Yabby, you’ve got right to the nub of the issue in your last two posts. I concur totally with what you are saying.

.

Pericles, I take it by your non-answer to my question to you in my last post, that you think I am quite right regarding Greenpeace’s lack of action on population issues.

But you have also demonstrated in this thread that you don’t know anything about Greenpeace in relation to Tim Andrews’ criticisms. So how can you say:

<< …through the sorts of agronomic advances that Greenpeace seems determined to quash… >>

and

<< …the murderous shortsightedness of Greenpeace. >>

Currently, no one on this thread seems to know or care too much about the veracity of Andrews’ claims.

So, instead of the kind of protestation-by-rote that we have become accustomed to from you every time I mention population, how about striving to find out?

I’ve got better things to do in this magical north Queensland spring weather. But you are sitting in some dank little room in the middle of smoggy Sydney, with nothing better to do than research this point that you keep picking at me about! ( :>)

*Soils are supposed to be alive with micro-organisms, not dead and fed with chemicals.*

You remain confused on that one, Poirot. Plants need 17 chemical
elements to grow. Look up Liebig's Law of Minimum of how it works.

People forget that farming is essentially mining of those elements,
replacing them with the same elements mined elsewhere does not kill
all the micro organisms. In fact soils actually increase in biological activity, when those elements are in balance.

Plants take up N,P,K, etc, in the same form, wether they come from
compost or bags of fertiliser.

But in the end you will run out of places to mine.

Yabby,

I was actually supporting your stance.

Do you think it's wise to kill the micro-organisms that exist in healthy soil which should consist of plenty of organic matter? Do you think its wise for people in the third world to be encouraged to overuse expensive fertilizers and pesticides in place of practising good husbandry of the land?

That's what "clapped out" means, after all.

Oh Ludwig, was I ignoring you? I'm sorry.

>>Pericles, I take it by your non-answer to my question to you in my last post, that you think I am quite right regarding Greenpeace’s lack of action on population issues.<<

On the contrary, Greenpeace is highly active in the population management game.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/agriculture/problem/genetic-engineering/

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/environment/greenpeace-activists-in-costly-gm-protest-20120802-23i0t.html

This type of institutionalized vandalism is indirectly causing the deaths of thousands of people from starvation, and is in itself a form of population control.

I imagine that this is precisely the reason why you are fully behind their actions.

Along with your friend Yabby, whose approach to giving these poor folk an opportunity to raise themselves out of poverty is quite stunningly callous.

>>Well we already know what happens then, Pericles. Even more children
can be fed and in the next generation the small plot becomes even
smaller and the problem even larger. We'll just have to chop down the
remaining bit of rainforest, or bring out the Machetes, as happened
in Rwanda.<<

Conveniently ignoring the statistics that say, quite clearly, that improvement in individual prosperity is the most significant factor in lowering population growth.

Incidentally...

>>Currently, no one on this thread seems to know or care too much about the veracity of Andrews’ claims.<<

Sadly, that's what happens when the thread gets hijacked onto a different topic from the opening post. People who are interested in food technology and international agronomy immediately switch off, knowing that they will be drowned out by the hyperactive anti-population brigade.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/14/3/gpr140302.html

Pericles, perhaps you should read what the Guttmacher Institute has
to say on the topic. They are commonly quoted by the Economist,
so even you should consider the information reliable.

*Conveniently ignoring the statistics that say, quite clearly, that improvement in individual prosperity is the most significant factor in lowering population growth.*

I did no such thing. If you read my post again, it will dawn on you
that I explained why that statistic actually exists. Perhaps you
just lack empathy and are unable to fathom how people choose to
spend their money, when they only have a dollar a day to spend.

Poirot, soil can be quite healthy when fertilisers are used. Misuse
is the problem, but that is another story. Its not one or the other,
as you seem to imagine. Put a bit of soil under a powerful micrsoscope,
its like New York city with activity. Clapped out soils
happen if you keep removing nutrients and don't replace them. The
more that you suck out every year, the more you need to replace.
There is no one silver bullet for the third world. Some would be best
off with permaculture. Some with modern fertiliser additions. Only
good plant agronomy can answer those questions, not your black and white

Now I think I'm out of posts for a while on this thread.

Very good Pericles. We at last have some information about Greenpeace!

<< Greenpeace is highly active in the population management game >>

No. ‘fraid not! Neither of the links you posted have got anything directly to do with population and only a pretty vague overall connection.

<< This type of institutionalized vandalism is … in itself a form of population control. >>

So you reckon we should just charge forth with GM research and completely disregard all the concerns raised by Greenpeace. Now THAT would certainly be institutionalised vandalism of the highest order!

You can see a connection between GM and population! Wonderful.

But…. hold on…..if I was to dare to mention population on a thread about GM, you’d be right up me for it!!

** Ahh that silly Ludwig has hijacked the thread again... blither, blither, blather, blather !! **

<< I imagine that this is precisely the reason why you are fully behind their actions. >>

Now that’s getting pretty irresponsible dear Sir, when you know full well that I have said on this thread that…

>> I have plenty of criticism for Greenpeace… <<

...and I’ve had nothing to say about their position on GM foods.

I am not fully in support of Greenpeace, and I am not fully behind their actions on GM.

The points made by Greenpeace in the brief summary in the link you have posted are all very real concerns. But they shouldn’t be a mob of Luddites. They should be striving to facilitate GM while at the same time implementing the strongest possible safeguards against the downsides.

Like most things, GM is not all good or bad. There are huge possible negative consequences and huge possible benefits.

Again, the main problem with Greenpeace’s position on this is that it is not tied to population stabilisation.

So it’s back to you Peri for the next instalment of Greenpeace research!