said by Wolfie00:
In this circumstance, it isn't, because the consequences of climate-induced massive crop failures have the potential to make all the other arguments about "high-yield crops" and "better living though chemically engineered pesticides" pale into insignificance by comparison.
You could imagine any of 1000 different scenarios and topics that would make the Round-Up resistant weed problem pale by comparison. And so what? For example an asteroid could collide with the planet next year and make the problem (as well as global warming issues) completely moot.
But to the topic, you seem to be failing to consider that a somewhat warmer planet could as easily have a net positive effect on food supply, rather than a net negative one. That plants respond well to elevated CO2 is grounded and tested by science, FYI. The idea that we're certain of the consequences of any given temperature pf the planet has no scientific basis
whatsoever. And don't confuse that with my believing warming the planet is a good idea because of what it might do
. I'm well on record as believing we really ought to be doing something about it.
said by Wolfie00:
Assuming, of course, that the concern about how we continue to feed a growing world population is genuine.
Assuming for the moment that you are directing this criticism in my direction, I'll respond. My response to this problem is extremely consistent with my response to the global warming issue. I view both as complicated problems without easy solutions.
Perhaps, because I've spent most of my professional life "at the pointy end of the spear", i.e. amongst people actually producing tangible products and results, I respect action far more than rhetoric.
It's monumentally easy
to wring one's hands, make proper disappointed noises, and produce fatuously indignant and self-indulgent editorials, movies, and walls of text over global warming and Round-Up resistant crops. It's quite another to actually DO something about it.
Want to curtail pesticide use and genetically-modified crops? OK. What, exactly
will that mean? Should we plan ahead for lower crop yields, turn more land arable, and embark on a global plan to gradually reduce the population? Fine. Let's get busy. Because, right now, I see people popping out kids in the Third and Second Worlds like there were a shortage of them. For fuck's sake, India celebrated
the fact that their population topped a billion people.
You don't need to be in the pocket of Monsanto, or to believe that they are saints, to acknowledge that somehow, people need to get fed. Do we need to improve the distribution system to make it more efficient? OK. Then don't just stand there with a doobie in your mouth, talking about it, and watching other people work. Roll up your sleeves, and get busy. --
Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency. David Wong