5 Hippies arrested, 150 whales slaugthered.

[Ineth]

Although currently there is much more food produced for people in world than whole human population would needs with large margin, but still we have over billion people that suffer from malnutrition and countries that suffer from consequences of overnutrition and problems caused by wasted food.

 

Nonsense, there is no causal link between overnutrition/wastefulness in the 1st world, and starvation in the 3rd world.

 

If 1stworlders were more frugal with food, the consequence would not be more food on the tables in Africa, it would be more money left in the pockets of the 1stworders for other things (and less food getting produced in the first place).

 

Hunger in the 3rd world is a consequence of:

• lack of infrastructure and technology which would be needed to produce enough food locally (irrigation etc.)
• lack of infrastructure which would be needed to live off non-local food (roads & transportation, supermarkets, non-corrupt authorities)
• lack of protection against natural disasters
• civil war and displacement
• governments that fail to protect property rights, and prevent the poor from having access to the market economy
• the success of the 1st world eco movement in banning and/or sabotaging GMO enhanced crops that could dramatically increase the productivity of poor farmers

 

[Elerond]

 

Although currently there is much more food produced for people in world than whole human population would needs with large margin, but still we have over billion people that suffer from malnutrition and countries that suffer from consequences of overnutrition and problems caused by wasted food.

 

Nonsense, there is no causal link between overnutrition/wastefulness in the 1st world, and starvation in the 3rd world.

 

If 1stworlders were more frugal with food, the consequence would not be more food on the tables in Africa, it would be more money left in the pockets of the 1stworders for other things (and less food getting produced in the first place).

 

Hunger in the 3rd world is a consequence of:

• lack of infrastructure and technology which would be needed to produce enough food locally (irrigation etc.)
• lack of infrastructure which would be needed to live off non-local food (roads & transportation, supermarkets, non-corrupt authorities)
• lack of protection against natural disasters
• civil war and displacement
• governments that fail to protect property rights, and prevent the poor from having access to the market economy
• the success of the 1st world eco movement in banning and/or sabotaging GMO enhanced crops that could dramatically increase the productivity of poor farmers

 

 

Although I never claimed that there is such causation, point behind my post was more to say that things like this is not done because there would not otherwise be enough food for human population and this kind additional food production happens mostly in countries that already produce so much food that it cause problems for them.

 

Also one sad fact is that third world countries aren't only places where people suffer from malnutrition.

 

Meaning that lack of food production or too much population aren't reasons why these whales were made to food. If we want to name reasons behind this act there seem to be three main reasons; tradition, economical, and culinary. Which are reasons which people should weight in when they ponder morality of this act, not need to produce food to feed people suffering from hunger, as it is very unlikely that this act actually cause any food to go for such people.

[Orogun01]

 

Although currently there is much more food produced for people in world than whole human population would needs with large margin, but still we have over billion people that suffer from malnutrition and countries that suffer from consequences of overnutrition and problems caused by wasted food.

 

Nonsense, there is no causal link between overnutrition/wastefulness in the 1st world, and starvation in the 3rd world.

 

If 1stworlders were more frugal with food, the consequence would not be more food on the tables in Africa, it would be more money left in the pockets of the 1stworders for other things (and less food getting produced in the first place).

 

Hunger in the 3rd world is a consequence of:

• lack of infrastructure and technology which would be needed to produce enough food locally (irrigation etc.)
• lack of infrastructure which would be needed to live off non-local food (roads & transportation, supermarkets, non-corrupt authorities)
• lack of protection against natural disasters
• civil war and displacement
• governments that fail to protect property rights, and prevent the poor from having access to the market economy
• the success of the 1st world eco movement in banning and/or sabotaging GMO enhanced crops that could dramatically increase the productivity of poor farmers

 

Nah, it was because of the embargo.

[teknoman2]

the most avid enviromentalists i know are hunters. they care about the wildlife, because they dont want to run out of prey and they even breed and release animals in the wild to keep the poppulation from declining.

hipster enviromentalists on the other hand are the bane of nature since they release non indigenous species at any place and any time, ruining the ecosystem. lately they released a species of fox in my area that is not from around here and while the red fox does not aproach even small guard dogs, this one killed several small dogs to get to the chicken they guarded and only chicken guarded by larger dogs survived.

they also released a number of non indigenous snakes, but luckilly we have lots of cats and they made short work of them

Edited July 29, 2015 by teknoman2

[Orogun01]

the most avid enviromentalists i know are hunters. they care about the wildlife, because they dont want to run out of prey and they even breed and release animals in the wild to keep the poppulation from declining.

hipster enviromentalists on the other hand are the bane of nature since they release non indigenous species at any place and any time, ruining the ecosystem. lately they released a species of fox in my area that is not from around here and while the red fox does not aproach even small guard dogs, this one killed several small dogs to get to the chicken they guarded and only chicken guarded by larger dogs survived.

they also released a number of non indigenous snakes, but luckilly we have lots of cats and they made short work of them

Maybe they should hunt environmentalists?  

[teknoman2]

if only it was legal, i would take a shotgun myself

[Hurlshort]

I am pretty sure the way you are generalizing both hunters and environmentalists is ridiculous. All humters are teh saints and all tree huggers are teh devil!

[teknoman2]

I am pretty sure the way you are generalizing both hunters and environmentalists is ridiculous. All humters are teh saints and all tree huggers are teh devil!

i didnt generalize i speak of those i know personaly (even if indirectly)

[HoonDing]

[Orogun01]

if only it was legal, i would take a shotgun myself

Just wait until furries are legally considered animals, you can just dress the corpse in an animal suit afterward and it be just like hunting. Just make sure that it's rabbit season.

[FlintlockJazz]

 

• the success of the 1st world eco movement in banning and/or sabotaging GMO enhanced crops that could dramatically increase the productivity of poor farmers

 

Others have dealt with the other points of yours, but I want to make a point about this one: GMO crops have caused issues for poor farmers.  Many African farmers were pressured into buying GMO crops with the idea that it would be better in the long run, only to have their crops fails and be unable to plant a new one since the GMO crops are sterile.  Most of these farmers went bankrupt as a result and famine ensued. 

[Ineth]

GMO crops have caused issues for poor farmers.

 

No, corporations like Monsanto have caused issues for poor farmers.

 

It's a cheap propaganda ploy by the eco movement, to try to pin the misconducts of Monsanto, on the whole concept of GMO science itself - which the eco movement had already made up its mind against from the start (for quasi-religious rather than rational reasons).

 

only to have their crops fails and be unable to plant a new one since the GMO crops are sterile

 

Not in general, they aren't. The "sterile seed" technology was specifically engineered by Monsanto as sort of the equivalent of what we know as "DRM" in the gaming world. They wanted to protect their monopoly on the distribution of "their" species.

 

I believe that's now banned in most parts of the world though (thanks to international treaties/conventions), and Monsanto has promised not to use it anymore (thanks to public outcry).

 

There are non-commercial GMO species though - either developed by corporations for positive publicity, or developed by independent university researchers and NGOs - which were designed to help poor farmers rather than to maximize the profits for some corporation.

Yet the eco movement furiously opposes those, too. They break into labs to destroy research; they burn down trial fields; they intimidate and attack researchers; they use their influence on 1st world politics and bureaucracy to stall and block the projects; they spread FUD in the third-world countries where the crops could be used.

 

A 2014 peer-reviewed study found that "the delayed application of Golden Rice in India alone has cost 1,424,000 life years since 2002". (Life years is a measure used by economists to aggregate both premature death and disability that could have been avoided).

Each year hundreds of thousands of children died, hundreds of thousands more went blind, hundreds of thousands of women died in childbirth, and countless families were kept in poverty - all so that the first-world eco activists who control organizations like Greenpeace could indulge their technophobic and misanthropic "Gaia" religion.

Edited July 31, 2015 by Ineth