6 ms·

Anytime someone brings up Monsanto they are downvoted because without pesticides humans cannot feed themselves apparently. And herbicides are for plants only so

by fjabre 7y ago

Anytime someone brings up Monsanto they are downvoted because without pesticides humans cannot feed themselves apparently. And herbicides are for plants only so of course they have no effect on insects. /s

Tepix 7y ago
You're the only one who brought them up so far and you don't seem to have been downvoted.
- fjabre 7y ago
  Thats true. Reddit seems to be more infested with the pro monsanto crowd. Many of their arguments sound very legitimate as in - try feeding the human race some other way type arguments. But then we must consider this ongoing mass extinction event which seems intimately tied to the use of pesticides and herbicides that apparently, according to the experts, are not harmful to unintended insect populations. It’s hard to know whats true and what isnt with all the misinformation being spread around.
  - mrhappyunhappy 7y ago
    It's not hard to know, just people being lazy to do their own research.
  - jjuhl 7y ago
    "try feeding the human race" - How about we reduce our impact on the planet by not feeding all of the human race? Reducing the number of humans on the planet seems like it would be a great first step in solving the overall problem.
    - uptown 7y ago
      Who do you suggest we kill?
      - jjuhl 7y ago
        Noone in particular. Just let the lack of food do its thing. Or if you want to actively do something, then pick 50% at random.
        throwaway66920 7y ago
        > Noone in particular. Just let the lack of food do its thing. So the poor then?
        jjuhl 7y ago
        Fine. Or the rich if you like - although there are fewer of those so the impact won't be as significant. But whatever. I don't care. The point is we need to reduce the number. Who goes, specifically, is somewhat irrelevant.
        dlivingston 7y ago
        Besides the absolute inhumanity of mass genocide, your comments rings of hyperbole unless you are willing to lead the charge by offering your own life before anyone else's.
        jjuhl 7y ago
        "the absolute inhumanity of mass genocide" - If your focus is "survival of humans as a species", what's so "inhumane" about it? You are focusing too much on the individual human and not on the species. And of course I wouldn't sacrifice my own life first, since from my perspective that's obviously the most important thing and everything else is secondary. But once my life is preserved, I look at the bigger picture and see that we (I) would obviously be better off if we killed off 50% of the remaining population. Why is that so hard to wrap your head around? I'm fairly sure you would see it the same way (if you would just admit it to yourself).
        CDSlice 7y ago
        This is literally Thanos' plan in Infinity War/Endgame. I never expected to hear someone argue for it in real life.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - pvaldes 7y ago
      Returning to WWII is a scaring but it seems that increasing popular idea. We can do it better, and we must do it better this time.
      - jjuhl 7y ago
        Who said anything about WWII? I certainly did not. All I'm saying is that we would be a lot better off with less than 4billion people on the planet than 9billion. How we get there I didn't say anything about.
      - magduf 7y ago
        Returning to WWII isn't going to do anything useful, even if you do want to go down this intellectual rabbit-hole. I've actually looked into this before. Go look at how many people died in WWII. Was it a lot? In absolute numbers, sure. As a percentage of the human race? No, not really. It barely made a dent in the worldwide population. You can look at population graphs over time, and it barely registers, if at all. Remember, WWI also killed a lot of people, but more people died from the Spanish Flu pandemic. I'm sorry, but war just isn't a very good form of population control any more. Maybe it was in Medieval times, but it isn't now. Even with the horrific numbers of dead, it's just not that much of the overall population, and the amount of destruction it wreaks on everything is insane: cities leveled, resources wasted on building war materiel, and of course the ridiculous amount of oil burned (which just makes the global warming problem that much worse). Modern militaries are huge consumers of oil when they're deployed.
        guerrilla 7y ago
        > war just isn't a very good form of population control any more That's because war isn't a form of population control. It's a form of conflict resolution.
        magduf 7y ago
        I never said it was; it seemed that someone 2 levels up was suggesting this.
imglorp 7y ago
Bought by Bayer, that name will be gone soon because of the well earned negative perceptions.
- Isinlor 7y ago
  Well, not sure if Bayer is such a good name either. Bayer was part of conglomerate producing Zyklon B used by Germans to kill millions of people.
  - dec0dedab0de 7y ago
    I mean they also were the first to market Heroine, that hasn't really stopped sales of asprin.
    - saagarjha 7y ago
      (Heroin.)
      - mrhappyunhappy 7y ago
        Pretty sure it was autocorrected.
      - DFHippie 7y ago
        Yes, the marketing of heroines preceded them and is generally harmless (protests against "Wonder Woman" notwithstanding).
  - fromthestart 7y ago
    Bayer knowingly sold antihemopheliac factor contaminated with HIV. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/24785997/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/24785997/
    - imglorp 7y ago
      That should be bigger news. But as usual, quiet settlement and marginalized victims. 20,000 victims and a 300 million payout. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bayer-admits-it-paid-millions-in-hiv-infection-cases-just-not-in-english/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bayer-admits-it-paid-millions-i...
pvaldes 7y ago
> herbicides are for plants only so of course they have no effect on insects Is pretty obvious that herbicides kill insects indirectly. They are killing its sources of food (wildflowers and weeds). They have a deep impact over insects.
- hanniabu 7y ago
  Hence the "/s", aka "end sarcasm"
randomdata 7y ago
Ignoring that Monsanto no longer exists, what particular relevance do they bring to the conversation that makes it worth singling them out? There are many companies that produce herbicides. There are companies, not including the former Monsanto company, that produce insecticides that are strongly linked to insect population decline. Wouldn't they be equally interesting, if not more interesting, to name here? It is not clear why one would bring up Monsanto, and only Monsanto, which explains why such comments would be downvoted as spam.

by fjabre 7y ago

Tepix 7y ago

You're the only one who brought them up so far and you don't seem to have been downvoted.

fjabre 7y ago
Thats true. Reddit seems to be more infested with the pro monsanto crowd. Many of their arguments sound very legitimate as in - try feeding the human race some other way type arguments. But then we must consider this ongoing mass extinction event which seems intimately tied to the use of pesticides and herbicides that apparently, according to the experts, are not harmful to unintended insect populations. It’s hard to know whats true and what isnt with all the misinformation being spread around.
- mrhappyunhappy 7y ago
  It's not hard to know, just people being lazy to do their own research.
- jjuhl 7y ago
  "try feeding the human race" - How about we reduce our impact on the planet by not feeding all of the human race? Reducing the number of humans on the planet seems like it would be a great first step in solving the overall problem.
  - uptown 7y ago
    Who do you suggest we kill?
    - jjuhl 7y ago
      Noone in particular. Just let the lack of food do its thing. Or if you want to actively do something, then pick 50% at random.
      - throwaway66920 7y ago
        > Noone in particular. Just let the lack of food do its thing. So the poor then?
        jjuhl 7y ago
        Fine. Or the rich if you like - although there are fewer of those so the impact won't be as significant. But whatever. I don't care. The point is we need to reduce the number. Who goes, specifically, is somewhat irrelevant.
        dlivingston 7y ago
        Besides the absolute inhumanity of mass genocide, your comments rings of hyperbole unless you are willing to lead the charge by offering your own life before anyone else's.
        jjuhl 7y ago
        "the absolute inhumanity of mass genocide" - If your focus is "survival of humans as a species", what's so "inhumane" about it? You are focusing too much on the individual human and not on the species. And of course I wouldn't sacrifice my own life first, since from my perspective that's obviously the most important thing and everything else is secondary. But once my life is preserved, I look at the bigger picture and see that we (I) would obviously be better off if we killed off 50% of the remaining population. Why is that so hard to wrap your head around? I'm fairly sure you would see it the same way (if you would just admit it to yourself).
      - CDSlice 7y ago
        This is literally Thanos' plan in Infinity War/Endgame. I never expected to hear someone argue for it in real life.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - pvaldes 7y ago
    Returning to WWII is a scaring but it seems that increasing popular idea. We can do it better, and we must do it better this time.
    - jjuhl 7y ago
      Who said anything about WWII? I certainly did not. All I'm saying is that we would be a lot better off with less than 4billion people on the planet than 9billion. How we get there I didn't say anything about.
    - magduf 7y ago
      Returning to WWII isn't going to do anything useful, even if you do want to go down this intellectual rabbit-hole. I've actually looked into this before. Go look at how many people died in WWII. Was it a lot? In absolute numbers, sure. As a percentage of the human race? No, not really. It barely made a dent in the worldwide population. You can look at population graphs over time, and it barely registers, if at all. Remember, WWI also killed a lot of people, but more people died from the Spanish Flu pandemic. I'm sorry, but war just isn't a very good form of population control any more. Maybe it was in Medieval times, but it isn't now. Even with the horrific numbers of dead, it's just not that much of the overall population, and the amount of destruction it wreaks on everything is insane: cities leveled, resources wasted on building war materiel, and of course the ridiculous amount of oil burned (which just makes the global warming problem that much worse). Modern militaries are huge consumers of oil when they're deployed.
      - guerrilla 7y ago
        > war just isn't a very good form of population control any more That's because war isn't a form of population control. It's a form of conflict resolution.
        magduf 7y ago
        I never said it was; it seemed that someone 2 levels up was suggesting this.

imglorp 7y ago

Bought by Bayer, that name will be gone soon because of the well earned negative perceptions.

Isinlor 7y ago
Well, not sure if Bayer is such a good name either. Bayer was part of conglomerate producing Zyklon B used by Germans to kill millions of people.
- dec0dedab0de 7y ago
  I mean they also were the first to market Heroine, that hasn't really stopped sales of asprin.
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    (Heroin.)
    - mrhappyunhappy 7y ago
      Pretty sure it was autocorrected.
    - DFHippie 7y ago
      Yes, the marketing of heroines preceded them and is generally harmless (protests against "Wonder Woman" notwithstanding).
- fromthestart 7y ago
  Bayer knowingly sold antihemopheliac factor contaminated with HIV. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/24785997/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/24785997/
  - imglorp 7y ago
    That should be bigger news. But as usual, quiet settlement and marginalized victims. 20,000 victims and a 300 million payout. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bayer-admits-it-paid-millions-in-hiv-infection-cases-just-not-in-english/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bayer-admits-it-paid-millions-i...

pvaldes 7y ago

> herbicides are for plants only so of course they have no effect on insects Is pretty obvious that herbicides kill insects indirectly. They are killing its sources of food (wildflowers and weeds). They have a deep impact over insects.

hanniabu 7y ago
Hence the "/s", aka "end sarcasm"

randomdata 7y ago

Ignoring that Monsanto no longer exists, what particular relevance do they bring to the conversation that makes it worth singling them out? There are many companies that produce herbicides. There are companies, not including the former Monsanto company, that produce insecticides that are strongly linked to insect population decline. Wouldn't they be equally interesting, if not more interesting, to name here? It is not clear why one would bring up Monsanto, and only Monsanto, which explains why such comments would be downvoted as spam.