Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
bmk1245

How we "love" nature

I "love" nature   14 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you leave everything behind to save nature

    • Yes. I would leave everything (every minute thing that makes my life easier), behind me just to save nature
    • Maybe. I would leave some things behind, but not every.
    • No. I understand my impact/fault on nature, but I'm trying to minimize adverse effects (not just hot air on the forums).

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

71 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

This poll may be seen as kidney punch, but its a good reason to look in the mirror.

Not that long ago I visited house of people I barely know. They were bragging about how they love nature, they showed me their apartments, garden (organic). Guess what: there was forest before that; they were growing all sorts of fancy plants not native to the land (so much for biodiversity preservation); not to mention all high-tech stuff consuming lots of electricity. Do they really care about nature? And, question for all readers: do you really care/love nature, besides emotional proclaims, etc?

My vote is #3, i.e. I'm trying to minimize my impact by many means: no food thrown (doesn't take into account food thrown in the stores), no electricity when unnecessary (moonlight/street light enough to find the stove/closet/bathroom), colder/shorter showers, energy saving lightbulbs (there are issues with those)/LED lights, and using same unwashed plate(s) for few days (wash it with your tongue, for f's sake!; thats for extremers ), etc.

So, lets show how we "love" nature.

Edit: since I can't abolish internet, my vote goes to #2 (instead of #3)

Edited by bmk1245

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you tried not using your computer so much?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you tried not using your computer so much?

Yeap, look at my number of posts, and compare to yours... See what I mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is a lot of things you can do without getting rid of everything. Like the internet its environment friendly, no paper involved unless you have to print something out. That saves trees. Don't use plastic wrap or foil for everything, use reusable containers. Don't drive if you can walk and don't make needless trips.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a situational question would be more appropriate, like would you leave everything behind to save nature if the situation demanded it? It's hard to put to words, but I would at the very least make sure with the best of my capability that the nature stays pure. By relinquishing all technology it's just me, one human less making plastic pollution and whatnot, but still the six billion more who will keep making it. And lets face it, after living the kind of life we do, how many of us would be totally prepared for an all-ascetic life? You'd want at least a roof over your head, not too hard-to-get food, and a comfortable enough lifestyle: sofa, internet, sex, sleep, pursue your interests... What more do you need? I'm actually going to leave all the vain stuff behind and focus on that in much more ecologically-friendly manner, I seen some people say the same. Build a self-sustaining eco-farm of their own, people have done that and I think it's a worthy dream in the kind of world we live in today, not just because of the ecological factor. The problem is money: you dont have it, you dont have land. Either work hard, become a criminal or wait for a heritage if you dont have the money. Those stock market people doing suicides because they lose one million and have a hundred thousand dollars left... I could use that hundred thousand to build a farm in this expensive country... in a 2nd-world or 3rd-world country you could do it with 20k euros or so, not that expensive for a farm like that. But I like this place...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeap, look at my number of posts, and compare to yours... See what I mean?

Yep, but I'm not an eco warrior. *puts tumble-dryer on to heat up a pair of socks*

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is a lot of things you can do without getting rid of everything. Like the internet its environment friendly, no paper involved unless you have to print something out. That saves trees. [...]

Only if energy required comes from environment friendly sources. What is the most "environment friendly source" used for electric energy production?

[...] Don't use plastic wrap or foil for everything, use reusable containers. Don't drive if you can walk and don't make needless trips.

But you wouldn't give up "needed trips", don't you? "I want to see Acropolis"... Jump on the plane, zhoom to Greece, rent a car, zhoom to Acropolis...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a situational question would be more appropriate, like would you leave everything behind to save nature if the situation demanded it? [...]

Ah, situation demanded, ok.

[...] It's hard to put to words, but I would at the very least make sure with the best of my capability that the nature stays pure. By relinquishing all technology it's just me, one human less making plastic pollution and whatnot, but still the six billion more who will keep making it. And lets face it, after living the kind of life we do, how many of us would be totally prepared for an all-ascetic life? You'd want at least a roof over your head, not too hard-to-get food, and a comfortable enough lifestyle: sofa, internet, sex, sleep, pursue your interests... What more do you need? [...]

That will not ruin nature, for sure: how many sofas you'd need (sofas don't grow in garden of Eden); internet is nature "friendly", for sure, unless you get electricity from petting a cat very... passionately; sex... well, without destructive production of condoms - more offsprings (well, without damaging pharma, nature would regulate that problem), more stomachs, more land to burn (as our ancestors did), etc, etc

[...] The problem is money: you dont have it, you dont have land. Either work hard, become a criminal or wait for a heritage if you dont have the money. Those stock market people doing suicides because they lose one million and have a hundred thousand dollars left... I could use that hundred thousand to build a farm in this expensive country... in a 2nd-world or 3rd-world country you could do it with 20k euros or so, not that expensive for a farm like that. But I like this place...

And in 2nd/3rd world people are just happy to provide us with cheap fruits... Just imagine raw eaters seeing their beloved fruits suddenly jump in price because locals in the 2nd/3rd world say "Wait a sec, I want my $7/per hour".

Anyway, don't take it as offence, I'm just pointing out that many things (even smallest) we are taking for granted have negative impact on nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing with all that is, you dont need so much money for except the property tax and maybe some other compulsory administrative fees if you're practically self-sufficient. The bottom line is, if more people farmed their own food, naturally, you'd save a lot of nature on moving from pesticides and such to organics, and in all kinds of transportation and food-processing pollutions. The oil we use to tractors, food trucks and food refineries alone, as well as to all the electricity required to run the tech isn't a small cut, I remember it being somewhere in 10-20%. For comparison, workplace commuting energy-consumption was 10% or less of the total energy consumption. You could save with those expenses too then. So much crap because of inflexibility.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing with all that is, you dont need so much money for except the property tax and maybe some other compulsory administrative fees if you're practically self-sufficient. The bottom line is, if more people farmed their own food, naturally, you'd save a lot of nature on moving from pesticides and such to organics, and in all kinds of transportation and food-processing pollutions. The oil we use to tractors, food trucks and food refineries alone, as well as to all the electricity required to run the tech isn't a small cut, I remember it being somewhere in 10-20%. For comparison, workplace commuting energy-consumption was 10% or less of the total energy consumption. You could save with those expenses too then. So much crap because of inflexibility.

How much land you need to be self-sufficient (all around the year)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might depend on several factors: latitude, altitude, climate, how near or far from coast you are. And it can be a four-year process to get things running before you can call yourself more self-sufficient, food-wise. But a core rule seems to be that less land than what is needed to sustain a person with just traditional wheat-farming and the like, because you got trees and all kinds of veggies and herbs in the same areas together, and put plants which support each other through more compatible immunity systems and death-and-rebirth cycles of all kinds, having fitting pest-eater bug combinations and so on... in short you do it in a way which allows the plants to grow more and produce more, in natural means. That why less land is required.

I dont remember how much land you needed exactly, I think it was 2,5 acres per person sustained. The core benefit is that the land will stay in a more natural state, which will allow more steady rain and temperature seasons and smoothens out the climate, animals can live much more freely than if they were in cages and be in a more natural environment, feel more at home as in not having to take a dump where they eat and be allowed to interact with other life, not just with their own species and grass.

If you're going to be self-sufficient all around the year, having a winter greenhouse in colder areas is extremely helpful, not just because of much more diverse fresh winter foods supply, but also because it allows you to heat your house up in winter. This has been experimented extensively by Jerome Ostenkowski (hope I spelled that right) in Rocky Mountains, and in Canada people say they've done it too. I think we have such things here in Finland too, I'm looking forward to building one when the money's there, should be around 100k euros with the whole packet, if you can get the paperwork done. I bet you could get it much cheaper in Russia, at least if you dont get into trouble with authorities.. that's my biggest concern here too, with all the uptight regulations and the people that are known to be inflexible. We'll see.

In any case, in more warmer areas where you already get enough heat and three harvests a year (here we get just one or two at tops with certain species, but they're big fat harvests), in those warmer countries you focus more on getting trees growing and then you can enjoy bigger harvests because trees protect other plants from too much sun and heat and prevent evaporation, store the water without making it stagnant. So in warmer areas, the focus is more on trees and how you handle water flows. Getting trees to grow can take at least those four years, but they can bear nice fruit harvest just by themselves, and still protect the other plants like tomatoes (dont put those near just any tree though, their immunity system or something in their roots doesn't get along with many plants).

So in short, the money issue aside, in colder areas it can be a question of getting all the paperwork right, and in warmer areas it can be an issue of having trees growing and good supportive plant-combinations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[...]

I dont remember how much land you needed exactly, I think it was 2,5 acres per person sustained.[...]

Core benefits, etc... Thats nice. But think again, will 2.5 acres sustain your life in the whole year? Don't forget that you'll have to put some land on "relax", i.e. you'll have only half (third, quarter - depends on farming system) land you can expect yield (in case pests/fungi won't obliterate your land) . And if pests/plant diseases would obliterate your crops (most notorious case - Ireland's Great Famine), whats then? If your neighbours are facing the same - whats then? And neighbours of neighbours...???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're asking about what to do after the damage has happened. Starve or eat what you got in stores or go to a shop, anything really. Why not ask what to do to prevent that happening in the first place? This is the typical mindset you face everywhere, our political leaders as well as people. Go to toilet after you have crapped your pants and the feces start to smell, not when you feel a python coming. If you only deal with consequences, you'll be doomed to repeat things over and over.

The main difference between preventing pests and fungi with organic or artificial/industrial means is that with industrial you usually destroy all the protective life too when you apply the pest-toxins. In the organic way you keep them alive and more diverse and focus more on their observation. Ladybugs, little birds, rodents, hornets, spiders and other stuff for pests and balance. Keep a balance between things and when balance is upset, add something suitable. As for fungi, you are speaking of mold or rot or such? From what I've gathered, much of that stems from water management problems, problems with how you handle the water there. Stagnant and dirty water, waterlogged ground can be a source of them. As for mushrooms, I've not studied the field much, dont remember but maybe the very basics, but there's a book called "Mycelium Running" on the subject, tells about lots of benefits of mushrooms. The main thing is, mushrooms like to grow on a more foresty soil, which is different from grass-soil, so you want a mixture of trees and other plants if you want mushrooms support your colony.

I'm not familiar with what caused the great famine of Ireland, but you must understand that permaculture farming is the kind of farming where you put many different species together, onions, carrots and cabbages together for example one by one, instead of having separate rows for each. When you consider that different species can have different protection which they extend to the plants next to them, protection like certain types of pesticide-eating bugs or such and certain chemicals their roots might excrete to protect themselves, you can boost the natural protection of the plants together threefold. They support each other's protective mechanisms. Protective mechanisms of some plants can be harmful to other plants, but there's been very extensive research done on that subject, so it's easier to avoid the obstacles the more you study and plan beforehand. If you think this kind of farming is the same as the plow-the-field and reap the hay, you're so dead-wrong. It may have it's own problems, but you should try to understand it a bit so you can see them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You're asking about what to do after the damage has happened. Starve or eat what you got in stores or go to a shop, anything really. [...]

Nature's schedule is quite unpredictable: you have drought, you have drought next year, you have drought third year. Your move

[...]

The main difference between preventing pests and fungi with organic or artificial/industrial means is that with industrial you usually destroy all the protective life too when you apply the pest-toxins. In the organic way you keep them alive and more diverse and focus more on their observation. Ladybugs, little birds, rodents, hornets, spiders and other stuff for pests and balance. Keep a balance between things and when balance is upset, add something suitable. As for fungi, you are speaking of mold or rot or such? From what I've gathered, much of that stems from water management problems, problems with how you handle the water there. Stagnant and dirty water, waterlogged ground can be a source of them. As for mushrooms, I've not studied the field much, dont remember but maybe the very basics, but there's a book called "Mycelium Running" on the subject, tells about lots of benefits of mushrooms. The main thing is, mushrooms like to grow on a more foresty soil, which is different from grass-soil, so you want a mixture of trees and other plants if you want mushrooms support your colony.

[...]

Copper sulfate, life protecting?

And mushrooms... be careful what you pick in the forest - death caps are deceitful...

[...]

I'm not familiar with what caused the great famine of Ireland, but you must understand that permaculture farming is the kind of farming where you put many different species together, onions, carrots and cabbages together for example one by one, i[...]

Heh, but that was "ancient wisdom", just not enough.

[...]

When you consider that different species can have different protection which they extend to the plants next to them, protection like certain types of pesticide-eating bugs or such and certain chemicals their roots might excrete to protect themselves, you can boost the natural protection of the plants together threefold. They support each other's protective mechanisms. Protective mechanisms of some plants can be harmful to other plants, but there's been very extensive research done on that subject, so it's easier to avoid the obstacles the more you study and plan beforehand. If you think this kind of farming is the same as the plow-the-field and reap the hay, you're so dead-wrong. It may have it's own problems, but you should try to understand it a bit so you can see them.

In the long term protection of the plants against pests/rivals may evolve to the point to be harmful/less/nutritious to humans. Plants don't care about your health, unless you excrete/drop their seeds. Period. Just compare teosinte with modern corn (non-GM).. Try to find similarities/

Edit to add: slash mark

Edited by bmk1245

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nature's schedule is quite unpredictable: you have drought, you have drought next year, you have drought third year. Your move

Drought happens when you have less vegetation and no good water storage systems. It's not always an easy thing to get new life grow in the middle of the desert or in dryer places, but you can do that. Playing shade of plants and rocks and whatnot to your advantage is one, building proper channers and using land elevations as a natural way to lead water through channels is another. There's certain plants which can host more water and create more shade, and the more shade you have the more moisture you can store even in the middle of the desert. That's the basic drill.

Copper sulfate, life protecting?

And mushrooms... be careful what you pick in the forest - death caps are deceitful...[/Quote]

Copper sulfate? Care to explain?

In the long term protection of the plants against pests/rivals may evolve to the point to be harmful/less/nutritious to humans. Plants don't care about your health, unless you excrete/drop their seeds. Period. Just compare teosinte with modern corn (non-GM).. Try to find similarities/

That's true, chili's capsaisine is a good example of this. However, if humans are the only pests as in eating the plants' babies (fruits, berries etc) and plants themselves, then the plants will know to concentrate their efforts against us, no? More competition, they divert their efforts against other animals and what doesn't kill us can kill other animals.

Nature works in a cycle. The cycle of life and death. It's natural for plants to get eaten and become animal feces and soil for new plants, just as it's natural for us to die and eventually do the same. That's the prime reason why it keeps happening, because it's a mutually supportive relationship. It's a matter of balance. If something in nature gets the upper hand, other forces of nature notice this sooner or later and something changes. For example, if your garden befalls a victim to a great rat colony, sooner or later there will be predatory birds like hawks or eagles and rat-eating mammals too, like snakes. Nature has a way of sorting itself out if we let them, and reminding nature occasionally that we're not it's biggest enemy can actually prevent the thing you brought out in your post. If we're the only enemy of nature, it's far more likely for nature to turn on us more than to others. It's human self-centeredness to think that the only way to deal with things is to have total control over them. You can also control things by directing their flow subtly and behind the scenes but in a very conscious way, let nature take it's course once in a while.

Where can you find modern non-GM corn these days?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

How is it possible to give up everything for nature anyway? You mean be consciencious 100% of every single day, every move we make that we are not obstructing nature, or rather making the healthiest eco decisions? I would love to participate in decreasing harmful earthly impact but my toilet paper is sold in plastic wrapping, for example... give me a petition and I'll sign it...

Edited by SpiritWriter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI - good organic farmable land and you can decently feed 2 people or so per acre if it's farmed right and you're willing to live mostly vegetarian (with a few chickens). It's animals that take up a lot of land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[...]

Copper sulfate? Care to explain?

[...]

Is used as fungicide, and even organic farmers are using it, despite the fact that it kills bees.

[...]

That's true, chili's capsaisine is a good example of this. However, if humans are the only pests as in eating the plants' babies (fruits, berries etc) and plants themselves, then the plants will know to concentrate their efforts against us, no? More competition, they divert their efforts against other animals and what doesn't kill us can kill other animals.

Nature works in a cycle. The cycle of life and death. It's natural for plants to get eaten and become animal feces and soil for new plants, just as it's natural for us to die and eventually do the same. That's the prime reason why it keeps happening, because it's a mutually supportive relationship. It's a matter of balance. If something in nature gets the upper hand, other forces of nature notice this sooner or later and something changes. For example, if your garden befalls a victim to a great rat colony, sooner or later there will be predatory birds like hawks or eagles and rat-eating mammals too, like snakes. Nature has a way of sorting itself out if we let them, and reminding nature occasionally that we're not it's biggest enemy can actually prevent the thing you brought out in your post. If we're the only enemy of nature, it's far more likely for nature to turn on us more than to others. It's human self-centeredness to think that the only way to deal with things is to have total control over them. You can also control things by directing their flow subtly and behind the scenes but in a very conscious way, let nature take it's course once in a while.

[...]

I agree with you, but with agriculture which is very friendly to nature (purely organic farming), you'd have half yield (at best) than conventional farming.

[...]

Where can you find modern non-GM corn these days?

88 percent of the US corn crop was genetically modified in 2011, according to the USDA.
(link)

So still there is non GM corn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI - good organic farmable land and you can decently feed 2 people or so per acre if it's farmed right and you're willing to live mostly vegetarian (with a few chickens). It's animals that take up a lot of land.

Are you sure? What if you take places farther to the north, where summers shorter and winters longer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, long time for vote and basically no tree-huggers_oh_I_love_thy_nature folks... What a hypocricy,,, I appreciate those who responded and voted. Apparently. no one wants (understandably) back to the roots...

Mods: if you find this thread worth going - pin it, otherwise - put it to death

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sure i would give most things up, but not Quality Eating -> "Pizza" <- and ofcourse not internet and prefer to sleep in my bed :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sure i would give most things up, but not Quality Eating -> "Pizza" <- and ofcourse not internet and prefer to sleep in my bed :P

So, basically no one would want to follow the path of the family in Siberia (at least).

BTW, what you ment by most things (just out of curiosity)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont understand what's the use of giving everything away. What's done is done. Why not rather improve what we can about nature instead?

Bmk, thanks for replying, it's glad to see Some organic corn still exist lol, even if it's a pitiful 11,x%. I'm just wondering, where you get this idea that permaculture-kind of farming would have half the yields than the kind of farming that's done with large tractors? If we're talking about yield amounts, lets talk about how much yield per land per season, because while permaculture might be less laborous or at least less harmful once you get it going, it does require more workforce to agricultural field to sustain the same amount of people. Seeing how majority of people are in vanity jobs and could easily do their homes even if they went to farm in a permaculture way, I'd say we do have a workforce here that could do it. The byrocracy, money and reliance to the current no-brainer system are the biggest obstacles I see if you wanted to make a large-scale change like that, not yield reduction per land used.

I'd be glad to not eat pizza tbh, maybe on an odd occasion, once or twice a year, but it can turn to a habit. Meat, veggies and fruits are pretty tasty and I feel better after eating them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I dont understand what's the use of giving everything away.[...]

Well, if majority of the population would disappear somehow, and the rest would turn into hunters-gatherers, nature would "heal" itself.

[...]What's done is done. Why not rather improve what we can about nature instead?

[...]

Improving takes time, and we are going in that direction.

[...]

Bmk, thanks for replying, it's glad to see Some organic corn still exist lol, even if it's a pitiful 11,x%.[...]

And whats wrong with non-some-organic? Does US looks like painted in alleged SNK video (the one where americans receive food from SNK)?

[...] I'm just wondering, where you get this idea that permaculture-kind of farming would have half the yields than the kind of farming that's done with large tractors? If we're talking about yield amounts, lets talk about how much yield per land per season, because while permaculture might be less laborous or at least less harmful once you get it going, it does require more workforce to agricultural field to sustain the same amount of people. [...]

Had you crawled between lines of beetroots picking off weeds and weak sprouts? I had. Its freaking katorga... Try to find volunteers for that...

[...]Seeing how majority of people are in vanity jobs and could easily do their homes even if they went to farm in a permaculture way, I'd say we do have a workforce here that could do it. The byrocracy, money and reliance to the current no-brainer system are the biggest obstacles I see if you wanted to make a large-scale change like that, not yield reduction per land used.[...].

Ok, let me make it clear: I'm not against "organic" farming, nor I'm 100% for conventional farming. But just to show what I mean, lets see few historical facts (examples):

1) corn, from old times to nowadays;

2) wheat, data from 1900 (Figure 1) (if you want to see whole paper, just PM)

Of course, other plants (veggies/fruits) do better, but let me ask you: How long you'd survive on apples?

Anyway, future of the agriculture is:

1) hydroponics, and 2) optimal mix of the so called "organic", conventional, and GM (on the fields).

And, just for fun - fun with the numbers:

there are 3.8*109 acres of land (arable land and permanent crops), and there are 1.4*1010 tons of livestock crap (all). What we get? ~4 tons/acre. And here we have 20 tons/acre. Holy smoke! If we'll decide "Tomorrow we all going "organic"" we would not have enough crap to soil on our soil!

Edit: dammit... mixed south/north again... :blush:

Edited by bmk1245

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've pulled up some weeds too, yeah. I dont suppose you know anything about health-effects of GMO and how they're passed to market. Nobody knows their long-term health effects and yet they want us all to eat them. And there's been an experiment on rodents that showed GMO feeding preventing fertility in their third generation. Try put them together and say there's nothing wrong with that picture, no danger to us. And additives, why the hell should we eat them if we're better off without, both health-wise and saving environment -wise?

I've not eaten much wheat-products for the past... 3 years or so, been more healthy now. More clear head. And you talk about there having enough fertilization. Ask yourself how plants grow in nature where there's not 1000000000 cows and pigs pooping on them. Oh, they do grow there too. It's not as if poop is the ultimately only-one fertilizing solution to everything. Healthy soil can work too, one where there's lots of nutrients and air and composting going on, composting of old plant leaves with often some more carbon-concentrated layer, like wet tree mulch or such. But I'm really not the expert with permaculture, you should read the book if you think it doesn't work.

Organic fertilizers are a last resort, to be used only if the sources described above will not fulfill your crop’s N needs. Organic fertilizers may be made of animal by-products, plant-derived materials, mined minerals, or a combination. As with conventional materials, organic fertilizers can provide primarily N, or a blend of nutrients. All fertilizers are less expensive per unit of nutrient when purchased in bulk.

Animal-derived N fertilizers include: blood meal, crab meal, feather meal, fish meal, and pelletized, composted chicken manure, to name a few. Plant-derived N fertilizers include alfalfa meal, peanut meal, and soy meal, to name a few. Be aware that GMO issues may affect the acceptability of certain plant by-products in organic agriculture.

Quoted from your link. I'm aware that nitrogen is needed for growing, it's basic. Fish meal is one, but this underestimates the nitrogen you can get from nature, you just have to know the right plants and legumes are ones yeah, but there's more. Leppä in finnish, can't remember the english name, take ground near it because it's leaves have fallen there, I think comfrey was another, make some compost from it and you'll get good stuff. In Bill Mollison's big book, http://www.tagari.com/ , the rainbow egg one, around page 80-90 or so if I remember right, there's these four pages or so of how to basically supplement any conceivable mineral deficiency when it comes to prime substance deficiencies. There's some bird poop involved too if I remember right, the Potash (P) if you dont get it anywhere, but you get birds when you got trees and rodents. Rodents destroy crops and people poison against them but that's not always necessary in the long run, not always at all.

Anyhow, I'm not an expert on this, try find an expert on this instead of me and debate with that person if you think I'm wrong. It doesn't have to be so-called organic but as natural as doing it with your own hands and basic tools, no chemical factories and GMO needed. I'm really baffled why you seem to believe GMO is the only choise if you're not on their payroll. I'll accept GMO the day it can prove to me it's not harmful for us in long-terms and it can defeat it's counter-argumenters in a fair ground. I dont see that happening yet, they dont even acknowledge the massive amount of people protesting against them nor try to make amends nor peace with them that way. That doesn't give much reason to trust them. You can eat their crap if you think nothing of it but I dont see how you can just pass by it like it's nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.