inpromissum

If it makes you feel better, most of what you believe is wrong; you should feel free to pay the cheaper prices.

Cheers,
Steve

Wow. Forgive me if I don't take your word for it.

Would millions of scientists dedicate their lives and billions of dollars be spent if we didn't see an ominous situation ahead? I'm going to go ahead and say no. And if your rebuttal is a bunch of links to oil tycoons' research on the myth of global warming, don't waste your keystrokes,

There are a lot of people making a lot of money by overlooking the health of the planet - kind of like the tobacco industry making lots of money by overlooking cancer. Do you think that those carcinogens are bogus too? Enough money, creativity, and factual license can prove I'm an iguana yet that doesn't mean that I am.

Hey, you get props from me for your commitment... I agree with you on most of those principles, but my adherence to them isn't as absolute--I try to make a point of buying organic (and also of using public transit instead of driving, supporting businesses whose practices I approve of, minimizing the amount of stuff I dump into landfills, and so on), but I definitely don't go as far out of my way as I could to stick to that. It sounds like you're way better about it, which I think is really cool.

And really, if you find value in spending more money to look out for the environment, what's irresponsible about doing so? It's yours to do with as you please, after all...

I'm not saying that global warming isn't an issue. I haven't done enough research to speak with knowledge on the subject.

On the other hand, landfills aren't an issue. Organic food isn't and "free range" chickens are anything but "free."

There are many perfectly valid environmental causes; you just happened to pick some questionable ones. I'm surprised that you didn't mention the other big myth, logging.

Your mom is a big myth.

But seriously, as for landfills, I suppose I can round up 50,000 websites, probably at least half of them with some kind of credentials, that will argue otherwise.

Organic food is in fact organic (yes, some things get labeled organic when they are not, kind of like Evian bottle water . . . which was named as such because of it's relation to "naive" and the fact that they were selling tap water). Look, even the current administration has bought in. http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/Consumers/brochure.html

No, free range chickens are not riding around on horses in cowboy boots and making hobo stew every night, but they at least get a reasonably large area to roam in, as opposed to many chickens who spend their entire lives (aside from feeding), in 12" by 12" by 12" cages.

Steve - "If it makes you feel better, most of what you believe is wrong; you should feel free to pay the cheaper prices."

Come on, now, I expect something better reasoned out than this from you. I know you like to be ornery and all, but this is words and not content. :)

Kara - I'm not nearly as bad as you make me out to sound here. Though yes, I yield that I advised that you pay less for your medicine even though it came in an obnoxious plastic packaging. I guess that while I agree with just about everything you said here, sometimes I don't put the pieces together when it comes to my daily actions. But remember that it's a mighty big leap to go from this to saying that I have no sense of conservationism at all ...

--Nick

I'm sorry; I was unclear. I never meant to say that organic wasn't organic. My point was that organic holds no real benefit (society-wise) over non-organic foods. If you like the taste better, that's great, but don't think that you are deriving more out of it than that.

There is a certain amount of hypocrisy associated with organic food. On one hand vegetarians push a life without meat. On the other hand they push organic food. If both agendas were successful we, as a nation, would starve. The nutritional content of food has been greatly increased through the use of science. It has allowed us to have a plentiful supply of fruits and vegetables that lasts all year long. Organic doesn’t afford us this benefit. The current food systems have done far more help than harm.

Landfills are anything but full. In fact they are fighting for business. However, just for argument’s sake let’s assume that we have 50-100 years left before we are doomed to the fait of Cynthia Sylvia Stout. In my (never-so) humble opinion this is the *perfect* application for nanotech. Millions of trash-sorting bots will be working their way through landfills before the century is over.

Free-range chickens are food. I understand that you don’t like to see living beings tortured in cubic-foot cages. However, you didn’t impress upon me the “conservation” angle. How is that destroying the planet? How are we dooming the future?

My point is not that we aren’t killing the planet. My point was just that you didn’t use accurate examples. I would have gone with examples such as chemical dumping. The government just released warnings about eating too much fish because we can just about take our temperature with the amount of mercury in their bodies.

Steve, in my mind it is all related, and I didn't intend the entire entry to directly support my original statement . . . it was just a weblog entry. When I said I wanted to do what was good for my liver I was referring to eating organic foods. It took them a long time to prove that saccharin was a carcinogen, so I'm just going to play it safe and assume that stuff that kills multiple species of bugs probably doesn't need to be in my body. I didn't expound on the liver/organic point, so that was my fault. The free range chicken thing - that's for my conscience. It was not intended to be an example of conservationism. Once again, just following my own train of thought.

Personally, I have no issue with genetically modified foods, but if I can buy an organic apple grown down the street that is neither covered in wax or likely to kill the crop beetles in my stomach, that's worth the extra $1 per pound.

As to the organic argument you made, food science has not created more nutritious food, simply more of it more of the time. We might have lots of fruits and vegetables and big cows, as well as the ability to share this information with the globe, but despite our advanced technology millions still die of starvation every year. In fact, 24,000 people die of starvation or starvation related diseases every day. The people who are going hungry in America, and there are a shocking number of them, are not in this state because there is a lack of food - the same principle applies all around the globe. India, for instance, has a food surplus of 65 million tons (non-genetically modified), but 320 million people there go to bed hungry every night.

We are starving in our abudance because of the principles of supply and demand, profit and loss, and greed. I imagine this will persist regardless of how much food or what kind of food the world is producing.

For all the stink that was made about saccharin they reversed their thought. The tests that led to the big scare were questionable to say the least. Subsequent tests find no real link.

As for the starvation -- that's a red herring argument.

What's your problem with me, Steve? I didn't go trolling around your weblog picking fights about your opinions. I appreciate the love, really, I do.

I have no problem with you at all. I just like taking the opposite point of view and arguing it. Truth be told -- I love that you're here. You bring a little zip to Nick's log!

That's me - all 60"! Zip zip zip.