COP26 Glasgow 31st OCT to 12th NOV

[strichener]

47 minutes ago, virginton said:

The plebs having the temerity to demand affordable food, energy and travel also had absolutely nothing to do with biodiversity, but that didn't stop you from outing your true colours.

Gutted for you. 

Food, energy and travel (on a comparative basis) is more affordable now than, say 50 years ago.  As someone who like their history then that is a bit of a fail for you.

The idea that food and energy taking a lower percentage of household budgets can be achieved without impacting on biodiversity is a position that only the hard of thinking would take.

As for GM crops, the circle of life shows that GM crops will lead to GM plants, animals and organisms.  Whilst the modification of crops may increase yields, it also hasn't been established that GM is a net positive for biodiversity.  Genetic diversity is directly related to biodiversity.

[BigDoddyKane]

53 minutes ago, Clown Job said:

Problem is a lot of things are not designed not to last anymore 

Planned obsoletion is a real thing that companies do 

Edit: See Apple who slow down older iPhone models as an example 

Is there not a new law coming about right to repair on goods? think I read that somewhere

[Clown Job]

1 hour ago, BigDoddyKane said:

Is there not a new law coming about right to repair on goods? think I read that somewhere

In the EU I think 

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

15 minutes ago, Clown Job said:

In the EU I think 

Thank f**k for brexit returning our rights to have no rights. 

[vikingTON]

1 hour ago, strichener said:

Food, energy and travel (on a comparative basis) is more affordable now than, say 50 years ago.  As someone who like their history then that is a bit of a fail for you.

The idea that food and energy taking a lower percentage of household budgets can be achieved without impacting on biodiversity is a position that only the hard of thinking would take.

There is absolutely no causal relationship between biodiversity and energy consumption. 

Quote

As for GM crops, the circle of life shows that GM crops will lead to GM plants, animals and organisms. 

lol wut

Do you think that you inherit the non-modified genes of a tomato plant whenever you munch on a salad as well? 

A candidate for the most idiotic statement not just on this sub-forum, but the entire site. You should feel so proud. 

Quote

Whilst the modification of crops may increase yields, it also hasn't been established that GM is a net positive for biodiversity. 

If you increase yields, you can then deliberately take marginal land out of production and leave it to nature, without having the impact on human life that neo-Malthusian weirdos like you salivate about. 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Problem is a lot of things are not designed not to last anymore 
Planned obsoletion is a real thing that companies do 
Edit: See Apple who slow down older iPhone models as an example 

The Product Life Cycle is not planned but the natural course of things in competitive markets and when technology is constantly updating to newer, better products.

[strichener]

5 hours ago, virginton said:

There is absolutely no causal relationship between biodiversity and energy consumption. 

lol wut

Do you think that you inherit the non-modified genes of a tomato plant whenever you munch on a salad as well? 

A candidate for the most idiotic statement not just on this sub-forum, but the entire site. You should feel so proud. 

If you increase yields, you can then deliberately take marginal land out of production and leave it to nature, without having the impact on human life that neo-Malthusian weirdos like you salivate about. 

Holy shit, you think that climate scientists and Malthusian weirdos are the ones with issues.

I would be really interested in your source for both 

"There is absolutely no causal relationship between biodiversity and energy consumption"

And 

"If you increase yields, you can then deliberately take marginal land out of production and leave it to nature".

Leave it to nature when discussing GM shows that your understanding of the subject is worse that a first year science pupil.  Do you even know what hybridisation or cross-pollination is?

Leave it to nature 

[parsforlife]

Any discussion over GM needs to be made in the full knowledge though selective breeding we have been fucking about with genetics for millenia, and we will continue to do.

[vikingTON]

13 hours ago, strichener said:

Holy shit, you think that climate scientists and Malthusian weirdos are the ones with issues.

I would be really interested in your source for both 

"There is absolutely no causal relationship between biodiversity and energy consumption"

And 

"If you increase yields, you can then deliberately take marginal land out of production and leave it to nature".

Leave it to nature when discussing GM shows that your understanding of the subject is worse that a first year science pupil.  Do you even know what hybridisation or cross-pollination is?

Leave it to nature 

I'm still waiting on you to elaborate how the 'circle of life' will produce GM animals from GM crops, before we deal with your nonsense about hybridisation or cross-pollination. 

An understanding of the natural world that is based on the Lion King soundtrack rules you out of the running for good on this one. 

[vikingTON]

13 hours ago, parsforlife said:

Any discussion over GM needs to be made in the full knowledge though selective breeding we have been fucking about with genetics for millenia, and we will continue to do.

Absolutely, but we need to bear in mind that environmentalism is an ideological system with all the irrational beliefs that can attach themselves to ideology.

One of the most popular being that Nature/Mother Nature/Gaia is an inherently good, almost animate force that only wicked humans have been destroying. Any artificial, human encroachment on 'nature' is therefore wrong, despite >95% of the natural world in temperate zones being the product of thousands of years of human production. Selecting desirable genes through hundreds of generations of breeding is right but planting GM crops are wrong because one is deemed 'natural' and the other 'artificial'. 

This is all of course nonsense on stilts, but explains the current logical chasm in the thinking of the Swampy brigade. On the one hand they are screaming at everyone else to prioritise the 'climate crisis', but refuse to embrace the only two scientific technologies that can provide reliable carbon-free energy right now and can make agricultural systems resilient to the change that is already baked in. They are fundamentalists who want Nature alone to have agency - even if this results in more warming of the planet and the deaths of billions of people. 

[Salt n Vinegar]

I understand that there is a huge stack of furniture, used at COP26, sitting in tents in an Ikea car park.  Seemingly it may take months for it to be allocated for "reuse". 

Here's a suggestion... Leave the gates open overnight and it will go for reuse pretty d@mn quick. 

Edited November 16, 2021 by Salt n Vinegar

[strichener]

11 hours ago, virginton said:

I'm still waiting on you to elaborate how the 'circle of life' will produce GM animals from GM crops, before we deal with your nonsense about hybridisation or cross-pollination. 

An understanding of the natural world that is based on the Lion King soundtrack rules you out of the running for good on this one. 

Nonsense .  

In your simplistic world, gene transfer must be taking your trousers from your bedroom down to the washing machine for your mum to launder.

Still nothing from you on your wild claims that energy consumption has no impact on biodiversity.  Nor how using GM is leaving things to nature.

Edited November 16, 2021 by strichener

[vikingTON]

5 minutes ago, strichener said:

Nonsense .  In your simplistic world,

Oh but nothing - nothing - could possibly be as 'simplistic' as your claim that GM crops would lead to 'GM animals' through the process known as 'the circle of life'. 

Until you explain how that one works, you can sit on the sidelines champ.