|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On May 09 2016 04:06 hfglgg wrote:
meh, talking to a brick wall here.
you dont want companies to produce less, you want domestic companies to survive, big difference. one would be connected to GMO, the other not so much.
oh and just because its so fucking funny: use of pesticide is another topic where scientist, generally the smartest and best educated people of any society, have a much more positive view on than the average population. maybe pesticides arent even as bad as you try to make them to be.
Domestic companies to survive : but GMOs will effectively weaken small farms and profit either for foreign firms (who produce GMO) and for big farms. How is that good for domestic companies ?
Pesticides aren't bad. There we have it, pesticide are not bad, GMO are not bad, scientist told us that. Alleluia.
An investment of about $10 billion in pesticide control each year saves approximately $40 billion in US crops, based on direct costs and benefits. However, the indirect costs of pesticide use to the environment and public health need to be balanced against these benefits. Based on the available data, the environmental and public health costs of recommended pesticide use totalled more than $9 billion each year (Table VI). Users of pesticides pay directly only about $3 billion, which includes problems arising from pesticide resistance and destruction of natural enemies. Society eventually pays this $3 billion plus the remaining $9 billion in environmental and public health costs (Table VI).
[...]In addition to the costs that cannot be accurately measured, there are many costs that were not included in the $12 billion figure. If the full environmental, public health and social costs could be measured as a whole, the total cost might be nearly double the $12 billion figure. Such a complete and long-term cost/benefit analysis of pesticide use would reduce the
perceived profitability of pesticides.
http://www.beyondpesticides.org/assets/media/documents/documents/pimentel.pesticides.2005update.pdf
Read the paper and see in detail how that 9 to 12 billion $ each year is evaluated.
On May 09 2016 04:14 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2016 03:32 WhiteDog wrote:
What a load of crap, small farm treat animals badly ? Do you know anything about big farms ? You think they treat animals better than small farm ? That's such an ignorant comment. In big modern farms, animals don't even see the sunlight and are chained to the ground.
The last sentence is also crap, we're, at the moment, producing more than needed (europe is exporting food ...), which is one of the reason why arguing for an increase in production through GMO is kinda ridiculous.
Just because your farm is small doesn't mean that anybody is treating the animals better, it just means that your business is smaller. Investigations into a lot of "organic" and fair farms have shown that animals are just being treated as shitty as anywhere else, with the exception that you can't even hold them accountable like you can large scale industry. Same for organic vegetables, there's not even any health benefit to it. They're not more nutricious and the pesticide level etc is pretty much below dangerous levels anyways. And obviously we have a lot of food because we produce food on a large scale. If we'd change the mode of food production prices would rise rapidly and supply would go down. This isn't good or desirable.
Yes it actually does ... Because you decrease cost by reducing labor factor (workers) and increase animals / m². Big farms don't have the time nor the manpower to permit their animals to go out on a tour on the mountain like small farm do (for cost reasons, they don't pay the food while they do so).
I don't even know what you mean by "organic" and "fair" farms, it has nothing to do with what we are talking about - we were comparing big and small. Do you know how big farm produce meat exactly ? Have you been in a big modern exploitation for pigs for exemple ?
|
On May 09 2016 04:15 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2016 04:06 hfglgg wrote:
meh, talking to a brick wall here.
you dont want companies to produce less, you want domestic companies to survive, big difference. one would be connected to GMO, the other not so much.
oh and just because its so fucking funny: use of pesticide is another topic where scientist, generally the smartest and best educated people of any society, have a much more positive view on than the average population. maybe pesticides arent even as bad as you try to make them to be. Domestic companies to survive : but GMOs will effectively weaken small farms and profit either for foreign firms (who produce GMO) and for big farms. How is that good for domestic companies
how is GMO in any way substantial for that? dont you want to protect other industries as well? you just dont make sense, at all here.
or are you against everything that leads to differences in efficiency? because thats the only other logical conclusion.
30 > 24. would pesticide the shit out of everything according to that article.
|
On May 09 2016 04:15 WhiteDog wrote:
Yes it actually does ... Because you decrease cost by reducing labor factor (workers) and increase animals / m². Big farms don't have the time nor the manpower to permit their animals to go out on a tour on the mountain like small farm do (for cost reasons, they don't pay the food while they do so).
I don't even know what you mean by "organic" and "fair" farms, it has nothing to do with what we are talking about - we were comparing big and small. Do you know how big farm produce meat exactly ? Have you been in a big modern exploitation for pigs for exemple ?
Not every small farmer can provide more space than an industrial farm, he couldn't compete in price. That's why I was talking about organic, those kinds of products are luxury goods. Your average small farmer has to keep the costs down just like any other farmer they compete with. You can't have a small farm, more space for animals and somehow magically compete with large scale industry. Also the labour costs proportionately must be higher for small farms. Large farms are less labour intensive.
So if we really would change our whole model of agriculture we would have less supply and of course as a result higher costs, there's no way around that.
|
On May 09 2016 04:22 hfglgg wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2016 04:15 WhiteDog wrote:On May 09 2016 04:06 hfglgg wrote:
meh, talking to a brick wall here.
you dont want companies to produce less, you want domestic companies to survive, big difference. one would be connected to GMO, the other not so much.
oh and just because its so fucking funny: use of pesticide is another topic where scientist, generally the smartest and best educated people of any society, have a much more positive view on than the average population. maybe pesticides arent even as bad as you try to make them to be. Domestic companies to survive : but GMOs will effectively weaken small farms and profit either for foreign firms (who produce GMO) and for big farms. How is that good for domestic companies how is GMO in any way substantial for that? dont you want to protect other industries as well? you just dont make sense, at all here. or are you against everything that leads to differences in efficiency? because thats the only other logical conclusion. 30 > 24. would pesticide the shit out of everything according to that article.
I already told you this has nothing to do with efficiency but productivity. Efficiency is the production in relation to the ressources you use, and the demand ; it's not about maximizing production but finding the good combination of capital an labor to produce enough.
You don't make any sense at all : you've yet to show me what european would gain from an increase in agricultural production. We're already having prices that are so low that the european institutions are forced to artificially increase it with quota and such (see milk ?). I'm not against innovations at all, I've defended nuclear power two pages ago : you just got to watch the situation and assess the effect of X innovation on the actual market. In effect, GMO gives nothing but constraints.
30 > 24. would pesticide the shit out of everything according to that article.
Not sure you understand the article : 30 B $ in increase of food production, and 24 billion of $ for the environmental cost of pesticide - which counts, amongst other, treating cancer. Not sure the society as a whole would make the same choice as you.
Also the subject is not with or without pesticide, it is which amount of pesticide we should use.
On May 09 2016 04:26 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2016 04:15 WhiteDog wrote:
Yes it actually does ... Because you decrease cost by reducing labor factor (workers) and increase animals / m². Big farms don't have the time nor the manpower to permit their animals to go out on a tour on the mountain like small farm do (for cost reasons, they don't pay the food while they do so).
I don't even know what you mean by "organic" and "fair" farms, it has nothing to do with what we are talking about - we were comparing big and small. Do you know how big farm produce meat exactly ? Have you been in a big modern exploitation for pigs for exemple ? Not every small farmer can provide more space than an industrial farm, he couldn't compete in price. That's why I was talking about organic, those kinds of products are luxury goods. Your average small farmer has to keep the costs down just like any other farmer they compete with. You can't have a small farm, more space for animals and somehow magically compete with large scale industry. Also the labour costs proportionately must be higher for small farms. Large farms are less labour intensive. So if we really would change our whole model of agriculture we would have less supply and of course as a result higher costs, there's no way around that.
Small farm are NOT cost effective, unless they produce specific product (with label and such). You argue that the average "small" farmer has to keep the costs down : no the average small farmer, can't push the cost lower and, at the moment, produce at a higher cost than the big farmers, and oftentime they even produce at a cost higher than the market price, so much that they lose money by working, in the pig industry for exemple. They can't bring their cost down, because they would need huge investments ; the few that does effectively absorb other farms to gain the necessary weight.
In effect, the competitive agriculture is more polluting, bigger, less respectful of animal life, produce more than needed (leading to exports) and does not create much jobs (unemployment). Don't try to make it seem like an increase in competition, that would enforce this process, would actually be good.
|
assume we get a new technology that has nothing to do with GMOs to increase productivity, efficiency or whatever else you wanna call it. now because the domestic market is in danger once more you have to heavily debate against the new technology again. that would not be necessary if you had done it right the first place.
you are not against GMOs, you are against agriculture imports because you dont see any need for them. thats fine, just hasnt anything to do with GMOs. GMOs could be easily replaced by random technology X that leads to the same effect (more corn), which heavily implies that its a non issue.
|
On May 09 2016 04:55 hfglgg wrote:
assume we get a new technology that has nothing to do with GMOs to increase productivity, efficiency or whatever else you wanna call it. now because the domestic market is in danger once more you have to heavily debate against the new technology again. that would not be necessary if you had done it right the first place.
Would this innovation let complete independance for small farms (replanting the seeds without necessarily buying it to a big monopoly like firm) ? Woud this innovation benefit evenly big and small farms ? Would this innovation have no direct or indirect effect on the environment that might not be taken into consideration in the cost (such as pesticides) ?
HUM...
you are not against GMOs, you are against agriculture imports because you dont see any need for them. thats fine, just hasnt anything to do with GMOs. GMOs could be easily replaced by random technology X that leads to the same effect (more corn), which heavily implies that its a non issue.
No I'm against GMO, imports/exports not sure, depend on the product.
|
It surely is good if we can remove the negative side effects, we can tax pollution or pass regulations to reduce this stuff. But that we create unemployment, or in other words free up labour, by making agriculture more efficient is good. Getting up at 6 am and care for cows for 12 hours is really shitty. That's why everybody flees from rural areas into the city if they can. It's good that we've made the tertiary sector more productive just like it's good that we've moved from heavy industry to information economies.
|
On May 09 2016 04:58 Nyxisto wrote:
It surely is good if we can remove the negative side effects, we can tax pollution or pass regulations to reduce this stuff. But that we create unemployment, or in other words free up labour, by making agriculture more efficient is good.
Unrealistic position in an area of the world with so many unemployed. Could you assure us that the excess labor would be reallocated in another field ?
Getting up at 6 am and care for cows for 12 hours is really shitty. That's why everybody flees from rural areas into the city if they can. It's good that we've made the tertiary sector more productive just like it's good that we've moved from industry to information economies.
lol
|
then you are a lost cause. sorry to say that, i am sure you feel good about yourself being smarter than the smartest people in the world. lmao.
|
On May 09 2016 05:00 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2016 04:58 Nyxisto wrote:
It surely is good if we can remove the negative side effects, we can tax pollution or pass regulations to reduce this stuff. But that we create unemployment, or in other words free up labour, by making agriculture more efficient is good. Unrealistic position in an area of the world with so many unemployed. Could you assure us that the excess labor would be reallocated in another field ?
Obviously I can't ensure it, but the solution isn't to stop technological process or every form of large scale activity, that's pretty much luddism. We don't gain anything by keeping people in unproductive jobs just so that they have a reason to leave the house in the morning, and in many cases such measures effect the people at the lower end of the social ladder adversely.
|
On May 09 2016 05:29 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2016 05:00 WhiteDog wrote:On May 09 2016 04:58 Nyxisto wrote:
It surely is good if we can remove the negative side effects, we can tax pollution or pass regulations to reduce this stuff. But that we create unemployment, or in other words free up labour, by making agriculture more efficient is good. Unrealistic position in an area of the world with so many unemployed. Could you assure us that the excess labor would be reallocated in another field ? Obviously I can't ensure it, but the solution isn't to stop technological process or every form of large scale activity, that's pretty much luddism. We don't gain anything by keeping people in unproductive jobs just so that they have a reason to leave the house in the morning, and in many cases such measures effect the people at the lower end of the social ladder adversely.
The good behavior is not to stop technological progress (never argued for it) ... it's to assess the value of innovation in each fields... ?
Do we need increase in food production ? No ? Could we focus our innovation / increase competition in other fields that needs it rather than inplementing innovation that do nothing to a market that already have low price and that already have enough production ?
|
There's enough people in the world that we can afford to innovate in all fields simultaneously. amounts of expenditure are of course varied by the needs and bonuses found in each field.
|
On May 09 2016 05:53 zlefin wrote:
There's enough people in the world that we can afford to innovate in all fields simultaneously. amounts of expenditure are of course varied by the needs and bonuses found in each field.
That's false. Your second sentence is also misleading, because the needs and bonuses are assessed differently from one agent to another ; for a big firm, or for price in the market, GMO are good. For small farms, independant agriculture, or the environment, they are not. The market overall benefit what is cost effective, but don't take into consideration half the cost that actually matter (health, environment, etc.).
The real problem is GMO will never be an innovation that would benefit the environment, nor will it permit a more efficient agriculture, because it is created and owned by firms that 1) also sell pesticides 2) happen to value dependancy of farmers because it gives them regular demand 3) are in a monopoly like position because you need huge infrastructure to actually compete at such level of engineering / distribute all around the world, etc.
Result is US agriculture, productive but with huge indirect cost on health and environment. Funnily enough, in europe we're actually just understanding the actual effect of pesticide on the environment and on men, many years after the actual use. But I guess if science says it's okay ...
What will happen when the entirety of our agricultural policies will be bound by international rules and contracts, such as TIPP, so much that we will have no other possibility than producing what is cost effective for the market and be competitive - GMO, massive exploitations, monoculture, heavy pesticide use, and bio for the rich. Congrats, it's science. But you're right, it's already half done in europe, why not going further.
|
hahaha, I laugh at your absurdities. Other people in other places can develop GMOs too if they want to and have value. And the potential value GMOs have is pretty clear; as is that it is possible for them to benefit the environment.
You're just being paranoid/nonsensical.
Sorry for being like this, but I don't have the time to do a proper rebuttal, and your stance is silly, and disproving paranoid conspiracy nonsense takes time.
|
What do we (Europe) gain from it then ? And by it, i mean GMOs and an easier access to USA agriculture into europe. Many of our products aren't going to sell there, because they value productivity more than taste and stuff like that, so what do we win ? Unemployment ? Science ?
What's in it for us. And if it's letting the GMO monopoly door open, i don't see what's in it for us, when food is currently not an issue anyways.
People talking about this, as it is good are just defending nitpicks like if GMOs are safe, science approved (this takes some serious mental gymnastics tho, with how hard it is to run independent studies on them). But ok, let's say all of that is true. Why should we accept it anyways ?
|
On May 09 2016 06:23 zlefin wrote:
hahaha, I laugh at your absurdities. Other people in other places can develop GMOs too if they want to and have value. And the potential value GMOs have is pretty clear; as is that it is possible for them to benefit the environment.
You're just being paranoid/nonsensical.
Sorry for being like this, but I don't have the time to do a proper rebuttal, and your stance is silly, and disproving paranoid conspiracy nonsense takes time.
None of you responded to my question which was why would we need to increase our production, considering the european institutions are already pushing the price higher than they should to permit farms to gain money and to prevent sall farms from crumbling in various agricultural fields. You can be sorry all you want, if you don't have the time, it's better not to respond rather than saying dumb things, but I suspect the idea that you "don't have the time" is the excuse you found to compensate the lack of argument.
|
I was only responding to the things I quoted and or was otherwise immediately responding to; I wasn't part of the larger discussion.
I don't know why you'd need to increase production.
Not sure why they're doing so much subsidizing, but if they want to subsidize things.
You can suspect anything you like; you'd just be wrong, and I stated my reasons clearly and accurately.
|
On May 09 2016 06:42 Godwrath wrote:
What do we (Europe) gain from it then ? And by it, i mean GMOs and an easier access to USA agriculture into europe. Many of our products aren't going to sell there, because they value productivity more than taste and stuff like that, so what do we win ? Unemployment ? Science ?
What's in it for us. And if it's letting the GMO monopoly door open, i don't see what's in it for us, when food is currently not an issue anyways.
People talking about this, as it is good are just defending nitpicks like if GMOs are safe, science approved (this takes some serious mental gymnastics tho, with how hard it is to run independent studies on them). But ok, let's say all of that is true. Why should we accept it anyways ?
we sell more cars to them.
|
On May 09 2016 14:23 hfglgg wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2016 06:42 Godwrath wrote:
What do we (Europe) gain from it then ? And by it, i mean GMOs and an easier access to USA agriculture into europe. Many of our products aren't going to sell there, because they value productivity more than taste and stuff like that, so what do we win ? Unemployment ? Science ?
What's in it for us. And if it's letting the GMO monopoly door open, i don't see what's in it for us, when food is currently not an issue anyways.
People talking about this, as it is good are just defending nitpicks like if GMOs are safe, science approved (this takes some serious mental gymnastics tho, with how hard it is to run independent studies on them). But ok, let's say all of that is true. Why should we accept it anyways ? we sell more cars to them.
So considering that GMOs are not the only thing where we end up losing with TTIP, i don't see the net worth into just selling more cars.
|
"Just" selling cars... You realise how big of a factor the whole car industry is for Germany/France and countless other small businesses in and around Germany/France?
I'm against TTIP but "Just" is really not the right word here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
