Moderator: Community Team
Haggis_McMutton wrote:2. Anyone else find it kind of funny that naxus is NK'd right after insisting that we're all paranoid?
Wayne wrote:Wow, with a voice like that Dancing Mustard must get all the babes!
Garth wrote:Yeah, I bet he's totally studly and buff.
modern farming is accomplished by cut throat multinational corporations like Monsanto. They genetically splice things like fish with tomatoes and fireflies with corn to make them resistant to pests and herbacides.naxus wrote:Modernized farming.The actual dig in the dirt farming
Should we continue to do it and keep adding preservatives and pesticides to our food or go back to the old ways where the farms could barely support the population and most often didn't?
Is there something wrong with the current way we do things? I seem to be functioning normally as a human being and I eat some fruits and vegetables that I purchase at a large chain supermarket.naxus wrote:Modernized farming.The actual dig in the dirt farming
Should we continue to do it and keep adding preservatives and pesticides to our food or go back to the old ways where the farms could barely support the population and most often didn't?
Many preservatives and pesticedes can be harmful to humans in circumstances and its more chemicals being put in your bodythegreekdog wrote:Is there something wrong with the current way we do things? I seem to be functioning normally as a human being and I eat some fruits and vegetables that I purchase at a large chain supermarket.naxus wrote:Modernized farming.The actual dig in the dirt farming
Should we continue to do it and keep adding preservatives and pesticides to our food or go back to the old ways where the farms could barely support the population and most often didn't?
Haggis_McMutton wrote:2. Anyone else find it kind of funny that naxus is NK'd right after insisting that we're all paranoid?
I think we should add flouride to our food.thegreekdog wrote:Okay.
Then, as I understand your question there are two alternatives:
(1) Have pesticides, etc. in your food + feed some high percentage of human beings
(2) Have no pesticides, etc. in your food + feed some low percentage of human beings.
I'll take option one since I have not been affected in a negative way by pesticides, and I'd rather feed a large percentage of people than a small percentage.
When exactly was that?naxus wrote:...or go back to the old ways where the farms could barely support the population and most often didn't?

through out most of human history until modernized farming came into effect.The population would usually thrive until it hit a high point and then bad crops, the weather, insects, would cause years of low production which led to general starvation until either the crop got better or the pop. got low enough to support itselfStiffMittens wrote:When exactly was that?naxus wrote:...or go back to the old ways where the farms could barely support the population and most often didn't?
I agree on the research that we should be doing more.with pesticides though it gets worse each year.As insects can develop a resistance to pesticides that are used year after year until they become immune.And with pesticides comes bacteria which can be affected by them causing them to change and possibly target the food.SEAsportsfan wrote:Yeah, actually, I'm gonna have to agree. I'd rather take my chances and die of pesticides, as opposed to most certainly dying of starvation...however, i think there should be more research put into the effects of these pesticides and genetic mutations, and more labelling on products that tells us what exactly is in our food, or in some cases, what IS our food.
Haggis_McMutton wrote:2. Anyone else find it kind of funny that naxus is NK'd right after insisting that we're all paranoid?
no theres really two options as the one you state would cost a large amount of money and the farmers mentality is along the lines of "if it ain't broke, dont fix it"thegreekdog wrote:So, really, there are three options. The third option is to make "better" pesticides.
Haggis_McMutton wrote:2. Anyone else find it kind of funny that naxus is NK'd right after insisting that we're all paranoid?
Actually, they do that to make it glow in the dark.captain.crazy wrote:modern farming is accomplished by cut throat multinational corporations like Monsanto. They genetically splice things like fireflies with corn to make them resistant to pests and herbacides.
Wayne wrote:Wow, with a voice like that Dancing Mustard must get all the babes!
Garth wrote:Yeah, I bet he's totally studly and buff.
Exactly! It's nothing to be concerned about. It's 100% benefit with no drawbacks whatsoever.Simon Viavant wrote:I don't see what the huge deal about about genetic engineering is
Wayne wrote:Wow, with a voice like that Dancing Mustard must get all the babes!
Garth wrote:Yeah, I bet he's totally studly and buff.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Actually, a study by the University of Pennsylvania found that Amish farms are as productive per acre of land as farms that use modern machinery and artificial fertilizers. The difference is that Amish farms are more labor intensive. So we could go to a much more organic food system, but more people would have to work as farmers. That would be terrible, we would have to value the work of farmers as much as the work of bankers -- terror on wall street.naxus wrote:Modernized farming.The actual dig in the dirt farming
Should we continue to do it and keep adding preservatives and pesticides to our food or go back to the old ways where the farms could barely support the population and most often didn't?
what kind of crops? and in what conditions did they test?mpjh wrote:Actually, a study by the University of Pennsylvania found that Amish farms are as productive per acre of land as farms that use modern machinery and artificial fertilizers. The difference is that Amish farms are more labor intensive. So we could go to a much more organic food system, but more people would have to work as farmers. That would be terrible, we would have to value the work of farmers as much as the work of bankers -- terror on wall street.naxus wrote:Modernized farming.The actual dig in the dirt farming
Should we continue to do it and keep adding preservatives and pesticides to our food or go back to the old ways where the farms could barely support the population and most often didn't?
Haggis_McMutton wrote:2. Anyone else find it kind of funny that naxus is NK'd right after insisting that we're all paranoid?
Haggis_McMutton wrote:2. Anyone else find it kind of funny that naxus is NK'd right after insisting that we're all paranoid?
Riding. The Preakness.naxus wrote:what kind of crops? and in what conditions did they test?mpjh wrote:Actually, a study by the University of Pennsylvania found that Amish farms are as productive per acre of land as farms that use modern machinery and artificial fertilizers. The difference is that Amish farms are more labor intensive. So we could go to a much more organic food system, but more people would have to work as farmers. That would be terrible, we would have to value the work of farmers as much as the work of bankers -- terror on wall street.naxus wrote:Modernized farming.The actual dig in the dirt farming
Should we continue to do it and keep adding preservatives and pesticides to our food or go back to the old ways where the farms could barely support the population and most often didn't?
No, but the Amish grow a lot of fruit (the kind you eat, I mean with the nut inside, I mean -- you know -- that grows on trees), you might check at the University of Pennsylvania for more information.naxus wrote:do you have any info on the on citrus plants when competing between modern vs old amish?