Technogaianism, where should I start?

[SolarpunkFan]

That sort of thing I am mostly in agreement with. Although to be honest I am not a fan of the kind of optimism you exhibit.

In particular, fusion is still not a thing. And whilst we should invest money into making it a thing we should not count our chickens before they hatch. By the time we have a functioning fusion power plant (not just reactor but actual production worthy power plant) the environment might well be too fucked to fix. That's why you'll see me constantly whining about the annoying idiots who oppose fission plants. Let's focus on what we can do today. And if in twenty years something better comes along all the better.

And as for GMO's my stance is the same as the EU on this. There is another way to keep pesticide use down and that's organic food. I find that much better overall because it means you know exactly what you are consuming and you don't have corporations owning patents on essential food ingredients. It's not like the west is not producing a massive food surplus anyway so that we absolutely need to find ways to keep production high.

While I heavily featured fusion in my post, I was referring to nuclear in general.

The main issue I have with your stance on organic farming is that pesticides can and are used in organic farming, and they can be worse for the environment. I agree with you on patents though, but GMOs don't have to be patented. I think change should be pushed against patenting of genes.

[Purple]

The main issue I have with your stance on organic farming is that pesticides can and are used in organic farming, and they can be worse for the environment.

Yes. Sigh. Sadly organic farming too has become a social fad. That sort of thing is why I often get frustrated with environmentalists. What we should be doing is at all times picking and choosing the best means and combining them to achieve a sum total best result.

I agree with you on patents though, but GMOs don't have to be patented. I think change should be pushed against patenting of genes.

Aside from that there is also the issue of health risks. Simply put its not that I think that any particular GMO strain is a particular risk but basically food, especially designer food needs to be tested to the same standard as drugs. If it can pass that I am ok with it. That seems to be the EU standard too as far as I understand it. Could be wrong though. It's been a while since I looked it up, am working from memory and it's bed time.

[Raw Shark]

In particular, fusion is still not a thing. And whilst we should invest money into making it a thing we should not count our chickens before they hatch. By the time we have a functioning fusion power plant (not just reactor but actual production worthy power plant) the environment might well be too fucked to fix. That's why you'll see me constantly whining about the annoying idiots who oppose fission plants. Let's focus on what we can do today. And if in twenty years something better comes along all the better.

I agree with all of the above, and I consider it important enough that I won't even use the word, "actually," here, except that I just did. Pseudo-green posers who knee-jerk against nukes without doing the research because other hippies say so push my buttons in ways that are sometimes not productive.

But between my often times lacking grasp of expressing my self concisely in the english language and admitted personal evil and selfishness you're hardly revealing something new.

[Broomstick]

Does it always work? No. But it can work.

In essence, successful bottom up movements are not movements as such but the boiling over of social tensions that than gets recruited into and channeled by a leading group that generates a movement out of that for good or ill.

Yes, social movements require a critical mass. But this isn't the first time you've demonstrated your ignorance of both history and human beings.

Although to be honest I am not a fan of the kind of optimism you exhibit.

... now that's an understatement....

And as for GMO's my stance is the same as the EU on this. There is another way to keep pesticide use down and that's organic food. I find that much better overall because it means you know exactly what you are consuming and you don't have corporations owning patents on essential food ingredients.

Organic farming is not going to feed the current world population. Are you volunteering to starve for the greater good? I didn't think so. Why would anyone want to starve for you?

It's not like the west is not producing a massive food surplus anyway so that we absolutely need to find ways to keep production high.

The problem is that "the west" is not the whole of the world, and the rest of the world's problems can spill over into the west. Part of what's driving a million plus refugees into Europe this year is food and fuel shortages.

But again, you fail to see connections or understand people, either individually or in crowds.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

And as for GMO's my stance is the same as the EU on this.

Given that every last fruit, nut, grain and vegetable we put into our bodies has been genetically modified for as long as humans have cultivated them(bananas, to overuse Ray Cumsplat's favorite fruit as an example), I find the current hysteria over GMOs as incomprehensible as I find anti-vaxxers.

[Purple]

The problem is that "the west" is not the whole of the world, and the rest of the world's problems can spill over into the west. Part of what's driving a million plus refugees into Europe this year is food and fuel shortages.

But again, you fail to see connections or understand people, either individually or in crowds.

And like all food shortages in recent decades it's a problem not of production but of distribution. The western world, or even half of it easily produces enough food to feed everyone. Which is why people are running to the west. But the distribution of this food to poor areas is hampered by a combination of for profit capitalism that dictates the notion of "if you can't pay you can't eat." and local conditions (it's hard to feed people shooting at you). In fact, many of those areas could easily feed them self if not for local crisis. And that's not something we can reasonably solve right now.

The environment, world peace, world hunger etc. That's all intertwined. Pick one out to solve and at best you need to cut bits off the side and settle for a localized solution that mends the problem without fixing it. But if that's all we can practically do I am all for it. Better a small thing you can have than a big thing in your dreams.

Given that every last fruit, nut, grain and vegetable we put into our bodies has been genetically modified for as long as humans have cultivated them(bananas, to overuse Ray Cumsplat's favorite fruit as an example), I find the current hysteria over GMOs as incomprehensible as I find anti-vaxxers.

If it really is safe than it should have absolutely no problems passing the same test we put other safe substances through on a regular basis such as medicine. I am with the EU on this really. Anything you put in your body should be considered guilty until proven innocent.

[SolarpunkFan]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but aren't GMOs tested already?

[Starglider]

Do you have a degree in something relevant to researching applicable technologies? If you are focusing on a technological approach the most relevant actions are directly contributing to the relevant research, either as a researcher, as a worker at a company or institution doing relevant research, or just get a high-paying job and donnate to the cause. Blogging about it might have helped in 2000 AD but probably isn't very useful now that the Internet is saturated with expert technical bloggers.

[SolarpunkFan]

Do you have a degree in something relevant to researching applicable technologies? If you are focusing on a technological approach the most relevant actions are directly contributing to the relevant research, either as a researcher, as a worker at a company or institution doing relevant research, or just get a high-paying job and donnate to the cause. Blogging about it might have helped in 2000 AD but probably isn't very useful now that the Internet is saturated with expert technical bloggers.

Thanks. I'll see what I can do.

I also might start a local meetup group, but that might not be for a while.

[Broomstick]

If it really is safe than it should have absolutely no problems passing the same test we put other safe substances through on a regular basis such as medicine. I am with the EU on this really. Anything you put in your body should be considered guilty until proven innocent.

What makes you think these things aren't tested at all?

And even when a GMO is, actually, tested, it is still rejected due to emotional, irrational, kneejerk reactions. A prime example of that is golden rice which had been tested and re-tested for 15 years, it was developed as a humanitarian gesture and is given away for free to subsistence/extremely poor farmers, and the farmers are permitted to keep and replant the seed, making them independent (for that crop) of capitalistic corporations. Yet it is still vehemently opposed by people like Greenpeace.

Here is a news article from way the hell back in 1996 that discusses a soybean modified with genes from brazil nus that the developer chose NOT to market after testing showed it could trigger a potentially life-threatening reaction in people allergic to nuts, even though it was never in intended for human consumption. Despite being developed as cattle feed, it was trashed to avoid the possibility of it accidentally getting into the human food supply.

While I certainly support robust testing standards for GMO's, and American standards could use some improvement, the banning of GMO's in Europe looks more like hysteria than science.

[Broomstick]

Do you have a degree in something relevant to researching applicable technologies? If you are focusing on a technological approach the most relevant actions are directly contributing to the relevant research, either as a researcher, as a worker at a company or institution doing relevant research, or just get a high-paying job and donnate to the cause. Blogging about it might have helped in 2000 AD but probably isn't very useful now that the Internet is saturated with expert technical bloggers.

Way to discourage the guy.

What world needs is NOT more technical blogs, it needs a person able to "translate" from technical jargon to normal speech in a way that doesn't dumb down or reduce the subject to mere sound bites and clickbait.

[SolarpunkFan]

While I certainly support robust testing standards for GMO's, and American standards could use some improvement, the banning of GMO's in Europe looks more like hysteria than science.

Exactly! While our standards could use improvement, opposition to GMOs based on "OMG IT'S NOT NATURAL!!1" hysteria is just plain stupid. As I've posted before, there was a reduction in both greenhouse gases and fertilizer runoff from GMO fields. In my honest opinion, if you're against using technology to save the planet, you're not really green at all.

[Purple]

What makes you think these things aren't tested at all?

Nothing. You will note I newer said anything of the sort. All I said is that each individual strain should be tested and only used if proven to be good. I know you want to vent your frustrations on me by lumping me up with the generic green crowd but don't. Although admittedly that was my fault due to misunderstanding of how the EU laws work. Basically what I think of the subject is:

- Extensive and rigorous testing is a must.
- Guilty until proven innocent.
- A complete ban on anything with a corporate patent label out of principal.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

if you're against using technology to save the planet, you're not really green at all.

If it wasn't for technology, the human race would've been saber-toothed tiger chow a long time ago. Just saying.

If it really is safe than it should have absolutely no problems passing the same test we put other safe substances through on a regular basis such as medicine. I am with the EU on this really. Anything you put in your body should be considered guilty until proven innocent.

Well, duh.

But that's not the point I was making, was I? No.

The point was we have been genetically modifying the food we eat through various methods of artificial selection for desirable traits(corn is another good example)since the dawn of human civilization, and way before Gregor Mendel came along.

We've also been doing the same thing with our food animals, as well as with dogs and horses, for the same amount of time, so the whole stink Greenpeace and other idiots(most of whom are about as green as James Watt)are raising about this is more hysteria than science.

Especially given that most scientists see nothing wrong with genetically-modified food. Which is as it should be: Technology is neither good nor evil, it just fucking is.

People are good or evil, and they're the ones who use and abuse technology.

[Purple]

I will not grace you with a response on account of you ignoring me in order to attack the generic strawman green idiot you want to make me out to be.

[Raw Shark]

I will not grace you with a response on account of you ignoring me in order to attack the generic strawman green idiot you want to make me out to be.

We all know what color you are. It's right there in your user title.

But seriously, it's a little frustrating trying to engage with other greens on this topic. If anybody has discovered useful strategies, I'd be interested in hearing about it.

[Broomstick]

I'd almost rather call it "technogreen", but at this point quibbling about the name is so far down the list as to be laughable.

Purple does have (a tiny) point that you have to appeal to selfish motives. That's why I gave the example of aluminum recycling: someone pays for my waste, which directly benefits me regardless of what happens after, then that person can turn a profit from recycling the material. That's a huge win for everyone, but it's become so entrenched in the world (aluminum is THE most recycled metal) that no one even sees it anymore. When I learned that, instead of having to arrange a special pickup for an old boxspring I could take it to the local recycler and get $6 for the metal what do you think I did?

If you're in the garbage disposal situation I'm in - we don't have municipal collection, we have to contract with and pay a private party to haul away our garbage - then promoting various ways to get rid of your garbage without needing to pay for the privilege AND helping the planet would make sense. So... I don't throw away old clothing (that takes up space in my garbage dumpster I have to pay for) I donate it. It doesn't cost me a dime (if it's a sufficiently large deduction I can actually get a tax deduction for it!) and someone else benefits. I compost kitchen scraps, recycling them into vegetables in the backyard. Rinse and repeat for a lot of things. The result is that I reduce the amount I contribute to landfills not because "it's good for the planet" but because it reduces MY cost. The rest is a side-benefit. For places that do have municipal pickup maybe some sort of credit or other incentive could be provided, reducing costs to local governments (either potentially reducing taxes or letting that money be spent on other things).

If things are approached right the sacrifices are minimal to the individual, or the individual even benefits, but help reduce the overall impact of society on the planet.

And, a certain slice of society actually DOES give a damn about the rest of the planet, unlike Purple. So, if they wanted to donate to a green charity some place that does a little research on various charities and can collect the results and make some lists might be a good thing. You could even categorize charities by specialty: "waste disposal", "clean water", "food for the poor", whatever. The benefit to the donor is more psychological than financial, but for people who aren't purple cubes that can be a win.

It's probably pretty obvious I've done most of my thinking and "work" in this area on the level of the individual. That doesn't mean community-based actions aren't worthwhile. The city of Boston, for example, recycles its sewage into fertilizer and sells it. Of course, some people panic and scream SEWER SLUDGE? YOU'RE PUTTING SEWER SLUDGE ON THE GOLF COURSE/LAWN/WHATEVER? OMG! OMG! Actually, sewage/"night soil" (basically, human shit) has been used as fertiler for thousands of years, but modern methods make it safer than it was historically. Of course care has to be taken that this is done properly, that the end product is not contaminated with anything unhealthy, or has unhealthy levels of various substances, which requires government oversight (not "the free market" which will only act after people start dying, if then). So a good technogaian would promote such enterprises while also being honest about costs/downsides and the need for oversight.

It's potentially a pretty big topic with several levels of action (local, national, global). You might need to pick a focus in order to avoid being all over the place and disorganized.

[SolarpunkFan]

Let's not forget that transgenics actually happens in nature as well: http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/04/ ... ere-first/

So it's not like there's no previous precedent for it.

[Broomstick]

Correct.

Of course, one advantage of human-controlled trangenics is that we can test the result and either allow it to live or not depending on whether or not it's harmful or helpful. Natural transgenics can result in bad things like killer flu, which we don't control and can have serious impacts on people as well as the rest of the biome.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

I will not grace you with a response on account of you ignoring me in order to attack the generic strawman green idiot you want to make me out to be.

Oh, boo hoo hoo. Poor little Perps. You got precisely dick, and rather than admit you got precisely dick, you want to go and play the wounded innocent like some damned fundamentlist asswipe.

Because, you know, making a point is different from making strawmen, and your point about GMOs(or anything else you introduce into your body)is so bog-basic obvious, it requires no further response than "well,duh. "

Since, that's a given amongst all the others who've posted here, including myself. It's even a given amongst scientists who either contribute to the manufacture of GMOs, or see no issue with same, because, scientific method is slow and methodical that way, and I'm reasonably sure they wouldn't object to one more layer of testing to minimize the chance of error leading to something dangerous being unleashed on the public.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

But seriously, it's a little frustrating trying to engage with other greens on this topic. If anybody has discovered useful strategies, I'd be interested in hearing about it.

it's been my experience that nothing short of orbital bombardement works with shrubbies, especially when, again, too many of them are as green as Reagan's first Interior Secretary, and only pretend to give two shits about the enviroment to a) act superior and b)deny they're miserable fucking assholes who hate their own kind(and by extension the world in which we live), and want an excuse to be miserable, misanthropic fucks.

And, in Perps' defense, at least he has the goddamned common indecency to be honest about that.

[Purple]

Oh, boo hoo hoo. Poor little Perps. You got precisely dick, and rather than admit you got precisely dick, you want to go and play the wounded innocent like some damned fundamentlist asswipe.

Because, you know, making a point is different from making strawmen, and your point about GMOs(or anything else you introduce into your body)is so bog-basic obvious, it requires no further response than "well,duh. "

Since, that's a given amongst all the others who've posted here, including myself. It's even a given amongst scientists who either contribute to the manufacture of GMOs, or see no issue with same, because, scientific method is slow and methodical that way, and I'm reasonably sure they wouldn't object to one more layer of testing to minimize the chance of error leading to something dangerous being unleashed on the public.

So what is your purpose here exactly?
First you fail to read what I write and instead write a response to something that has noting at all to do with what I said claiming it is responding to me. Than you insult me all the while agreeing with my original post?

Just what the fuck is happening inside your head?

Are you high or something?

[U.P. Cinnabar]

snip massive butthurt and lame ad hom attack

No. Just making a point. Feel free to not get it, cause you'll do that anyway, Perps.

[Purple]

snip massive butthurt and lame ad hom attack

No. Just making a point. Feel free to not get it, cause you'll do that anyway, Perps.

In that case I would appreciate it if from now on you would not make unrelated points disguised as replies to my posts. Also if you would stick your genitals inside a wood chipper. In reverse order of preference.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

It's potentially a pretty big topic with several levels of action (local, national, global). You might need to pick a focus in order to avoid being all over the place and disorganized.

You've got the right idea. Control the things you can control, and work toward the greater good.