3 ms·
I'm all for listening to contrarian arguments, but this seems a little inconsistent: "Organic farmers won’t use Roundup and other herbicides, so they plow the
by shykes 15y ago
I'm all for listening to contrarian arguments, but this seems a little inconsistent:
"Organic farmers won’t use Roundup and other herbicides, so they plow the weeds under, which kills a lot of small animals"
In other words: herbicides are good, farmers should use them.
"Standard industrial cotton has Bacillus thuringiensis (“bt”) genes mixed in and these kill pests, cutting the need for sprayed pesticides in half."
In other words: pesticides are bad, farmers should not use them.
"Organic farmers won’t use standard fertilizer, but only manure from cows, which means we’ll need a lot more cows running around"
By the same argument, recycling is bad because we'll need a lot more garbage to recycle.
- hartror 15y agoYou miss the point of the cow manure. There is only so much of it to go around, we can't feed the world's population using it.
- davidryal 15y agoAnd if cow manure actually was the only suitable material for organic fertilizer, you might have a point. It's called COMPOST, and it can be made from almost any organic waste.
- hartror 15y agoI don't think you quite understand the scale of the problem. We don't have enough usable organic waste of any sort to put on our crops.
- Ihavenoname 15y agoAgreed. Personally it seems they made purly emotional decision to hate a trend and found "logical reasons" to support their whimsical supposition. I think most offensive is the implication that it is our duty to devastate our lands with pesticide and the chemical waste that go with it. This has to be one of the most contra logical articles I have seen in some time. I am for careful genetic engineering but so far it seems to bu used for noting more than a form of hydraulic despotism.