carepov

Just to let you know, “organic” produce may also contain pesticides as per their “list of [arbitrarily] allowed substances”. In some cases these pesticides are worse than "non-organic" pesticides. I am convinced that “organic” produce is as safe as “non-organic”. "Organic" is a waste but as you said there is so much other waste – probably not a big deal.

I am interested because I am currently reading "Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: the making of a Sensible Environmentalist" by Patrick Moore and just finished the chapter about salmon farming. Moore thoroughly debunked the myths about the "dangers" in salmon farming and even explained that most "wild" salmon from Alaska is actually more like "salmon ranching". It made sense to me and I mostly trust his opinion but I still have some doubt because he was a salmon farmer so perhaps he was not entirely objective. He also explains that "organic" is a useless and scientifically invalid description. It's basically a marketing ploy. I'm not against anyone buying only "wild" salmon or "organic" food (like you not a fanatic), but I will not waste my money on it and would not encourage others either.

I buy at the supermarket. I cook my meat to kill e-coli and other bacteria.

Do you mind if I ask, why not?

Once developed, Golden Rice will be given free to subsistence farmers. It can be re-sown every year from the saved harvest. There is no benefit to industry - only poor people.

None of what you say applies to Golden Rice. Who is "they"?

Great, Manny and I can use your help. OK we will make sure that no carrots go bad and that only people that are suffering from Vitamin A deficiency get one. Awesome, you have solved half the problem! Manny, I hope that you get this message before you get to the farmer's market. We only need 22,630,000 carrots (or other similar foods) annually.

Good idea, lets work together on this! How about you get in touch with some organic farmers, I'll contact FedEx. Oh wait, in case someone is pro-union we should stick with Canada Post, eh? OK, 124,000,000 people suffer from Vitamin A deficiency, and lets say we need about double to account for waste and other people eating them, so 250,000,000 million people. How many average-sized carrots does one need, say about one every 2 days? So that puts us at 875,000,000 carrots per week or 3,750,000,000 per month or 45,625,000,000 per year. No problem, what do you think?

What could be simpler and more logical than to introduce beta carotene into rice? By the way, as pointed out in previous posts that you did not refute, genetic engineering is as “natural” as, and safer than the last 1000 years of conventional farming. People like you and GostHacked are (unintentionally) stalling a solution that would help millions of people.

You keep referring to life in Canada; perhaps one day you should try travelling to a developing or under-developed part of the world to understand what I’m talking about. I can’t believe that you are still not grasping the idea that billions of people cannot choose what they eat. Hundreds of millions rely on almost exclusively rice to survive. Yes, this is not fair and we should try to help but this is today’s reality. Simply put we have a trade-off: development of Golden Rice to prevent Vitamin A deficiency for millions or “a safe feeling” for people like you and Manny.

Manny and GH, you are correct. This wasteful behavior by Canadians suggests to me that we are unaware/apathetic towards the hunger and suffering of billions of people in our world. Unfortunately, your earlier ignorant remarks about people suffeing from Vitamin A deficiency show that you are typical Canadians.

I agree with the first sentence and specifically stated that Canada’s success does not prove that we had good immigration policies BUT it does disprove that our policies have been disastrous! No not al all. Immigration has costs and benefits. Your examples have no benefits. Maybe or maybe not. Immigration is one of the areas where I generally agree with the CPC policies.

IMO, the proof that you are wrong is in Canada’s success as a country. Let x = the year that Canada significantly changed immigration/multiculturalism policy. I will let you pick it. By most measures, in both absolute terms and relative to the average OECD country, Canada is a better place to live today versus “x”. -Economic growth -Standard of living -Life satisfaction -Reduced crime -Others? Overall, by these and other measures, Canada has become and is becoming a better country. I am not claiming that this is proof that our immigration/multiculturalism policy is causing the improvements, however Canada’s success disproves theories such as “immigration/multiculturalism policies are destroying Canada”. Our policies certainly have room for improvement but there is certainly no need for major reform.

Singapore and Malaysia. How about the Chinese SARs of Hong Kong and Macau? South Africa (unless you still consider it a white country). Some Central and South American Countries would fit as well.

GWB enjoyed the same power from 2003-2006. He was a worse f* up by much more than a factor of two. To continue this part of the discussion we would have to debate healthcare - let's save that for another day You still don't get what I mean because we seem to be talking past one another. "Equal opportunity" is definitely not about elevating anyone at someone else's expense. Not everyone would go to college, just the those that want it the most and worked for it. Again, I agree with your statement but I did not describe what I meant as well as I should. Examples of the obstacles facing children that I was referring to include: hunger and poor nutrition, father in jail and no positive role models... Surely you agree that children facing these obstacles are deserving of our help and that it is good for society to help children that face these obstacles, no? hmmm... well I suppose that disadvantaged children should receive more resources to make up for all the challenges/obstacles they face. This is what you meant, right? This idea is disproved by that fact that many Natives contribute a great deal to Canadian society. The Native population and contribution is also growing rapidly. Yes, parents should provide their children a chance to succeed. But when they fail it is the child that suffers - this is not fair. The child did nothing wrong besides be born into the wrong family. When this child grows up without help from society, it is much more likely to fail and this will end up costing society much more money in the long run. (By the way, I am talking about today's real society not some "utopian Libertarian" society that you seem to wish for.) In conclusion, I agree with many things that you are saying but I am in no way suggesting that society should "do it all for you" or that everyone should be equal. I am surprised that you seem to disagree with me when I say: No matter where a child is born in Canada he/she should have more or less an equal chance to succeed in life. This persons success should depend on merit not by their luck. Again, I would not suggest taking any draconian measures or a revolution in order to achieve this admittedly impossible ideal. IMO, we in Canada and in the US already have one of the best societies in history in terms of equal opportunity. I would simply advocate policies that make gradual improvements.

You seem to be quick to admit the “bad choices” made by the previous Republican administration and equally quick to dismiss them as unimportant or insignificant. What mistakes has Obama made that can compare to: the Patriot Act, Iraq and other War on Terror mistakes, creation of DHS? Funny that every four years analysts say: “The nation has never been more divided.” I read that the USA was pretty divided in days of 'Nam too. You are right is many ways - but you are not understanding what I mean by “equal opportunity”. It is impossible for me to define it precisely and, like you said, impossible to determine exactly. However it is still an admirable goal to work towards – and it is good for society. It helps if we look at just one segment of the population: children, say 0-14ish. You said it yourself: “No [child] should have obstacles put in their way to hold them down…”. Think of all the obstacles many children face! There is clearly a great deal of improvement we can make in Canada and the USA. It is difficult, but not impossible, to measure equal opportunity. One example is per capita spending on primary education. Do you agree that this should be more or less equal with a country/state or province? Also, I agree with you generally that we should not strive toward “equal outcomes” BUT grossly unequal outcomes are an indicator of unequal opportunities. For example, life expectancy, infant mortality and over-representation in the prison population of native vs. non-native Canadians. Striving toward "equal opportunity" for children is not only morally just (no one gets to choose to where they are born) but it is also a benefit to society as investing in the care and education of children pays off economically in the long run.

I've been thinking about this given some of the most recent posts here... Extreme anything is generally a sign of mental illness. I do not see MLW trolls as extreme (unless they are trolling multiple websites) At best, trolling = parody and it is very funny, and actually adds to some discussions. Usually it is just a stupid waste of time. Sometimes I can't distinguish between someone who is trolling or is genuinely out to lunch? Any advice on how to do this?

Thanks, it is nice to be involved in a civilized discussion. On Foreign Policy, I do not think it is possible to do a worse job on than GWB 2001-2009. Remember almost the whole world was pro-USA on 9/12/2001! Similar to the economy, Obama he has had an uphill battle. Getting out of Iraq relatively smoothly is excellent, and it seems like he is successfully unwinding Afghanistan. No. I think you are wrong. He specifically says that “everyone in America deserves an equal shot”. There is a big difference between equal opportunity and equal outcomes. Surely you beleive in the principle of equal oportunity, no? Based on the bungling in 2001-2008, Romney would be more likely to screw-up in the ME. -Patriot Act -Support torture and arbitrary detention -anti-abortion -anti-gay marriage -discrimination of gays in military -anti-medical marijuana -worse than Dems on general drug prohibition -21 year-old drinking age (perhaps the Dems are just as bad) -Support prayers in schools -Support the idea of requiring people (possible illegal-immigrants) to show ID for no reason Also, the GOP has more regressive policies on crime and is more in favour of capital punishment In general, I agree with these views and we would both certainly agree no political party respects these views. IMO, the Reps are more disrespectful of individual rights than the Dems.

GostHacked and Manny, it is not always easy to admit error, but if you continue to inform yourselves, sooner or later you will come to conclusions similar to Wayward Son. Please notice that he has focussed on the scientific truths and has avoided attacking the “organic lobby” or defending “big-agriculture”. It is possible to dislike Monsanto and support modern agriculture. I am now reading and highly recommend: “Moore, Patrick (2011) Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist”, has anyone read this book or have thoughts about Moore?

You are making a fool of yourself. I suggest that you learn about Vitamin A deficiency (who, what, where, and why).

So the 124,000,000 people suffering from Vitamin A defficiency should just "eat better"? Let's send them a text message!

Great, you can feel safe as, according to the WHO, each year Vitamin A deficiency kills 1-2 million people, and 500,000 people, mainly children, go blind. But we should prevent the addition of beta-carotene into rice because this would make you feel unsafe...

Thanks Pliny, good point about the effect of congress; like I said I have moderated my preference for Dems, and it sounds like you have softened your preference of Rep. Do you think that the chances of another war are greater with Romney (for example Iran)? Don't all the Republican social policies that attempt to control individual behaviour/morals bother you?

In case I haven't made it clear already, opposition and resistance to GMOs is a mystery to me. (No matter what the country.) Why don't you tell me, what exact products are people like you afraid of?

You got me. Last week I purchased shares in Monsanto. Seriously, my agenda in one word is: truth. If you want to buy "organics" fine. If you want to spread fear and lies I will try my best to prevent you. I understand and admire that your intentions are good but your fear and lies are counter-productive and if allowed to spread can cost millions of lives plus the opportunity costs of not addressing real problems.