Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Green Activism Junk Science Kills!
#1
Here is a classic example of how the Greenies will continue to wreck havoc in the third world, simply by their hatred for technology, and extreme Eco-religious belief.

Quote:Green activists 'are keeping Africa poor' by promoting traditional farming

Western do-gooders are impoverishing Africa by promoting traditional farming at the expense of modern scientific agriculture, according to Britain's former chief scientist. Anti-science attitudes among aid agencies, poverty campaigners and green activists are denying the continent access to technology that could improve millions of lives, Professor Sir David King will say today. Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) from Europe and America are turning African countries against sophisticated farming methods, including GM crops, in favour of indigenous and organic approaches that cannot deliver the continent's much needed "green revolution", he believes.

Speaking before a keynote lecture tonight to the British Association for the Advancement of Science, of which he is president, Sir David said that the slow pace of African development was linked directly to Western influence. "I'm going to suggest, and I believe this very strongly, that a big part has been played in the impoverishment of that continent by the focus on nontechnological agricultural techniques, on techniques of farming that pertain to the history of that continent rather than techniques that pertain to modern technological capability.

Why has that continent not joined Asia in the big green revolutions that have taken place over the past few decades? The suffering within that continent, I believe, is largely driven by attitudes developed in the West which are somewhat anti-science, anti-technology - attitudes that lead towards organic farming, for example, attitudes that lead against the use of genetic technology for crops that could deal with increased salinity in the water, that can deal with flooding for rice crops, that can deal with drought resistance."

Sir David, who stepped down in December as the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser, will use his presidential address to the BA Festival of Science in Liverpool to accuse governments and NGOs of confused thinking about African development. "Solutions will only emerge if full use is made of modern agricultural technology methods, under progressive, scientifically informed regulation," he will say.

"The most advanced form of plant breeding, using modern genetic techniques, is now available to us. Plant breeding needs to meet a range of demands, including defences against evolving plant diseases, drought resistance, saline resistance, and flood tolerance. The problem is that the Western-world move toward organic farming - a lifestyle choice for a community with surplus food - and against agricultural technology in general and GM in particular, has been adopted across Africa, with the exception of South Africa, with devastating consequences."

His remarks will place him in direct opposition to former Whitehall colleagues. The Government endorsed recently the International Assessement of Agricultural Science and Technology, a report from 400 scientists and development experts published in April, which championed small-scale farming and traditional knowledge. The exercise was led by Professor Bob Watson, the chief scientist at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Sir David said that its findings were short-sighted. "I hesitate to criticise Bob Watson, who I admire enormously, but I think that we have been overwhelmed by attitudes to Africa that for some reason are qualitatively different to attitudes elsewhere. "We have the technology to feed the population of the planet. The question is do we have the ability to understand that we have it, and to deliver?"

Sir David, who was born and brought up in South Africa, added: "I think there is a tremendous groundswell of feeling that we need to support tradition in Africa. What that actually means in practice is if you go to a marketplace in a lovely town like Livingstone in Zambia, near Victoria Falls, you will see hundreds of people with little piles of their crops for sale. "This is an extremely inefficient process. The sort of thing we're seeing existed in this country hundreds of years ago. I don't believe that will lead to the economic development of Africa."

He will cite the example of rice that can resist flooding, which has been developed by the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines. Its development has been held up for several years because scientists felt they could not use GM techniques, such is the scale of Western-influenced opposition to the technology.

He will also accuse green groups such as the UN Environment Programme of agitating against new technologies on the basis of speculative risks, while ignoring potential benefits. "For example, Friends of the Earth in 1999 worried that drought-tolerant crops may have the potential to grow in habitats unavailable' to conventional crops.

The priority of providing food to an area of the world in greatest need appears to not have been noted.For decades, approaches to international development have been dominated by this well-meaning but fatally flawed doctrine."
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#2
John L Wrote:Here is a classic example of how the Greenies will continue to wreck havoc in the third world, simply by their hatred for technology, and extreme Eco-religious belief.
This would seem to be kinda off the deep end John.  I mean are you really going to say they hate technology?  And equating being environmentally friendly with a religious nut?  For real?
[Image: SalmaHayekcopy.jpg]
Reply
#3
Biker Dude Wrote:
John L Wrote:Here is a classic example of how the Greenies will continue to wreck havoc in the third world, simply by their hatred for technology, and extreme Eco-religious belief.
This would seem to be kinda off the deep end John.  I mean are you really going to say they hate technology?  And equating being environmentally friendly with a religious nut?  For real?

Chovy gotten to you Jim?  I have noticed a subtle change in your thinking lately.  Wink1

And yes, the Greens in Euroland are pushing to hold back advancing farming technology, at the expense of poor third world countries.  They have been fighting hard to keep GM products out of Europe, AND attempting to force others to toe the line or not receive any aid from them.  

Rather than really trying to eliminate poverty, increase the production of clean water, and help them grow more food crops, they are touting their Green agenda, in a less open, and subtle manner.  The Greens in Europe are very powerful, and they are out to impose their form of Utopianism upon the rest of the world.  We have our share here as well, in case you have not been watching.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#4
What a crap. What influence would a couple of green activists have against the power of big money and their governments, and the corrupt regimes all over the continent? Africa's nature does in large parts just not support industrial agriculture, that's the simple truth. Too dry, or too wet, or wildlife sanctuaries, or jungles that must not be removed.
GM crops are an issue worth of a very long thread of their own. Just so much, they are dangerous to natural wildlife and plants, and their genetically produced properties lead to undesirable sideeffects that soon outweight the benefits. Not sure about the 'undesirable', I guess they are rather produced this way. Google what's happening on South America's plantations of genetically modified soy, the farmers there regard it as a big mistake ever to be coerced into having them by Monsanto and other vast enterprises. The farmers don't make money.
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#5
John L Wrote:Chovy gotten to you Jim? I have noticed a subtle change in your thinking lately. Wink1

And yes, the Greens in Euroland are pushing to hold back advancing farming technology, at the expense of poor third world countries. They have been fighting hard to keep GM products out of Europe, AND attempting to force others to toe the line or not receive any aid from them.

Rather than really trying to eliminate poverty, increase the production of clean water, and help them grow more food crops, they are touting their Green agenda, in a less open, and subtle manner. The Greens in Europe are very powerful, and they are out to impose their form of Utopianism upon the rest of the world. We have our share here as well, in case you have not been watching.
Haven't spoken to Chovy in a while, and never about any of this.

Your jump simply seem highly irrational. No matter how many articles you find that say it, it doesn't make sense.

As to some other changes, I am not an Obama supporter, nor am I a McCain supporter. But I simply tire of the way some with a simpler mind blindly attack without actually thinking what they say. There are plenty here, and plenty at IAP. And yes I have called Obama people on the same thing. One here actually figured I am an Obama supporter because I called some BS he posted here. Never figuring a person could simply be questioning what he posted without being from the other side. His world is VERY black and white. He is, shall we say mentally challenged. :lol:
[Image: SalmaHayekcopy.jpg]
Reply
#6
Part of the problem in Africa are the governments which determine the economic rules. So, any kind of agricultural improvements are probably useless because the farmers would not be able to market their goods or make a profit doing so. Thus the green revolution or its modern extension could not work in Africa. Thus an honest person might say that just improving the poor farmers lot by simple (sustainable) methods would be appropriate. However, the Greens do have too many rules about what is "sustainable" or "green" which hamstrings their suggestions.

Modern commercial agriculture would displace many small farmers, so it it probably politically untenable in Africa. The whites used to run large prosperous farms in parts of Africa, and look what happened to them.

The old green revolution, in its early stages concentrated on teaching individual farmers on small plots more productive methods, including new crops and use of fertilizers. It was tough to sell this to local farmers who were wedded to the ways that their ancestors farmed. Eventually, it worked, however. It is too bad that the Greens would rule out new crops or GM foods and the use of artificial fertilizers.
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#7
Africans are largely at the mercy of the advanced industrial states and all we need to know is how the DDT boycott has caused them millions of deaths. Not only does almost no one here or in Europe care,they don't KNOW it's been happening all this time.

What does that tell me about extreme environmentalists? Nothing nice.
Reply
#8
Palladin Wrote:Africans are largely at the mercy of the advanced industrial states and all we need to know is how the DDT boycott has caused them millions of deaths. Not only does almost no one here or in Europe care,they don't KNOW it's been happening all this time.

What does that tell me about extreme environmentalists? Nothing nice.

Carefull Patrick, you're going off the Deep End here. Wink1
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#9
We have a deep end?

Shock
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#10
JohnWho Wrote:We have a deep end?

Shock

Well Biker Dude/Jim seems to think so. but the truth is that the Euro socialists/Marxists have moved into the Green movement, and are dictating what other third world countries can and can't do. We have our share of them here in the US, and the DDT fiasco is the most blatant of them all.

It's no telling how many millions of Africans have died to malaria, and most of them are children. Yet it was the DDT ban that has been causing the lion's share of these deaths. So, just who is it, who is causing needless deaths in other places, with dangerous ideology and rules?

Over the top? Hardly.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#11
Malaria, Cholera and stuff in Africa, that's called AIDS now. Don't you need AIDS for your right-wing kook agenda?

And Patrick, get some DDT and try its effects on yourself. Unfortunately, you won't be long enough around to rebut your own BS.
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#12
quadrat Wrote:Malaria, Cholera and stuff in Africa, that's called AIDS now. Don't you need AIDS for your right-wing kook agenda?

And Patrick, get some DDT and try its effects on yourself. Unfortunately, you won't be long enough around to rebut your own BS.
DDT was banned AFTER a year-long scientific court ruled that it was harmless and so beneficial that any possible harmful effects (had they actually existed) would be far outweighed by its benefit. Ruckleshouse outlawed it by fiat in direct defiance to science.

He did it to empower the environmentalist movement and had Singer ellevated to sainthood for lying about the effects of DDT in her book Silent Spring.

The test she quoted from, actually stated that the brown pellicans and other species were actually more healthy after being exposed to DDT, than the control groups.
Reply
#13
I got to know a farmer here in Germany quite well. She explained that she is a Bio (organic) farmer partially out of conviction but more out of necessity. See artificial fertilizers and pesticides would indeed mean a larger higher quality harvest, but it would be larger than her family could harvest. She could hire help but then she'd have to pay them including benefits. Between the price of the fertilizer and pesticides plus additional labor it would be 6's. So instead she sells organic foods for ridiculous prices because the harvest is of manageable size for her family and the idiots in Germany are willing to pay 2-3 times as much for Bio products. The worst part there is no legal definition of Bio. It is on the honor code. So in a country that regulates everything they don't regulate the one term that protects their agriculture and allows them to still be profitable and instead allow them to abuse it and screw the consumer.
Reply
#14
TheMan Wrote:I got to know a farmer here in Germany quite well. She explained that she is a Bio (organic) farmer partially out of conviction but more out of necessity. See artificial fertilizers and pesticides would indeed mean a larger higher quality harvest, but it would be larger than her family could harvest. She could hire help but then she'd have to pay them including benefits. Between the price of the fertilizer and pesticides plus additional labor it would be 6's. So instead she sells organic foods for ridiculous prices because the harvest is of manageable size for her family and the idiots in Germany are willing to pay 2-3 times as much for Bio products. The worst part there is no legal definition of Bio. It is on the honor code. So in a country that regulates everything they don't regulate the one term that protects their agriculture and allows them to still be profitable and instead allow them to abuse it and screw the consumer.

That can, and Will, be rectified by the Krauts, who just LOVE rules.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#15
And speaking of the Rule....................of Law, there is this from GB, where common law no longer means anything.  Sooooo, am I over the top when I assail the Eco-Wackos?

Quote:Cleared: Jury decides that threat of global warming justifies breaking the law

By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor
Thursday, 11 September 2008


The threat of global warming is so great that campaigners were justified in causing more than £35,000 worth of damage to a coal-fired power station, a jury decided yesterday. In a verdict that will have shocked ministers and energy companies the jury at Maidstone Crown Court cleared six Greenpeace activists of criminal damage.


Jurors accepted defence arguments that the six had a "lawful excuse" to damage property at Kingsnorth power station in Kent to prevent even greater damage caused by climate change. The defence of "lawful excuse" under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 allows damage to be caused to property to prevent even greater damage – such as breaking down the door of a burning house to tackle a fire.

The not-guilty verdict, delivered after two days and greeted with cheers in the courtroom, raises the stakes for the most pressing issue on Britain's green agenda and could encourage further direct action.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#16
I can see the protection in law to protect someone for breaking down the door of a burning house to tackle a fire, but someone did not do their job in debunking the harm from AGW.
Reply
#17
That ruling isn't worse than lots of ours though. What is popular is what is legal,it's always been that way.

Slavery was illegal,it became legal,death penalty is unconstitutional,it is constitutional,etc. Popular opinion right now is with the AGW kookism,if the "justification" had been to save some one's life from a thug,they might have voted guilty. Innocent victims of criminals aren't so popular in western culture right now.

Concerning the DDT ban,if a state wants to ban it's use,it should and if said state wants to ban trade in products from states who use it,it should. But,to make an international ban like we did has caused countless millions of Africans to needlessly perish from malaria and if that's "off the deep end" I'm guilty because needlessly helping millions of finnocent folks to die early isn't my cup of tea. Then,most of us don't even know it,we have more significant causes,like the new shopping mall and whatnot.
Reply
#18
WmLambert Wrote:I can see the protection in law to protect someone for breaking down the door of a burning house to tackle a fire, but someone did not do their job in debunking the harm from AGW.

But Wm, global warming is mother earth burning up. Thus the plea must be valid. Have you no sensitivity? Wink1
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#19
TheMan Wrote:I got to know a farmer here in Germany quite well. She explained that she is a Bio (organic) farmer partially out of conviction but more out of necessity. See artificial fertilizers and pesticides would indeed mean a larger higher quality harvest, but it would be larger than her family could harvest. She could hire help but then she'd have to pay them including benefits. Between the price of the fertilizer and pesticides plus additional labor it would be 6's. So instead she sells organic foods for ridiculous prices because the harvest is of manageable size for her family and the idiots in Germany are willing to pay 2-3 times as much for Bio products. The worst part there is no legal definition of Bio. It is on the honor code. So in a country that regulates everything they don't regulate the one term that protects their agriculture and allows them to still be profitable and instead allow them to abuse it and screw the consumer.

Nice story. Creative thinking, realistic individualism. But, maybe JohnL is right: the bureaucrats will close this door. Too bad.
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#20
He may have, but the recent cooling may have given him a chill.

S2
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Junk Science Madness! sunsettommy 12 234 10-14-2019, 09:18 AM
Last Post: John L

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)