Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone
Th first is a problem as it limits the ways we can solve real world problems. For instance, the push for organic farming denies all the potential for chemicals, GMOs and pesticides to end hunger in large parts of the earth, increase yields and farm more efficiently with less damage to the environment. It's a dogmatic view of how to solve problems.
The second is broader, where there's a narrative that puts humans as the villain within an environmental story, and if not humanity in general, then at least some subset like multinational corporations, farmers, loggers, etc. I think it's quite simplistic to view things that way.
|
Ironically, some of the farmers are involved in pushing the organic/anti-GMO campaigns.
And let's also NOT pretend that "environmentalists" are the main culprit on why there's still hungers in non-developed nations. When it comes to protectionism of agricultural products, farmers and some politicians are the ones pushing it, for the most part.
At the end of the day, it's all about "balance". I doubt anyone here would enjoy living in Beijing with the smog problems.
Note: just making a general comment given what's written. Not lecturing on you or anything.