WTO overrules European resistance to Bioengineered Crops [Archive]

zen_rider

08-02-2006, 09:14 AM

From Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/07/AR2006020701184.html)

WTO Sides With U.S. in Biocrop Dispute With Europe

By Justin Gillis and Paul Blustein
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, February 7, 2006; 4:45 PM

The World Trade Organization has ruled that European resistance to genetically engineered crops amounted to a de facto moratorium that violated international trade rules, according to sources familiar with the ruling who demanded anonymity because the document is confidential.

The finding is a symbolic victory for U.S. farmers and agricultural companies, as well as those in Canada and Argentina, who had challenged Europe's anti-biotechnology stance in the world trade body in Geneva. How much practical effect it will have remains to be seen, though, as resistance to gene-altered crops remains high among European consumers and most European grocery chains refuse to stock products made with such ingredients.

The sources, who were still digesting the lengthy ruling late this afternoon, said the WTO appeared to have found in favor of the United States, which filed the case together with Canada and Argentina, on a majority of the two dozen crops that were part of the dispute. The WTO also found that national bans on certain biotech crops issued by Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Italy and Luxembourg violated trade rules.

The ruling had been widely expected, and it was embraced by pro-biotechnology groups even before it was issued. "The decision was never really in doubt, but its global impact could be huge," said Gregory Conko, an analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, in a statement. "With the voice of the world community now clearly on the record, we hope the Europeans will quickly dismantle their bans and let science-based policy and consumer freedom prevail."

But anti-biotech groups condemned the ruling and the trade case that led to it. Mary Bottari, an advocate at Global Trade Watch, part of a network of consumer groups founded by Ralph Nader, called the case a "bare-knuckled attempt by the United States to frighten developing nations away from following Europe's example of regulating these products to protect the environment and public health."

European regulators contend that even if the rules the United States challenged -- which were in place for six years, from 1998 to 2004 -- amounted to a moratorium, the ban has been effectively lifted by a stringent new regulatory framework that took effect in 2004.

The United States acknowledges that Europe now appears to be moving forward in considering biotech crops, but contends the process is still too slow and the regulatory standards are unreasonable given that biotech crops pose few risks.

I was a little surprised by this. I naively thought that Europe could withstand pressure like this from the WTO. Personally, I think bio-engineered crops are just another way for biotech companies to take advantage of farmers and ultimately consumers - regardless of their potential threat to the environment.

What really annoys me about the WTO is how it threatens the autonomy of its member countries.

johnny

08-02-2006, 09:25 AM

NeBoS

08-02-2006, 09:29 AM

Im not surprised the least about this ruling, with the likes of Monsanto etc pulling all the strings of the FDA and thus WTO.

Few years back I wrote a 140ish page paper on the financial and social relevance/worthiness of producing genetically engineered foods.
GE crops prooved to be more expensive in the long run, as more pesticides are needed. The quality of the foods is also compromised, which is why GE tomatos were taken off our shelves some time ago, as they tasted like shit.

The most questionable thing about GE crops is the long term effects of consuming such foods. Research is extremely scarce, but the GE pushers claim these foods are 100% safe. Many scientists claim the effects could be potentially dangerous.

I had hoped that this ruling wouldnt have occured, but hopfully the anti-GE alliance of Europe, New Zealand and to some extent Australia etc will fight back.

Hitman89

08-02-2006, 09:34 AM

24seven

08-02-2006, 09:34 AM

So all you realists out there, are nation states still the primary units in the global structure? I think not, come on down Monsanto......

The issue that makes me feel all dirty inside is the seeds that do not regenerate. Farmers will have to buy each new crop from a company, not re-sow their own seeds. A manipulation of a natural process to further manipulate the market.

I always feel Marxist tendencies rising within me when I read stuff like this. REVOFUCKINLUTION goddamnit!

While I do not like Monsanto or GE food in anyway shape or form what your talking about with the sterile seed was blown out of all proportion. The 'Terminator' gene, as it became known, was one of many horrible mutations that the Agro-Chemical Bio-tech industries tried to push on the world for increased profitis. The key word there is 'tried'. It was an idea on the black board which once exposed to the public was condemmed to the point of the project being scraped. The 'Terminator' gene for those that don't know was Genetically Engineered seed which produced a plant that in turn produced sterile seeds. This would have effectively fucked all Third World subsidence farmers who use some of the current years seed to grow next years crop.

I cannot believe that this industry has the lobbying power and tenacity to force this stuff on Europe- probably the one place in the world with a strict policy of prohibiting GE food or crops.

I hear what your saying about the realists to Johnny! To stubborn to change to weary to learn!

NeBoS

08-02-2006, 09:38 AM

zen_rider

08-02-2006, 09:43 AM

...GE crops prooved to be more expensive in the long run, as more pesticides are needed. The quality of the foods is also compromised, which is why GE tomatos were taken off our shelves some time ago, as they tasted like shit....

Yeah, the argument that this will help farmers and consumers is TOTAL BULLSHIT. It is designed for one thing: to get as much money as possible into the accounts of companies like Monsanto. Also,the argument that this technology will help feed the world is bankrupt too. The whole thing is a marketing scam. Fuck WTO style globalisation.

scblack

08-02-2006, 09:44 AM

Well, I'm off to buy some shares in Monsanto................:cool:

Atomizer

08-02-2006, 09:44 AM

Farmers wouldn't be using the seed if it wasn't profitable to do, so so it benefits them and the Bio company.

A bigger issue is subsidisation of US and Canadian farmers meaning Australian producers can't compete.

So, US dumping of GM seed in improverished nations, under the guise of 'Food Aid', that, as a consequence of it being unable to be resown as a secondary crop and, therefore making this country's farmers reliant on more imported seed rather than self-reliant, doesn't stike you as cynical and unethical?

GM grops being used to enslave entire country's historical and cultural agriculture practices to feed multinational greed is the big issue here.

NeBoS

08-02-2006, 09:49 AM

So, US dumping of GM seed in improverished nations, under the guise of 'Food Aid', that, as a consequence of it being unable to be resown as a secondary crop and, therefore making this country's farmers reliant on more imported seed rather than self-reliant, doesn't stike you as cynical and unethical?

GM grops being used to enslave entire country's historical and cultural agriculture practices to feed multinational greed is the big issue here.

When I first heard about this I was fuming, and shocked that such a inhumane act could occur on such a large scale. :mad:

Well, I'm off to buy some shares in Monsanto................:cool:

Monsanto has posted massive financial losses over the last two years - I wonder if their luck has changed, however.

Hitman89

08-02-2006, 09:50 AM

Monsanto develops a number of fucked-up crops (sorry for my French - I hate these pricks). Some dont reproduce, so obviously the financial rewards lie directly with the supplier.
The other clincher is a crop that can only be sprayed with a particular perticide, off which Monsant also produces - double wammy my friends. Greed at its best.

But if the farmer wasn't still better off after paying for the seed and perticide he wouldn't use it. The whole reason for GE crops is to get more crop from the same area of farmed land in a given time period, To make them more resisent to disease, to gorw faster and to be bigger and better. In the next 20 years the world will face an extreme food shortage without the use of GE crops.

The only thing we can hope for is that 3rd world countires can get the benefit of these crops as they can't grow enough of the normal crops. With the population explosion in the thrid world food supply is never going to keep up forcing the price up making it harder to import through aid grants.

Food shortage is going to become and increasing problem. GE crops can help.

Hitman89

08-02-2006, 09:55 AM

So, US dumping of GM seed in improverished nations, under the guise of 'Food Aid', that, as a consequence of it being unable to be resown as a secondary crop and, therefore making this country's farmers reliant on more imported seed rather than self-reliant, doesn't stike you as cynical and unethical?

GM grops being used to enslave entire country's historical and cultural agriculture practices to feed multinational greed is the big issue here.

90% of US aid is given "tied aid" anyway. I don't see the difference in giving them GE seed than giving them $100 mio if they agree to spend on US wheat.

Actually I prefer it at least then they will be allowed to grow it, farm it and improve their economy and help feed there own..

I Guarantee that the starving don't care if their food is GE or not.

NeBoS

08-02-2006, 10:10 AM

I 100% don’t agree with anything you have said here:

But if the farmer wasn't still better off after paying for the seed and perticide he wouldn't use it. The whole reason for GE crops is to get more crop from the same area of farmed land in a given time period, To make them more resisent to disease, to gorw faster and to be bigger and better. In the next 20 years the world will face an extreme food shortage without the use of GE crops.

Yes, this is the idea behind GE crops – make them bigger, better, more tasty, more resistant…. But this hasn’t been the case – more pesticides are needed, the foods contain less nutrients, they taste like farking shite, and the actual crop production is poor.

The reason why farmers use GE crops is because they are a) misinformed/misguided and b) the seed is heavily discounted.

The only thing we can hope for is that 3rd world countires can get the benefit of these crops as they can't grow enough of the normal crops. With the population explosion in the thrid world food supply is never going to keep up forcing the price up making it harder to import through aid grants.

Food shortage is going to become and increasing problem. GE crops can help.

Rubbish.
Have you ever heard of biodiversity and permaculture? There are specific government agencies around the world that are developing biologically sustainable means of producing bumper crops (like crop rotation for example – where bugs cannot find the new crop) without the excessive use of neither pesticide nor GE crops.

I Guarantee that the starving don't care if their food is GE or not.

Oh yeh, this is why impoverished people in Africa refused to consume thousands of tones of GE corn that was supplied by America, who didnt want it. Not good enough for us - good enough for you.

The cartoon below displays Monsanto's dislike of GE foods being labelled. I wonder why?

Atomizer

08-02-2006, 10:19 AM

90% of US aid is given "tied aid" anyway. I don't see the difference in giving them GE seed than giving them $100 mio if they agree to spend on US wheat.

Actually I prefer it at least then they will be allowed to grow it, farm it and improve their economy and help feed there own..

I Guarantee that the starving don't care if their food is GE or not.

For the US Aid = what's in it for us.

Aid would be best provided in the form of practical solutions to the problem of crop failure in drought prone counties to assist in the development of better, more sustainable farming practices that better suit that countries climate and that feed it's people for the long-term. Giving them short-term solutions, that are really only a means of ingraining their economic dependence on other countries, is at at the core of why impoverished countries stay just this. It is in the US's best interest to ensure it stays this way to. Nevermind it is to the countries detriment. Econonmically enslaving a country at it's most vunerable. Nice. :rolleyes:

Hitman89

08-02-2006, 10:32 AM

For the US Aid = what's in it for us.

Aid would be best provided in the form of practical solutions to the problem of crop failure in drought prone counties to assist in the development of better, more sustainable farming practices that better suit that countries climate and that feed it's people for the long-term. Giving them short-term solutions, that are really only a means of ingraining their economic dependence on other countries, is at at the core of why impoverished countries stay just this. It is in the US's best interest to ensure it stays this way to. Nevermind it is to the countries detriment. Econonmically enslaving a country at it's most vunerable. Nice. :rolleyes:

I 100% agree with all of that, The way it is and the way it should be are on different ends of the scale when it comes to Foreign Aid.

From the farmers perpective on GE
http://www.workopolis.com/servlet/News/fasttrack/20020621/COGMFOOD?section=Engineering

Atomizer

08-02-2006, 10:50 AM

I 100% agree with all of that, The way it is and the way it should be are on different ends of the scale when it comes to Foreign Aid.

Yep..and as long as organisations like the WTO and World Bank act counter to the actual needs of developing nations, and the rest of us indirectly, in facilitating economy-building by providing legitimate, unconditional, assistance, hundreds of millions of people, who could be on the road to self-reliance, remain tethered to the yoke of neocolonialist greed.

kerbdrop

08-02-2006, 11:58 AM

WTO and world bank..
what a farce.. they implicitly serve the interests of their richest stakeholders, namely the US of A

Electing the right wing Bolton butthead to the UN council, he himself an outspoken critic of the UN.. what kind of a message does that send out to the wider global community?

I really wonder why any of this hasn't raised the ire of the rest of the world.. we going to watch on silently as USA shits all over any signs of solidarity in readiness to fling it into the blades of the fan??

zen_rider

08-02-2006, 04:27 PM

I always feel Marxist tendencies rising within me when I read stuff like this. REVOFUCKINLUTION goddamnit!

I don't think capitalism is at fault here. It is, like any other economic ideology, susceptible to the human perversions of greed for money and power. But, surely there are ways capitalism could be modified (eg, reviewing the rights of insitutions like WTO, IMF and World Bank, or reviewing globalisation in general) and perhaps expanded upon (eg. introduction of the 'triple bottom line' which includes social and environmental costs).

Atomizer: I love that term 'neocolonialist greed' so fitting.

24seven

08-02-2006, 05:20 PM

Kram

08-02-2006, 06:02 PM

Not sure of the 'when and where' and forgive me the lack of details, but it came from a credible source and went much like this...

A genetically engineered microbe was created a few years ago that had some pretty amazing abilities. When introduced to sugar cane mulch, it quickly fed on it and turned the mulch into ethanol and very rich 'organic' fertilizer. People were excited I'm sure, as creating a fuel source and topsoil in one great double wammy is surely what this world needs.

After much excitement, the new fertilizer was spread on a test field upon which seed were sown. They went off. The plants loved the shit. Preparations were made to unleash the microbes on the world and save the planet. Then, mysteriously, the crops died. You see, this little devil of a microbe was in competition with all sorts of other microbes. Most notably, one that assists almost all plantlife on the planet in absorbing nitrogen from the soil. No microbe, no nitrogen transfer, no plant life.

What would have happened if this microbe could not be contained. Bingo, all plant life on the planet dead. Oops.

Fuck with nature at this level? Play with fire and you just might get burnt.

On a brighter note, just think what we might witness in our lifetime. Other generations only got to see sword fights and air raids. We might be so lucky as to witness the passive total anhiallation of the planet. Now that's someting to talk about in the next world.

gravelclimber

08-02-2006, 06:21 PM

Yes, this is the idea behind GE crops – make them bigger, better, more tasty, more resistant…. But this hasn’t been the case – more pesticides are needed, the foods contain less nutrients, they taste like farking shite, and the actual crop production is poor.

Less pesticides are needed according to all peer-reviewed published studies in the US and Australia on crops with the Bt or Roundup resistance genes added. These are the only GM crops currently available in many parts of the world. The addition of a single gene in these cases has NO effect on the amount of nutrients or the taste. Due to better pest control actual crop production is improved.

The reason why farmers use GE crops is because they are a) misinformed/misguided and b) the seed is heavily discounted.

Coming from a farming family myself I think that is wrong and insulting. They are very well informed of the pro's and con's. If changing to GM were less profitable they would change straight back again next season. Also, the seed is not heavily discounted . Even if it were - seed costs form a small proportion of total input costs in a farm. Harvesting, pest control etc. are form more expensive.

Rubbish.
Have you ever heard of biodiversity and permaculture? There are specific government agencies around the world that are developing biologically sustainable means of producing bumper crops (like crop rotation for example – where bugs cannot find the new crop) without the excessive use of neither pesticide nor GE crops.

Simply not true. Such techniques were commonly used before the green revolution could not supply sufficient food for much of the worlds population. Show me an example where the yield per hectare from a permaculture farm is better than conventional farming. Much better is to use the best of these techniques (like the one you mentioned) along with pesticides and GM in an integrated manor. That's what Ag scientists are pushing for today.

Biodiversity and permaculture is bullshit anyway. If we switch to permaculture we must farm more land to provide the same amount of food (unless we become vego but that's a different story). We would have to cut down the remaining amount of wilderness to do so. The biodiversity of 1 square meter of a few exotic crops mixed together (permaculture) is nothing compared to the biodiversity of untouched native land.

So all you realists out there, are nation states still the primary units in the global structure? I think not, come on down Monsanto......

The issue that makes me feel all dirty inside is the seeds that do not regenerate. Farmers will have to buy each new crop from a company, not re-sow their own seeds. A manipulation of a natural process to further manipulate the market.

I always feel Marxist tendencies rising within me when I read stuff like this. REVOFUCKINLUTION goddamnit!

Rubbish. People don't replant outbreeding crops like corn from the same seed each year. Each season they interbreed and loose whatever good agronomic qualities such as disease resistance they had. There's no need for a terminator gene as the seed from the next generation is useless anyway - hence why terminator genes are not used to make more money. The idea was to prevent them crossing with wild relatives and spreading the introduced gene (unlikely anyway).

The most questionable thing about GE crops is the long term effects of consuming such foods. Research is extremely scarce, but the GE pushers claim these foods are 100% safe. Many scientists claim the effects could be potentially dangerous.

Americans have been eating GM for over 10 years. Not one sign of ill effects has ever been shown. All GM crops are tested to the highest levels before being released in public. Show me a peer-reviewed paper where this is not the case.

In fact, many people DO die from organic food each year. The cause, ergots, a fungus in non-fungicide treated grain.

PS. I don't work for Monsanto but I am a university-employed agricultural scientist and molecular biologist

Atomizer

08-02-2006, 06:42 PM

PS. I don't work for Monsanto but I am a university-employed agricultural scientist and molecular biologist

So we can factor in you're biased regardless. :rolleyes:

Regarding your attack on permaculture, ie sustainable mixed farming, are you claiming that an agricultural practice that pre-dates intensive farming by a couple 100,000 years is an outdated paradigm of food production? Big call!

Look at what current herbicide and pesticide reliant monocultural cropping and livestock production is doing to the environment globally.

gravelclimber

08-02-2006, 06:50 PM

Regarding your attack on permaculture, ie sustainable mixed farming, are you claiming that an agricultural practice that pre-dates intensive farming by a couple 100,000 years is an outdated paradigm of food production? Big call!

On its own - yes. I haven't seen any evidence for permaculture being sustainable for large populations.

Integrated with modern crops and techniques - not at all. Just because we have been doing something for thousands of years doesn't make it better then something that is new and well researched. But as something has been around for a long time doesn't make it bad or outdated either.

Atomizer

08-02-2006, 07:10 PM

On its own - yes. I haven't seen any evidence for permaculture being sustainable for large populations.

Integrated with modern crops and techniques - not at all. Just because we have been doing something for thousands of years doesn't make it better then something that is new and well researched. But as something has been around for a long time doesn't make it bad or outdated either.

Until the pursuit of the 'maximum yield per hectare' mentality became the sole goal of modern agriculture, the most sustainable, long-term paradigm for using the land to produce the most food with the resources available, whist ensuring the least amount of inputs where required to achieve the most outputs, 'permaculture' as we know it, was the historical and cultural method used by the farmers of civilisation as we know it. The Aztecs, the Incas, the Mayans the Eygptians, the Romans, etc., where civilisations that grew and prospered utilising the agricultural practice of sustainable mixed farming and for far, far longer than we have used intensive, monocultural cropping and livestock production.

Mixed farming is not something that be written of as a consquence of modern agri-business indoctrinating us with a largely false sense of confidence in it's unsustainable, dollar-driven and ecologically damaging dogma. This form of agriculture is a fad, an uneconomic phase that is proving itself a failure for the primary producer and their market.

No Skid Marks

08-02-2006, 07:32 PM

We just need every second generation to take a sperm terminator gene and it would all solve it's self.I'm sure the CIA are working on it,or would that not be proffitable for them?
^This is a joke.
We've been succesfully fucking with gene's naturally and still had fuck ups,why speed up the proccess especially when corperations can influence the outcome to suit there own needs short term,but leave a big problem long term. Bandaid GE products will not save us.let nature dictate instead of patching up problems and making the end result worse(ignore the last sentence if you must).

gravelclimber

08-02-2006, 09:42 PM

Until the pursuit of the 'maximum yield per hectare' mentality became the sole goal of modern agriculture, the most sustainable, long-term paradigm for using the land to produce the most food with the resources available, whist ensuring the least amount of inputs where required to achieve the most outputs, 'permaculture' as we know it, was the historical and cultural method used by the farmers of civilisation as we know it. The Aztecs, the Incas, the Mayans the Eygptians, the Romans, etc., where civilisations that grew and prospered utilising the agricultural practice of sustainable mixed farming and for far, far longer than we have used intensive, monocultural cropping and livestock production.

True - but they had low population densities. In the first half of last century India and China experienced waves of mass starvation when their poplulations grew faster than there abilities to provide food using traditional farming methods. The green revolution, far from being a 'fad', saved millions upon millions of lives.

In my view achieving the highest yield per hectare through non-environmentally damaging methods, like controlled GM and integrated farming, allowes other land to be not farmed and freed up and returned to national parks/reserves etc. Permaculture does not address this problem and ensures more environmental destruction - even if done with the best of intentions.

zen_rider

08-02-2006, 09:57 PM

...Show me an example where the yield per hectare from a permaculture farm is better than conventional farming.

You're comparing apples to oranges here, or unsustainable (current farming techniques) to sustainable (permaculture). Not a fair comparison in my view.

Much better is to use the best of these techniques (like the one you mentioned) along with pesticides and GM in an integrated manor. That's what Ag scientists are pushing for today.

Biodiversity and permaculture is bullshit anyway. If we switch to permaculture we must farm more land to provide the same amount of food (unless we become vego but that's a different story).

So which is it? bullshit or not? How much more land would be needed? Would this be offset by the advantage of managing the land sustainably?

We would have to cut down the remaining amount of wilderness to do so. The biodiversity of 1 square meter of a few exotic crops mixed together (permaculture) is nothing compared to the biodiversity of untouched native land.

Permaculture isn't limited to just crops.

johnny

08-02-2006, 11:53 PM

True - but they had low population densities. In the first half of last century India and China experienced waves of mass starvation when their poplulations grew faster than there abilities to provide food using traditional farming methods. If you're talking about the post WW2 famine as a population issue, you're mistaken. It was about unrealistic farming methods to reach unrealistic goals to please the CCP. The same thing happened in their steel smelters and other sectors of industry. Much farming in China today is done by traditional methods.

Other than that. this stuff is way over my head!

I-AM-TEH-FASTEST-11

08-02-2006, 11:59 PM

someone should show the WTO, or Europe.. or whoever.. that "attack of the killer tomatoes" movie.
FUCK THAT!!!

KILLER TOMATOES???!!!

scariest thing imaginable

gravelclimber

09-02-2006, 07:39 AM

You're comparing apples to oranges here, or unsustainable (current farming techniques) to sustainable (permaculture). Not a fair comparison in my view.

They both use exotic species to create food for human consumption. The comparison is fair.

So which is it? bullshit or not? How much more land would be needed? Would this be offset by the advantage of managing the land sustainably?

How many time do I have to write this? Some parts are great - like using plants on the edges of fields that attract insects away from the food crops. But as a system to support the entire world's population it's bullshit. If you yield half as much per hectare you need twice as much land. There is almost no more arable land left in the world. Chopping down the remains of the Amazon, for example, to support low yielding food crops is not sustainable in my view. The only way permaculture is sustainable is if there were a lot less people in the world and they didn't eat meat. That aint happening any time soon.

Much farming in China today is done by traditional methods.

A decent proportion uses more modern methods then were used 100 years ago. Almost all farming in China and India uses new modern varieties of rice - that was what the green revolution was primarily about. What would be even better is if something like GM 'golden rice', which is freely available with no corperate strings attached, helped solve the problems of vitamin A deficiency in many parts of Asia.

Cave Dweller

09-02-2006, 09:18 AM

My 2 cents.

Yes indeed permiculture can not sustain the amount of people that intensive agriculture can, BUT intensive agriculture is one of the main reasons we have these massive populations to start with. Can’t you see it is a viscous cycle. Provide more food, more people breed population gets bigger, need to provide more food, population gets bigger, need to provide more food………

When we had permiculture people only had limited children and were far more spaced out in the country side. Life expectancy was also lower. No big deal, you are going to die anyway.

When intensive agriculture started it gave rise to not only more children, it also gave way to larger population densities and eventually to cities. This bought with it many, many diseases, some transferred from living in close quarters with animals. Close density of people also allows disease to spread much more easily, think bubonic pluage etc.

By supporting these super crops you are just further encouraging the population to keep on increasing, making cities more dense, allowing disease to spread more easily along with various social impacts this all has.

Not to mention the fact that intensive farming completely fucks up the land it is grown on, meaning more forests are needed to be destroyed to find more usable farming land.

And don’t even start me on GM being safe. There is no long term evidence either way. We used to think CFC’s would not harm the environment, asbestos made great insulation material, and even recently Teflon was thought to be safe, now we find out its poison and we have been cooking with it for years.

I can point out hundreds of these examples. Point is scientist though it was safe back then and we now know they were wrong.

There are more serious under lying problems that need to be addressed by our leaders, pushing these kinds of super crops to feed more people is just delaying the inevitable big crunch that will come sometime in the not to distant future.

Atomizer

09-02-2006, 11:23 AM

^^^^^ Well said. Love your work. :cool:

gravelclimber

09-02-2006, 12:43 PM

When we had permiculture people only had limited children and were far more spaced out in the country side. Life expectancy was also lower. No big deal, you are going to die anyway.

Completely wrong. People with the least food tend to have the most children (i.e. Africa) due to most of them not making it to maturity. Birth rates are lowest in places with the most food (Western Europe, USA, Australia, Japan etc.).

When intensive agriculture started it gave rise to not only more children, it also gave way to larger population densities and eventually to cities. This bought with it many, many diseases, some transferred from living in close quarters with animals. Close density of people also allows disease to spread much more easily, think bubonic pluage etc.

By supporting these super crops you are just further encouraging the population to keep on increasing, making cities more dense, allowing disease to spread more easily along with various social impacts this all has.

True to a point but less people die of infectious deseases in devoloped countries then at any time in history. In my book that's call progress.

By supporting these super crops you are just further encouraging the population to keep on increasing, making cities more dense, allowing disease to spread more easily along with various social impacts this all has.

So you think we should have the threat of starving poor people to stop them from breeding? After all, they're the ones who are going to be affected, not the rich. Don't you think bringing the entire world up to our standard of living, with the resultant decrease in birth rate, is a better idea? I do.

Not to mention the fact that intensive farming completely fucks up the land it is grown on, meaning more forests are needed to be destroyed to find more usable farming land.

If done properly it doesn't (and in most cases it is done properly). State governments should, however, have stronger laws to prevent further tree clearing. It simply isn't required.

And don’t even start me on GM being safe. There is no long term evidence either way. We used to think CFC’s would not harm the environment, asbestos made great insulation material, and even recently Teflon was thought to be safe, now we find out its poison and we have been cooking with it for years.

There's plenty of long term evidence - have you actually looked? The UN FAO is a good place to start:

http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/docrep/006/Y5160E/y5160e10.htm

We used to think your examples were safe because there impacts were never properly studied or studied at all - when they were they were removed. With GM massive studies are undertaken long before they are released to determine future problems. The current regulatory framework ensures this - with stiff penalities in place if these studies are not carried out.

I can point out hundreds of these examples. Point is scientist though it was safe back then and we now know they were wrong.

Tell me some of these examples then of when wide-ranging large-scale studies have been undertaken on the safety of a product BEFORE it is released which turn out to be wrong in the future. In all your examples above these were never carried out.

There are more serious under lying problems that need to be addressed by our leaders, pushing these kinds of super crops to feed more people is just delaying the inevitable big crunch that will come sometime in the not to distant future.

I tend to think we can work on solving more then one problem at a time. I'm also a little more optimistic about the future.

Binaural

09-02-2006, 01:10 PM

My 2 cents.

I'll give you 1.5cents for that sucker :p

Yes indeed permiculture can not sustain the amount of people that intensive agriculture can, BUT intensive agriculture is one of the main reasons we have these massive populations to start with. Can’t you see it is a viscous cycle. Provide more food, more people breed population gets bigger, need to provide more food, population gets bigger, need to provide more food………

This is true up to a point. Certainly the distribution of people you see around the world today reflects the fact that the combination of intensive agriculture and stored food allowed early societies to support task specialization and standing armies, both of which resulted in domination of neighbouring societies.

However, in the first world countries of today there seems a correlation between wealth and a low birth rate (China is the exception due to the one child policy).

When we had permiculture people only had limited children and were far more spaced out in the country side. Life expectancy was also lower. No big deal, you are going to die anyway.

Well, the problem we have with going back to permaculture is that in virtually every country in the world the existing population is an order of magnitude too big to be supported without intensive agriculture, even if it is efficient (look at any country in central Africa for examples). I for one do not feel comfortable with the level of deaths this lifestyle change would require.

When intensive agriculture started it gave rise to not only more children, it also gave way to larger population densities and eventually to cities. This bought with it many, many diseases, some transferred from living in close quarters with animals. Close density of people also allows disease to spread much more easily, think bubonic pluage etc.

This is true, European diseases did the bulk of conquering with their germs. Others who might be reading this thread: a wonderfully well written source on these topics is the eminent Jarod Diamond's book "guns, germs and steel". One of the finest books written in the latter half of the last century in my opinion.

By supporting these super crops you are just further encouraging the population to keep on increasing, making cities more dense, allowing disease to spread more easily along with various social impacts this all has.

Half true. Societies with lower heath standards and high infant mortality tend to have more children to compensate for the ones that die. Countries like Japan, Australia and most of the EU nations are having children at less than the replacement rate (2.1, roughly). Also, countries that rely less on subsistence agriculture require less children to tend the farm. So while increasing living standards should lower the rate of population growth, if the composition of a society does not change then the problem is perpetuated.

Not to mention the fact that intensive farming completely fucks up the land it is grown on, meaning more forests are needed to be destroyed to find more usable farming land.

Super crops are not made out of nothing, they draw more nutrients out of the soil than conventional crops. The real question is one of efficiency: can super crops grow better in poor soils, grow in limited space with less tending, taste better and be more disease resistant? So far I only know the last point to be true.

And don’t even start me on GM being safe. There is no long term evidence either way. We used to think CFC’s would not harm the environment, asbestos made great insulation material, and even recently Teflon was thought to be safe, now we find out its poison and we have been cooking with it for years.

I can point out hundreds of these examples. Point is scientist though it was safe back then and we now know they were wrong.

Sadly, this is also true. Science can't answer anything without data, at some point you have to suck it and see. The biochemistry of the body is so complex that you cannot adequately guard people from harm from everything. What is needed is open debate, open trials and a requirement for information sharing on the results of those trials (including negative ones).

There are more serious under lying problems that need to be addressed by our leaders, pushing these kinds of super crops to feed more people is just delaying the inevitable big crunch that will come sometime in the not to distant future.

My view is that looking after the third world countries is paramount to a future stable world political environment, and our obligation to look after countries less fortunate. It will not be easy, but I think that if super crops stave off our immediate problems they could tentatively be worthwhile.

Cave Dweller

09-02-2006, 01:54 PM

Binaural & Grave digger, i didn't actually say anywhere that food should not be provided to the third world. My comments where made with a historical aspect to do with farming.

Personally i think there are far too many humans on this earth for it to be sustainable long term, there is just not enough resources. We are having issues now, let alone with a doubled population by 2050 (?). But we should look after the people that are already here, and work on reducing the worlds population big time.

I do not have the solution to the problems of food supply. If i did i wouldn't be on farkin :D

As soon as commercial interests become tied up in anything it all becomes about Money and Risk. It reminds me of the F150 in america. Would the risk of a payout be less then a recall, yes, no recall.

All i know is what has happened in the past is fact, and the future is unpredictable, and that humans as a race never learn from their mistakes and continue to make them, albeit it on a larger and larger scale.

Grave digger, i can't be stuffed reading all that link, but even in the conclusion it says that the safety of these crops can't be guaranteed. If that is the conclusion of a long time study then thats good enough reason for me not to eat them. If you think its safe go ahead and eat it.

And for you information Grave digger, alot of testing was done in the 1920's on CFC's to make sure they were inert to the environment, non-toxic and safe for humans. Thomas Midgeley the inventor even inhaled CFC's infront of a group of reporters to show it was safe. Who would have thought that 65 years later they would be found to damage the ozone layer.

Who knows, in 50 years time we could find out that GM food makes the 3rd generation of female children sterile.

gravelclimber

09-02-2006, 02:32 PM

Personally i think there are far too many humans on this earth for it to be sustainable long term, there is just not enough resources. We are having issues now, let alone with a doubled population by 2050 (?). But we should look after the people that are already here, and work on reducing the worlds population big time.

I agree - by helping developing nations attain our standard of living and voluntarily reducing their birth rate in the same way we have.

All i know is what has happened in the past is fact, and the future is unpredictable, and that humans as a race never learn from their mistakes and continue to make them, albeit it on a larger and larger scale.

I'm a bit more optimistic - I really do like to think we learn from our mistakes.

Grave digger, i can't be stuffed reading all that link, but even in the conclusion it says that the safety of these crops can't be guaranteed. If that is the conclusion of a long time study then that's good enough reason for me not to eat them. If you think its safe go ahead and eat it.

You're missing the point - every study completed found no adverse effects. But these are, of course, negative results. They don't prove none can be found in the future - that's simply not possible. The writers of the document are acknowledging this. But with each extra study that risk decreases. Organic food is proven to kill people through ergots contamination. But you know what - I still eat organic food as I know it's pretty unlikely to happen to me.

And for you information Grave digger, alot of testing was done in the 1920's on CFC's to make sure they were inert to the environment, non-toxic and safe for humans. Thomas Midgeley the inventor even inhaled CFC's infront of a group of reporters to show it was safe. Who would have thought that 65 years later they would be found to damage the ozone layer.

It's a poor example to illustrate your point. Hardly any studies were done except to show they were safer then the chemicals they were replacing. When studies in the 70's showed they damaged the ozone layer their chemical compounds were adjusted to produce HCFCs and we have a happy ending.

The way I see it, and the scientific consensus agrees, is that if we have anything to worry about it's things like the Greenhouse effect and antibiotic resistance, not GM. GM in all probability will become essential combating and adjusting to the changes caused by global warming. I'm optimistic.

Cave Dweller

09-02-2006, 03:08 PM

It's a poor example to illustrate your point. Hardly any studies were done except to show they were safer then the chemicals they were replacing.

But isn't this the point? They are testing GM crops against the natural crops they want to replace them with. Its the same deal.

Scientist’s in the 1920's had no way of knowing they would harm the ozone layer, just like we don't know of any potential impacts GM crops could have. We can only do studies on things we think they may effect. It could have a knock down effect onto something that we have not tested, or even thought about, and may only become visible in 60 years time.

Who knows what it could be, maybe GM plants will rip a hole in the space time continuum :D Sounds silly (and it is), but im sure if you said to a scientist in the 1920's that this wonderful new inert gas would damage the ozone layer they would probably laugh at you.

Also, you need to remember that standards of testing where far more lax then they are now. But the flip side is in 80 years time (if we are still here) the testing we do today will seem very, very out dated and short sighted.

It has been a problem through out history that scientist always assume they know everything there is about everything at any particular point in time. It is not so, been proven many times and will be played out again.

Im more of a believer in the precautionary principal (if there is a risk then don't do it) rather then the risk / benefit analysis (does the risk out way the potential gain) favoured by so many corporations when money is involved.

When studies in the 70's showed they damaged the ozone layer their chemical compounds were adjusted to produce HCFCs and we have a happy ending..

Actually, we are still pumping CFC's into the atmosphere at a rate of more then 5 times what nature can dispose of them. That was 30 years ago it was discovered to be bad! We never, ever learn......

Kram

09-02-2006, 03:28 PM

Im more of a believer in the precautionary principal (if there is a risk then don't do it) rather then the risk / benefit analysis (does the risk out way the potential gain)

Except when it comes to throwing a leg over a mountain bike. Let er rip.

gravelclimber

09-02-2006, 03:33 PM

But isn't this the point? They are testing GM crops against the natural crops they want to replace them with. Its the same deal.

Scientist’s in the 1920's had no way of knowing they would harm the ozone layer, just like we don't know of any potential impacts GM crops could have. We can only do studies on things we think they may effect. It could have a knock down effect onto something that we have not tested, or even thought about, and may only become visible in 60 years time.

Who knows what it could be, maybe GM plants will rip a hole in the space time continuum :D Sounds silly (and it is), but im sure if you said to a scientist in the 1920's that this wonderful new inert gas would damage the ozone layer they would probably laugh at you.

Also, you need to remember that standards of testing where far more lax then they are now. But the flip side is in 80 years time (if we are still here) the testing we do today will seem very, very out dated and short sighted.

It has been a problem through out history that scientist always assume they know everything there is about everything at any particular point in time. It is not so, been proven many times and will be played out again.

Im more of a believer in the precautionary principal (if there is a risk then don't do it) rather then the risk / benefit analysis (does the risk out way the potential gain) favoured by so many corporations when money is involved.

Actually, we are still pumping CFC's into the atmosphere at a rate of more then 5 times what nature can dispose of them. That was 30 years ago it was discovered to be bad! We never, ever learn......

I agree with a lot of some of what you're saying but you have to remember science is only really a hundred or so years old (it aint been about for the whole of history). Regulatory testing, particularly in relation to the environment, backed by strong government legislation has only been common since the 70s. Scientists certainly don't know everything - but they know a lot more than they used to. For these reasons I think it is less likely we will make the same mistakes in relation to the environment in the future.

I don't quite understand your use of the precautionary principle either. If there is the slightest risk of something bad happening through taking no action do we have to take action, no matter what? After all - that's exactly what your saying (i.e. do we have to always avoid risk - no matter what the cost?). Every action, inaction or decision we take has risk associated.

Cave Dweller

09-02-2006, 03:34 PM

Except when it comes to throwing a leg over a mountain bike. Let er rip.

Riding doesn't have any risks, only benifits, like scars and broken bones that help you attract chicks. Hmmmm........ :o

Cave Dweller

09-02-2006, 03:45 PM

Scientists certainly don't know everything - but they know a lot more than they used to. For these reasons I think it is less likely we will make the same mistakes in relation to the environment in the future.

Maybe, maybe not.

I don't quite understand your use of the precautionary principle either. If there is the slightest risk of something bad happening through taking no action do we have to take action, no matter what? After all - that's exactly what your saying (i.e. do we have to always avoid risk - no matter what the cost?). Every action, inaction or decision we take has risk associated.

What is the precautionary principle?
"When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically."

As opposed to

What is a Risk-Benefit Analysis ?
"Risk-benefit analysis is the comparison of the risk of a situation to its related benefits"

They are slightly differant. I find Risk benifit usually glosses over the non-benifit parts. If the benifits outway the potential harm it is accepted. The precautionary principle says if there is a major risk of something happening (proven or yet to be unproven), even if the chances of it happening are small, it should be avoided.

Cave Dweller

09-02-2006, 04:00 PM

Okay, didn't explain it so well, in other words, to do with GM crops

Risk Benefit
There is no strong conclusive evidence to suggest that GM food effects either the environment or animals. The potential benefit of feeding millions of people currently outweighs the non evident risk so it is therefore safe to eat GM food.

Precautionary Principle
There is not enough conclusive evidence to state a case either way that GM food is either safe or unsafe. The potential risks from using GM food are many, they could include damage to the environment and harm to animals. More testing needs to be undertaken and needs to be proven 100% safe before being sold. Therefore it would be wise to caution against using GM food at this stage

wombat

09-02-2006, 06:02 PM

Don't you think bringing the entire world up to our standard of living, with the resultant decrease in birth rate, is a better idea? I do.
It's a lovely idea, but it is simply not possible, we don't have the natural resources on this planet to support the world's population at the standard of living that we are lucky to enjoy.

This doesn't mean I'm saying "fuck the poor", just that it is not even a realistic goal for everyone to have this standard of living; it's a matter of trying to meet somewhere in the middle.

(Sorry, this isn't really related to the permaculture debate).

munno

09-02-2006, 06:55 PM

Slightli off topic.

Is it that not enough is grown to feed all or that enough can and is grown but not distributed properly?

Thomas Malthus wanted population controll in 1798, the overpopulation debate is nothing new.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/malthus.html

gravelclimber

09-02-2006, 08:33 PM

I think there are enough resources to support everyone meeting our living standards. We just have to use what resources we have far more efficiently and to use better technology. A move to renewable resources and energy will go a long way to bring this about.

The problem with using the precautionary principle above cost/benefit analysis is that you have to use it in all situations. Bush and Howard are using the exact same principle with global warming to maintain the status quo. The say that irreparable damage will happen to the worlds economies and living standards if we enforce emissions controls when we are not 100 % sure that it will happen. The concept is the same of using the very low levels of scientific uncertainty about complex systems to do nothing. As I've said - we can never be 100 % certain about anything - science does not work that way. Only mathematics does. The precautionary principle might as well be called the 'maintain the status quo no matter what evidence is available' principle. I think it is crazy not taking into account the risks associated with taking no action when planning for the future.

wombat

09-02-2006, 09:20 PM

I think there are enough resources to support everyone meeting our living standards. We just have to use what resources we have far more efficiently and to use better technology. A move to renewable resources and energy will go a long way to bring this about.
Maybe I should have been more careful with my wording. "State" of living may be more accurate than "standard" of living. If everyone was to live like your average Australian we would need multiple planets to supply enough iron ore to make the steel we would need, enough aluminium ore...and so on. These are finite resources, and we use so much that there just isn't enough to go around.

Maybe looking to new technology isn't quite right either, maybe we should just look at using less of everything, and even older technology? Ideas of "comfort" are always changing, and often to the detriment of the environment.

zen_rider

10-02-2006, 07:24 AM

scblack

10-02-2006, 07:47 AM

I think there are enough resources to support everyone meeting our living standards. We just have to use what resources we have far more efficiently and to use better technology. A move to renewable resources and energy will go a long way to bring this about.
It is simply not possible at present standards of living and technology. A study that takes into account the "footprint" - the area of land required to feed, provide power, shelter, transport to a person, showed that a person in Africa, not subsistent, but not in a city required less than a acre of land. A New Yorker on the other hand required something in the order of 50 acres to sustain their energy and food needs.

That standard of living cannot be sustained for all people on the planet. A population with a high standard of living is about much more than simply low birth rates.

***edit I just noticed zenrider has mentioned something similar***

gravelclimber

10-02-2006, 08:59 AM

Obviously I realise high living standards are not just about low birth rate - it's just one of the many consequences.

Still no one has provided me with any reasons why we can't all sustain high living standards. Saying it's 'simply impossible' is a bit defeatist I think. If you read my post I said significant changes would have to take place to allow this. Of course it can't happen when we rely on non-renewable resources and either don't recycle most things or do so very inefficiently. The measurements of ecological footprints you have mentioned only take into account how we do things today, with today's means of energy production - not how we could do so tomorrow.

Sweden has just announced it plans to be oil-free within 15 years

http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,,1704954,00.html

Through actions of enlightened governments like this higher living standards for all might actually become a reality.

I just don't go for this "it's impossible/All America's fault/All Big Corporation's fault/capitalism is evil" stuff.

Kram

10-02-2006, 08:59 AM

Bush and Howard are using the exact same principle with global warming to maintain the status quo. The say that irreparable damage will happen to the worlds economies and living standards if we enforce emissions controls when we are not 100 % sure that it will happen.

Indeed, but why aren't they acting when most scientific minds not financed by the energy companies are 99.9999999% sure that we are fucked if we keep cranking out CO2 emissions at our current rate.

Look at the winter Europe has just had. Look at the drought that Australia is having. Look at the mild winters Canada is experiencing. Look at the receding Arctic ice. All of these things were predicted years ago and its just starting to get into high gear now.

Bush and Howard know that crisis is inevetible if massive changes are not made now (far beyond the Kyoto Protocol). I believe they think money will buy them out of the crisis if they can just make enough hay while the sun shines. Instead of trying to avert it to begin with. Unfortunately it may well be too late. 30 years from now, earth will be a very interesting place to observe. I guess in a way we are lucky to be able to witness the coming era, though only the lucky ones will live long enough to witness it.

Atomizer

10-02-2006, 09:08 AM

I think there are enough resources to support everyone meeting our living standards. We just have to use what resources we have far more efficiently and to use better technology. A move to renewable resources and energy will go a long way to bring this about.

I fail to see this possible in an age of compulsive, obsessive, consumerism.

Most of the 'developed world' is sucking the resources out of 'developing' countries, resources they need to increase their standards of living, just to feed our insatiable materialism.

For everyone, globally to have better living standards, something has to give; people have to give, Government's have to give and this will mean, whether we like it or not, that we can't live beyond our needs or means indefinately. We are rapidly, more rapidly than we perhaps appreciate, entering a point of no return in regard just how many more people the world can provide for with the finite resources available to them. We can't just keep over-polpulating the world without there being huge consequences. Technology, nor magic, will change this.

Something has to give.

scblack

10-02-2006, 09:19 AM

I just don't go for this "it's impossible/All America's fault/All Big Corporation's fault/capitalism is evil" stuff.
I agree with you there.

The only reason big corporations/globalisation exist is due to demand for the latest/greatest and cheaper stuff. Change has to come from EVERY person, undoubtedly. Blaming stuff on a government or corporation is simply narrow minded, we need to look at the source of demand. Simply blaming Howard or Bush is leaving things for someone else to do. If people really have problems on these issues, lets hear what you are doing about it.

But doom and gloom merchants are simply wrong I believe. The world will always work for us, and I believe my daughter will have better access, opportunities and so on than I have had. I'm an optimist, not a pessimist.

wombat

10-02-2006, 09:27 AM

But doom and gloom merchants are simply wrong I believe. The world will always work for us, and I believe my daughter will have better access, opportunities and so on than I have had. I'm an optimist, not a pessimist.
I'm inclined to agree with you, to an extent. Humanity has this way of avoiding major disaster by making the required changes at the very last minute. Sure, we keep on keeping on in the end, but it could be so much easier if we exercised some more foresight and actually adressed problems before they reached critical mass.

As for the doom merchants, I don't think they're wrong, in fact I think we need them. Like I said, we tend only to make changes when we can actually notice things affecting us personally. The doom merchants might be shouting about things for years earlier without effecting any change, but at least we're aware of the problems they speak of, so there is an impotus to change when things start to effect us.

(Sorry if that's a bit of a ramble, but I planned on sleeping in until my bastard boss rang and woke me up. Bastard.)

scblack

10-02-2006, 09:37 AM

I'm inclined to agree with you, to an extent. Humanity has this way of avoiding major disaster by making the required changes at the very last minute. Sure, we keep on keeping on in the end, but it could be so much easier if we exercised some more foresight and actually adressed problems before they reached critical mass.

As for the doom merchants, I don't think they're wrong, in fact I think we need them. Like I said, we tend only to make changes when we can actually notice things affecting us personally. The doom merchants might be shouting about things for years earlier without effecting any change, but at least we're aware of the problems they speak of, so there is an impotus to change when things start to effect us.

(Sorry if that's a bit of a ramble, but I planned on sleeping in until my bastard boss rang and woke me up. Bastard.)
I don't disagree with you (let's have a group hug).:)

Pragmatically, the only thing that will materially change demand for stuff, is pricing. The only time we will REALLY start coming up with alternatives to oil, is when it is priced out of realistic use. The hip pocket is the key to changing demand, to a large extent.

But you are right, doom merchants have their place I guess, but they can be prone to hysteria and over-exaggeration.

Cave Dweller

10-02-2006, 09:45 AM

I'm inclined to agree with you, to an extent. Humanity has this way of avoiding major disaster by making the required changes at the very last minute. Sure, we keep on keeping on in the end, but it could be so much easier if we exercised some more foresight and actually adressed problems before they reached critical mass.

This is true, i have no doubt that humans will continue, but to what standard of living, and what long lasting damage to the earth, is debatable.

If you look at earlier civilisations like easter island, the Maya etc you can see what happens once the finite resources available have been expended. Sure, earth is bigger then easter island, but in a way the earth is still an island floating in the vast emptiness of space.

I consider myself neither an optimist or a pessimist. I can just read History and can see what is going on around me.

Further, having faith that technology will solve all the earths problems is very short sighted, this "magical future" technology may never eventuate, and action needs to be taken now at an individual level with government support.

wombat

10-02-2006, 09:49 AM

Pragmatically, the only thing that will materially change demand for stuff, is pricing. The only time we will REALLY start coming up with alternatives to oil, is when it is priced out of realistic use. The hip pocket is the key to changing demand, to a large extent.
Yeap, I totally agree, which makes me a little sad really (not the agreeing with you, just that people are only swayed by their wallet).

I think that the issue is a lot bigger than oil alone too, we just consume so much shit these days. I guess it's a tribute to the ability of modern marketing, and the evolution of our concepts of "comfort" and "conveinence".

Air conditioning is one example that jumps to mind. We all would have heard about the strain that Adelaide's power grid went under with their recent heatwave. It's as though airconditioning has become a crutch for ineffecient architecture. Combine that with our desire for an optimum tempreature and you end up with a major reliance on the AC unit. In this case at least, looking at older technology may be the way forward.

Atomizer

10-02-2006, 10:04 AM

Change has to come from EVERY person, undoubtedly.

My point, put succinctly.

But this change has to start with those best equiped to get the momentum happening doing what they can and unconditionally.

gravelclimber

10-02-2006, 10:58 AM

Pragmatically, the only thing that will materially change demand for stuff, is pricing. The only time we will REALLY start coming up with alternatives to oil, is when it is priced out of realistic use. The hip pocket is the key to changing demand, to a large extent.

Too true. I remember when I did environmental economics at uni it was suggested that pricing should be adjusted to reflect the true costs of a particular product. This includes environmental costs associated with production and, importantly, disposal and/or recycling (internalising the externalities was the catchphrase). Many goods are seriously undervalued.

The problem, however, is we live in democratic societies that prefer tax cuts, minimal prices etc. and any political party that tried to introduce this sort of thing would get very few votes. Unfortunately most people cannot be relied upon to act in an altruistic sense. The best economic modelling occurs when people are considered selfish maximisers. For this reason I think it is important to solve problems without having to rely on the unlikely assumption that people will sacrifice their quality of life for someone else. I'm optimistic our problems can be solved but one must be pragmatic as well.

Kram

10-02-2006, 05:46 PM

But doom and gloom merchants are simply wrong I believe. The world will always work for us, and I believe my daughter will have better access, opportunities and so on than I have had. I'm an optimist, not a pessimist.

The world has not always worked in favour of our civilizations. Many in the past have failed, yet they lived in a much more harmonious manner with nature.

I'm certainly not pessimistic by nature, nor am I looking to the future with fear and contempt. I just see what possibilities are on the horizon and hedging my bets. Just because I know I am going to die one day doesn't mean I'm a harbingour of doom (not suggesting that you pointed the finger at me necessarily), as it is just reality.

I find it hard to believe that waiting 10 years to make drastic changes will not destroy much of the planets ecosystems, resulting in massive loss of human life through starvation and wars. Of course, this is happening now and always has, so nothing much really will change, it may just be more far reaching. Historically, change is slow. I don't believe we have enough time. Though I for one cannot wait too see the hotel lobbies on the Gold Coast filling up with water (as long as we could see it coming long enough to prevent tragedy). Interesting times may be ahead. Keep an XC rig handy.