Greenpeace prevails again

[aaaaaaasd]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-14/2 ... st/2794272

Quote:Greenpeace protesters have broken into a CSIRO experimental farm in Canberra to destroy a crop of genetically modified wheat.

In the early hours of this morning a group of Greenpeace protesters scaled the fence of the CSIRO experimental station at Ginninderra in the capital's north. Greenpeace says activists were wearing Hazmat protective clothing and were equipped with weed string trimmers. They say the entire crop of genetically modified wheat has been destroyed.

About half a hectare of GM wheat is being grown on the site, as part of Australia's first outdoor trials. No genetically modified wheat strain had ever been approved for cropping in Australia before. Last month the CSIRO received permission to conduct Australia's first trial in which humans will eat GM wheat. The wheat's genes have been modified to lower the glycemic index and increase fibre to create a product which will improve bowel health and increase nutritional value.

Animal feeding trials of up to three months have been conducted, with human trials at least six months away. Greenpeace says it has taken action because of concerns over health, cross-contamination and the secrecy surrounding the experiments. Campaigner Laura Kelly says the Federal Government needs to put an end to testing GM wheat in Australia. She says parts of the United States and many countries throughout Europe have already rejected the crop, and Australia should do the same. "No one is looking after the health of Australians. Julia Gillard isn't standing up to foreign GM countries to protect our daily bread so Greenpeace has to," she said.

CSIRO chief director of Plant Industries Jeremy Burdon says the organisation is still assessing the extent of the damage. He says it is a setback to an important global food security program. "Until we actually know what the assessment comes out at it's hard to say but if it sets it back by a year it's a significant amount of effort by those people involved," he said.

ACT Greens MLA Shane Rattenbury used to work for Greenpeace and says he is not surprised the group has taken such action. "It's always very controversial these sorts of actions, but you have to stand up for what you believe in sometimes," he said. "Greenpeace has clearly formed a view that the best way to both draw attention to this issue and to potentially protect the human food chain in Australia is to take this action." Mr Rattenbury says Greenpeace has a track record of breaking the law to highlight problems. "I've certainly been involved in action in the past where Greenpeace has broken the law and that has been necessary to highlight what we've considered at the time to be a greater issue than perhaps a simple trespass," he said.

ACT police have confirmed they are investigating but have not released any further information.

Yeah, fuck progress and science, let's solve world hunger with activism and good will

[thewake]

GM foods hold great possibilities, especially for third world nations with little water. One could engineer wheat that is able to survive in harsher, hotter conditions or rice that does it too.

But the stupid GM scare, which owes most of its power to fears more akin to fears of Frankenstein than anything else, is keeping this from happening.

[aaaaaaasd]

BUT IT COULD BE HARMFUL TO MY CHILDREN EVEN THOUGH IT IS ONLY IN A TESTING PHASE AND THERE IS NO WAY THEY COULD GET THEIR HANDS ON IT

[thewake]

They're probably most afraid of genetically modified plants interbreeding with wild populations, but what's funny is the stupid anti-GM groups oppose the technology that will actually keep that from happening.

Terminator technology that makes the GM plants basically sterile, producing useless seeds.

There is a trade-off. With these plants, farmers do have to buy new seeds every year, but if you don't want a chance of so-called "super weeds" that have GM resistance to herbicides the trade-off might be beneficial. And, who knows? The ability to maximize your fields' yield by spraying herbicide and not having it harm the plants you want to cultivate may be more profitable, even with the added costs of buying seeds every year.

[UnschoolShqiponjë]

Blah so stupid.

[Alucard483]

Why does noone get that live round defense is the only way to keep this shit from happeing?

[Sociopath]

GM food makes you sick. Wheat is good enough without all that GM shit. Get sick from poor diet? Go to the hospital.



oh, and don't even THINK about giving me crap like "lets grow wheat dat cuers cancer hurr durr"

[SaintVicious]

Sociopath Wrote:GM food makes you sick. Wheat is good enough without all that GM shit. Get sick from poor diet? Go to the hospital.



oh, and don't even THINK about giving me crap like "lets grow wheat dat cuers cancer hurr durr"

YEA FUCK PROGRESS if its dangerous we should just abandon it. im supposed an anarchist but risks are 2 scary

[Sociopath]

Comrade Wrote:

Sociopath Wrote:GM food makes you sick. Wheat is good enough without all that GM shit. Get sick from poor diet? Go to the hospital.



oh, and don't even THINK about giving me crap like "lets grow wheat dat cuers cancer hurr durr"

YEA FUCK PROGRESS if its dangerous we should just abandon it. im supposed an anarchist but risks are 2 scary

Being an Anarchist has no obligation of "taking risks" so obviously you cannot be serious, and if you are, you are severely misguided.


I suppose if this were a small time experiment with consented human-only testing it might be OK. But COME ON, even Rebelnerd would agree conservatives would want this shit all over the shelves of Walmart. And what if this is a major mistake (as most experiments of this magnitude are) and millions get sick and die. Is THAT "progress?" (inb4 misanthropy) But we're talking about future "consentments" of people. People should have a say in what they digest. That most includes me. And we don't need this GM to get vitamins and minerals, you can buy that stuff at the pharmacy. This is unnecessary research; its like saying we already have a computer that allows access to the internet, but this time, let's build a slightly different computer and rig it with explosives to see if it works the same.


Unnecessary risks.

[Sociopath]

Weswammy Wrote:GM foods hold great possibilities, especially for third world nations with little water. One could engineer wheat that is able to survive in harsher, hotter conditions or rice that does it too.

But the stupid GM scare, which owes most of its power to fears more akin to fears of Frankenstein than anything else, is keeping this from happening.

Won't do any good, I'm afraid. There is no cash flow to be made from helping 3rd world countries and the U.S. is already stretched thin. *coughmilitaryboondogglescough*

Look; the problem is NOT food shortages, we have PLENTY of food to go around. The problem is ACCESSIBILITY: poor families cannot afford to buy simple food products and thus they starve to death. If GM foods really DO make the food better, it will only raise the pricetag. Farmers already can't build up farms in places in Africa because they're so poor; The African government's tax reform policy is a mess designed to maintain class structure; by taxing the poor repeatedly that is what KEEPS the families poor and only benefits the rich. Its about exploitation. Banks have a share in this and will not take kindly to risks. Farmers can't start farms because they can't get credit because they're poor in the first place, and even if they did, they couldn't get any money back to the banks because noone could afford the food there. They'd go in (even more) debt by investing in GM foods and poor families already can't buy $3.00 breadloaves, what makes you think they could afford superbreadloaves that increase your dick size by 3x for $6.50? Banks won't loan money to people if the banks themselves don't get a profit, and thats exactly what's happening. So in short, this will do nothing to help 3rd world countries.



Ain't Crapitalism a bitch?

[thewake]

Sociopath Wrote:Won't do any good, I'm afraid. There is no cash flow to be made from helping 3rd world countries and the U.S. is already stretched thin.

If these countries opened up to foreign investment and freed up their market, yeah maybe there would be money to be made.

Quote:*coughmilitaryboondogglescough*

Because capitalism=imperialism. Yeah. I buy that.

Quote:Look; the problem is NOT food shortages, we have PLENTY of food to go around. The problem is ACCESSIBILITY: poor families cannot afford to buy simple food products and thus they starve to death.

This is the fault of capitalism how? Looks like the fault of corrupt governments to me.

Quote:If GM foods really DO make the food better, it will only raise the pricetag.

Yes, I'm sure it will raise the price tag at first with new technologies, but as there is a greater abundance of food (and GM can make it easier to mass produce food) the prices go down. Supply and demand are like the economic laws of physics.

Quote:Farmers already can't build up farms in places in Africa because they're so poor; The African government's tax reform policy is a mess designed to maintain class structure; by taxing the poor repeatedly that is what KEEPS the families poor and only benefits the rich. Its about exploitation. Banks have a share in this and will not take kindly to risks.

I'm not for a tax system that maintains a class structure. that sounds more like feudalism than capitalism.

Quote:Farmers can't start farms because they can't get credit because they're poor in the first place,

Maybe if things were a little more stable there, banks could loan money out. Poor people get money loaned to them in America. For the longest time in the 1800's, farmers were net debtors in America. They were poor and yet they got loans.

Maybe if it wasn't so risky to do business in Africa it would help. But then again, that's not the fault of a free market. That's the fault of a corrupt government that won't enforce simple rule of law.

Quote:and even if they did, they couldn't get any money back to the banks because noone could afford the food there.

Really? A greater abundance of something means the prices go up. New one on me.

Quote:They'd go in (even more) debt by investing in GM foods and poor families already can't buy $3.00 breadloaves, what makes you think they could afford superbreadloaves that increase your dick size by 3x for $6.50?

I never said that Genetically Modified crops are the only thing that needs to be done to help 3rd world countries. However, this idiocy of 3rd world countries refusing GM foods as aid because of scares started by junk scientists is just, well, idiocy on the part of those nation's governments.

Quote:superbreadloaves that increase your dick size

I realize this is hyperbole, but you obviously have a very vague conception of what genetically modified means. They change the genes of the plant, like maybe inserting a gene from a desert plant into wheat so it will be able to survive in more arid environments.

There is very real danger of those genes getting out into the environment and into wild populations, but there is already technology to deal with that.

But it's not like they're dumping radioactive waste in a vat, throwing in some seeds, and then saying, "DUR HUR WE HAS BETUR FOODS."

Without having access to GM technology, the only alternative for Third World countries to increase food production would be to use more fertilisers, insecticides and herbicides–certainly not beneficial to the environment either. Furthermore, most farmers in poor countries simply cannot afford these chemicals that have been developed for large mechanised farms in the First World. GM technology has already demonstrated that it has the potential to increase food production while decreasing production costs. For virus-, insect- and herbicide-resistant plants, an average increase in yield of 5–10%, up to 40% saved on herbicides and savings of US$ 60 to 120 per acre on insecticides have been reported
Source: http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v2/ ... or436.html

Quote:Banks won't loan money to people if the banks themselves don't get a profit, and thats exactly what's happening. So in short, this will do nothing to help 3rd world countries.

Ever heard of market innovation? People will figure out how to better themselves and make a living (thus, a profit) at it if given the freedom to do so.
How the heck do you think America mechanized its farming operation? I'm sure some happy fluffly anarcho-communists just gave out free machinery to the downtrodden man.

Quote:Ain't Crapitalism a bitch?

The situation isn't anywhere near a free market or even a reasonably kind-of-free one like the U.S.

The poorest countries in the world generally have some of the most corrupt governments in the world. And, in case you didn't realize, capitalism isn't a governmental system.

And I would also say that the ruling parties of all of these countries are ones that profess social justice, maybe even socialism.

[Alucard483]

Sociopath Wrote:

Comrade Wrote:

Sociopath Wrote:GM food makes you sick. Wheat is good enough without all that GM shit. Get sick from poor diet? Go to the hospital.



oh, and don't even THINK about giving me crap like "lets grow wheat dat cuers cancer hurr durr"

YEA FUCK PROGRESS if its dangerous we should just abandon it. im supposed an anarchist but risks are 2 scary

Being an Anarchist has no obligation of "taking risks" so obviously you cannot be serious, and if you are, you are severely misguided.


I suppose if this were a small time experiment with consented human-only testing it might be OK. But COME ON, even Rebelnerd would agree conservatives would want this shit all over the shelves of Walmart. And what if this is a major mistake (as most experiments of this magnitude are) and millions get sick and die. Is THAT "progress?" (inb4 misanthropy) But we're talking about future "consentments" of people. People should have a say in what they digest. That most includes me. And we don't need this GM to get vitamins and minerals, you can buy that stuff at the pharmacy. This is unnecessary research; its like saying we already have a computer that allows access to the internet, but this time, let's build a slightly different computer and rig it with explosives to see if it works the same.


Unnecessary risks.

I have no idea where you are coming up with your demographic information, but i can tell you there is no correlation between GM=Conservative Want. If anything its the opposite seeing as how "were all bible banging wingnuts" and GMing goes against god? I understand that you dissagree with GM foods and have authority complex issues, but dont take a fucking snipe shot until you look at what your doing.

As foor the food making you sick, there is no truth in that, however it is less nutritious for you as well as most often less flavorful. Its just something that cant be worked around. A real tomato and a modified tomato will both taste similar, but the GM tomato will be bigger, and most likely not be as red inside. We can come close to 'normal' but once we fuck with it, getting it back to looking normal is not as easy as it might seem. This 'lack' of nutrition in the long run is less healthy for you than all organic shit, but not by a OMG huge margin. So, if you were to get sick, theoreticly it could have been becuase you eat food, and so your imune system was low. However to single out GM foods as the reason you got sick is just silly. Unless you mean "this shit gave me cancer" sick. In that case then people can get in line behind acutane for giving people chrones disease, Dole for the ecoli epidenmic, BP for causing an oil spill that people then ate the fish out of, and the rest of the list that some jew on TV says owes us money and he will gladly sue them for us in the pursuit for more jew gold.

[Aya]

I'm sorry but as much as it makes me want to hurl up a bucket of sick pukey vomit, I have to side with TA on this one. We currently produce enough barley, wheat, rice and other cereals on this planet to provide everyone with 3000 calories a day. Adjusted to a 2000 calorie diet and that's enough food to feed nearly 10 billion people (current population is at 7 billion). That doesn't even factor in calories derived from meat, diary, fruits and vegetables. The problem with world hunger is not a lack of food but a lack of accessibility among the earths poor.

While I don't agree with what Greenpeace did, GM foods are not as much of a necessity to human development as they're being made to be.

[thewake]

Ayliana Wrote:I'm sorry but as much as it makes me want to hurl up a bucket of sick pukey vomit, I have to side with TA on this one. We currently produce enough barley, wheat, rice and other cereals on this planet to provide everyone with 3000 calories a day. Adjusted to a 2000 calorie diet and that's enough food to feed nearly 10 billion people (current population is at 7 billion).

How much of that is already GM?

[Aya]

Weswammy Wrote:

Ayliana Wrote:I'm sorry but as much as it makes me want to hurl up a bucket of sick pukey vomit, I have to side with TA on this one. We currently produce enough barley, wheat, rice and other cereals on this planet to provide everyone with 3000 calories a day. Adjusted to a 2000 calorie diet and that's enough food to feed nearly 10 billion people (current population is at 7 billion).

How much of that is already GM?

Technically, all of it. Fact is that humans have been modifying their food since the advent of agriculture and the domestication of animals. However in reference to modern manipulation, not a lot, at least not out side of the US. The three most GM crops on the planet Soybeans, sugar beat and corn. Of those only soybeans are majority GM around the world (77%).

And remember; Outside of the US also includes Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the European Union. Countries that a are industrialized, and have the ability to produce more food than their populations require. Not all of that excess is shipped out in time to thrid world areas and ends up as waste.

GM tomatoes have been pulled off the market because of commercial failure, and GM rice isn't set to hit the market until 2013, and that will probably only be in North America.

[thewake]

Ayliana Wrote:

Weswammy Wrote:

Ayliana Wrote:I'm sorry but as much as it makes me want to hurl up a bucket of sick pukey vomit, I have to side with TA on this one. We currently produce enough barley, wheat, rice and other cereals on this planet to provide everyone with 3000 calories a day. Adjusted to a 2000 calorie diet and that's enough food to feed nearly 10 billion people (current population is at 7 billion).

How much of that is already GM?

Technically, all of it. Fact is that humans have been modifying their food since the advent of agriculture and the domestication of animals. However in reference to modern manipulation, not a lot, at least not out side of the US. The three most GM crops on the planet Soybeans, sugar beat and corn. Of those only soybeans are majority GM around the world (77%).

And remember; Outside of the US also includes Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the European Union. Countries that a are industrialized, and have the ability to produce more food than their populations require. Not all of that excess is shipped out in time to thrid world areas and ends up as waste.

GM tomatoes have been pulled off the market because of commercial failure, and GM rice isn't set to hit the market until 2013, and that will probably only be in North America.

However I did find this.

Cool beans.

[Sociopath]

Weswammy Wrote:

Sociopath Wrote:Won't do any good, I'm afraid. There is no cash flow to be made from helping 3rd world countries and the U.S. is already stretched thin.

If these countries opened up to foreign investment and freed up their market, yeah maybe there would be money to be made.

Quote:*coughmilitaryboondogglescough*

Because capitalism=imperialism. Yeah. I buy that.

Quote:Look; the problem is NOT food shortages, we have PLENTY of food to go around. The problem is ACCESSIBILITY: poor families cannot afford to buy simple food products and thus they starve to death.

This is the fault of capitalism how? Looks like the fault of corrupt governments to me.

Quote:If GM foods really DO make the food better, it will only raise the pricetag.

Yes, I'm sure it will raise the price tag at first with new technologies, but as there is a greater abundance of food (and GM can make it easier to mass produce food) the prices go down. Supply and demand are like the economic laws of physics.

Quote:Farmers already can't build up farms in places in Africa because they're so poor; The African government's tax reform policy is a mess designed to maintain class structure; by taxing the poor repeatedly that is what KEEPS the families poor and only benefits the rich. Its about exploitation. Banks have a share in this and will not take kindly to risks.

I'm not for a tax system that maintains a class structure. that sounds more like feudalism than capitalism.

Quote:Farmers can't start farms because they can't get credit because they're poor in the first place,

Maybe if things were a little more stable there, banks could loan money out. Poor people get money loaned to them in America. For the longest time in the 1800's, farmers were net debtors in America. They were poor and yet they got loans.

Maybe if it wasn't so risky to do business in Africa it would help. But then again, that's not the fault of a free market. That's the fault of a corrupt government that won't enforce simple rule of law.

Quote:and even if they did, they couldn't get any money back to the banks because noone could afford the food there.

Really? A greater abundance of something means the prices go up. New one on me.

Quote:They'd go in (even more) debt by investing in GM foods and poor families already can't buy $3.00 breadloaves, what makes you think they could afford superbreadloaves that increase your dick size by 3x for $6.50?

I never said that Genetically Modified crops are the only thing that needs to be done to help 3rd world countries. However, this idiocy of 3rd world countries refusing GM foods as aid because of scares started by junk scientists is just, well, idiocy on the part of those nation's governments.

Quote:superbreadloaves that increase your dick size

I realize this is hyperbole, but you obviously have a very vague conception of what genetically modified means. They change the genes of the plant, like maybe inserting a gene from a desert plant into wheat so it will be able to survive in more arid environments.

There is very real danger of those genes getting out into the environment and into wild populations, but there is already technology to deal with that.

But it's not like they're dumping radioactive waste in a vat, throwing in some seeds, and then saying, "DUR HUR WE HAS BETUR FOODS."

Without having access to GM technology, the only alternative for Third World countries to increase food production would be to use more fertilisers, insecticides and herbicides–certainly not beneficial to the environment either. Furthermore, most farmers in poor countries simply cannot afford these chemicals that have been developed for large mechanised farms in the First World. GM technology has already demonstrated that it has the potential to increase food production while decreasing production costs. For virus-, insect- and herbicide-resistant plants, an average increase in yield of 5–10%, up to 40% saved on herbicides and savings of US$ 60 to 120 per acre on insecticides have been reported
Source: http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v2/ ... or436.html

Quote:Banks won't loan money to people if the banks themselves don't get a profit, and thats exactly what's happening. So in short, this will do nothing to help 3rd world countries.

Ever heard of market innovation? People will figure out how to better themselves and make a living (thus, a profit) at it if given the freedom to do so.
How the heck do you think America mechanized its farming operation? I'm sure some happy fluffly anarcho-communists just gave out free machinery to the downtrodden man.

Quote:Ain't Crapitalism a bitch?

The situation isn't anywhere near a free market or even a reasonably kind-of-free one like the U.S.

The poorest countries in the world generally have some of the most corrupt governments in the world. And, in case you didn't realize, capitalism isn't a governmental system.

And I would also say that the ruling parties of all of these countries are ones that profess social justice, maybe even socialism.

"Free market" isn't free. It just means that we can open-up trade between countries that will allows capitalists to exploit human capital. Like how so many things we get in U.S. are invested in china, how much do you think a child worker is making? .89 an hour? .69 an hour? No. Try 13 cents a week. Is that "free market"? Of course it is! Free market is stupid and exploitative.

And I stand by my point, farmers can't afford GM food, and if they could, cost will only go up. Regardless of how much there is. And "technology will make things cheaper", you say? How? It won't. It will just make things more expensive.

Also, those superbreadloaves were a joke. But still, same story.

That comparison of 1800's loans is past. Its NOT 1800 anymore. This is 2011. That don't fly. They cannot get loans.

Capitalism exploits labor, environment, and people. As long as things are being taken by capitalists we will suffer by them.

I never said capitalism=imperialism. Stop assuming things. I'm saying ballooning military boondoggles are out of control! Our national debt is 14 TRILLION.

[Aya]

Sociopath Wrote:I never said capitalism=imperialism. Stop assuming things. I'm saying ballooning military boondoggles are out of control! Our national debt is 14 TRILLION.

Money spent on military: $689 Billion (20% Budget)
Money spent on medicare and social security: $1494 Billion (43% Budget)

$689 < $1494

[Sociopath]

Ayliana Wrote:

Sociopath Wrote:I never said capitalism=imperialism. Stop assuming things. I'm saying ballooning military boondoggles are out of control! Our national debt is 14 TRILLION.

Money spent on military: $689 Billion (20% Budget)
Money spent on medicare and social security: $1494 Billion (43% Budget)

$689 < $1494

Yes, but that was taken back in 2010. What about now that its 2011?


-Also, I never said defense budget was the most draining, I just said its a boondoggle, and its out of control. Which clearly looks like it is to me.

[thewake]

Sociopath Wrote:"Free market" isn't free. It just means that we can open-up trade between countries that will allows capitalists to exploit human capital.

Two people do not enter into a deal unless both people believe they will benefit. I don't know how that can be exploitation.

Quote:Like how so many things we get in U.S. are invested in china, how much do you think a child worker is making? .89 an hour? .69 an hour? No. Try 13 cents a week. Is that "free market"? Of course it is! Free market is stupid and exploitative.

And what's the alternative? Starvation? These people, most of them, would be living in mud holes or the equivalent if it weren't for these factories. Not to say it is a desirable situation when compared to our standards, but when compared to the standards in those countries, factories give people a way to make a living. Children included. It's the first step to a modern society, like we have, where child labor is viewed as bad precisely because we have the luxury to decry it as bad.

If those kids were living on subsistence farms, they would still be laborers.

Quote:And I stand by my point, farmers can't afford GM food, and if they could, cost will only go up.

Do you not even understand basic economics? Supply and demand. If there is more of something, and demand stays the same, the price goes down. If we assume that most farmers in an impoverished area want GM seeds, and then GM seeds become more plentiful, then the price will go down. It's like the laws of physics.

I don't know if GM food is right for the third world. I suspect it is, but the thing is that if it is there will be a market for it.

Quote:Regardless of how much there is. And "technology will make things cheaper", you say? How? It won't. It will just make things more expensive.

How come computers are cheaper? How come iPods get cheaper? How come old technology, like crappy calculators, are just given away now?

Quote:That comparison of 1800's loans is past. Its NOT 1800 anymore. This is 2011. That don't fly. They cannot get loans.

The laws of human action are the same now as then.

Quote:Capitalism exploits labor, environment, and people. As long as things are being taken by capitalists we will suffer by them.

There isn't a fixed pie. A free market creates wealth.


Watch on YouTube

Quote:I never said capitalism=imperialism. Stop assuming things.

I apologize.

Quote:I'm saying ballooning military boondoggles are out of control! Our national debt is 14 TRILLION.

Not the fault of capitalism. The fault of government overspending.

[Aya]

Sociopath Wrote:Yes, but that was taken back in 2010. What about now that its 2011?

-Also, I never said defense budget was the most draining, I just said its a boondoggle, and its out of control. Which clearly looks like it is to me.

20% < 43%

If anythings a boondoggle it's out entitlement system.

[Sociopath]

Weswammy Wrote:

Sociopath Wrote:"Free market" isn't free. It just means that we can open-up trade between countries that will allows capitalists to exploit human capital.

Two people do not enter into a deal unless both people believe they will benefit. I don't know how that can be exploitation.

Quote:Like how so many things we get in U.S. are invested in china, how much do you think a child worker is making? .89 an hour? .69 an hour? No. Try 13 cents a week. Is that "free market"? Of course it is! Free market is stupid and exploitative.

And what's the alternative? Starvation? These people, most of them, would be living in mud holes or the equivalent if it weren't for these factories. Not to say it is a desirable situation when compared to our standards, but when compared to the standards in those countries, factories give people a way to make a living. Children included. It's the first step to a modern society, like we have, where child labor is viewed as bad precisely because we have the luxury to decry it as bad.

If those kids were living on subsistence farms, they would still be laborers.

Quote:And I stand by my point, farmers can't afford GM food, and if they could, cost will only go up.

Do you not even understand basic economics? Supply and demand. If there is more of something, and demand stays the same, the price goes down. If we assume that most farmers in an impoverished area want GM seeds, and then GM seeds become more plentiful, then the price will go down. It's like the laws of physics.

I don't know if GM food is right for the third world. I suspect it is, but the thing is that if it is there will be a market for it.

Quote:Regardless of how much there is. And "technology will make things cheaper", you say? How? It won't. It will just make things more expensive.

How come computers are cheaper? How come iPods get cheaper? How come old technology, like crappy calculators, are just given away now?

Quote:That comparison of 1800's loans is past. Its NOT 1800 anymore. This is 2011. That don't fly. They cannot get loans.

The laws of human action are the same now as then.

Quote:Capitalism exploits labor, environment, and people. As long as things are being taken by capitalists we will suffer by them.

There isn't a fixed pie. A free market creates wealth.


Watch on YouTube

Quote:I never said capitalism=imperialism. Stop assuming things.

I apologize.

Quote:I'm saying ballooning military boondoggles are out of control! Our national debt is 14 TRILLION.

Not the fault of capitalism. The fault of government overspending.

Capitalism is in itself exploitation. 2 people can agree on something and it is still exploitation; consider this: If a man holds a gun to the black's head and says "you will be my slave or else I will kill you" and the black agrees to be a slave in exchange for his life. That may be agreed, but its still exploitation. Such is capitalism.

I'm not saying starvation is the answer, we just need to get rid of money and work together because right now, its only the corporations are making money at the expense of a person's life.

Computers never really got cheaper. Inflation happened. Lets say you used to make $10 a day and buy a breadloaf for $1. Now, you make $100 a day and bread is $10. Has anything really made a change? No. And people can give away calculators cause they're inexpensive, like giving away paper. But the institution that gives them away in the first place must be taken into account. I know universities that give away calculators (to students), but really, how rich are colleges?

Being a laborer and working is OK. Being a slave is not, and its exploitative. And if things in 1800's are the same as today, why are there no farms cropping (pun intended) up in Africa...?

And saying people need to be exploited to create a society like ours? Thats ridiculous. Too many lives are at stake here, I don't think you realize this. Darwinism is long gone, pal. It's all Co-Op (pun NOT intended) from here on out!

[Aya]

Sociopath Wrote:Capitalism is in itself exploitation. 2 people can agree on something and it is still exploitation; consider this: If a man holds a gun to the black's head and says "you will be my slave or else I will kill you" and the black agrees to be a slave in exchange for his life. That may be agreed, but its still exploitation. Such is capitalism.

That has got to be the biggest bullshit I have ever seen in my life. Comparing modern day capitalism to the 300+ year enslavement of an entire ethnicity.

TA, If you were my kid I would explain you to other people as 'the condom broke'.

[Thought Criminal]

Honestly I don't see any problem in testing it out. We don't have enough hard information on GM foods to draw any serious conclusions at the moment but I think if it helps plants grow in a harsher environment then it's worth a shot. With Earth's temperature constantly on the rise and record breaking weather all over the planet, a sturdy durable crop of food could mean the difference between life or death for quite a few people.
It may have lower nutritional value but its certainly better than starving.
Even in our current system those less fortunate could benefit from it. I don't know much about the economics of the food industry but I think its safe to assume that it would help lower food prices providing better meals for those who can't afford it.

Everyone is getting so damn emotional about a subject that we really just don't know enough about.
If the tests don't work out and it causes humans to grow three heads it will be abandoned. If it does work, GREAT. It's called progress people.

[thewake]

Quote:Capitalism is in itself exploitation.

No, it's not. Repeat it a million times over and it's still not.

Quote:2 people can agree on something and it is still exploitation; consider this: If a man holds a gun to the black's head and says "you will be my slave or else I will kill you" and the black agrees to be a slave in exchange for his life.

The free market is voluntary exchange, not forced exchange. You trade value for value, not threats for value.

Quote:I'm not saying starvation is the answer, we just need to get rid of money and work together because right now, its only the corporations are making money at the expense of a person's life.

You get rid of money and see what happens. Do you even know why money sprang up in the first place? It's a utility issue.

At one time man bartered for goods and services. However, at one point an accepted medium of exchange sprang up, probably evolved over time, independent of any economist, philosopher, or so-called wise man. It sprang up because it made doing business a lot simpler. Let's say I want a cow and I have a pig. I have to find a person who not only has a cow but wants a pig. With money, all I have to do is find a guy who wants my pig, sell my pig, then take that money and buy a cow. It makes the system easier.

Same thing with exchange for labor. If I want something and I'm willing to work for it, let's say some shoes, I have to find a person with shoes who is willing to to let me work for him in exchange for shoes. With a medium of exchange, I can get a job and work for money, then go to a shoe store and give them money for shoes without them having a job open.

In a sense, money embodies man's economic and productive capacity.

Quote:Computers never really got cheaper.

Then how come everyone and their mother can buy a PC, but they used to be used only by the rich? Yes, the technology has gotten cheaper. Computers used to fill up whole rooms and be as expensive as a jet airplane.

Quote:Inflation happened. Lets say you used to make $10 a day and buy a breadloaf for $1. Now, you make $100 a day and bread is $10. Has anything really made a change?

Yes it's inflation, a change in the nominal supply of money. But let's say that the rate of inflation has been ten fold, as you have demonstrated. Prices have went up ten times, 1 dollar is now 10. And let's say that before it cost 100 dollars to buy a PC. Yes, okay. Now it costs 500 dollars. Thus, the real price has been halved. The nominal price is up 400 dollars.

Quote:No. And people can give away calculators cause they're inexpensive, like giving away paper. But the institution that gives them away in the first place must be taken into account.

They're inexpensive, like paper, because the technology has been improved to so great a degree that it is as dirt cheap as paper. At one time primitive calculators cost thousands of dollars when they were cutting edge.

Quote:I know universities that give away calculators (to students), but really, how rich are colleges?

I'm not talking about graphing calculators, I'm talking about the simple ones that get given away as freebies everywhere.

Quote:Being a laborer and working is OK. Being a slave is not, and its exploitative. And if things in 1800's are the same as today, why are there no farms cropping (pun intended) up in Africa...?

Because the conditions for a free, stable society have not been met. There is lawlessness, there's corruption. There isn't free market capitalism. Some of these countries have large, established socialist parties. Hardly looks like capitalism to me.

Quote:And saying people need to be exploited to create a society like ours? Thats ridiculous.

I know it's ridiculous, and that's why I'm a capitalist. It's the only large scale economic system that doesn't exploit people.

Quote:Too many lives are at stake here, I don't think you realize this. Darwinism is long gone, pal. It's all Co-Op (pun NOT intended) from here on out!

People cooperate in capitalism to make money, a much more effective incentive than the "love" of my fellow men. Only beggars want to live off charity.

[Aya]

Thought Criminal Wrote:Honestly I don't see any problem in testing it out. We don't have enough hard information on GM foods to draw any serious conclusions at the moment but I think if it helps plants grow in a harsher environment then it's worth a shot. With Earth's temperature constantly on the rise and record breaking weather all over the planet, a sturdy durable crop of food could mean the difference between life or death for quite a few people.
It may have lower nutritional value but its certainly better than starving.
Even in our current system those less fortunate could benefit from it. I don't know much about the economics of the food industry but I think its safe to assume that it would help lower food prices providing better meals for those who can't afford it.

Everyone is getting so damn emotional about a subject that we really just don't know enough about.
If the tests don't work out and it causes humans to grow three heads it will be abandoned. If it does work, GREAT. It's called progress people.

I agree. I don't see anything inherently wrong with developing new strains of food that are disease and pest resistant. It's always nice to have a back up in case natural non GM crops fail. But considering how much food is produced on this planet and how much goes to waste because of poor logistics, it's not that immediate of a need.

If we improved the efficiency of our shipping and logistics of food transportation we could take care of the world hunger without GM foods.

[Sociopath]

Ayliana Wrote:

Sociopath Wrote:Capitalism is in itself exploitation. 2 people can agree on something and it is still exploitation; consider this: If a man holds a gun to the black's head and says "you will be my slave or else I will kill you" and the black agrees to be a slave in exchange for his life. That may be agreed, but its still exploitation. Such is capitalism.

That has got to be the biggest bullshit I have ever seen in my life. Comparing modern day capitalism to the 300+ year enslavement of an entire ethnicity.

TA, If you were my kid I would explain you to other people as 'the condom broke'.

And you wonder why you're the biggest unliked whorebitch on SS.

Weswammy Wrote:

Quote:Capitalism is in itself exploitation.

No, it's not. Repeat it a million times over and it's still not.

Quote:2 people can agree on something and it is still exploitation; consider this: If a man holds a gun to the black's head and says "you will be my slave or else I will kill you" and the black agrees to be a slave in exchange for his life.

The free market is voluntary exchange, not forced exchange. You trade value for value, not threats for value.

Quote:I'm not saying starvation is the answer, we just need to get rid of money and work together because right now, its only the corporations are making money at the expense of a person's life.

You get rid of money and see what happens. Do you even know why money sprang up in the first place? It's a utility issue.

At one time man bartered for goods and services. However, at one point an accepted medium of exchange sprang up, probably evolved over time, independent of any economist, philosopher, or so-called wise man. It sprang up because it made doing business a lot simpler. Let's say I want a cow and I have a pig. I have to find a person who not only has a cow but wants a pig. With money, all I have to do is find a guy who wants my pig, sell my pig, then take that money and buy a cow. It makes the system easier.

Same thing with exchange for labor. If I want something and I'm willing to work for it, let's say some shoes, I have to find a person with shoes who is willing to to let me work for him in exchange for shoes. With a medium of exchange, I can get a job and work for money, then go to a shoe store and give them money for shoes without them having a job open.

In a sense, money embodies man's economic and productive capacity.

Quote:Computers never really got cheaper.

Then how come everyone and their mother can buy a PC, but they used to be used only by the rich? Yes, the technology has gotten cheaper. Computers used to fill up whole rooms and be as expensive as a jet airplane.

Quote:Inflation happened. Lets say you used to make $10 a day and buy a breadloaf for $1. Now, you make $100 a day and bread is $10. Has anything really made a change?

Yes it's inflation, a change in the nominal supply of money. But let's say that the rate of inflation has been ten fold, as you have demonstrated. Prices have went up ten times, 1 dollar is now 10. And let's say that before it cost 100 dollars to buy a PC. Yes, okay. Now it costs 500 dollars. Thus, the real price has been halved. The nominal price is up 400 dollars.

Quote:No. And people can give away calculators cause they're inexpensive, like giving away paper. But the institution that gives them away in the first place must be taken into account.

They're inexpensive, like paper, because the technology has been improved to so great a degree that it is as dirt cheap as paper. At one time primitive calculators cost thousands of dollars when they were cutting edge.

Quote:I know universities that give away calculators (to students), but really, how rich are colleges?

I'm not talking about graphing calculators, I'm talking about the simple ones that get given away as freebies everywhere.

Quote:Being a laborer and working is OK. Being a slave is not, and its exploitative. And if things in 1800's are the same as today, why are there no farms cropping (pun intended) up in Africa...?

Because the conditions for a free, stable society have not been met. There is lawlessness, there's corruption. There isn't free market capitalism. Some of these countries have large, established socialist parties. Hardly looks like capitalism to me.

Quote:And saying people need to be exploited to create a society like ours? Thats ridiculous.

I know it's ridiculous, and that's why I'm a capitalist. It's the only large scale economic system that doesn't exploit people.

Quote:Too many lives are at stake here, I don't think you realize this. Darwinism is long gone, pal. It's all Co-Op (pun NOT intended) from here on out!

People cooperate in capitalism to make money, a much more effective incentive than the "love" of my fellow men. Only beggars want to live off charity.

-Capitalism will ALWAYS be exploitation; as long as people are being oppressed there will be conflict. Capitalism is a self-suicidal system.

-Capitalism is forced. Its either you work for little money or you starve to death. Corporate executives are the only ones who are "free" as there is no room for the common person to ascend to higher ground.

-Getting rid of money would be best. It doesn't matter how long it was around nothing good has come of it. Getting rid of money would strengthen resources and thus communities.

-Once again, inflation.

-Capitalism doesn't exploit people you say? HA HA HA, OH WOW!
You need to brush up on your economics; capitalism has always been abput rushing to secure resources for one's own selfish desires.

-Anarchism > Socialism > Capitalism

-People don't "cooperate" in capitalism, its FORCED. Force = Slavery. Get it right.

-This isn't about charity. Its about working together and getting rid of the rat race known as "climbing the corporate ladder."

[aaaaaaasd]

Hey guys I think we should listen to TA as clearly he is an expert in societal systems and the new messiah of the modern age!

just kidding this is you in a nutshell

[Elfy]

well do you have a magical better solution for a better way for society to live mr. ta

Capitalism isn't forced so it isn't slavery, you have a choice. Getting rid of money would be a shit idea because it would make trade harder. Keeping value just in a goods wouldn't be the best idea. When you talk about opression, I think you confuse capitalism with corrupt governments and all that palava.

Can you explain how getting rid of money would strengthen resources, and how would that help a community?

[thewake]

Quote:-Capitalism will ALWAYS be exploitation; as long as people are being oppressed there will be conflict.

Capitalism is not exploitation and capitalism doesn't oppress people. You think there's a misconception about communism? Try the misconceptions about capitalism.

Quote:Capitalism is a self-suicidal system.

Then sit back and let pure, laissez-faire capitalism "kill" itself.

Quote:-Capitalism is forced. Its either you work for little money or you starve to death.

The systems before capitalism offered much less choice, and the alternatives offered today will offer much less choice. Sure, it isn't a perfect system, but it's the best one for progress and raising up the common man. Where you find the greatest improvement of the lot of the common people are in place with markets. Western countries, or some Asian states like Taiwan and Japan.

Quote:Corporate executives are the only ones who are "free" as there is no room for the common person to ascend to higher ground.

People rise to higher ground all the time. I know people who've started out on farms and ended up successful business men. My grandfather, for one. He sent my aunts and my father to college, one aunt became a teacher, one an orthodontist, and my dad runs that business. Or a preacher I know. He doesn't live off preaching, he never accepted money from the church. He started out poor on a farm and ended up a successful businessman.

And just because one isn't a corporate executive doesn't make one free. Sure, you might not be able to buy a fancy Porsche or Benz, but you can choose between a Toyota and a Ford. Russia's economy is so far behind because of collectivism that their cars look about like something out of the '60s. Sure, you might not be able to eat caviar if you're not rich, but you can choose between all sorts of fish.

What you seem to miss is that the big companies don't generally get big by catering to concentrated wealth, they get big by catering to the tastes of the mass of the people. Do you think Coca-Cola makes millions by selling Rich Person Coke to Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? No, it makes money by selling soft drinks to Uncle Joe who works on a construction site, or the lady down the street who's an accountant for a large firm.

Quote:-Getting rid of money would be best. It doesn't matter how long it was around nothing good has come of it. Getting rid of money would strengthen resources and thus communities.

What other alternative is there of organizing men besides money and profit? And don't give me this Utopian nonsense of "cooperation" or "brother-love." Society can't run on good intentions, it runs on the driving force of human action.

Oh, and the free market preserves resources, not only that but strengthens them as well.


Watch on YouTube

Quote:-Once again, inflation.

Yes, there was inflation, but in my example the actual price of the product was halved.

Quote:-Capitalism doesn't exploit people you say? HA HA HA, OH WOW!
You need to brush up on your economics; capitalism has always been abput rushing to secure resources for one's own selfish desires.

Yes, selfish desires. Selfishness is a virtue.

Quote:-Anarchism > Socialism > Capitalism

Ignoring the fact that there are forms of anarchism, based on the individualist tradition, that allow for a free market:
Free market capitalism>socialism>anarchism

Quote:-People don't "cooperate" in capitalism, its FORCED.

No, it's not. It is based on a principle of voluntary exchange.

Quote:Force = Slavery. Get it right.

Yes, that's why slavery is wrong, but free market forms of capitalism shun force and are not based on force. They're based on private property.

Quote:-This isn't about charity. Its about working together and getting rid of the rat race known as "climbing the corporate ladder."