5 ms·

Because what are the lives of hundreds of millions in the Third World, compared with the fears of entitled (sub)urbanites who have never produced their own food

by zeteo 13y ago

Because what are the lives of hundreds of millions in the Third World, compared with the fears of entitled (sub)urbanites who have never produced their own food that we're twisting our connection with "Nature".

burningion 13y ago
Interesting assumption by all to think both that I haven't experienced hunger, and that I haven't lived in the third world. I've done both. Also interesting is that it's immediately assumed I'm an elitist first world asshole who's never had any real problems, simply because of some ridiculous abstract "risk" I insist on bringing up. These responses bring out the almost religious emotional investment of both sides of the argument. You're suggesting that logic must be applied to save lives, and I'm saying be careful. Things aren't as cut and dried as presented by either side.
- mmatants 13y ago
  Why do you think that the response is addressing your person directly? It is saying that similar logic is employed by fairly powerful folks, and attacks that logic, not your own personal experience.
  - daliusd 13y ago
    It shouldn't matter who express the idea. It should only matter if idea is right or not. Just because it was expressed by someone you don't like it is not less right (or vice versa).
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- skylan_q 13y ago
  People are more interested in appeasing their "poor person abstraction guilt complex" than in actually looking for truth and pointing out potential problems. It's more important to ease one's guilt about the abstract notion of poor/hungry people than it is to actually help them.
- JoeAltmaier 13y ago
  People are hungry today. How to reconcile that with a long-term approach of husbanding genetic diversity? Being careful is an 'elitist first-world' precisely because you aren't hungry today.
graeme 13y ago
And what about the lives of billions of future poor people if the system Borlaug built implodes? We're dependent on our new, higher production levels. This is not a theoretical risk. For example, much production depends on irrigation from fossil aquifers. Or topsoil that is being rapidly depleted. Or non newewable fossil inputs. We have been depleting capital to feed ourselves for the past several decades, and treating the capital we use as a renewable input. The plight of the hungry is very real. But I worry we've built a house of cards that will cause worse pain when it collapses.

by zeteo 13y ago

burningion 13y ago

Interesting assumption by all to think both that I haven't experienced hunger, and that I haven't lived in the third world. I've done both. Also interesting is that it's immediately assumed I'm an elitist first world asshole who's never had any real problems, simply because of some ridiculous abstract "risk" I insist on bringing up. These responses bring out the almost religious emotional investment of both sides of the argument. You're suggesting that logic must be applied to save lives, and I'm saying be careful. Things aren't as cut and dried as presented by either side.

mmatants 13y ago
Why do you think that the response is addressing your person directly? It is saying that similar logic is employed by fairly powerful folks, and attacks that logic, not your own personal experience.
- daliusd 13y ago
  It shouldn't matter who express the idea. It should only matter if idea is right or not. Just because it was expressed by someone you don't like it is not less right (or vice versa).
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
skylan_q 13y ago
People are more interested in appeasing their "poor person abstraction guilt complex" than in actually looking for truth and pointing out potential problems. It's more important to ease one's guilt about the abstract notion of poor/hungry people than it is to actually help them.
JoeAltmaier 13y ago
People are hungry today. How to reconcile that with a long-term approach of husbanding genetic diversity? Being careful is an 'elitist first-world' precisely because you aren't hungry today.

graeme 13y ago

And what about the lives of billions of future poor people if the system Borlaug built implodes? We're dependent on our new, higher production levels. This is not a theoretical risk. For example, much production depends on irrigation from fossil aquifers. Or topsoil that is being rapidly depleted. Or non newewable fossil inputs. We have been depleting capital to feed ourselves for the past several decades, and treating the capital we use as a renewable input. The plight of the hungry is very real. But I worry we've built a house of cards that will cause worse pain when it collapses.