Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
I'm thinking in terms of investment of that money and you are thinking in terms consuming that money. Those are both about money, but they are completely different functions of money. You really can't eliminate hunger by eliminating investment. In fact, I would argue with dauguy and bobalee, that space exploration is an excellent long term investment.
Yes, there is more to be learned from space. And the major reason for so many starving people on earth is the rampant and uncontrolled population explosion with finite resources to deal with it. And, no, I am not really a person for massive controls on population growth. But one has to consider about what the planet will be like, 20-30 years from now, with the population growth as it is. Space exploration may be more than Science Fiction - Is there really intelligent life on other planets?
[5 points]101 days ago by bobaleeReplyEdited 101 days ago by bobalee
There is enough food to feed everyone. The problem lies not in production, but in distribution. With corporations like Monsanto destroying food-crop farms for cash crop agribusiness, this will only get worse.
Dauguy comes from an "If corporations do it it must be bad" point of view. I come from a "Corporations try to do right by their constituents, but are often short sighted and screw things up" point of view.
Monsanto and Con-Agra have developed new seeds that improve crop yield, taste, nutrition and/or transportability of food. The way they pay for the research and make a profit is to sell the seeds. These seeds do not produce more usable seed. They produce more or better food.
Dauguy feels that this is an example of corporate greed that takes food out of the mouths of the starving. I believe that it is an example of corporate value. These corporations are producing more and/or better food that is NOT being produced by individuals or governments. Dauguy argues that "cash crop agribusiness" (a bad thing?) is pushing the family farm out of business. And while I agree that it may be a loss to our culture, I know that it produces more and better food.
they make GMOD crops that are patented. their seeds spread to other farms and then monsanto comes and sues those farmers for "growing our plants without a license," putting many out of business.
The crops in many cases are not fit for human consumption, and those seeds have been mixing with and tainting human consumable crops, such as corn. perhaps you heard of the huge taco recall, due to poison being in the corn, thanks to monsanto. but that's just scratching the surface. they are taking gene mods such as insecticide production, and putting those right into the plants, so that a farmer can't even grow a plant without there being toxins in it. they now have plants that are "round-up ready" which means they will survive being sprayed with roundup. unfortunately many of the plants with these genes are spreading said genes to weeds, which is now making round-up useless... so a more toxic form has to be devised.
They have a whole "system" of poisons they expect farmers to use that are doing nothing more than poisoning millions of people while creating super-strains of pests that are resistant to ever more highly toxic versions of their chemicals. Who even knows what new diseases we americans are getting from being exposed to all this junk.
Let's not forget they want Bovine Gorwth Hormone in milk, which does intense damage to cows, and is causing many children to reach puberty years before they are supposed to. the long term effects of putting dangerous hormones into our milk supply can not be ignored.
Monsanto sued a company for saying its milk does not contain bovine growth hormone. The bush supreme court upheld the suit, taking away the other company's freedom of speech to say what they do and don't have in their milk. It goes on and on. the company is EVIL. nothing more. nothing less.
If I believed even a fourth of what you were saying, I'd be against them too. Unfortunately, you are another example of a hate spewing Liberal out to destroy anything you don't understand.
please dispute any facts that you don't understand or believe one at a time, and we'll go through them. at least you're honest, for a conservative, to say that you WOULD be against them if you KNEW about them. that's a good start. it means if we can pull you away from your propaganda, you will turn back into a normal human being.
that's right, even though for fuel, they actually cost more to produce, in energy and government subsidies, than they actually produce.
The problem is that the seeds from non-consumable crops can go thousands of miles, in the jet stream, and they can mix with any other crops, tainting food supplies around the world. Worse, of course, is the fact that animals we will be eating, will be eating this poisoned food. do you seriously think all those toxins will not be right in the meat we are eating? because they are.
Re: do you seriously think all those toxins will not be right in the meat we are eating?
Nope. They are at levels way too low to harm us and are not cumulative. The insecticides spliced into animal food crops are destroyed in the digestive process of the animal.
Re: They are taking gene mods such as insecticide production, and putting those right into the plants, so that a farmer can't even grow a plant without there being toxins in it.
I'm not sure if you are more guilty of being for fertilizer run-off or for junk science. Fertilizer run-off happens when topically applied fertilizer or insecticide is washed off by rain before it can be absorbed by the plants and soil. Adding low level insecticides to food crops not only raises food production, but requires much lower levels of insecticide than what has to be applied topically.
show me peer reviewed research that demonstrates that none of the toxins tainting our food supply make it into us. you won't be able to. you will find studies funded somehow by companies like monsanto, but you won't find any that are unbiased.
No such thing as an unbiased study here. The only way to get a study done is to be funded by a group for or against the product.
The best I can do is show that, statistically, there are no desernable instances of damage. There is, however damage done by topically applied fertilizer and insecticides. This gene mod procedure solves that problem.
They developed and sold synthesized Bovine Growth Hormone. Before this, it could only be gotten from dead cows and was much more expensive. It works with the natural hormones in a cow to extend the time a cow is giving the peak amount of milk.
The FDA approves the use of Posilac (the brand of bovine growth hormone formally made be Monsanto, now made by Eli Lilly) for all milk products in the US. But other countries cite the damage to cows as as reason for banning the use of Polilac in cows in their country. Polilac produces a 25% increase in the 5%-33% of cows that show signs of developing Puerperal Mastitis. (inflammation of breast in connection with pregnancy and lactation. It is caused by blocked milk ducts.) It is not a disease or cancer and does not cause a disease or cancer in humans. There have been no tests that have been able to support the "fact" of cancers in humans or animals.
Re: dangerous hormones into our milk supply
Milk contains hormones and cannot be produced in such a way that it would not contain any hormones. There is no such thing as hormone free milk. The FDA and Monsanto sued a dairy that said they did. The dairy lost the suit because they were defrauding the public.
Re: is causing many children to reach puberty years before they are supposed to.
Whose hair-brained idea is this? Even anti-BGH activists don't make this claim.
Re: Monsanto sued a company for saying its milk does not contain bovine growth hormone.
The dairy advertised that it's milk was BGH free. It cannot be because all milk from cows has BHG (regardless of who is on the Supreme Court)
[1 point]96 days ago by JWBrothersReplyEdited 96 days ago by JWBrothers
Space program is comparatively not that expensive. The option should be whether there should be so much spent on war and defense when there are many starving people
The reason that so much is spent on War and Defense is that there will always be someone or group that wants to take what you have. Whether it might be; for an common class belief or some dictatorial minded individual. It should be obvious with the conflicts that are going on in the world to this date. History has proven that America has been one of the leading countries to provide Food Aid to the needy in the world. However, there are just too darn many of them and the problem continues to grow exponentially year after year. One needy family begets two or three needy families, which begets four to Six needy families, etc, etc. With all this begetting going on, you'll never solve the hunger problem.
[1 point]101 days ago by bobaleeReplyEdited 100 days ago by bobalee
investment in space has brought back dozens of dollars into the economy for each dollar invested. the real question is can we possibly afford NOT to engage in space exploration.
Should we be spending money on entertainment when people are starving?
In 20-30 years from now, there will be even more people starving.
eventually we will reach the maximum amount of people this planet can handle. When we do, I sure hope that we've come up with some sort of space colony concept that we can use to help keep this Earth in a healthy self-sustainable pattern, without being forced to resort to population control.
I would love to see a design for a space ship that can house a certain amount of people indefinitely. As in, it would never need to return for supplies. Some sort of massive ship that has it's own farms, it's own power supply, and so on. The people on it could go wherever they want, forever. Even raising children, as long as they don't go over the max.
[1 point]101 days ago by CalebFReplyEdited 101 days ago by CalebF
While that may seem ideal, I don't think many people would want to raise their kids in that kind of environment. We have a basic understanding of the planets in "this" galaxy and have determined that they are mostly considered uninhabitable. Although, I think that they are still taking a close look at Mars for Scientific reasons. If one was to look at this issue with an open mind, it would be the exploration of planets in other galaxies that would prove beneficial. But then again, this is still in the realm of Science Fiction.
Yes, of course. We are embryonic, here, in our tiny little planet. we are so primitive, that we haven't even gone to the next star yet. We are infants.
That part aside, the fact is that the R&D to put us in space in the first place gave us technologies such as computers, microprocessors, the internet, and all sorts of other breakthroughs that have driven our economy and fed more people than all the charities combined.
So OF COURSE we should go to space, and explore, and improve, and grow as a species, and expand and do amazing things.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 102 days ago by deleted user ReplyFalse dichotomy. One has little to do with the other.
This comment was deleted.
[2 points] 102 days ago by deleted user ReplyI'm thinking in terms of investment of that money and you are thinking in terms consuming that money. Those are both about money, but they are completely different functions of money. You really can't eliminate hunger by eliminating investment. In fact, I would argue with dauguy and bobalee, that space exploration is an excellent long term investment.
This is the third thing today we agree on.
We both may need to do some reassessment B^)
Yeah, we can't make a habit of this.
Everyone who is or has been on a heart monitor in the ICU should think twice before answering.
Yes, there is more to be learned from space. And the major reason for so many starving people on earth is the rampant and uncontrolled population explosion with finite resources to deal with it. And, no, I am not really a person for massive controls on population growth. But one has to consider about what the planet will be like, 20-30 years from now, with the population growth as it is. Space exploration may be more than Science Fiction - Is there really intelligent life on other planets?
Shouldn't we look for intelligent life on this planet first? :P
Wow, straight to the point.
There is enough food to feed everyone. The problem lies not in production, but in distribution. With corporations like Monsanto destroying food-crop farms for cash crop agribusiness, this will only get worse.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 101 days ago by deleted user ReplyDauguy comes from an "If corporations do it it must be bad" point of view. I come from a "Corporations try to do right by their constituents, but are often short sighted and screw things up" point of view.
Monsanto and Con-Agra have developed new seeds that improve crop yield, taste, nutrition and/or transportability of food. The way they pay for the research and make a profit is to sell the seeds. These seeds do not produce more usable seed. They produce more or better food.
Dauguy feels that this is an example of corporate greed that takes food out of the mouths of the starving. I believe that it is an example of corporate value. These corporations are producing more and/or better food that is NOT being produced by individuals or governments. Dauguy argues that "cash crop agribusiness" (a bad thing?) is pushing the family farm out of business. And while I agree that it may be a loss to our culture, I know that it produces more and better food.
how DON'T they?
they make GMOD crops that are patented. their seeds spread to other farms and then monsanto comes and sues those farmers for "growing our plants without a license," putting many out of business.
The crops in many cases are not fit for human consumption, and those seeds have been mixing with and tainting human consumable crops, such as corn. perhaps you heard of the huge taco recall, due to poison being in the corn, thanks to monsanto. but that's just scratching the surface. they are taking gene mods such as insecticide production, and putting those right into the plants, so that a farmer can't even grow a plant without there being toxins in it. they now have plants that are "round-up ready" which means they will survive being sprayed with roundup. unfortunately many of the plants with these genes are spreading said genes to weeds, which is now making round-up useless... so a more toxic form has to be devised.
They have a whole "system" of poisons they expect farmers to use that are doing nothing more than poisoning millions of people while creating super-strains of pests that are resistant to ever more highly toxic versions of their chemicals. Who even knows what new diseases we americans are getting from being exposed to all this junk.
Let's not forget they want Bovine Gorwth Hormone in milk, which does intense damage to cows, and is causing many children to reach puberty years before they are supposed to. the long term effects of putting dangerous hormones into our milk supply can not be ignored.
Monsanto sued a company for saying its milk does not contain bovine growth hormone. The bush supreme court upheld the suit, taking away the other company's freedom of speech to say what they do and don't have in their milk. It goes on and on. the company is EVIL. nothing more. nothing less.
If I believed even a fourth of what you were saying, I'd be against them too. Unfortunately, you are another example of a hate spewing Liberal out to destroy anything you don't understand.
I LOVE...
please dispute any facts that you don't understand or believe one at a time, and we'll go through them. at least you're honest, for a conservative, to say that you WOULD be against them if you KNEW about them. that's a good start. it means if we can pull you away from your propaganda, you will turn back into a normal human being.
Re: The crops in many cases are not fit for human consumption.
Of course not. They are grown as livestock feed and fuel.
that's right, even though for fuel, they actually cost more to produce, in energy and government subsidies, than they actually produce.
The problem is that the seeds from non-consumable crops can go thousands of miles, in the jet stream, and they can mix with any other crops, tainting food supplies around the world. Worse, of course, is the fact that animals we will be eating, will be eating this poisoned food. do you seriously think all those toxins will not be right in the meat we are eating? because they are.
Re: do you seriously think all those toxins will not be right in the meat we are eating?
Nope. They are at levels way too low to harm us and are not cumulative. The insecticides spliced into animal food crops are destroyed in the digestive process of the animal.
Re: They are taking gene mods such as insecticide production, and putting those right into the plants, so that a farmer can't even grow a plant without there being toxins in it.
I'm not sure if you are more guilty of being for fertilizer run-off or for junk science. Fertilizer run-off happens when topically applied fertilizer or insecticide is washed off by rain before it can be absorbed by the plants and soil. Adding low level insecticides to food crops not only raises food production, but requires much lower levels of insecticide than what has to be applied topically.
show me peer reviewed research that demonstrates that none of the toxins tainting our food supply make it into us. you won't be able to. you will find studies funded somehow by companies like monsanto, but you won't find any that are unbiased.
No such thing as an unbiased study here. The only way to get a study done is to be funded by a group for or against the product.
The best I can do is show that, statistically, there are no desernable instances of damage. There is, however damage done by topically applied fertilizer and insecticides. This gene mod procedure solves that problem.
Re: bush supreme court
No such thing.
Roberts and Alito make the supreme court into the bush supreme court. they make the two last nails in the coffin for freedom in this country.
No. After Bork was borked, Bush chose moderates. (And Obama has already chosen an extreme Liberal.
Re: they want Bovine Growth Hormone in milk.
They developed and sold synthesized Bovine Growth Hormone. Before this, it could only be gotten from dead cows and was much more expensive. It works with the natural hormones in a cow to extend the time a cow is giving the peak amount of milk.
The FDA approves the use of Posilac (the brand of bovine growth hormone formally made be Monsanto, now made by Eli Lilly) for all milk products in the US. But other countries cite the damage to cows as as reason for banning the use of Polilac in cows in their country. Polilac produces a 25% increase in the 5%-33% of cows that show signs of developing Puerperal Mastitis. (inflammation of breast in connection with pregnancy and lactation. It is caused by blocked milk ducts.) It is not a disease or cancer and does not cause a disease or cancer in humans. There have been no tests that have been able to support the "fact" of cancers in humans or animals.
Re: dangerous hormones into our milk supply
Milk contains hormones and cannot be produced in such a way that it would not contain any hormones. There is no such thing as hormone free milk. The FDA and Monsanto sued a dairy that said they did. The dairy lost the suit because they were defrauding the public.
Re: is causing many children to reach puberty years before they are supposed to.
Whose hair-brained idea is this? Even anti-BGH activists don't make this claim.
Re: Monsanto sued a company for saying its milk does not contain bovine growth hormone.
The dairy advertised that it's milk was BGH free. It cannot be because all milk from cows has BHG (regardless of who is on the Supreme Court)
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 100 days ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[2 points] 101 days ago by deleted user ReplySpace program is comparatively not that expensive. The option should be whether there should be so much spent on war and defense when there are many starving people
The reason that so much is spent on War and Defense is that there will always be someone or group that wants to take what you have. Whether it might be; for an common class belief or some dictatorial minded individual. It should be obvious with the conflicts that are going on in the world to this date. History has proven that America has been one of the leading countries to provide Food Aid to the needy in the world. However, there are just too darn many of them and the problem continues to grow exponentially year after year. One needy family begets two or three needy families, which begets four to Six needy families, etc, etc. With all this begetting going on, you'll never solve the hunger problem.
investment in space has brought back dozens of dollars into the economy for each dollar invested. the real question is can we possibly afford NOT to engage in space exploration.
Maybe they are looking for someplace else to plant carrots and grow cabbage.
We really should spend so much on space travel because so many people on earth are starving.
To quote my favorite author: “The earth is just too small and fragile a basket for the human race to keep all its eggs in.”
Should we be spending money on entertainment when people are starving?
In 20-30 years from now, there will be even more people starving.
eventually we will reach the maximum amount of people this planet can handle. When we do, I sure hope that we've come up with some sort of space colony concept that we can use to help keep this Earth in a healthy self-sustainable pattern, without being forced to resort to population control.
I would love to see a design for a space ship that can house a certain amount of people indefinitely. As in, it would never need to return for supplies. Some sort of massive ship that has it's own farms, it's own power supply, and so on. The people on it could go wherever they want, forever. Even raising children, as long as they don't go over the max.
While that may seem ideal, I don't think many people would want to raise their kids in that kind of environment. We have a basic understanding of the planets in "this" galaxy and have determined that they are mostly considered uninhabitable. Although, I think that they are still taking a close look at Mars for Scientific reasons. If one was to look at this issue with an open mind, it would be the exploration of planets in other galaxies that would prove beneficial. But then again, this is still in the realm of Science Fiction.
Yes, of course. We are embryonic, here, in our tiny little planet. we are so primitive, that we haven't even gone to the next star yet. We are infants.
That part aside, the fact is that the R&D to put us in space in the first place gave us technologies such as computers, microprocessors, the internet, and all sorts of other breakthroughs that have driven our economy and fed more people than all the charities combined.
So OF COURSE we should go to space, and explore, and improve, and grow as a species, and expand and do amazing things.