LaxPower Back-Up Stick

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 4:17 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 3:21 pm I would encourage folks to check in general chatter about the 3D printed house. This technology, 3D printing, has the potential to be a Kondriatiev wave level innovation for all of society IMO.

Conceptually similar innovation, this may bleed into other thread topics, but what is the argument against GMOs? Particularly when I've read we can create superfoods such as tomatoes which provide a full days nutrients for a person. If it's the "unkown" of science, that doesn't seem very "progressive" to me. Strikes me, raw meat for the hardcore right, that it's an anachronistic concept on the left which has some abtract devotion to food coming from the ground regardless of net contribution to humankind. But there's a few scientists poking around here, so maybe they can enlighten me on some risk or downside I am not aware of.

Biggest issues of GMOs seem to be (from the perspective of family farms):

Concentration of corporate power - rapid consolidation of seed industry for crops, in particular.

Contamination of non-GMO crops (pollination from GMO crops modifying non-GMO crops
(this also leads to inability of those farms to export to places that ban GMO crops).

Evolution of superweeds/superpests that are resistant to control measures.

Lowering of biodiversity (endangering crops by making them more susceptible to above).

Patents lead to large licensing costs - making seeds much more expensive.

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 4:25 pm

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 4:17 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 3:21 pm I would encourage folks to check in general chatter about the 3D printed house. This technology, 3D printing, has the potential to be a Kondriatiev wave level innovation for all of society IMO.

Conceptually similar innovation, this may bleed into other thread topics, but what is the argument against GMOs? Particularly when I've read we can create superfoods such as tomatoes which provide a full days nutrients for a person. If it's the "unkown" of science, that doesn't seem very "progressive" to me. Strikes me, raw meat for the hardcore right, that it's an anachronistic concept on the left which has some abtract devotion to food coming from the ground regardless of net contribution to humankind. But there's a few scientists poking around here, so maybe they can enlighten me on some risk or downside I am not aware of.

Biggest issues of GMOs seem to be (from the perspective of family farms):

Concentration of corporate power - rapid consolidation of seed industry for crops, in particular.

Contamination of non-GMO crops (pollination from GMO crops modifying non-GMO crops
(this also leads to inability of those farms to export to places that ban GMO crops).

Evolution of superweeds/superpests that are resistant to control measures.

Lowering of biodiversity (endangering crops by making them more susceptible to above).

Patents lead to large licensing costs - making seeds much more expensive.

I see issues #3 (evolution of superweeds/superpests resistant to existing mitigation techniques) and #4 as the most real. 1 & 2 are entirely manageable, #3 seems anti science in a sense (we created a super food, but can't figure out how to handle a superweed that we don't know whether it will actually materialize or not). #4 is speculative too but one I'd be worried about as a non-scientist, but we've altered biodiversity a million ways and continue to do so, aren't "we" (humans) part of this ecosystem and our behavior part of this dynamic model? If so, then not an issue that should stop feeding poor people throughout the world. #5 is very manageable.

Appreciate it, have seen some of these arguments. But do they outweight the ability to, for example, extend the average age in Ghana by 10 years or reduce the infant mortality rate by some meaningful % across the LDC universe? This may be one of those "check our morality at the border" issues like human rights globally but we need to reduce trade and keep jobs here no matter what.

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 5:41 pm I like to compare the importance of biodiversity to the reason why you should not discriminate in education and hiring by race, religion, etc. If you have more options to use, you are better off...

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 6:03 pm I need to learn a little more on the topic. Still think if we can feed a whole country this way we should be doing it but maybe I don’t understand the costs well enough.

Remember reading an interesting book by a guy named Alfred Crosby, maybe a 200-300 level history class, that discusses how we altered North American disease, crops and everything else by simply walking with boots that had been on European soil and brining those farm animals over.

-Just looked it up, called Ecological Imperialism. If you are into this topic perhaps it would be a good read for you.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecologi ... ism_(book)

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 8:37 am

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 5:41 pm I like to compare the importance of biodiversity to the reason why you should not discriminate in education and hiring by race, religion, etc. If you have more options to use, you are better off...

What a great quote Red....tip of the cap on that one.

foreverlax wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 3:43 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 6:03 pm I need to learn a little more on the topic. Still think if we can feed a whole country this way we should be doing it but maybe I don’t understand the costs well enough.

Remember reading an interesting book by a guy named Alfred Crosby, maybe a 200-300 level history class, that discusses how we altered North American disease, crops and everything else by simply walking with boots that had been on European soil and brining those farm animals over.

-Just looked it up, called Ecological Imperialism. If you are into this topic perhaps it would be a good read for you.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecologi ... ism_(book)

Great documentary Biggest Little Farm....all about creating a sustainable farm from a pile of dirt.

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 3:46 pm

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 8:37 am

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 5:41 pm I like to compare the importance of biodiversity to the reason why you should not discriminate in education and hiring by race, religion, etc. If you have more options to use, you are better off...

What a great quote Red....tip of the cap on that one.

Life is all about collecting as many free and cheap options as possible. The payoff skew (-100% vs. infinity upside) is worth it, not just in finance but softer, life terms as well.

DMac wrote: ↑Tue Mar 16, 2021 9:55 am

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 3:46 pm

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 8:37 am

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 5:41 pm I like to compare the importance of biodiversity to the reason why you should not discriminate in education and hiring by race, religion, etc. If you have more options to use, you are better off...

What a great quote Red....tip of the cap on that one.

Life is all about collecting as many free and cheap options as possible. The payoff skew (-100% vs. infinity upside) is worth it, not just in finance but softer, life terms as well.

You betchya, brotha.

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 4:25 pm

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 4:17 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 3:21 pm I would encourage folks to check in general chatter about the 3D printed house. This technology, 3D printing, has the potential to be a Kondriatiev wave level innovation for all of society IMO.

Conceptually similar innovation, this may bleed into other thread topics, but what is the argument against GMOs? Particularly when I've read we can create superfoods such as tomatoes which provide a full days nutrients for a person. If it's the "unkown" of science, that doesn't seem very "progressive" to me. Strikes me, raw meat for the hardcore right, that it's an anachronistic concept on the left which has some abtract devotion to food coming from the ground regardless of net contribution to humankind. But there's a few scientists poking around here, so maybe they can enlighten me on some risk or downside I am not aware of.

Biggest issues of GMOs seem to be (from the perspective of family farms):

Concentration of corporate power - rapid consolidation of seed industry for crops, in particular.

Contamination of non-GMO crops (pollination from GMO crops modifying non-GMO crops
(this also leads to inability of those farms to export to places that ban GMO crops).

Evolution of superweeds/superpests that are resistant to control measures.

Lowering of biodiversity (endangering crops by making them more susceptible to above).

Patents lead to large licensing costs - making seeds much more expensive.

I see issues #3 (evolution of superweeds/superpests resistant to existing mitigation techniques) and #4 as the most real. 1 & 2 are entirely manageable, #3 seems anti science in a sense (we created a super food, but can't figure out how to handle a superweed that we don't know whether it will actually materialize or not). #4 is speculative too but one I'd be worried about as a non-scientist, but we've altered biodiversity a million ways and continue to do so, aren't "we" (humans) part of this ecosystem and our behavior part of this dynamic model? If so, then not an issue that should stop feeding poor people throughout the world. #5 is very manageable.

Appreciate it, have seen some of these arguments. But do they outweight the ability to, for example, extend the average age in Ghana by 10 years or reduce the infant mortality rate by some meaningful % across the LDC universe? This may be one of those "check our morality at the border" issues like human rights globally but we need to reduce trade and keep jobs here no matter what.

PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Tue Mar 16, 2021 11:54 am

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 4:25 pm

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 4:17 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 3:21 pm I would encourage folks to check in general chatter about the 3D printed house. This technology, 3D printing, has the potential to be a Kondriatiev wave level innovation for all of society IMO.

Conceptually similar innovation, this may bleed into other thread topics, but what is the argument against GMOs? Particularly when I've read we can create superfoods such as tomatoes which provide a full days nutrients for a person. If it's the "unkown" of science, that doesn't seem very "progressive" to me. Strikes me, raw meat for the hardcore right, that it's an anachronistic concept on the left which has some abtract devotion to food coming from the ground regardless of net contribution to humankind. But there's a few scientists poking around here, so maybe they can enlighten me on some risk or downside I am not aware of.

Biggest issues of GMOs seem to be (from the perspective of family farms):

Concentration of corporate power - rapid consolidation of seed industry for crops, in particular.

Contamination of non-GMO crops (pollination from GMO crops modifying non-GMO crops
(this also leads to inability of those farms to export to places that ban GMO crops).

Evolution of superweeds/superpests that are resistant to control measures.

Lowering of biodiversity (endangering crops by making them more susceptible to above).

Patents lead to large licensing costs - making seeds much more expensive.

I see issues #3 (evolution of superweeds/superpests resistant to existing mitigation techniques) and #4 as the most real. 1 & 2 are entirely manageable, #3 seems anti science in a sense (we created a super food, but can't figure out how to handle a superweed that we don't know whether it will actually materialize or not). #4 is speculative too but one I'd be worried about as a non-scientist, but we've altered biodiversity a million ways and continue to do so, aren't "we" (humans) part of this ecosystem and our behavior part of this dynamic model? If so, then not an issue that should stop feeding poor people throughout the world. #5 is very manageable.

Appreciate it, have seen some of these arguments. But do they outweight the ability to, for example, extend the average age in Ghana by 10 years or reduce the infant mortality rate by some meaningful % across the LDC universe? This may be one of those "check our morality at the border" issues like human rights globally but we need to reduce trade and keep jobs here no matter what.

The real issues with GMOs are that they employ a “natural” process, genetic variation, but at unprecedented speed and breadth of adoption. The risks of unintended consequences are high because no business model allows for sufficient consideration of distal outcomes.

You can win “fast and big”, but you can also lose the same way (see ubiquitous environmental contamination of PFOAs).

Or, too put it simply, people are too venal and stupid to consider the downside risks. GMOs are like driving a car at 300 mph —great idea until something goes awry,

PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Tue Mar 16, 2021 11:54 am

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 4:25 pm

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 4:17 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 3:21 pm I would encourage folks to check in general chatter about the 3D printed house. This technology, 3D printing, has the potential to be a Kondriatiev wave level innovation for all of society IMO.

Conceptually similar innovation, this may bleed into other thread topics, but what is the argument against GMOs? Particularly when I've read we can create superfoods such as tomatoes which provide a full days nutrients for a person. If it's the "unkown" of science, that doesn't seem very "progressive" to me. Strikes me, raw meat for the hardcore right, that it's an anachronistic concept on the left which has some abtract devotion to food coming from the ground regardless of net contribution to humankind. But there's a few scientists poking around here, so maybe they can enlighten me on some risk or downside I am not aware of.

Biggest issues of GMOs seem to be (from the perspective of family farms):

Concentration of corporate power - rapid consolidation of seed industry for crops, in particular.

Contamination of non-GMO crops (pollination from GMO crops modifying non-GMO crops
(this also leads to inability of those farms to export to places that ban GMO crops).

Evolution of superweeds/superpests that are resistant to control measures.

Lowering of biodiversity (endangering crops by making them more susceptible to above).

Patents lead to large licensing costs - making seeds much more expensive.

I see issues #3 (evolution of superweeds/superpests resistant to existing mitigation techniques) and #4 as the most real. 1 & 2 are entirely manageable, #3 seems anti science in a sense (we created a super food, but can't figure out how to handle a superweed that we don't know whether it will actually materialize or not). #4 is speculative too but one I'd be worried about as a non-scientist, but we've altered biodiversity a million ways and continue to do so, aren't "we" (humans) part of this ecosystem and our behavior part of this dynamic model? If so, then not an issue that should stop feeding poor people throughout the world. #5 is very manageable.

Appreciate it, have seen some of these arguments. But do they outweight the ability to, for example, extend the average age in Ghana by 10 years or reduce the infant mortality rate by some meaningful % across the LDC universe? This may be one of those "check our morality at the border" issues like human rights globally but we need to reduce trade and keep jobs here no matter what.

The real issues with GMOs are that they employ a “natural” process, genetic variation, but at unprecedented speed and breadth of adoption. The risks of unintended consequences are high because no business model allows for sufficient consideration of distal outcomes.

You can win “fast and big”, but you can also lose the same way (see ubiquitous environmental contamination of PFOAs).

Or, too put it simply, people are too venal and stupid to consider the downside risks. GMOs are like driving a car at 300 mph —great idea until something goes awry,

PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Tue Mar 16, 2021 11:54 am

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 4:25 pm

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 4:17 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 3:21 pm I would encourage folks to check in general chatter about the 3D printed house. This technology, 3D printing, has the potential to be a Kondriatiev wave level innovation for all of society IMO.

Conceptually similar innovation, this may bleed into other thread topics, but what is the argument against GMOs? Particularly when I've read we can create superfoods such as tomatoes which provide a full days nutrients for a person. If it's the "unkown" of science, that doesn't seem very "progressive" to me. Strikes me, raw meat for the hardcore right, that it's an anachronistic concept on the left which has some abtract devotion to food coming from the ground regardless of net contribution to humankind. But there's a few scientists poking around here, so maybe they can enlighten me on some risk or downside I am not aware of.

Biggest issues of GMOs seem to be (from the perspective of family farms):

Concentration of corporate power - rapid consolidation of seed industry for crops, in particular.

Contamination of non-GMO crops (pollination from GMO crops modifying non-GMO crops
(this also leads to inability of those farms to export to places that ban GMO crops).

Evolution of superweeds/superpests that are resistant to control measures.

Lowering of biodiversity (endangering crops by making them more susceptible to above).

Patents lead to large licensing costs - making seeds much more expensive.

I see issues #3 (evolution of superweeds/superpests resistant to existing mitigation techniques) and #4 as the most real. 1 & 2 are entirely manageable, #3 seems anti science in a sense (we created a super food, but can't figure out how to handle a superweed that we don't know whether it will actually materialize or not). #4 is speculative too but one I'd be worried about as a non-scientist, but we've altered biodiversity a million ways and continue to do so, aren't "we" (humans) part of this ecosystem and our behavior part of this dynamic model? If so, then not an issue that should stop feeding poor people throughout the world. #5 is very manageable.

Appreciate it, have seen some of these arguments. But do they outweight the ability to, for example, extend the average age in Ghana by 10 years or reduce the infant mortality rate by some meaningful % across the LDC universe? This may be one of those "check our morality at the border" issues like human rights globally but we need to reduce trade and keep jobs here no matter what.

The real issues with GMOs are that they employ a “natural” process, genetic variation, but at unprecedented speed and breadth of adoption. The risks of unintended consequences are high because no business model allows for sufficient consideration of distal outcomes.

You can win “fast and big”, but you can also lose the same way (see ubiquitous environmental contamination of PFOAs).

Or, too put it simply, people are too venal and stupid to consider the downside risks. GMOs are like driving a car at 300 mph —great idea until something goes awry,

PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Tue Mar 16, 2021 11:54 am

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 4:25 pm

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 4:17 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 3:21 pm I would encourage folks to check in general chatter about the 3D printed house. This technology, 3D printing, has the potential to be a Kondriatiev wave level innovation for all of society IMO.

Conceptually similar innovation, this may bleed into other thread topics, but what is the argument against GMOs? Particularly when I've read we can create superfoods such as tomatoes which provide a full days nutrients for a person. If it's the "unkown" of science, that doesn't seem very "progressive" to me. Strikes me, raw meat for the hardcore right, that it's an anachronistic concept on the left which has some abtract devotion to food coming from the ground regardless of net contribution to humankind. But there's a few scientists poking around here, so maybe they can enlighten me on some risk or downside I am not aware of.

Biggest issues of GMOs seem to be (from the perspective of family farms):

Concentration of corporate power - rapid consolidation of seed industry for crops, in particular.

Contamination of non-GMO crops (pollination from GMO crops modifying non-GMO crops
(this also leads to inability of those farms to export to places that ban GMO crops).

Evolution of superweeds/superpests that are resistant to control measures.

Lowering of biodiversity (endangering crops by making them more susceptible to above).

Patents lead to large licensing costs - making seeds much more expensive.

I see issues #3 (evolution of superweeds/superpests resistant to existing mitigation techniques) and #4 as the most real. 1 & 2 are entirely manageable, #3 seems anti science in a sense (we created a super food, but can't figure out how to handle a superweed that we don't know whether it will actually materialize or not). #4 is speculative too but one I'd be worried about as a non-scientist, but we've altered biodiversity a million ways and continue to do so, aren't "we" (humans) part of this ecosystem and our behavior part of this dynamic model? If so, then not an issue that should stop feeding poor people throughout the world. #5 is very manageable.

Appreciate it, have seen some of these arguments. But do they outweight the ability to, for example, extend the average age in Ghana by 10 years or reduce the infant mortality rate by some meaningful % across the LDC universe? This may be one of those "check our morality at the border" issues like human rights globally but we need to reduce trade and keep jobs here no matter what.

The real issues with GMOs are that they employ a “natural” process, genetic variation, but at unprecedented speed and breadth of adoption. The risks of unintended consequences are high because no business model allows for sufficient consideration of distal outcomes.

You can win “fast and big”, but you can also lose the same way (see ubiquitous environmental contamination of PFOAs).

Or, too put it simply, people are too venal and stupid to consider the downside risks. GMOs are like driving a car at 300 mph —great idea until something goes awry,

foreverlax wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 3:43 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 6:03 pm I need to learn a little more on the topic. Still think if we can feed a whole country this way we should be doing it but maybe I don’t understand the costs well enough.

Remember reading an interesting book by a guy named Alfred Crosby, maybe a 200-300 level history class, that discusses how we altered North American disease, crops and everything else by simply walking with boots that had been on European soil and brining those farm animals over.

-Just looked it up, called Ecological Imperialism. If you are into this topic perhaps it would be a good read for you.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecologi ... ism_(book)

Great documentary Biggest Little Farm....all about creating a sustainable farm from a pile of dirt.

tech37 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 16, 2021 6:11 pm

foreverlax wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 3:43 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 6:03 pm I need to learn a little more on the topic. Still think if we can feed a whole country this way we should be doing it but maybe I don’t understand the costs well enough.

Remember reading an interesting book by a guy named Alfred Crosby, maybe a 200-300 level history class, that discusses how we altered North American disease, crops and everything else by simply walking with boots that had been on European soil and brining those farm animals over.

-Just looked it up, called Ecological Imperialism. If you are into this topic perhaps it would be a good read for you.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecologi ... ism_(book)

Great documentary Biggest Little Farm....all about creating a sustainable farm from a pile of dirt.

Indeed, it is a great little documentary

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Mar 17, 2021 7:11 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 16, 2021 6:11 pm

foreverlax wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 3:43 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 6:03 pm I need to learn a little more on the topic. Still think if we can feed a whole country this way we should be doing it but maybe I don’t understand the costs well enough.

Remember reading an interesting book by a guy named Alfred Crosby, maybe a 200-300 level history class, that discusses how we altered North American disease, crops and everything else by simply walking with boots that had been on European soil and brining those farm animals over.

-Just looked it up, called Ecological Imperialism. If you are into this topic perhaps it would be a good read for you.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecologi ... ism_(book)

Great documentary Biggest Little Farm....all about creating a sustainable farm from a pile of dirt.

Indeed, it is a great little documentary

You give me a pile of dirt and I will give you a bushel basket of tomatoes.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Mar 17, 2021 7:11 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 16, 2021 6:11 pm

foreverlax wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 3:43 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 6:03 pm I need to learn a little more on the topic. Still think if we can feed a whole country this way we should be doing it but maybe I don’t understand the costs well enough.

Remember reading an interesting book by a guy named Alfred Crosby, maybe a 200-300 level history class, that discusses how we altered North American disease, crops and everything else by simply walking with boots that had been on European soil and brining those farm animals over.

-Just looked it up, called Ecological Imperialism. If you are into this topic perhaps it would be a good read for you.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecologi ... ism_(book)

Great documentary Biggest Little Farm....all about creating a sustainable farm from a pile of dirt.

Indeed, it is a great little documentary

You give me a pile of dirt and I will give you a bushel basket of tomatoes.

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Wed Mar 17, 2021 8:10 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Mar 17, 2021 7:11 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 16, 2021 6:11 pm

foreverlax wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 3:43 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 6:03 pm I need to learn a little more on the topic. Still think if we can feed a whole country this way we should be doing it but maybe I don’t understand the costs well enough.

Remember reading an interesting book by a guy named Alfred Crosby, maybe a 200-300 level history class, that discusses how we altered North American disease, crops and everything else by simply walking with boots that had been on European soil and brining those farm animals over.

-Just looked it up, called Ecological Imperialism. If you are into this topic perhaps it would be a good read for you.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecologi ... ism_(book)

Great documentary Biggest Little Farm....all about creating a sustainable farm from a pile of dirt.

Indeed, it is a great little documentary

You give me a pile of dirt and I will give you a bushel basket of tomatoes.

tomatoes.....nerd

100 sq. feet usually yields about 10 pounds

(my list of learned is to find out how the SOIL in the Amazon basen was made. terra preta
talk about innovation. monsanto squashes it

GOT THaT GREEN ON yet !!.......Chatham Bars is have an all day buffet Cod n Cabbage. Happy St. Paddys day.

https://bigbudsmag.com/supporting-plant ... a-gardens/