
I'm not fanatical about this stuff, and some uses of GMO crops wouldn't worry me (I don't think altering a crop to be immune to a herbicide, allowing you to spray as much as you like to control weeds is a good idea, though...)
Bollocks. I've addressed this all in the other thread, which you disappeared from like you always do when your understanding of the world is challenged.Forty Two wrote:Organic is not a laudable pursuit. It's a gimmick. And, it takes far more land to farm organically, which in and of itself is terrible for the environment.eRvin wrote:to be clearer, the problem isn't that organic isn't a laudable pursuit. It's that it is done in a terrible way in the US (and probably increasingly in other places).
Not unheard of in nature either. Stealing the feature you need, why not.JimC wrote:Yeah...![]()
I'm not fanatical about this stuff, and some uses of GMO crops wouldn't worry me (I don't think altering a crop to be immune to a herbicide, allowing you to spray as much as you like to control weeds is a good idea, though...)
Who knows? He generally only posts in threads about lefties cramping his freedums, so it was probably in one of them. It was a good few months ago.DRSB wrote:Where is this old thread?
Plant poo. We breathe in plant poo!DRSB wrote:Well, oxygen is toxic too, thank god we evolved with adaptations to deal with it and there is still the oxidation because it forms oxides with almost anything, and it is a waste product of photosynthesis.
So it makes sense to you to say that organic is worse for the environment because it takes up hypothetical land that renewables could go on? Even if it was taking up land, which it isn't, wind farms and agriculture are not incompatible. And even if it was taking up land that renewables could go on, that's only one measure of environmental utility and is therefore utterly useless to base definitive statements on.DRSB wrote:What I saw was logical to me, could not have put it any better.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests