Pericles,

Modern "food technology" doesn't promote biodiversity. It promotes monoculture.

It also encourages a reliance on chemical fertilization over true husbandry of the land. It promotes loss of biodiversity among plant life - leading to a loss of diverse sources of nourishment. It promotes a loss of knowledge in indigenous societies, as they discard wisdom and understanding handed down through generations and rely on packaged chemicals. It promotes reliance on pesticides which further damage the soil and pollutes groundwater. It promotes excessive use of groundwater, particularly in the practice of growing thirsty crops in areas that can't sustain them.

Look closely at what's happening in India and tell me it's "sustainable".

*Of course they should, Yabby.*

Well that is what we are fighting for Pericles, as Harradine's deal
with Howard, is still stamped on our foreign aid programme. Nothing
for family planning, despite billions spent each year. So hundreds
of millions of women have little choice but to keep popping out ever
more children and then show them on tv, when they are starving.

*or b) helping them make a start to becoming self-sufficient, the choice (I would hope) is obvious*

Of course its obvious, but the answers are already obvious and
all it needs is implementation of what we already know. Permaculture
works great in the third world, it was actually developed in Australia btw.
They also need property rights, micro credit and
less children, then they might have a chance. Nothing new here.

* Of course we need "biodiversity". *

Well yes we do. But we are getting rid of it as fast as we can. What
used to be tropical rainforests is turning into monoculture of oil
palms. There go the OrangUtans and the rest. In Africa the land is
now being flogged off to the Arabs, Chinese and Indians, for
monoculture crops. Anything else in the forests is being shot for
bushmeat. There go the bonobos, wild chimps and gorillas. The
list goes on and on.

I take little notice of what Greenpeace thinks. IMHO most of these
organisations are a bit like the Greens, overloaded with hysterical
know littles. But through what I do every day, I have learned a great deal about
how nature works, so I argue my points based on that knowledge.

Ummm... really?.

>>Well that is what we are fighting for Pericles<<

I thought we were talking about Greenpeace. Oh, here we go.

>>I take little notice of what Greenpeace thinks.<<

Perhaps you should, as the article points out.

What, all of it, Poirot?

>>Pericles, Modern "food technology" doesn't promote biodiversity. It promotes monoculture.<<

Apparently, it greatly depends on the farming techniques and practices that go along with GM crops. One of the less hysterical studies that I have read states as follows:

"Overall, the review finds that currently commercialized GM crops have reduced the impacts of agriculture on biodiversity, through enhanced adoption of conservation tillage practices, reduction of insecticide use and use of more environmentally benign herbicides and increasing yields to alleviate pressure to convert additional land to agricultural use.""

http://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/gmcrops/article/15086/

Sounds exactly what the impoverished smallholder is looking for, and exactly what Greenpeace thinks they don't deserve.

*Perhaps you should, as the article points out.*

Pericles, the article was more about just Greenpeace and of course
as you start to discuss things like GM, you open another whole
can of worms, as the devil is always in the details.

GM is a double sided coin, with good and bad points, not just black
and white. It can be a very handy way to transfer genes, with only
the good genes transferred, not those which you do not want.

But the technology IMHO has already been misused, as the main thing
achieved is to create crops that can resist Glyphosate. (Roundup)

Now we do indeed depend heavily on Roundup for conservation tillage,
GM or no GM. There is no other product like it. But what Monsanto
have now done is to transfer the Roundup ready gene into everything,
which means that farmers in South and North America are growing
corn, soya beans etc, fence post to fence post, relying just on
roundup ready weed control.

Mother Nature of course does not work like that, or only in the short
term. What you now have in all these areas are weeds springing up
that are resistant to roundup too. So in the end, through misuse,
farmers will lose the most valuable tool that they had for conservation tillage, hardly smart thinking.

Next we have the issue of fish sanctuaries. They actually make
alot of sense, as they let fish breed somewhere and if they
are in abundance, they will soon swim out of those areas and into
areas where they can be fished. What you are finding right now is
that even in Australian waters, good eating fish are becoming rarer
and rarer, as they are targeted, as they have value. So where will
they breed? They might not yet be extinct, but why push things until
they are?

""the global demand for food will increase by a staggering 70%""

NO it WON'T!

Energy sources that give LESS energy than the cost of its extraction and transport will be able to support only 2-3 billion people by 2025-2035. (The same amount as coal in its continuity limit before WWI)

I estimate that wars and diseases will kill Oh, around 5-6 billion people during those years.

By 2050, if homo sapiens is still around, there will be plenty of food!

But as the survivors of nuclear wars they MAY be living in caves.

Economic growthist morons are to blame. I can't mention the obvious names but Wayne Swan should be marked. I don't understand why the rank and file don't cripple the bastards now and save us all the coming angst .. especially for your kids if you are foolish enough to have any given their hmmm, future unprospects.

The problem for those who deny the above is that the Second Law Of Thermodynamics(2LT) coupled with Human History and the rapid advances in military weapons of mass destruction GUARANTEES the above.

We are marching lock step to the Gloaliseation Clifff and idiots like Barry O'Greiner and JUlia whatshername? are cracking the whip believing that in positions of power they will have special privileges and SURVIVE.

Well guess what? History doesn't show that to be true in most cases either.

The answer for anyone not stuffed to the gunnels with debt and who thus have a MIND is Geothermal Heat and GEOTHERMAL Power plants surrounding each capital city. Sydney has some marvellous volcanic caulderas ripe for development for example. It can be shown this satisfies 2LT requirement for population stability and continuity.

But IF you can do it , it will be useless without a one child per woman policy. Because humans will do the SAME thing over and over like f'ing lemmings on drugs and with error prone like a block of flats.