• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should we allow people to die?

On food and energy brought from earth. Any more brain busters?

I see that they have upgraded since the day of tube food. All good. My bad.


We don't have to just stop all current food production to reach the desired goal of getting off GMO's or fuel based production. Millions aren't just gonna die for this goal to happen.

They were being dramatic and you are being hissy about some doomsday no food death scenario. Get a grip.
 
Every now and then, people show you their true colors.

I spent the last few days riding around in a car with a lesbian photographer from Colorado and a Belgian lady.... needless to say, both were uber-liberal.... and needless to say, we got in to some political debates.

We started to talk about food and energy. Typical of liberal opinion, they felt that the United States is way behind, that we're awful for being the champions of fossil fuels and genetically engineered food, and that we should be more like Europe in our support of non-modified food and alternative fuels.

I calmly let them know my opinion: Liberals are influenced by European thought, and Europeans 1.) don't have many fossil fuels and 2.) don't have a lot of sunlight or land to farm. It's in Europe's self-interest to create a world of alternative energy and in which food production can be kept local.

They had never heard this argument before, and I could tell it sparked thought in them. The lady from Belgium started to agree somewhat with me, but the lesbian from Colorado started to dig in her liberal heels.

I then put the final nail in the coffin.... "If we didn't have cheap fossil fuels that we can easily transport, and if we didn't have these super-crops we have today, we could never support the population levels we have today. There is no way on earth we could ever feed the whole world like we are doing now.

This argument cut deep, and neither one said anything for about 2 minutes.


Their reply, when it finally came, shocked me. But I think it struck at the heart of how liberals think.

"Sometimes we just need to let people die. It's for the good of the earth. Famine and death are part of how the earth regulates itself. I don't think we should help people in any other part of the world."

Wow, was I ever shocked. What a horrible, ugly thing to say! In my opinion, we have a responsibility to our fellow human beings. I let them know that. And we were at an impasse.

So I leave it to you. Do we have a responsibility to our fellow human beings to create enough food and energy to keep them alive, or should we switch to windmills and organic food so that Europe can be wealthier?

GE crops have not resulted in any significant increase in food production. There is little chance it will do anything to help feed an increasing population

And as far as letting people die, I thought that was the right wings official health care policy
 
This might be hard for you, but try to follow along. I'll try to use small words.

Farm equipment runs on mostly petroleum. Fertilizers are mostly petroleum based. If you cut petroleum production, we would not be able to produce as much food.

GMO's are genetically modified crops that increase food output, sometimes dramatically. If you banned them, you wouldn't be able to produce as much food.


If you have less food, you will have less people.

Here's some small words for you:

Tractors, chemical fertilizers and fossil fuels are not needed to farm and GE crops do not significantly increase production
 
How do astronauts live while in space?

Yes but do you have mic control? Cause I wake up in the morning and its hard live. Hard to live yes its hard to live. And it will be a long time before **** starts to give
But I would up for being down with the ho.
 
So I leave it to you. Do we have a responsibility to our fellow human beings to create enough food and energy to keep them alive, or should we switch to windmills and organic food so that Europe can be wealthier?

Yes, we do, and genetically modified foods are a big part of that. And unless these people are subsisting on wild berries, they're eating modified foods. We've been creating and consuming mutant varieties of food using radiation for more than half a century. I love red grapefruit and Italian pasta. I'm not dead yet.

Delicious mutant foods: Mutagenesis and the genetic modification controversy | Genetic Literacy Project
 
Ah right, so when you are caught using a logical fallacy you double down on it. Carry on.

I'm not sold on the tractor v. butterfly fart theory, but fossil fuels play a large role in providing cheap and plentiful fertilizers and pesticides. Even natural gas, which is a relatively clean fuel, is used extensively in the production of nitrogen-based fertilizers.
 
I'm not sold on the tractor v. butterfly fart theory, but fossil fuels play a large role in providing cheap and plentiful fertilizers and pesticides. Even natural gas, which is a relatively clean fuel, is used extensively in the production of nitrogen-based fertilizers.

Fertilizers derived from (or produced using) fossil fuels are not cheap. They represent a major expense for farmers and their cost is increasing.
 
Should we allow people to die?


Of course they should be allowed.
In more ways than one.


Humanity should not exacerbate the problem by feeding the starving.

Humans are an animal species and should be managed.
 
Guy drives around for days with two women and argues politics. ****ing hell. :roll:

So who did you nail first, the lady from Belgium or the lesbian from Colorado? Most men would have agreed with Eva Braun to get a blow job. You? No. You want to level up on politics. Brilliant.
 
Fertilizers derived from (or produced using) fossil fuels are not cheap. They represent a major expense for farmers and their cost is increasing.

Let me put it this way. The U.S. has a competitive advantage in the large-scale production of nitrogen-based fertilizers precisely because we have access to cheap natural gas. No one is stopping farmers from using organic fertilizers, but, while often cheaper per pound (or ton), organics end up costing more because they're less concentrated.

Chemical Fertilizer vs Organic Fertilizer - Difference and Comparison | Diffen
 
Every now and then, people show you their true colors.

I spent the last few days riding around in a car with a lesbian photographer from Colorado and a Belgian lady.... needless to say, both were uber-liberal.... and needless to say, we got in to some political debates.

We started to talk about food and energy. Typical of liberal opinion, they felt that the United States is way behind, that we're awful for being the champions of fossil fuels and genetically engineered food, and that we should be more like Europe in our support of non-modified food and alternative fuels.

I calmly let them know my opinion: Liberals are influenced by European thought, and Europeans 1.) don't have many fossil fuels and 2.) don't have a lot of sunlight or land to farm. It's in Europe's self-interest to create a world of alternative energy and in which food production can be kept local.

They had never heard this argument before, and I could tell it sparked thought in them. The lady from Belgium started to agree somewhat with me, but the lesbian from Colorado started to dig in her liberal heels.

I then put the final nail in the coffin.... "If we didn't have cheap fossil fuels that we can easily transport, and if we didn't have these super-crops we have today, we could never support the population levels we have today. There is no way on earth we could ever feed the whole world like we are doing now.

This argument cut deep, and neither one said anything for about 2 minutes.


Their reply, when it finally came, shocked me. But I think it struck at the heart of how liberals think.

"Sometimes we just need to let people die. It's for the good of the earth. Famine and death are part of how the earth regulates itself. I don't think we should help people in any other part of the world."

Wow, was I ever shocked. What a horrible, ugly thing to say! In my opinion, we have a responsibility to our fellow human beings. I let them know that. And we were at an impasse.

So I leave it to you. Do we have a responsibility to our fellow human beings to create enough food and energy to keep them alive, or should we switch to windmills and organic food so that Europe can be wealthier?
Aren't you one of the people that routinely rails against welfare and safety nets and would be fine if people perished to decrease the surplus population? Or, at least got them out of your wallet?

Regardless, what were you doing that necessitated you riding around in a car with "a lesbian photographer from Colorado and a Belgian lady"?
 
Last edited:
Let me put it this way. The U.S. has a competitive advantage in the large-scale production of nitrogen-based fertilizers precisely because we have access to cheap natural gas. No one is stopping farmers from using organic fertilizers, but, while often cheaper per pound (or ton), organics end up costing more because they're less concentrated.

Chemical Fertilizer vs Organic Fertilizer - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

Compost is free. It doesn't get any cheaper than that.

IOW, your blog link makes a dishonest comparison by assuming that farms must purchase fertilizer.

I'll also note that your link points out some of the advantages of organic fertilizers that synths do not provide
Adds natural nutrients to soil, increases soil organic matter, improves soil structure and tilth, improves water holding capacity, reduces soil crusting problems, reduces erosion from wind and water, Slow and consistent release of nutrients,
 
Remember kids, because we're currently using certain technologies, we can't replace them with newer and better ones!
There are only two potential driving forces behind technological change: need and economy (aka profit).

Hence, in spite of all our talk, we will only turn to alternative technologies if our existing technologies (fossil fuels, for example) run out, or if there's money to be made from alternatives. Not a day sooner.
 
Guy drives around for days with two women and argues politics. ****ing hell. :roll:

So who did you nail first, the lady from Belgium or the lesbian from Colorado? Most men would have agreed with Eva Braun to get a blow job. You? No. You want to level up on politics. Brilliant.
I nominate this for Post of the Day.
 
Aren't you one of the people that routinely rails against welfare and safety nets and would be fine if people perished to decrease the surplus population? Or, at least got them out of your wallet?

Regardless, what were you doing that necessitated you riding around in a car with "a lesbian photographer from Colorado and a Belgian lady"?

Nope, pretty sure you got me mixed up with someone else.... although I do think welfare is a sham. Make people work for a living.

I contracted the ladies to help me do an ad campaign. In spite of their horrific political views, both women are very talented in the advertising industry and, if it'll make me a buck, I'd spend a week living in an igloo.
 
Guy drives around for days with two women and argues politics. ****ing hell. :roll:

So who did you nail first, the lady from Belgium or the lesbian from Colorado? Most men would have agreed with Eva Braun to get a blow job. You? No. You want to level up on politics. Brilliant.

They're both in their 50's. I'm in my 30's.
 
Tractors can be powered by electric motors.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

Yeah let's replace every tractor in Africa with an electric version.... because that's totally feasible. Any other bright ideas? Should we give everyone there a flatscreen too?
 
Compost is free. It doesn't get any cheaper than that.

Nothing is "free." If you're talking about compost for large-scale production, you still need to transport it, store it, and apply it, and unless the farmer is generating his own compost he still has to pay for it.
 
Nothing is "free." If you're talking about compost for large-scale production, you still need to transport it, store it, and apply it, and unless the farmer is generating his own compost he still has to pay for it.

No, there are a variety of practices (no-till, green fertilizer, cover cropping, intensive rotaional grazing etc) which either eliminate those concerns or greatly reduces them and if by "large scale production" you're referring to huge corporate farms, then we don't need them.
 
How about a non-biased, non-loaded fair poll ?
I do not care for the "lesbian" reference .. what difference can this make ?
When a man's time has come , I do favor that he be allowed to die .. in dignity, NOT on life support ..
One reason why we "liberals" follow Europe is that they are simply ahead of us, as well they should be ,,

why should they be ahead of us on things like this? If we're always going to follow, we may as well at least try not to be 20 freaking years behind, don't ya think?
 
There are only two potential driving forces behind technological change: need and economy (aka profit).

Hence, in spite of all our talk, we will only turn to alternative technologies if our existing technologies (fossil fuels, for example) run out, or if there's money to be made from alternatives. Not a day sooner.

or if the green party takes over....

pipe dream i know
 
Do we have a responsibility to our fellow human beings to create enough food and energy to keep them alive, or should we switch to windmills and organic food so that Europe can be wealthier?

Neither.

It's certainly not our responsibility to provide food and energy to other countries. If the population of India or China is too large to support itself, that's their problem, not ours. That's not to say we shouldn't help if we're able to and it doesn't impose an undue burden on us, but it's not our responsibility to feed them.

However, I also don't think we should allow the environmentalist lobby to stand in the way of things like genetically modified foods, which do a lot of good for the world.

Alternative energy is something we should be embracing, but we should be smart about it. It should be a gradual transition away from fossil fuels, not an abrupt one.
 
Back
Top Bottom