Don't like what Humvee drivers do to the environment? Then why are you eating organic?
I don't recall if I've ranted on this before...and I think I'll mostly leave it to that article. The more I think about the damage organic food does to this planet and the people on it, the more choked with rage I get and I start getting all incoherent.
Especially when I consider that, living where I do, I often have little choice in whether or not to buy organic. Other people's extremely destructive vanity whims are shoved on me, and I am forced to help them destroy the planet.
There is only one known benefit to organic food: It makes rich people feel better about themselves.
Aug 1 2006, 12:27 pm
|
|
Spade489
 |
Damn, you've got it all figured out don't you.
|
Shockingly (and maddeningly), Hummers are apparently not that bad for the environment. At least when compared to hybrid vehicles, of all things.
An interesting study came out recently which quantified the total energy cost of a vehicle per lifetime mile, from manufacturing to disposal. They found that the Honda Civic hybrid has an energy cost of $3.24 per lifetime mile, compared to only $1.95 for the Hummer. The world is upside-down! http://www.reason.org/commentaries/dalmia_20060719.shtml http://thewatt.com/article-1070-nested-1-0.html Of course, other people remain skeptical about the validity of their methods, but the study still raises a good point. Just as with the organic foods, we must delve deeper to determine the true impact of these "quick fixes" for health or the environment. Too often, we find the easy answer that pleases us, and immediately stop looking -- because otherwise we might find out we're wrong! | |
It's called "NIMBY". If they don't see it, it's not a problem. =)
| |
It seems to me that much of the problem in people taking up harmful practices or ideologies while they are actually attempting to improve the world in their own way is that absence of realization that everything has a cost.
If you want to know whether a practice is beneficial, explore the cost and contrast that to the cost of other choices. People tend to want to believe a solution is magically cost-free, and therefore beneficial to humanity. But everything has a cost, whether the chemicals used to manufacture an item, or the space taken up by the technology, the resources used to deliver the item, or the alternate uses no longer available when something is dedicated to one purpose. One reason I tend to favor nuclear power is because the cost is very visible and clear: The radioactive stuff in this box is the cost, and we have to figure out what to do with it. Unlike other forms of energy, where the costs often tend to be hard to see and are distributed all over the place. | |
That article is bringing alot of things out of context.
Although the organic trend has its oddities, there are some real problems with conventional farming - the most notable being nitrogen fertilizer. I quote: "It takes organic farmers roughly twice as much land to produce a ton of food, primarily because they refuse to use nitrogen fertilizer to replace the nitrogen taken from the soil by their growing crops. That means huge tracts of land must be used to “grow nitrogen,” either as cattle pasture or planted to non-food legumes such as clover and hairy vetch." One of the major points in organic farming is to avoid using nitrogen fertilizer due to health and environmental concerns. Blaming organic farmers for letting their land lie fallow rather then using fertilizer is ridiculous. Two larger problems are overpopulation, and agriculture as a whole. Deforestation has been an issue long before organic farming was a practice. | |
Hey Mike,
I know you meant good with what you wrote. But, did I miss something here? I didn't understand the connection between your first paragraph with the rest of your post. Economic depreciation is a generic no brainer when discussing buying a car, but I didn't catch how that relates to the environment. | |
Its funny you bring up cost analysis and nuclear power, Deadron, because imediately after I read that I found this article on nuclear power on anthropik. Its a good read.
| |
At least that article doesn't try to ignore the fact that everything has costs.
As for this statement: The sooner we recognize that there is no magic bullet, and that vast simplifications of our society will be required I really disagree with the "vast simplification" thing. Other considerations aside, it's simply not gonna happen. It's much more realistic to look at ways to improve efficiency of providing services for all than to believe that somehow worldwide we're all going to subject ourselves to lives of deprivation in some form. We've proven ourselves good at regularly making substantial advances in efficiency. Some of the justification for this is that by "making everyone rich", you tend to significantly reduce population growth, thereby slowing down or removing some of the issues someone like this is concerned about. It's also worthwhile to look into the real impact of Chernobyl. My understanding is that the damage was vastly less than originally predicted, and comes down to impacting very few people, without any of the long-term results originally predicted. | |
OH MY GOD
THE VEGITARIANS OPPRESS ME SO | |
(=P)
| |
Other considerations aside, it's simply not gonna happen.
I believe that you're absolutely right; people don't like to change, and civilization has been growing steadily in complexity since the agricultural revolution. This civilization has proven, beyond all measure, the capacity to advance efficiency. As you're saying, though, everything has a cost, and the cost to drive an industrial civilization is energy. 'Making everyone rich', or higher education levels for the masses, does reduce population growth, but there's still the issue of energy - primarily the question where it comes from. Several hundred years ago, Europe was facing a crisis - they reached peak wood production, and their ship driven economy was saved in the nick of time by the exploitation of the New World's lush wood supplies. As the years progressed there've been any number of peaks, as one energy source was consumed. These days we're dealing with peak oil, and, as far as I'm aware, there aren't any alternatives availible that can meet the huge demand, at least not yet. We're also dealing with overpopulation, among any other of issues, these days. My point is that, as its going now, civilization will eventually reach levels of complexity that energy sources won't be able to compete with. The result being crash, and a revert to something less complex. | |
That article you linked to, Deadron, claims that Rudolph Steiner was a "German racial purist". This is a ridiculous assertion. They're just trying to imply that he was a forerunner of Nazism without actually saying it. Slander, utter slander.
(Before anyone point outs that the article doesn't mention Nazism even once, consider this: What does one think of when one hears the phrase "German racial purist"? Exactly. Now, moving on.) He did not advocate "racial purity". The author seems to think that he was a Nazi just because he was German. Poppycock. What he did advocate was individuals trying to differentiate themselves from the rest of their race; by which he basically meant genetics. The general population's understanding of genetics was not well advanced in the late 1800s; when Steiner talked about differentiating oneself from one's race, what he really meant was conquering the influence of one's genes; for example, becoming intelligent (by educating oneself) despite not possessing the genes that predispose people towards being intelligent. He praised this kind of effort. How can someone who praises differentiation be acused of "racial purity"? Anyone claiming that he was a "racial purist" obviously does not understand what he was talking about. Admittedly some of his views might be considerered mildly racist by modern standards - but heck, what late-1800s opinions on race aren't dated? Compared to his contemporaries he was quite progressive. While his ideas about spirituality and education were a little odd, they were definite improvements compared to the existing educational systems of the time. Now back on topic... Obviously I'm not qualified to argue about the nutritional benefits of organic vs. non-organic food (I'm no nutritional scientist), but if the author of the article can't be bothered to do his research (see above) then I'm not going to trust his conclusions. What I do know is that organic food tastes better. This may have something to do with not being sprayed with chemicals designed to kill lifeforms; or it may not. And of course taste is not an indicator of healthiness. But hey, if someone wants to have better-tasting food, why can't they be allowed to produce and buy it? Organic food may not scale up to large populations well, but that doesn't make it a bad thing. Democracy doesn't scale up to large populations well; does that mean it's "evil" too? | |
Re: Crispy
If you dig around on the site, you will find alot of anti-environmental propaganda. It also seems to be heavilly tilted towards corporate farming and anti-organic. I can only speculate on where their funding must originate.... I would agree, however, that fundamentally people often overlook costs. However, I don't know that this particular article addresses the issue honestly. Industrial farming is hugely destructive and wasteful. I fail to understand how rotating crop fields (an ecologically and economically sound method, used worldwide for centuries, to prevent over farming resulting in mineral stripped fields) can even begin to compare with the practices many corporate farms engage in. Worse, the article engages in the typical character assaults you see waged in poorly researched work. Who says that all humvee drivers are trying to impress a sportsbar waitress? Are they ignoring the female owners? And what study indicates that organics are primarily bought to brag about? (I'm pretty sure the hippy types I have seen frequenting organic stores are not bragging about their consumerism). As this excerpt indicates: "Even Cornell University, which tends toward supporting the trendy and politically correct...." the article is heavily chained to unverified idealogical assumptions. It is also interesting to note that most of the "harms" listed are purely speculative. Whereas the documented dangers of pesticide poisoning, lower nutrition yields of certain genetically altered crops, etc. are already occurring. | |
What I do know is that organic food tastes better.
I'd be interested in seeing double-blind tests on this assertion. It's one commonly held by people I know, and doesn't match my own experience (one reason I seek out non-organic when I can)...but I realize that everyone including myself may be biased in their feelings as they taste food. If it does taste better, that's certainly a legitimate reason to buy organic, as long as one is willing to accept the many trade offs. | |
Jmurph:
I would agree, however, that fundamentally people often overlook costs. Yeah, for sure. That part at least is true. Good post, Jmurph. I won't quote any particular point, because I agree with all of it. :-) Deadron wrote: What I do know is that organic food tastes better. So would I, but you'd have to cover a wide spectrum of people - organic and non-organic consumers, people who eat both, people for organic food, people against organic food, people neutral on the issue, and so on - in order to make it as unbiased as possible. Like most of our sensory perceptions, taste is quite subjective, so it's practically a given some people will prefer the taste of non-organic food. It might be an acquired taste. I've recently discovered that I prefer the taste of tap water (fluoride and all) over the taste of purified water from bottles and water coolers. It makes no sense to me, and people insist that the purified water tastes better (and it must be true, because otherwise why would they bother purifying it?) - but there it is. | |
Egads, man! Are there no Wal*Mart Supercenters near you?
Surely, a good old Wally World will have plenty of "normal" food, regardless of the region you're in (they ship the stuff from one end of the globe to the other... I'd be surprised if any Wal*Marts stocked anything grown locally, if there was an alternative...lol) But yeah, I'm all for sticking to the stuff I've been eating my entire life, even if it is "inferior"... Food is expensive enough as it is (for two of us, we spend nearly an equal amount on food per month as we pay for rent; about $400, though admittedly, that includes a handful of expensive and/or unnecessary items, like junk food, Coke, etc) I've got no desire to start buying more expensive varieties of anything with no discernable increase in quality (well, maybe that's a bit hypocritical, as I'm addicted to buing brand name foods, when I'm aware that the cheaper generic offerings are often just as good, if not exactly the same thing in a different package) And speaking of tap vs. bottled water, I'm with you, Crispy... I'll take water out of the tap over bottled any day... In fact, there are only a few kinds of bottled water that I can even stand to drink (Coca Cola's "Dasani" is not on that list... that stuff is horrendous) | |
Speaking of Wal-Mart, I was at my local(TM) Supercenter yesterday and noticed they now have a whole stand of organic produce. (Of course, I'm a frugal type, so there was no way I was spending twice as much on my tomatoes!)
SSGX: Some places you need bottled water because of problems with the local water supply. Lubbock water, for example was terrible. It had a huge gypsum content for some reason that would form a skin if you let it sit for a day or so. Nasty stuff. Waco water wasn't great either and had a high bacterial count thanks to agricultural runoff. Of course, you have to be careful where the packaged water comes from, too.... | |
So would I, but you'd have to cover a wide spectrum of people - organic and non-organic consumers, people who eat both, people for organic food, people against organic food, people neutral on the issue, and so on - in order to make it as unbiased as possible.
Nah, you just need to follow double blind protocols, and you'll have no bias. You would want to cover a diverse enough set of people to ensure that physical differences in perceiving taste are accounted for, but with a proper double blind test, their beliefs wouldn't play into the results. | |
Of course organic food tastes better. :P Ask any cannibal, which tastes better; the lout who weights 20 stone and watches T.V. all day, or the olympic athlete? And which would you rather eat? :P
Then again there is that japanese cow thing that's only fed beer... =S (I'm so deep.) | |