4 ms·

> It's fascinating how the backlash and the anger towards organic run deep in the US and on HN. There's organic and then there's organic. Moving to carbon-neu

by msla 7y ago

> It's fascinating how the backlash and the anger towards organic run deep in the US and on HN. There's organic and then there's organic. Moving to carbon-neutral methods and creating processes which are sustainable or actively improve the world? Great. We need to be doing that. Eating food labelled as "Organic" and shunning GMOs as if they were actively toxic? No. That's bullshit and actively harming the legitimacy Greens have. It's barely a step above pushing "detox" and thinking chemtrails are a thing. Green should be about using the best current scientific knowledge to improve the world, not thinking science is actively harmful and rejecting it in favor of crap that makes you feel better. Ceding the intellectual high ground to people who crack jokes about Al Gore every time someone mentions that the Arctic is melting is the exact opposite of a good idea.

kungtotte 7y ago
How is what you're describing any different from the anti-Greens who complain climate change isn't real because it gets cold sometimes?
- AstralStorm 7y ago
  Because he isn't complaining about it? You felt like making him a member of the "denier" tribe. See how easy it is to fall in that thought pattern to try and silence and ignore someone you don't agree with. Some things that certain greens push are ridiculous, many are not. Ridiculous include: - rage against nuclear power - rage against GMO - rage against pesticides that are better than alternatives - trying to force everyone to go vegan Non ridiculous include: - blocking road building projects through nature preserve - trying to convince others to reduce their carbon and energy footprint - promoting renewable energy and electric cars - trying to save bees - outcry against oil spills and burning off gas from oil wells - increasing awareness of climate change - getting people to eat more vegetables and local foods - fighting for unpolluted water Irrelevant include: - strains of antiglobalism
- msla 7y ago
  Because everything I'm in favor of is backed by the best current scientific understanding as I understand it, and everything I'm against is opposed to that understanding as I understand it. AGW is real. Clean coal is a contradiction in terms. GMOs are largely a good thing. "Organic" food (that is, food labeled "Organic") is no better than the alternatives, and potentially worse in some ways. Nuclear power is potentially a very good thing, but there are so many possible reactor designs and waste strategies it's impossible to make a blanket statement. Homeopathy and chiropractic and alternative medicine are all outright shit, and Reiki is such shit it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously enough to be debunked. If you can't distinguish me from the "Global warming? AL GORE! HAW HAW HAW!" crowd now, you really need to do some re-calibration.
  - nicoburns 7y ago
    Crop monocultures and habitat destruction enabled by the use of pesticides are a real issue though, which significantly reduces the resilience of our food supply to future threats. These are also issues around patented seeds, and soil degredation that organic producers tend to be better at, even if it's not technically what organic means...
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Thing is, it's more subtle than that. Unlike most of the vague or meaningless standards, care and production labelling and logos, Organic is a legally defined and enforced standard. It may be a weaker standard in the US compared to the EU, but it's a definite marker wherever you are. Most of the organic production results in far better animal treatment, and lower carbon methods than conventional agriculture, and tries to create processes that are sustainable. Unsurprisingly it's not perfect. If I want the most animal friendly meat rearing standards, the "most free range" free range eggs - with more space and better conditions than those labelled free range(!), most grass fed dairy cows, most sustainably produced veggies and so on, I should buy organically labelled. In the EU at least - there may be higher legally mandated standards of rearing elsewhere - though I think not. That's regardless whether or not I care about organic aims or dislike the rejection of GMO or some specific product or process. If I buy conventionally produced I am reliant on non-binding marketing phrases and trust of the producers. Of which I have little. Dismissing organic as illegitimate chemtrail bullshit that should be dismissed, when there is nothing better is incredibly counter productive. Far better to try and improve organic standards bodies to be a little less dogmatic about accepting new discoveries and processes that fit the sustainability aims, or to agitate for better mandated definitions, accepting GMOs on the precautionary principle of approval as the EU does for conventional use.
- msla 7y ago
  > accepting GMOs on the precautionary principle of approval as the EU does for conventional use. Where "precautionary principle" means not using them because people actively lie about how safe they are and then agitate to force labels on them. You might just as well label vaccines with WARNING: PROTEINS and then spread misinformation about how injecting proteins causes autism-cancer. Precaution, taken on its own, is fine. In the context of GMOs, it means implicitly accepting a whole raft of lies.
chicob 7y ago
>No. That's bullshit and actively harming the legitimacy Greens have. Bullshit is the word. Some examples: - Farmer #1 uses a plethora of organic pesticides on every crop. Can label produce as Certified Organic. - Farmer #2 uses no pesticides whatsoever, with the exception of glyphosate once a year for weed control. Not Organic. - Farmer #3 applies B. thuringiensis (Bt) innoculate for fighting fungal infections in corn. Compatible with Organic. - Farmer #4 sows GM Bt corn that already has B. thuringiensis, with the added benefit of avoiding carbon emissions for using a tractor. Not Organic. - Farmer #5 gives his free-ranging animals no antibiotics. In line with Organic practice. - Farmer #6 gets paid regular visits by a certified veterinary, that prescribes antibiotics when strictly necessary. Not Organic.
- chicob 7y ago
  for fighting fungal infections Duh I meant fighting insects. B. thuringiensis has nothing to do with fungi.

by msla 7y ago

kungtotte 7y ago

How is what you're describing any different from the anti-Greens who complain climate change isn't real because it gets cold sometimes?

AstralStorm 7y ago
Because he isn't complaining about it? You felt like making him a member of the "denier" tribe. See how easy it is to fall in that thought pattern to try and silence and ignore someone you don't agree with. Some things that certain greens push are ridiculous, many are not. Ridiculous include: - rage against nuclear power - rage against GMO - rage against pesticides that are better than alternatives - trying to force everyone to go vegan Non ridiculous include: - blocking road building projects through nature preserve - trying to convince others to reduce their carbon and energy footprint - promoting renewable energy and electric cars - trying to save bees - outcry against oil spills and burning off gas from oil wells - increasing awareness of climate change - getting people to eat more vegetables and local foods - fighting for unpolluted water Irrelevant include: - strains of antiglobalism
msla 7y ago
Because everything I'm in favor of is backed by the best current scientific understanding as I understand it, and everything I'm against is opposed to that understanding as I understand it. AGW is real. Clean coal is a contradiction in terms. GMOs are largely a good thing. "Organic" food (that is, food labeled "Organic") is no better than the alternatives, and potentially worse in some ways. Nuclear power is potentially a very good thing, but there are so many possible reactor designs and waste strategies it's impossible to make a blanket statement. Homeopathy and chiropractic and alternative medicine are all outright shit, and Reiki is such shit it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously enough to be debunked. If you can't distinguish me from the "Global warming? AL GORE! HAW HAW HAW!" crowd now, you really need to do some re-calibration.
- nicoburns 7y ago
  Crop monocultures and habitat destruction enabled by the use of pesticides are a real issue though, which significantly reduces the resilience of our food supply to future threats. These are also issues around patented seeds, and soil degredation that organic producers tend to be better at, even if it's not technically what organic means...

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

Thing is, it's more subtle than that. Unlike most of the vague or meaningless standards, care and production labelling and logos, Organic is a legally defined and enforced standard. It may be a weaker standard in the US compared to the EU, but it's a definite marker wherever you are. Most of the organic production results in far better animal treatment, and lower carbon methods than conventional agriculture, and tries to create processes that are sustainable. Unsurprisingly it's not perfect. If I want the most animal friendly meat rearing standards, the "most free range" free range eggs - with more space and better conditions than those labelled free range(!), most grass fed dairy cows, most sustainably produced veggies and so on, I should buy organically labelled. In the EU at least - there may be higher legally mandated standards of rearing elsewhere - though I think not. That's regardless whether or not I care about organic aims or dislike the rejection of GMO or some specific product or process. If I buy conventionally produced I am reliant on non-binding marketing phrases and trust of the producers. Of which I have little. Dismissing organic as illegitimate chemtrail bullshit that should be dismissed, when there is nothing better is incredibly counter productive. Far better to try and improve organic standards bodies to be a little less dogmatic about accepting new discoveries and processes that fit the sustainability aims, or to agitate for better mandated definitions, accepting GMOs on the precautionary principle of approval as the EU does for conventional use.

msla 7y ago
> accepting GMOs on the precautionary principle of approval as the EU does for conventional use. Where "precautionary principle" means not using them because people actively lie about how safe they are and then agitate to force labels on them. You might just as well label vaccines with WARNING: PROTEINS and then spread misinformation about how injecting proteins causes autism-cancer. Precaution, taken on its own, is fine. In the context of GMOs, it means implicitly accepting a whole raft of lies.

chicob 7y ago

>No. That's bullshit and actively harming the legitimacy Greens have. Bullshit is the word. Some examples: - Farmer #1 uses a plethora of organic pesticides on every crop. Can label produce as Certified Organic. - Farmer #2 uses no pesticides whatsoever, with the exception of glyphosate once a year for weed control. Not Organic. - Farmer #3 applies B. thuringiensis (Bt) innoculate for fighting fungal infections in corn. Compatible with Organic. - Farmer #4 sows GM Bt corn that already has B. thuringiensis, with the added benefit of avoiding carbon emissions for using a tractor. Not Organic. - Farmer #5 gives his free-ranging animals no antibiotics. In line with Organic practice. - Farmer #6 gets paid regular visits by a certified veterinary, that prescribes antibiotics when strictly necessary. Not Organic.

chicob 7y ago
for fighting fungal infections Duh I meant fighting insects. B. thuringiensis has nothing to do with fungi.