that the U.S. is producing its proportionate
>fraction of worldwide pollution. If you want to believe it is
>different from this, you will have to tell me why.
>
>Steve

No, that's not true. A Scientist would say; "It's possible that the US
is producing its proportionate fraction of worldwide pollution. Now
lets investigate the actual data and see if this is actually true."

You haven't shown any data that supports your claim. Until you do,
it's nothing but your guess of what might be.

I won't change my position on this. I've offered to review any data
you submit that supports your guesses, but you keep dancing around the
fact that you have no data, only guesses.

I can see now that you have no intention of finding any data to
support your guesses, so it's pretty much a waste of time to keep
beating this dead horse.

Landon > wrote:

>On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 06:47:22 +0000 (UTC),

>I was wondering how long it would take you to work to the "typical
>denial" claim.
>
>Of course, you're wrong about that. The fact is that you've done
>nothing more than guess about the percentages. You have no supporting
>data and no proof that anything you've guessed is accurate.

I've presented one reference supporting my numbers. You've presented
nothing but denial.

At this point you are merely arguing by repeated assertion... a
sure sign that you have nothing substantive to counter what I've
presented.

Steve

In article >,
Landon > wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:51:55 +0000 (UTC),
>(Steve Pope) wrote:
>
>>In this case, it's likely that the U.S. is producing its proportionate
>>fraction of worldwide pollution. If you want to believe it is
>>different from this, you will have to tell me why.
>>
>>Steve
>
>No, that's not true. A Scientist would say; "It's possible that the US
>is producing its proportionate fraction of worldwide pollution. Now
>lets investigate the actual data and see if this is actually true."

Fine

>You haven't shown any data that supports your claim.

Yes I have; you are merely discounting that data, without presenting
any conflicting data.

>I won't change my position on this.

In other words, denial.

>I've offered to review any data
>you submit that supports your guesses, but you keep dancing around the
>fact that you have no data, only guesses.

At this point, you are simply being disingenous. If you don't believe
the study I referenced, fine, but don't claim it doesn't say what
it ways. That's silly. If you have a different conclusion as to
the body count than I do, please tell us numerically what it is.

This is not a trivial matter either; as a matter of public policy
we need to know how much damage our pursuits are causing. You
are saying "you must ignore the damage until I see more numbers". That
is the sort of thinking that leads to uncontrolled environmental
damage and relentless morbidity/mortality from the wanton behavior
of polluting industries.


Steve

On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 17:44:42 +0000 (UTC),
(Steve Pope) wrote:

>In other words, denial.
>
>
>Steve

Whatever.

Goodbye.

In article >, says...
>
> "Steve Pope" > ha scritto nel messaggio
>
> > (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.)
>
> And the agriculture isn't feeding anybody for free.
> Thing is you can't get a certain sector of the population to even see a
> problem let alone support a solution. There are surely some of them here.
> Michelle Bachman will stand up there denying climate change as a tornado
> whips her and her audience off the face of the earth. She will then blame
> it on the Maker's rage that gays are allowed to live and thrive.

Tornadoes were whipping people off the face of the Earth long before
anybody heard of "climate change". Sorry, but that's simply not any
kind of compelling argument.

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.

J. Clarke > wrote:

>In article >,

>> 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.

I said U.S. imports, not U.S. imports of food.

Steve

In article >,
says...
>
> J. Clarke > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
>
> >> 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.
>
> I said U.S. imports, not U.S. imports of food.

I see. So basically the US is evil for putting legions of Chinese to
work.

J. Clarke > wrote:

>In article >,
>says...

>> J. Clarke > wrote:

>> >In article >,
>>
>> >> 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.

>> I said U.S. imports, not U.S. imports of food.

>I see. So basically the US is evil for putting legions of Chinese to
>work.

I'm not saying that, but I am saying U.S. consumers are responsible
for the various impacts of their consumption, including impacts
on the environment and on human health.

Steve

In article >,
says...
>
> J. Clarke > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> >says...
>
> >> J. Clarke > wrote:
>
> >> >In article >,
> >>
> >> >> 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.
>
> >> I said U.S. imports, not U.S. imports of food.
>
> >I see. So basically the US is evil for putting legions of Chinese to
> >work.
>
> I'm not saying that, but I am saying U.S. consumers are responsible
> for the various impacts of their consumption, including impacts
> on the environment and on human health.

So US consumers are responsible for the decision of the Chinese
government to build coal-fired power plants rather than something
cleaner?

I don't think so.

J. Clarke > wrote:

>In article >,

>> I'm not saying that, but I am saying U.S. consumers are responsible
>> for the various impacts of their consumption, including impacts
>> on the environment and on human health.

>So US consumers are responsible for the decision of the Chinese
>government to build coal-fired power plants rather than something
>cleaner?

Yes, individual consumers are responsible for their consumption.
Why wouldn't they be? To believe otherwise is consumerist.


Steve

In article >,
says...
>
> J. Clarke > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
>
> >> I'm not saying that, but I am saying U.S. consumers are responsible
> >> for the various impacts of their consumption, including impacts
> >> on the environment and on human health.
>
> >So US consumers are responsible for the decision of the Chinese
> >government to build coal-fired power plants rather than something
> >cleaner?
>
> Yes, individual consumers are responsible for their consumption.
> Why wouldn't they be? To believe otherwise is consumerist.

Fine then, long live consumerism and screw whatever lunatic ideology you
espouse.

On Jun 12, 5:39*pm, Roy > wrote:
> On Jun 12, 3:36*pm, notbob > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2011-06-12, ImStillMags > wrote:
>
> > > causes birth defects, according to a new report released Tuesday.
>
> > Are you serious?
>
> > What Monsanto is doing to the World's food supply is so far reaching
> > and monstrous, birth defects shrink into relative insignificance by
> > comparison. *People are dying from Monsanto's impact.
>
> >http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-w...g-to-monsanto/
>
> > While other coporations are destroying the Earth's ecosystem by
> > neglect, Monsanto is out to actively destroy it by genetic corruption.
>
> > I'm glad I'm old. *
>
> > nb
>
> ==
> Round-up resistant weeds have become a problem all over the world. I
> would say that fact alone should cause farmers to be more cautious in
> its usage.
>
> I sure that Monsanto could care less about their genetic corruption as
> long as they make huge profits. I will not purchase their Round-up
> ready seed no matter what benefits they may bring.
> ==

The expression is couldN'T care less. Think about it.

--Bryan

On Jun 13, 7:09*am, Landon > wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 23:57:34 -0400, "Jean B." > wrote:
> >notbob wrote:
> >> On 2011-06-12, ImStillMags > wrote:
>
> >>> causes birth defects, according to a new report released Tuesday.
>
> >> Are you serious?
>
> >> What Monsanto is doing to the World's food supply is so far reaching
> >> and monstrous, birth defects shrink into relative insignificance by
> >> comparison. *People are dying from Monsanto's impact.
>
> >>http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-w...g-to-monsanto/
>
> >> While other coporations are destroying the Earth's ecosystem by
> >> neglect, Monsanto is out to actively destroy it by genetic corruption.
>
> >> I'm glad I'm old. *
>
> >> nb
>
> >You know, sometimes I think *I* am glad I am old too. *Monsanto is
> >evil. *The planet is sick, and too many people seem not to care
> >enough to change their ways the slightest bit.
>
> You hit the nail on the head when you included the words "too many
> people" in your post.
>
> The root of the entire problem is TOO MANY PEOPLE.
>
> The planet has a virus. The name of the virus is "Humans". It
> multiplies like a virus, destroys the natural levels of all other
> things in it's zeal to multiply and kills all other species that try
> to stop it's growth. Humans are Planet Earth's virus.
>
> One child....fine! Two children....fine! Even three children
> per/family can be tolerated by balanced living.
>
> More than 3 children per/family and it's a death sentence to the
> planet. Just look at what over-population has done!
>
> All these 4 to 12 kid families just turn a blind and usually religious
> eye to the harm their contribution to over-population and what it
> causes.
>
> GMO plants? THEY HAVE TO BE. You can no longer feed the population of
> this planet without using GMO plants. Here's a news flash for the
> dreamers out the IT CAN'T BE DONE WITHOUT GMO PLANTS.
>
> If you don't like the consequences of so many humans, then stop
> producing them.
>
> "Oh, but it's part of my religion!" Yeah, so is death by starvation.
> Look at the virus called "Humans" and what they have done to Earth.
>
> Better wise up folks. GMO plants are just the beginning of what is
> necessary to feed all those new hungry mouths you are creating in your
> blind lust for out-populating the other groups of people who are
> trying to out-populate your group.
>
> If you have more than 3 children, YOU are why GMO plants are
> necessary. Period. End of story. Don't like it? Then stop having
> children when you have your third child. If you don't, then don't
> whine about what it takes to feed them all.

The next time one of you Catholics put money in the collection plate,
think of how the "Flaccid Penis Man" (Pope) is condemning millions to
die of starvation, then imagine the priest giving the altar boy a
blowjob. Think of all the women who will die of AIDS in Africa
because of the Church's opposition to condoms, them imagine the altar
boy giving the priest a blowjob. Remember, your generous
contributions make it all possible.

--Bryan

Steve Pope wrote:
> J. Clarke > wrote:
>
>>I see. So basically the US is evil for putting legions of Chinese to
>>work.
>
> I'm not saying that

Sure you are saying that. It's like you are arguing that pollution is
bad because having jobs is bad.

Pollution is bad in some places because the current government does not
care. Pollution is bad in some places because population and
industrialization is happening so far there has not been time to react.
At least in that second group the future is very promising for clean up.

Developing nations have the advantage of being able to start with
today's generation of equipment as soon as their industry can afford it.

On Jun 16, 7:10*am, Bryan > wrote:
> On Jun 12, 5:39*pm, Roy > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 12, 3:36*pm, notbob > wrote:
>
> > > On 2011-06-12, ImStillMags > wrote:
>
> > > > causes birth defects, according to a new report released Tuesday.
>
> > > Are you serious?
>
> > > What Monsanto is doing to the World's food supply is so far reaching
> > > and monstrous, birth defects shrink into relative insignificance by
> > > comparison. *People are dying from Monsanto's impact.
>
> > >http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-w...g-to-monsanto/
>
> > > While other coporations are destroying the Earth's ecosystem by
> > > neglect, Monsanto is out to actively destroy it by genetic corruption..
>
> > > I'm glad I'm old. *
>
> > > nb
>
> > ==
> > Round-up resistant weeds have become a problem all over the world. I
> > would say that fact alone should cause farmers to be more cautious in
> > its usage.
>
> > I sure that Monsanto could care less about their genetic corruption as
> > long as they make huge profits. I will not purchase their Round-up
> > ready seed no matter what benefits they may bring.
> > ==
>
> The expression is couldN'T care less. *Think about it.
>
> --Bryan

==
I could care more but I don't.
Ahahahahahahahahahahaha

==

J. Clarke > wrote:

>In article >,

>> Yes, individual consumers are responsible for their consumption.
>> Why wouldn't they be? To believe otherwise is consumerist.

>Fine then, long live consumerism and screw whatever lunatic ideology you
>espouse.

My "lunatic" ideology is to not kill excess numbers of people through
excess consumer behavior.

By your way of thinking, a non-"lunatic" would be offing as many
persons as they wish.

Thanks, I'll choose lunacy.


Steve

Doug Freyburger > wrote:

>Steve Pope wrote:
>> J. Clarke > wrote:
>>
>>>I see. So basically the US is evil for putting legions of Chinese to
>>>work.
>>
>> I'm not saying that
>
>Sure you are saying that. It's like you are arguing that pollution is
>bad because having jobs is bad.

You are inventing things. Please quote what I have actually said
instead of making stuff up.

>Pollution is bad in some places because the current government does not
>care. Pollution is bad in some places because population and
>industrialization is happening so far there has not been time to react.
>At least in that second group the future is very promising for clean up.

>Developing nations have the advantage of being able to start with
>today's generation of equipment as soon as their industry can afford it.

These are second-order effects. To a first order: consumption and
economic activity is causing pollution, disease, human death, and
a rate of species extinction on the same order as that caused by
a major meteor strike. This is why I recommend conservation and
less consumption.

Steve

In article >,
says...
>
> J. Clarke > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
>
> >> Yes, individual consumers are responsible for their consumption.
> >> Why wouldn't they be? To believe otherwise is consumerist.
>
> >Fine then, long live consumerism and screw whatever lunatic ideology you
> >espouse.
>
> My "lunatic" ideology is to not kill excess numbers of people through
> excess consumer behavior.
>
> By your way of thinking, a non-"lunatic" would be offing as many
> persons as they wish.
>
> Thanks, I'll choose lunacy.

Nice to see you admit it.

Maybe you can get some help?