GMO discussion with teacher

[HollyBird24]

Quote:
Sorry, I haven't read all the pages. I do agree with you though.

we could do like China and you could only have one kid

China now has problems with aswell, with people selecting what gender they want. There are more males then females.

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

China does not limit children. They say they do but thats not actually true. They limit the poor to one child an let the rich have all they want by use of a high tax on any child after your first. They dont call it a tax but a fine. But ether way only the well of can keep having kids.

 

[chickened]

Would what you are saying then be considered a quasi form of survival of the fittest by voluntarily not furthering your species? Extincion is what I think it would be actually. I have heard this option used by some before and I wonder why then wait for natural death... usually response... a blank stare or silence.JMHObservation

What are the other reasons? just curious.

Quote:

Actually, I have no children so when I go thats it.

Your in the minority as far as that goes though

And that was my point when I said that our big problem is population and thats not going to get fixed since everyone is reproducing so much.
Also, I wanted to point out that my stance on population is not hypocritical since I am not contributing to it.

Yup, add me in for not having kids mainly for reasons involving overpopulation. A few other reasons too, but that is the main reason as to why I will not be having children. Fostering and/or adoption is the avenue I'll be using, but only because there are so many teens and older children who still need homes. If everyone theoretically had a home, I still would not be having kids, and would just completely go without. What other people do is their choice, but will likely increasingly not be as warfare and fighting for resources increase as well as government pressure.​

 

[chickened]

They also cause females to be aborted or given to orphanages in favor of a male.
Quote:

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

As for Monsanto an lawsuits... Monsanto sends people to trespass on to farmers land an take crops. They are not the government so you are not protected from this by the 4th amendment. They tell the court that they got crops off your land that tested to have there patented gene in it. But they dont do that now. they wait till next year to sue you. Cause after a year you no longer have that crop on hand to have tested to prove clean.


They also sue seed savers. These are people that come to a farm an clean there seed so it will store well to plant for next year. They sue them for being accessorys. Thats like suing your mechanic for replacing the alternator on a stolen car. But they really dont care if they win. They just want them to have to divulge his bank records so they can sue everyone in them. This makes it to dangerous to hire any seed saver. Forces them out of business an forces farmers to buy seed.

 

[HollyBird24]

Nobody is forced to buy seed from Monsanto. There are other, even larger, seed companies that provide similar products.

 

[stilldeb]

Seeds of Deception is a very good book explaining GMOs. Also www.seedsofdeception.com is their website where you can download a non-GMO shopping guide if that is the kind of thing you are looking for. We choose not to eat them and eat organic food and pasture raised organic meats that we buy either from a local food co-op or directly from the farm. The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan is also a very thought-provoking book.

 

[chickened]

Monsanto can afford to pursue a lawsuit they know they cannot win. You cannot sue successfully for future lost profits or it would seem but can sue for copyright infringement which may be what they shoot for but if yo have second generation seed tainted by cross pollination you could say Monsanto seed trespassed on your seed.
Quote:

 

[punk-a-doodle]

Would what you are saying then be considered a quasi form of survival of the fittest by voluntarily not furthering your species? Extincion is what I think it would be actually. I have heard this option used by some before and I wonder why then wait for natural death... usually response... a blank stare or silence.JMHObservation What are the other reasons? just curious.

I don't see how it would lead to human extinction to have fewer children? Humans are things of nature themselves, we have simply evolved ways to delay natural pressures; to distance them but not remove them. On natural death, a main reason would be, because most people are compassionate to some degree (along with some non-human animals, such as elephants, this trait has been selected for enough that it is found amid the general population). I've never heard someone suggest going out and blowing up everyone to decrease the population. Rather, they would prefer a slow and voluntary limitation. I also don't know anyone who thinks that is likely to happen...just that the population will have limitations eventually, and they have no desire to assist that outcome. X) I have no intentions of contributing to that likely future myself. I like people too much.

 

[RHRanch]

Quote:

Actually, I have no children so when I go thats it.

Your in the minority as far as that goes though

And that was my point when I said that our big problem is population and thats not going to get fixed since everyone is reproducing so much.
Also, I wanted to point out that my stance on population is not hypocritical since I am not contributing to it.

Yup, add me in for not having kids mainly for reasons involving overpopulation. A few other reasons too, but that is the main reason as to why I will not be having children. Fostering and/or adoption is the avenue I'll be using, but only because there are so many teens and older children who still need homes. If everyone theoretically had a home, I still would not be having kids, and would just completely go without. What other people do is their choice, but will likely increasingly not be as warfare and fighting for resources increase as well as government pressure.​

Overpopulation is the problem. We could sustain a reasonable amount of people even with the way we use resources (wastefully). The idea is not to be suicidal. I have no kids, I am not suicidal or against the existence of a population of humans that can be sustained. In my opinion it is silly to suggest that because I recognize that there are too many people that I should "off myself", and since I have never advocating killing anyone, the suggestion isn't even consistent with what I am saying. What people are doing now, overpopulating IS leading to "not furthering the species". My position makes it more likely for humans to survive for milennia. Breeding like rabbits like we are now will lead to decimation of resources and the starvation and possible extinction of people.​