Is Climate Change a uniquely serious problem

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
And we are NOT starting from the center. Everything in this country is now skewed to the right. Internationally our far left is considered moderate left; our moderate left is considered almost right leaning; our moderate right is considered extremist right

I think you are way off base. Of course how you define left and right is subjective... but historically speaking, American culture and media and academia have swung far to the left.

What used to be normal viewpoints are now nearly impossible to express in the on a college campus... just 20 years ago a student who wrote "David needs money to buy books for their classes" would be marked grammatically incorrect by any professor, now professors.who question this usage can be fired.

The real problem is the attempt by the left to snuff out any dissenting thought. JK Rowling comments about women and biology would were left of center just a couple of decades ago. Now she is being called a Nazi.

For those of you who do not see the political climate in the US as being further right than the political climate of most other developed countries...I think you are kidding yourselves.

Our "being religious" standard is MUCH higher than any other developed country; our "national healthcare" is last among developed countries; we're ranked #44 in Freedom of Press; we have BY FAR the highest incarceration rate...and we still live in a society where politicians of the right BRAG about their right wing credentials...and attempt to show they are the MOST conservative candidates...while almost NO liberals even mention the word liberal when campaigning.

Wake up, Everyone.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Is Cancer a "uniquely swrious disease"??

Yes, like cancer , climate change has the ability to send the planet into an unlivable state and can result in mass wxtinctions that are already being noted a serious.
The difference etween cancer and Climate Change is that NOONE is out there denying that cancer aint happening andwe dont really need to adress it.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

A serious response will listen to ideas from the people you call MAGAtards.

You mean such as "Trump won"? The "Q" crap? "Masks cause covid?" No, I think not. That's why they're labeled MAGAtards. I'm more than willing to dialogue with serious, thoughtful conservatives. There's a difference.

Quote:

And what about dropping this ideological opposition to geneticaly modified foods.

I'm not "ideologically opposed" to genetically-modified organisms being used for food.

Quote:

GM technology has already been shown to be a way to decrease carbon in the atmosphere.

Only if increased yields allow more cropland to revert to forest and pastures. There are other ways of directly reducing atmospheric CO2 so this is a secondary, unintended benefit. GMO-based agriculture has also been shown to raise some serious environmental concerns — because of the way the technology is employed. Even good ideas can result in harm if used irresponsibly.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

And what about dropping this ideological opposition to geneticaly modified foods. GM technology has already been shown to be a way to decrease carbon in the atmosphere.

You find all over Europe opposition to GMOs, by followers of all religions, political parties and people with and without ideologies.
Many think that it's a technology with high potential risks and no advantages except to the few firms that developed it.
Besides that, GMOs strengthen the highly industrialised agriculture. (That is my main argument, together with e.g. the conservatives and the Greens.)

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

That is my main argument, together with e.g. the conservatives and the Greens.

That's my argument as well. The way farmers are locked into contracts for copyrighted seeds and the fact that they're tied into certain methods of farming which require massive amounts of herbicides and the loss of genetic diversity. GMOs could have been introduced and employed differently but agribusiness and the big chemical companies pretty much require a certain scale to achieve profitability.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

maxdancona wrote:
And what about dropping this ideological opposition to geneticaly modified foods. GM technology has already been shown to be a way to decrease carbon in the atmosphere.

You find all over Europe opposition to GMOs, by followers of all religions, political parties and people with and without ideologies.
Many think that it's a technology with high potential risks and no advantages except to the few firms that developed it.
Besides that, GMOs strengthen the highly industrialised agriculture. (That is my main argument, together with e.g. the conservatives and the Greens.)

Good Answer! You are demonstrating my points.

1. The science brings into question this ideological opposition to GMOs. This is not a thread to debate this point, but I want to point this out.

2. Even if the opposition to GMOs were supported by science, look at what you are doing.

You are implying that these issues are more important (or at least equally important) to the problem of global warming. If climate change is the single most important crisis, than you deal with that crisis whatever it takes.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

You are implying that these issues are more important (or at least equally important) to the problem of global warming. If climate change is the single most important crisis, than you deal with that crisis whatever it takes.

You think that I'm implying something. Something, you like to read.

We do have more problems here than climate change - locally, regionally, statewide, in the Federal Republic, in the EU.

My response was a generalised response to GMOs.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

You are demonstrating my points.

Actually I didn't at all.
We don't have and never had had an "ideological opposition to geneticaly modified foods".
To demonstrate that, I mentioned those two different "ideologies" besides "my ideology". [Clarifying: I don't have nor follow an ideology. And neither (our) conservatives nor the Greens have something what is called "ideology" - with the exemption that the extreme right finds a "green ideology", but not exclusively with the Greens.]

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

GMO;s have a possibility to cause larval damage to helpful insects just like certain genetic pesticides.

0 Replies

@hightor,

When farmers cultivate genetically modified varieties, they have to pay technology fees to the seed breeding companies that hold the patents (and in the case of rapeseed, maize and soya, sell the herbicide at the same time). They can then only cultivate their own crops after obtaining permission from the patent holder and paying the fees. This means that the use of agro-genetic engineering increases farmers' dependence on a few seed companies, because they can no longer decide on their own about cultivation measures, the use of sprays and fertilisers, the handling of the harvest and marketing.

The market for genetically modified seeds is shared by six multinationals: Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, Dow, BASF and DuPont/Pioneer. All of them are chemical companies by origin.

According to the motto "learning from genetic engineering means learning to win", the corporations are increasingly trying to claim patent protection for conventionally bred animals and plants as well as for conventional breeding methods.
According to the European Patent Convention (EPC), patents on conventional breeding methods are prohibited. This means that the processes are not patentable, but the products are. In this way, the corporations have asserted their interests.

0 Replies

Is Climate Change a uniquely serious problem

Quick Links

My Account

able2know