When does global warming actually show up in real life?

[prfsnl_gmr]

hmm, I'm starting to wonder if I really DID need the blue text...

The problem is that the part about feeding the poor WAS in character for you.

I actually see the long-term feeding of everyone (including the poor) as part of what stuff like "going green" in response to climate change hopes to accomplish...

But who are we going to feed them to? I don't care how "green" they are, I wouldn't want to eat the poor. (I am much more of an eat the rich sort of guy. They are much tenderer than the poor.)

[Opa Opa]

hmm, I'm starting to wonder if I really DID need the blue text...

The problem is that the part about feeding the poor WAS in character for you.

I thought it was ALL in character.

[jp1]

Soylent green is people!

[Forlorn Drifter]

As an Ag major, I can say without a doubt the social status of whoever we're going to eat is irrelevant, its really all about age. Cuts on a human body would be a bit harder to pull together, but with some artificial selection and all we oughta be able to pull out some decent meat on bodies. Selection for large asses has already started, now we need to emphasize chest and stomach to create more breast meat and human bacon.

On a serious note, you actually run into a lot of barriers when it comes to going green and feeding everybody. There are some varying definitions of "green", and one of those would suggest grass fed animals* or crops that aren't GMOs, both of which are actually quite hard to pull off now, and still make the farmer/rancher enough money to survive.

*"Grass fed" on labels is usually a lie. All it means is that at one point in its life, the animal had access to grass. It means nothing more. A lot of feed lot animals get labeled "grass fed" if they came from cow/calf operations and the like.

[pepharytheworm]

On a serious note, you actually run into a lot of barriers when it comes to going green and feeding everybody. There are some varying definitions of "green", and one of those would suggest grass fed animals* or crops that aren't GMOs, both of which are actually quite hard to pull off now, and still make the farmer/rancher enough money to survive.

That's easy to solve eat less meat/dairy as a country and have GMO labeling on products. More land to farm more vegetation for human consumption instead of to feed livestock and keep livestock. Stop seed buying out by corporations such as Monsanto.

[MrPopo]

On a serious note, you actually run into a lot of barriers when it comes to going green and feeding everybody. There are some varying definitions of "green", and one of those would suggest grass fed animals* or crops that aren't GMOs, both of which are actually quite hard to pull off now, and still make the farmer/rancher enough money to survive.

That's easy to solve eat less meat/dairy as a country and have GMO labeling on products. More land to farm more vegetation for human consumption instead of to feed livestock and keep livestock. Stop seed buying out by corporations such as Monsanto.

Or we could stop being such whiny frightened luddites and eat GMOs.

[Forlorn Drifter]

That's easy to solve eat less meat/dairy as a country and have GMO labeling on products. More land to farm more vegetation for human consumption instead of to feed livestock and keep livestock. Stop seed buying out by corporations such as Monsanto.

It was proven as of this year that consuming GMO's has no effect on human health.

Link to related article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2 ... eal-study/

I'll admit I don't know the Monsanto situation, so I won't comment on it.

Farming for vegetation also isn't a single source fix all, seeing as it would require changing the diets of the majority of the world. If we did move towards a more vegetation based diet, all the scare articles we currently deal with on meat products would just move to vegetation. For example, it is known that a normal head of broccoli has higher levels of hormones in it than a hormone injected beef animal. Also take into consideration that we are already use a large amount of land not suitable for farming to farm. If you have to irrigate, that's a very bad sign. Mix that with increased levels of erosion from farming practices, continued use of chemical fertilizers, many farming choosing not to rotate crops despite it being in their best interest, and the increasing sprawl of cities, and everything drops downhill.

Most ranchers don't even use the amount of land they need to, and must supplement feed. Feedlots are actually much more efficient than they are given credit, but are hard to push do to smell, and people fearing for methane give off, which is insignificant compared to the amount of damage sitting in the car for fifteen minutes is put on the environment. Hog and poultry operations are also very, very efficient, especially hogs. Little land is used and a lot of product is produced.

Also, just an FYI, the majority of crops are also GMO's. Almost all crops have a decent percentage of being inbred too. I believe its about 90% of corn is GMO, and 98% is inbred, which would bother quite a few people if they realized this.

[MrPopo]

Also, just an FYI, the majority of crops are also GMO's. Almost all crops have a decent percentage of being inbred too. I believe its about 90% of corn is GMO, and 98% is inbred, which would bother quite a few people if they realized this.

Bananas at the height of plant inbreeding; they're all the same plant that's just been replanted all over the place. They've already gone through one cycle of having to switch varieties because the last one was in the same position before an infection wiped them all out. We're just a mutation away from a massive banana shortage.

In general there is a ton of fearmongoring around all kinds of things by an uneducated public. Remember the vaccine autism bullshit from a few years ago? The average person doesn't understand these things and goes with their gut reaction of "it sounds scary". Hell, grabbed a pint of Ben & Jerry's lately? There's a label that says "Not from cows on growth hormone" and then another label right next to it that says "There's no difference in the milk between the two kinds of cows". Meanwhile, a pack of cigarettes has a large health warning about how they can kill you and these same people have no problem using those.

[TSTR]

food is bad, mmkay

[pepharytheworm]

That's easy to solve eat less meat/dairy as a country and have GMO labeling on products. More land to farm more vegetation for human consumption instead of to feed livestock and keep livestock. Stop seed buying out by corporations such as Monsanto.

It was proven as of this year that consuming GMO's has no effect on human health.

Link to related article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2 ... eal-study/

I'll admit I don't know the Monsanto situation, so I won't comment on it.

To me it doesn't just matter if GMOs cause health risk or not. It has to do more with control of food. Farmer's yield more crops using GMOs but in turn lose a lot of control of their crops and become reliant on others. Also the fact that some GMO crops cross bred with non GMO crops causing this reliance on accident for many farmers who opted out. Soybeans and corn the biggest problem.

It's one thing to be scared of food and people using scare tactics, but most people have no clue what they put in their body and don't try to be informed. People count calories but how many could actually tell you why?