Novella Wrote A Great Piece On The Need for Improved Food Production

[HuckleB]

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-need-for-improved-food-production/

He addresses the science denial of climate change deniers and anti-GMOers, showing how the combination might be rather unfortunate.

"...

Some who deny the reality of global climate change have argued that, even if CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere, who is to say it’s a bad thing? Plants breath CO2, so increasing CO2 should just increase plant growth.

Kromdijk and Long point out that this view is naive. This is based on the simplistic thinking that if some is good then more is better (the fallacious basis of the entire supplement industry). In reality, biological systems exist in a complex homeostasis. Further, evolution is very efficient at optimizing biological systems to their current environment. If you rapidly change that environment, there may not be time for evolution to catch up.

...

One of the talking points in the anti-GMO movement is that we do not need to increase our food production. We produce more than enough food today to feed the world’s population, the real problem is distribution. While this is true, it entirely misses the point – the point that Kromdijk and Long now make explicit. It actually misses two points.

...

Remember, we will need to produce 87% more food by 2050, and we cannot simply increase land use 87%. We need to use our land more efficiently.

..."

--------------------------------------------------

[Viva_La_Revolution]

1. nearly half, 40% of all food produced is thrown away

We already grow plenty
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jan/10/half-world-food-waste

[HuckleB]

2. Your anti GMO argument is, "We already have enough food to feed the world".

http://welovegv.blogspot.com/2015/12/your-anti-gmo-argument-is-we-already.html

[Viva_La_Revolution]

3. no, my anti gmo argument is that they are using two unrelated species

I'll eat those gmo bananas no problem, cause they are two different types of banana, no anti pesticide tinkering.

This is a separate issue - wasting the food we already have

Nice try putting words in my mouth tho

[progressoid]

4. Anti pesticide tinkering is one of the many advantages of genetic engineering.

Take the sugar beet for instance.

Since 2009, glyphosate tolerant sugar beets have made up more than 95 percent of the commercial sugar beet production in the U.S. Over that time, inputs and productivity data gathered from farmer-owned cooperatives show 25 environmental benefits to using GE sugar beets, ranging from 20 percent higher yields and reduced chemical input, to implementation of conservation tillage and reduced fossil fuel consumption. The findings highlight the importance of genetic engineering in the long term sustainability of the farmer-owned industry.

https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/12/14/myth-busting-no-thing-gmo-sugar/

Also, http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016150132

...The growers’ cost of herbicides has dropped from $66 per acre to $11 per acre since they switched from non-GMO sugar beets in 2008. The cost of hand labor has dropped from $60 an acre to zero, since it is no longer needed.

And, yes, the price of seed has increased, from $44 to $143. But at the same time, yields have also increased.

Overall, the net margin increase has been $122 per acre, said Grant, who farms near Rupert, Idaho.

In total, the switch to GMO sugar beets has meant a $22 million benefit to the cooperative and its members, he said.

A meta-study — which reviewed 147 other studies — found that by growing GMO crops farmers have reduced pesticide use by 37 percent. At the same time, farmers’ profits have increased by 68 percent....

Less chemical use. Lower carbon footprint. Better income.
Win win win.

[HuckleB]

5. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Way to ignore the reality of how many genes most living forms share.

Sheesh.

And no one put words in your mouth. You wrote what you wrote. This is not hard stuff.