From: Billy on
In article
<b108b083-2527-4533-ba7a-20b6df328150(a)z17g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,
Dinosaur_Sr <frostback(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote:

> On Apr 26, 4:28�pm, Billy <wildbi...(a)withouta.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <0d8c0a78-d8ad-4c7c-8990-54cd79178...(a)s9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> > �Dinosaur_Sr <frostb...(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 18, 7:39 am, Alan Campbell
> > > <greenkee...(a)xxxalancampbell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > In message
> > > > <c66ecbb5-46fe-411f-8ab1-bb518758b...(a)q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > Manco <musefan2...(a)gmail.com> writes>Of course golf course keepers use
> > > > tons
> > > > of chemicals to kill any weeds
> > > > >on the greens and fairways.
> >
> > > > Thats a bit of a myth, most diseases and weeds etc can be controlled by
> > > > cultural practices. Furthermore, amenity ground comes under much
> > > > stricter control than agriculture and horticulture.
> >
> > > > --
> > > > Alan Campbell
> >
> > > That's true. and some places do this, and at least in my experience,
> > > you will always get a few weeds on the greens, which is a good sign,
> > > IMHO. I wonder if they teach this in the greenskeepers programs in US
> > > universities?
> >
> > > One thing I have also seen is the herbicides damage the soil
> > > ecosystem, resulting in algal and fungal outbreaks attacking the
> > > greens as a result, for which they use even more chemicals.
> >
> > > Had a neighbour who used a company called chemlawn to keep his lawn.
> > > Beautiful green lawn. Sold the house and the new owner didn't keep up
> > > the chemlawn. Totally dead lawn within a year, and needed to resod.
> >
> > And just using chemical fertilizers (chemferts), reduces the organic
> > content of the soil, which requires more chemferts to achieve similar
> > results (yields), which becomes a feedback loop.
> > --
>
>
> Not necessarily. Farmers and others who use these chemicals are
> getting pretty good at not overusing them. It's not like the old
> Soviet Union. If nothing else, the chemicals are expensive, and you
> want to use as little as possible for purely financial reasons. Fact
> is you can use chemical fertilizers in a way that doesn't damage the
> soil ecosystem.

You seem to only know how to talk. Can't you listen?



Erosion
A major environmental concern known as topsoil erosion occurs when the
topsoil layer is blown or washed away. Without topsoil, little plant
life is possible. It takes approximately 100 years for 1�inch (2.5�cm)
of topsoil to be deposited, if there is the correct ratio of organic
material, inorganic material, and moisture. This can be improved by
using the terra preta system. However, there are 25 billion tons of
topsoil lost each year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topsoil

Water is conserved by forests that we've cut down.

Water is cleaned by wetlands.

There is a giant dead zone at the mouth of the Mississippi and all other
major rivers because of the excess nitrate fertilizers that farmers use.
Tap water in some areas of the Mid-West are hazardous to infants.

The over application of chemferts speeding up the disappearance of
organic material from the soil (humus), requiring ever larger
applications of
chemferts. This excessive application of chemferts poisons potable
water, as in our mid-west, and creates huge dead zones in the ocean at
the mouths of rivers, that used to teem with sea food for human
consumption.

That bit on humus is also very important because it conserves water, and
only about .35% of the water in the world is drinkable, but then you
probably knew that.

All the material is in:

Teaming with Microbes: A Gardener's Guide to the Soil Food Web
Jeff Lowenfels and Wayne Lewis
<http://www.amazon.com/Teaming-Microbes-Gardeners-Guide-Soil/dp/088192777
5/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206815176&sr=1-1>
At the bottom of the soil food web are bacteria and fungi, which are
attracted to and consume plant root exudates. In turn, they attract and
are eaten _by bigger microbes, specifically nematodes and protozoa
(remember the _amoebae, paramecia, flagellates, and ciliates you should
have studied in biology?), who eat bacteria and fungi (primarily for
carbon) to fuel their metabolic_ functions. Anything they don't need is
excreted as wastes, which plant roots are _readily able to absorb as
nutrients. How convenient that this production of_ plant nutrients takes
place right in the rhizosphere, the site of root-nutrient_ absorption.
At the center of any viable soil food web are plants. Plants control the
food_ web for their own benefit, an amazing fact that is too little
understood and_ surely not appreciated by gardeners who are constantly
interfering with Nature's system. Studies indicate that individual
plants can control the numbers_ and the different kinds of fungi and
bacteria attracted to the rhizosphere by the exudates they produce.
During different times of the growing season, populations of rhizosphere
bacteria and fungi wax and wane, depending on the nutrient needs of the
plant and the exudates it produces.
Soil bacteria and fungi are like small bags of fertilizer, retaining in
their_ bodies nitrogen and other nutrients they gain from root exudates
and other _organic matter (such as those sloughed-off root-tip cells).
Carrying on the _analogy, soil protozoa and nematodes act as �fertilizer
spreaders" by releasing ,_the nutrients locked up in the bacteria and
fungi �fertilizer bags." The nematodes and protozoa in the soil come
along and eat the bacteria and fungi in the,_ rhizosphere. They digest
what they need to survive and excrete excess carbon_ and other nutrients
as waste.
Left to their own devices, then, plants produce exudates that attract
fungi_ and bacteria (and, ultimately, nematodes and protozoa); their
survival depends on the interplay between these microbes. It is a
completely natural system, the very same one that has fueled plants
since they evolved. Soil life provides the nutrients needed for plant
life, and plants initiate and fuel the cycle_ by producing exudates.

Chemical fertilizers negatively impact the soil food web by killing off
entire_ portions of it. What gardener hasn't seen what table salt does
to a slug? Fertilizers are salts; they suck the water out of the
bacteria, fungi, protozoa, and_ nematodes in the soil. Since these
microbes are at the very foundation of the_ soil food web nutrient
system, you have to keep adding fertilizer once you start_ using it
regularly. The microbiology is missing and not there to do its job,
feeding the plants.
It makes sense that once the bacteria, fungi, nematodes, and protozoa
are_ gone, other members of the food web disappear as well. Earthworms,
for example, lacking food and irritated by the synthetic nitrates in
soluble nitrogen_ fertilizers, move out. Since they are major shredders
of organic material, their_ absence is a great loss. Without the
activity and diversity of a healthy food web, you not only impact the
nutrient system but all the other things a healthy soil_ food web
brings. Soil structure deteriorates, watering can become problematic,"_
pathogens and pests establish themselves and, worst of all, gardening
becomes_ a lot more work than it needs to be.
If the salt-based chemical fertilizers don't kill portions of the soil
food web, rototilling will. This gardening rite of spring breaks up
fungal hyphae, decimates worms, and rips and crushes arthropods. It
destroys soil structure and_ eventually saps soil of necessary air.
Again, this means more work for you in_ the end. Air pollution,
pesticides, fungicides, and herbicides, too, kill off important members
of the food web community or �chase" them away. Any chain_ is only as
strong as its weakest link: if there is a gap in the soil food web, the
system will break down and stop functioning properly.


Gaia's Garden, Second Edition: A Guide To Home-Scale Permaculture
(Paperback)
by Toby Hemenway
<http://www.amazon.com/Gaias-Garden-Second-Home-Scale-Permaculture/dp/160
3580298/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271266976&sr=1-1>
Where humus really excels is in holding nutrients. The humus molecule
illustrated below shows that, from an atom's-eye viewpoint, the face
that humus presents to the world is a bristling array of oxygen atoms.
Oxygen has a strong negative charge, and in chemistry, as in much of
life, opposites attract. Thus, humus's many negative oxygen atoms serve
as "bait" for luring lots of positively charged elements. These include
some of the most important nutrients for both plants and soil animals:
potassium, calcium, magnesium, ammonium (a nitrogen compound), copper,
zinc, manganese, and many others. Under the right conditions (in soil
with a pH near 7, that is, neither too acid nor too alkaline), humus can
pick up and store enormous quantities of positively charged nutrients.

How do these nutrients move from the humus to plants? Plant roots, as
noted, secrete very mild acids which break the bonds that hold the
nutrients onto the humus. The nutrients from humus are washed into the
soil moisture, creating a rich soup. Bathed in this nutritious broth,
the plants can absorb as much calcium, ammonium, or other nutrient as
they need. There's evidence to suggest that when plants have supped long
enough, they stop the flow of acid to avoid depleting the humus.

That's the direct method plants use to pull nutrients from humus. Just
as common in healthy soil is an indirect route, in which microbes are
the middlemen. This type of plant feeding involves an exchange. Roots
secrete sugars and vitamins that are ideal food for beneficial bacteria
and fungi. These microbes thrive in huge numbers close to roots and even
attach to them, lapping up the plant-made food and bathing in the film
of moisture that surrounds the roots. In return, the microbes produce
acids and enzymes that release the humus-bound nutrients and share this
food with the plants.

Microbes also excrete food for plants in their waste. One more big plus
for plants is that many of the fungi and other microbes secrete
antibiotics that protect the plants from disease. All of these mutual
exchanges create a truly symbiotic relationship. Many plants have become
dependent on particular species of microbial partners and grow poorly
without them. Even when the plant-microbe partnership isn't this
specific, plants often grow much faster when microbes are present than
they do in a sterile or microbe-depleted environment.

Oh, yeah there's a couple of good riffs in:
The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals by Michael Pollan
<http://www.amazon.com/Omnivores-Dilemma-Natural-History-Meals/dp/0143038
583/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206815576&sr=1-1>
The reason Greene County is no longer green for half the year is because
the farmer who can buy synthetic fertility no longer needs cover crops
to capture a whole year's worth of sunlight he has plugged himself into
a new source of energy. When you add together the natural gas in the
fertilizer to the fossil fuels it takes to make the pesticides, drive
the tractors, and harvest, dry, and transport the corn, you find that
every bushel of industrial corn requires the equivalent of between a
quarter and a third of a gallon of oil to grow it�or around fifty
gallons of oil per acre of corn. (Some estimates are much higher.) Put
another way, it takes more than a calorie of fossil fuel energy to
produce a calorie of food before the advent of chemical fertilizer the
Naylor farm produced more than two calories of food energy for every
calorie of energy invested.
From the standpoint of industrial efficiency, it's too bad we can't
simply drink the petroleum directly.
----

You have some serious holes in your view of the environment.
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUg
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/HZinn_page.html
From: Dinosaur_Sr on
On Apr 28, 5:43 pm, Billy <wildbi...(a)withouta.net> wrote:
> In article
> <38785119-fcc1-4662-8ded-b2227cb24...(a)d19g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>  Dinosaur_Sr <frostb...(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 28, 2:53 pm, Billy <wildbi...(a)withouta.net> wrote:
> > wrote:
>
> > snippitall
>
> > If you read UN propaganda, the idea is for the ban to be universal.
> > That's what they really want.
>
> > As for the effectiveness of chemical agriculture, you would have to go
> > back to the studies of the 1940's and 1950's and look at Norman
> > Borlaug and his work, it's rationale and how well it did in fact work.
> > One can spin the issues after the fact, but the fact remains that
> > prior to the green revolution many parts of the world could not feed
> > themselves, and now they can, because of chemical agriculture.
>
> > As for our culture, the rationale is simply that you get higher yields
> > with the chemicals, and that more than offsets to costs. Grow food to
> > feed to bugs or grow it to feed to people. Again, you would have to go
> > back to the mid 20th century and look at agriculture literature for
> > that time.
>
> > Resistance comes from overuse. The solution is simply, you use a
> > variety of pesticides over time. When resistance to one emerges, you
> > switch to another. If you are co-ordinated in your use you can deal
> > with the issue. We take the time to deal with the problem and use the
> > chemicals, with cotton, but not malaria. The only reason for this, and
> > this is a fact to me, is that we value cotton far more than the lives
> > of people in regions infested with malaria.
>
> > We probably use DDT so much because it is relatively begin, and it was
> > discovered early on. We could use other chemicals just as easy I
> > suppose. As for chemical use in general, I can't see free farmers
> > using chemicals without reason. If they could get the yields without
> > the chemicals, they would do it; as evidenced by the popularity of
> > GMOs that reduce chemical use.
>
> > I personally do not doubt that if we stopped using chemicals we would
> > have to spend a lot more of our time and wealth on agriculture. Get
> > more urban deadbeats out of their mom's basement and out in the field
> > harvesting crops. A Khmer Rouge like society I suppose.
>
> > We live how we live at the end of the day. Cheap food gives us extra
> > wealth to support more and more people doing nothing and being fed,
> > clothed and housed; even get health insurance! Make food more
> > expensive, and we have less to waste on deadbeats. No real problem for
> > me, but others might not like it so much if food prices started going
> > up!
>
> > Other than direct sources, like say a government bill or UN resolution
> > that you can get online, I don't put too much stock in online sources
> > for complex highly politicized issues like this. More spin than fact,
> > and I don't buy politics in general. FWIW, I'm fairly "conservative"
> > on fiscal issues and considered very "liberal" on social issues. In my
> > experience, liberal sycophants are more aggressive in tearing me down
> > for my views than conservatives, even though I almost totally reject
> > the conservative social agenda.
>
> So, the long and the short of it is, you don't have a citation. You have
> nothing to base your conjecture on. You just pull it out of the air.
> --
> - Billy
> "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
> merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUghttp://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/HZinn_page.html

So you are just trolling after all. Fool me once.....
From: John B. on
On Apr 28, 10:56 am, Dinosaur_Sr <frostb...(a)dukesofbiohazard.com>
wrote:
> On Apr 28, 9:22 am, "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 28, 8:55 am, Dinosaur_Sr <frostb...(a)dukesofbiohazard.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 28, 5:53 am, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "Alan Baker" <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:alangbaker-CA12CD.01203628042010(a)news.shawcable.com...
>
> > > > > In article
>
> > > > > > Maybe you should read my post before you respond. One thing for sure.
> > > > > > I can't talk to someone who doesn't understand what I say. For
> > > > > > example, I never said water quality had anything to do with malaria.
> > > > > > Either you are a sack of hammers or a troll.
>
> > > > Speaking of a troll, read the following.....
>
> > > > > You said (and I quote):
>
> > > > > "if the money wasted on DDT were spent on water quality, hundreds of
> > > > > millions would not get malaria"
>
> > > > > How can that be interpreted in any other way but that you said that
> > > > > water quality *does* have something to do with malaria?
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > Uncle Al, the kiddy's pal
> > > > > Vancouver, British Columbia
>
> > > > -Greg
>
> > > I generally don't read Baker. He is one of those people who absolutely
> > > refuses to understand what people are saying in their posts.
>
> > > If Al or John don't understand what I said in that post, that's their
> > > problem. It's pretty clear what I am saying. It just stands as a good
> > > example of why you shouldn't respond to such people at all...a level
> > > of consciousness thing, IMHO.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> >  The fact is that you said increased spending on water quality would
> > reduce the incidence of malaria in the developing world. Either
> > explain it or admit that it's wrong. That's a little tougher than
> > suggesting that I'm dumb or obstuse, isn't it?
>
> I can't do anything if you don't understand what I write. It's clear
> to me, and that's the best I can do.
>
> But IMHO your problem isn't so much that you are stupid as you are a
> political dupe. You just by the party line "liberal". The pesticide
> issue is a good example of the harm this sort of approach causes, as
> well as an example of selfish behavior and even the nobility of many
> greens-keepers (ie golf content!).
>
> While DDT is hardly begin, it's not even close to the most toxic of
> insecticides in use. One can look at a crop like cotton, which
> classically needs 10 sprayings of pesticides per crop. It also is very
> hard on the soil, and fertilizers are also needed. It can easily be
> argued that cotton is the most environmentally damaging of all
> crops...so why not ban it? It does more harm that DDT ever could..so
> ban it, right...no wait, the minions at earth cookie central like
> their cotton clothing. They hate things like polyester! Yuk!
>
> Being anti-DDT as your means of being anti chemical costs your basic
> upper east side twit nothing. We can use other pesticides to replace
> DDT, and so what if they may be more harmful...they aren't DDT! So
> onto the DDT bandwagon we go, and so what if millions in developing
> countries die...we can come up with alternatives...nets and bug
> zappers..there ya go! Think you will see the upper east side earth
> cookie living 24/7 the lifestyle of some poor person in a malaria
> infested part of rural Africa, relying on nets and bug zappers to
> protect him from malaria.
>
> If we spent the money on malaria that we spend on cotton
> pesticidewise, I doubt anyone would get malaria...but Johnny cares
> about his cotton shorts more than he cares about the lives of people
> in malaria infested parts of the world, and that is an observable
> matter of fact for which laments of opinion ring totally hollow.
>
> Would it or would it not be an interesting and worthwhile experiment
> to have people from malaria infested parts of the world choose which
> pesticides to ban, and where to invest our pesticide
> resources...rather than people in the US and western Europe? Would
> probably save a lot of lives, and put Johnny in polyester shorts...a
> trade he would not actually make, as we can observe.
>
> The golf content here is that greenskeepers have an interesting
> challenge. They have to keep weeds of Johnny's green's, we can't have
> that! But those pesticides are expensive and toxic. I cannot imagine a
> greenskeeper wanting to use pesticides if they didn't have to because
> of the toxicity issue, nor a golf course owner wanting to use them
> because of the cost. But your upper east side earth cookie golfer will
> not stand for weeds on the greens...so what to do? Find less toxic,
> cheaper alternatives that you don't have to use as much...and I
> suspect they have! Ordinary market economics solving a problem!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Once again, the DDT ban has not increased mortality from malaria in
developing countries, because it is not in effect in developing
countries. DDT is still widely used in countries with high rates of
malaria.

Your little diatribe here is long on rhetoric and pretty well devoid
of facts. You have completely failed to demonstrate any material harm
that the absence of DDT has caused.
From: John B. on
On Apr 29, 8:10 am, Dinosaur_Sr <frostb...(a)dukesofbiohazard.com>
wrote:
> On Apr 28, 5:43 pm, Billy <wildbi...(a)withouta.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <38785119-fcc1-4662-8ded-b2227cb24...(a)d19g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >  Dinosaur_Sr <frostb...(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 28, 2:53 pm, Billy <wildbi...(a)withouta.net> wrote:
> > > wrote:
>
> > > snippitall
>
> > > If you read UN propaganda, the idea is for the ban to be universal.
> > > That's what they really want.
>
> > > As for the effectiveness of chemical agriculture, you would have to go
> > > back to the studies of the 1940's and 1950's and look at Norman
> > > Borlaug and his work, it's rationale and how well it did in fact work..
> > > One can spin the issues after the fact, but the fact remains that
> > > prior to the green revolution many parts of the world could not feed
> > > themselves, and now they can, because of chemical agriculture.
>
> > > As for our culture, the rationale is simply that you get higher yields
> > > with the chemicals, and that more than offsets to costs. Grow food to
> > > feed to bugs or grow it to feed to people. Again, you would have to go
> > > back to the mid 20th century and look at agriculture literature for
> > > that time.
>
> > > Resistance comes from overuse. The solution is simply, you use a
> > > variety of pesticides over time. When resistance to one emerges, you
> > > switch to another. If you are co-ordinated in your use you can deal
> > > with the issue. We take the time to deal with the problem and use the
> > > chemicals, with cotton, but not malaria. The only reason for this, and
> > > this is a fact to me, is that we value cotton far more than the lives
> > > of people in regions infested with malaria.
>
> > > We probably use DDT so much because it is relatively begin, and it was
> > > discovered early on. We could use other chemicals just as easy I
> > > suppose. As for chemical use in general, I can't see free farmers
> > > using chemicals without reason. If they could get the yields without
> > > the chemicals, they would do it; as evidenced by the popularity of
> > > GMOs that reduce chemical use.
>
> > > I personally do not doubt that if we stopped using chemicals we would
> > > have to spend a lot more of our time and wealth on agriculture. Get
> > > more urban deadbeats out of their mom's basement and out in the field
> > > harvesting crops. A Khmer Rouge like society I suppose.
>
> > > We live how we live at the end of the day. Cheap food gives us extra
> > > wealth to support more and more people doing nothing and being fed,
> > > clothed and housed; even get health insurance! Make food more
> > > expensive, and we have less to waste on deadbeats. No real problem for
> > > me, but others might not like it so much if food prices started going
> > > up!
>
> > > Other than direct sources, like say a government bill or UN resolution
> > > that you can get online, I don't put too much stock in online sources
> > > for complex highly politicized issues like this. More spin than fact,
> > > and I don't buy politics in general. FWIW, I'm fairly "conservative"
> > > on fiscal issues and considered very "liberal" on social issues. In my
> > > experience, liberal sycophants are more aggressive in tearing me down
> > > for my views than conservatives, even though I almost totally reject
> > > the conservative social agenda.
>
> > So, the long and the short of it is, you don't have a citation. You have
> > nothing to base your conjecture on. You just pull it out of the air.
> > --
> > - Billy
> > "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
> > merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUghttp://www.thirdworldtravel...
>
> So you are just trolling after all. Fool me once.....- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Trolling? Billy has provided more emprical information in this one
post than you have in everything you've ever posted.
From: Billy on
In article
<15e09b22-77d6-4c3a-9cca-dd9fd5de7cdf(a)y36g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Dinosaur_Sr <frostback(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote:

> On Apr 28, 5:43�pm, Billy <wildbi...(a)withouta.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <38785119-fcc1-4662-8ded-b2227cb24...(a)d19g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> > �Dinosaur_Sr <frostb...(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 28, 2:53�pm, Billy <wildbi...(a)withouta.net> wrote:
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > snippitall
> >
> > > If you read UN propaganda, the idea is for the ban to be universal.
> > > That's what they really want.
> >
> > > As for the effectiveness of chemical agriculture, you would have to go
> > > back to the studies of the 1940's and 1950's and look at Norman
> > > Borlaug and his work, it's rationale and how well it did in fact work.
> > > One can spin the issues after the fact, but the fact remains that
> > > prior to the green revolution many parts of the world could not feed
> > > themselves, and now they can, because of chemical agriculture.
> >
> > > As for our culture, the rationale is simply that you get higher yields
> > > with the chemicals, and that more than offsets to costs. Grow food to
> > > feed to bugs or grow it to feed to people. Again, you would have to go
> > > back to the mid 20th century and look at agriculture literature for
> > > that time.
> >
> > > Resistance comes from overuse. The solution is simply, you use a
> > > variety of pesticides over time. When resistance to one emerges, you
> > > switch to another. If you are co-ordinated in your use you can deal
> > > with the issue. We take the time to deal with the problem and use the
> > > chemicals, with cotton, but not malaria. The only reason for this, and
> > > this is a fact to me, is that we value cotton far more than the lives
> > > of people in regions infested with malaria.
> >
> > > We probably use DDT so much because it is relatively begin, and it was
> > > discovered early on. We could use other chemicals just as easy I
> > > suppose. As for chemical use in general, I can't see free farmers
> > > using chemicals without reason. If they could get the yields without
> > > the chemicals, they would do it; as evidenced by the popularity of
> > > GMOs that reduce chemical use.
> >
> > > I personally do not doubt that if we stopped using chemicals we would
> > > have to spend a lot more of our time and wealth on agriculture. Get
> > > more urban deadbeats out of their mom's basement and out in the field
> > > harvesting crops. A Khmer Rouge like society I suppose.
> >
> > > We live how we live at the end of the day. Cheap food gives us extra
> > > wealth to support more and more people doing nothing and being fed,
> > > clothed and housed; even get health insurance! Make food more
> > > expensive, and we have less to waste on deadbeats. No real problem for
> > > me, but others might not like it so much if food prices started going
> > > up!
> >
> > > Other than direct sources, like say a government bill or UN resolution
> > > that you can get online, I don't put too much stock in online sources
> > > for complex highly politicized issues like this. More spin than fact,
> > > and I don't buy politics in general. FWIW, I'm fairly "conservative"
> > > on fiscal issues and considered very "liberal" on social issues. In my
> > > experience, liberal sycophants are more aggressive in tearing me down
> > > for my views than conservatives, even though I almost totally reject
> > > the conservative social agenda.
> >
> > So, the long and the short of it is, you don't have a citation. You have
> > nothing to base your conjecture on. You just pull it out of the air.
> > --
> > - Billy
> > "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
> > merger of state and corporate power." - Benito
> > Mussolini.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUghttp://www.thirdworldtra
> > veler.com/Zinn/HZinn_page.html
>
> So you are just trolling after all. Fool me once.....

I give citations, and you don't, and I'm the troll???

You said you were a teacher. Do you let students write reports without
supporting evidence, citations, bibliographies?

You are, indeed, a dinosaur. Living in your own little bubble, insulated
from reality.
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUg
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/HZinn_page.html