The implication that we should revert back to horse and plow farming with all natural processes to grow and fertilize crops and raise livestock is foolish. It would take many times more land to produce enough food for the world, which still doesn't produce quite enough for everyone. On top of that, 90% of us would be farmers and would work 10hr days. The standard of living would be so low that laptop computers and chatting on the internet would not be possible.
How many here would truly prefer we go back to the 1800s? I'm thankful that those who would are in the minority, because I quite enjoy the free time I have to travel, and technology that allows me to pursue academic interests.
Will farming be different in the future and cause less "harm"? Of course. Does that mean should take an enormous technological leap back in time and wait in poverty for that better future to magically arrive? NO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard
Factory farming is not low price - we are exhausting the fossil water aquifers, the topsoil is washing away, fertilizer and pesticides are poisoning the water and causing dead zones in the ocean, and the fertilizer is breaking down into nitrous oxide which is about 25% of the GHG that humans produce.
The food grown on factory farms tastes lousy, has lower nutrition than organic. We factory farm beef and pigs and chickens, and they are so sick we have to pump them full of antibiotics, and we are not satisfied with how fast they grow, so we pump 'em full of growth hormones, too.
Gee, I wonder if eating meat that is loaded with antibiotics and growth hormones is going to have any effects on us? What happens when the aquifers are dry? As the climate warms, we can't just move farming north - there is no rich soil, and no pollinators, and the sunlight is not what the plants need.
|
Everything you have stated is subjective. I happen to like the taste of the food I eat, and I have never been made ill by consuming it. If there were evidence to show that the food is causing illness, then lawsuits would be brought against those responsible for the harm.
What essential nutrients are missing from a factory raised cow when compared to a "free-range" cow?
The fact is, there is a larger food supply now than in any other time in history. Another fact is that people live longer than they did back when everything was "organic", whatever that phrase means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmay635703
I believe you need to understand Mansanto is the place that figured out Arsenic laced chicken feed made them gain weight, now they are getting sued by various rice farmers because the rice fields are poisoned with the chicken litter they used to use for fertalizer but now exceed the limits on arsenic.
There is nothing safe, inexpensive, intelligent or usefull about factory food, just like back in the old days where the sausage factories dumped the scum, hair mud and rust from cleaning back into the sausage to save money.
|
Of course, safe is a subjective term. It seems the majority has decided our food is safe enough, and that having
enough food is more important than having the elusive "safe" food.
Monsanto in particular has done some very unethical things and should compensate their victims for their loss, but providing pesticides and pesticide tolerant crops is not among those unethical things. If there were a cheaper way to farm, we would be doing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by radioranger
...my worries have been to keep their chemicals out of my gathering areas which is of course impossible...
|
I went clam killing back in May with 5 other friends and we all reached our limits. Nobody there was cursing Monsanto.