Bill Gates wants 1 Billion dead.

Kepti wrote: »

It definitely is messing with genetics. I was just adding to your point.


That video is great yekahs.

Science: Saves 1 Billion+ lives
Greenpeace: Scares African countries into rejecting food aid.

By keeping dogs and the possibility that they might have sex and have puppies doesnt mess with genetics, its called nature, if people were trying to get a dog to hump a chicken or whatever, something that wasn't part of the canine species, I'd agree they were trying to mess with genetics, but they wouldn't be successful, but thats not what were talking about, were talking about opening up DNA adding and subtracting from it, with unknown longterm affect.

Can you show me some links to these 1 billion saved, doesnt fit in with the eugenics program, or better still start a thread about the greenpeace conspiracy.

I have plenty of questions about greenpeace and others motives, but its a different subject.

Can none of the concerned pro GM advocates here not see the reality behind GM foods and how they are intended not to save people but enslave them even more, yekahs video is propaganda and bullsh1t.
yekahs what happens when these terminator seed's are introduced to an area, and the farmers down the road suddenly find that they too are the proud owners of the ever expanding crop with sterile seed's, they can then starve or borrow money to get more.


Terminator Seeds Threaten an End to Farming
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Transnational_corps/TerminatorSeeds_Monsanto.html

The 12,000-year-old practice in which farm families save their best seed from one year's harvest for the next season's planting may be coming to an end by the year 2000. In March 1998, Delta ~ Pine Land Co. arid the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced they had received a US patent on a new genetic technology designed to prevent unauthorized seed-saving by farmers.

Ethical Investing

Monsanto Terminator Technology -- Worldwide Famine & Starvation

Kepti wrote: »

Science: Saves 1 Billion+ lives
Greenpeace: Scares African countries into rejecting food aid.

Kepti wrote: »

The billion saved figure was pulled from yekahs video. Did you watch it?

I never suggested a greenpeace conspiracy. If you watch the video, I think it's fair to accuse them of ignorant scaremongering.

Yes I watched it and it's a great propaganda video, lacking any reality, great poorwashing scenes, facts pulled from Gates and Co's rectum.
I think it's fair to accuse you of ignorant false fact promoting.


So there's no evidence that 1 billion people were saved by science and GM crap.

If you look into facts I think its fair to accuse GM advocates of promoting bolllox, and a new form of slavery and total dependance.

Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach him how to fish and he'll eat forever.

Give/Sell a man some GM seeds and he'll probably eat for a year, but if he doesn't buy more GM seeds next year he'll starve along with his family.

Di0genes wrote: »

Norman Borlaug's dwarf wheat? High yield wheat pretty much stopped famine in the entire Indian sub continent.

That's a widely accepted myth, there is no proof anywhere that 1 billion people were saved because of Norman Borlaug, he left behind a legacy of poisoned land and heavy debt.

Quote:
Borlaug's emphasis on technological solutions for increased production ignores the broader social context and economic realities that determine hunger.
A third of the world's hungry live in India - a country which has a surfeit of food with which to feed its population; yet nutritional norms have actually worsened for those below the poverty line since the Green Revolution. Borlaug himself acknowledges this problem, stating in an interview in Reason magazine:
India has produced enough and sometimes has a surplus in grain. The problem is to get it into the stomachs of the hungry. There's a lack of purchasing power
by too large a part of the population... The grain is there in the warehouses, but it doesn't find its way into the stomachs of the hungry.

In the light of this, Borlaug's support for the "gene revolution" on the assumption (as of 2009 unsupported by evidence) that GM crops will feed the hungry seems questionable.
He states: "We have to have this new technology [GM] if we are to meet the growing food needs for the next 25 years.
The Indian physicist, activist and organic farmer Dr Vandana Shiva made an extensive critique of Borlaug's "Green Revolution" in her book,
The Violence of the Green Revolution: Ecological Degradation and Political Conflict (Zed Books, 1991).
Shiva states that while Punjab was considered the great success of the Green Revolution, after two decades of the Green Revolution, Punjab is
neither a land of prosperity, nor peace. It is a region riddled with discontent and violence. Instead of abundance, Punjab has been left with diseased soils, pest-infected crops, waterlogged deserts and indebted and discontented farmers.
http://www.spinprofiles.org/index.php/Norman_Borlaug#Criticism_of_the_.22Green_Revolution.22

One of the most ironic things I see in Borlaug obits is the idea that his innovations made countries like Mexico and India "self-sufficient" in food production.
Actually, these nations became perilously dependent on foreign input suppliers for their food security.
Today in India's grain belt, less than 40 years after Borlaug's Nobel triumph, the water table has been nearly completely tapped out by massive irrigation projects, farmers are in severe economic crisis, and cancer rates, seemingly related to agrichemical use, are tragically high.
In other words, to generate the massive yield gains that won Borlaug his Nobel, the nation sacrificed its most productive farmland and a generation of farmers.
Meanwhile, as in Mexico, urban poverty and malnutrition in India's urban centers remained stubbornly persistent.
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-09-14-thoughts-on-the-legacy-of-norman-borlaug/
Assessing the Legacy of Norman Borlaug: Did the Green Revolution Prevent Famines?
“Father of green revolution saved millions of lives” reads one headline. “The Nobel winner who fed the world” reads another.
It would seem that any claim that a single human being could have achieved these miracles, let alone a technician – should arouse at least a measure of skepticism.
Although some of the commentary that appeared following the announcement of Borlaug’s death admitted that the green revolution has had its critics – it has after all, increased poverty in the world, widened the gap between rich and poor, caused water tables to drop to dangerous levels, caused widespread chemical contamination, and led to staggering losses of topsoil and soil fertility – the claim that Borlaug’s innovations in plant genetics “saved millions of lives” has gone by virtually without challenge.
What, however, is the basis for the claim that the green revolution saved millions of lives? It is repeated often enough, although source documentation is never provided – it is as generally accepted as, for instance, the claim that the civil war ended the institution of slavery
in the United States. No source documentation is needed. But how do you measure, scientifically speaking, what would have happened?
Have the alternatives to the agricultural model that prevailed be taken into account? Is it possible that – given that the predicted famines did not occur –that these projections were flawed? Can we assume that there were no alternatives to ramping up food production in the industrial style?
Is it impossible that there might be another explanation to India’s avoidance of widespread famines since Independence,
other than the intervention of the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations and Borlaug’s miracle seeds?
After two billion dollars in aid from the United States over ten years, India had established an industrial agriculture system with a complex of dams, irrigation systems, roads, grain elevators, and petrochemical plants. India became one of the leading wheat producers in the world. What remains invisible behind the statistics of its enormous wheat production is the enormous social, economic and ecological disruption that this transformation had caused, and which, in fact, increased poverty and hunger rather than reduced it. “The food systems that have maintained humankind through most of its history are disintegrating,” wrote Andrew Pearse, the author of the United Nation’s fifteen- nation study of the results of the green revolution, who concluded that “emergence of more capital intensive farming,” and the “dissolution of self provisioning agriculture” where the leading causes of the “crisis of livelihood” – in other words, poverty – in the developing world.
http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/1710/64/

Di0genes wrote: »

Out of curiousity whats your solution to sort out how we're going to provide food for an ever expanding global population?

For starters I'd stop paying farmers not to grow food, there's millions and millions of acre's of great land lying dormant around the world, including Ireland where farmers are paid NOT TO GROW CROPS/FOOD, so this myth that the world can't feed itself is BS.
This world is not about life or wellbeing, it's ruled by a truly evil system, where money, power and control are more important than precious life.
Anybody who cannot see this cannot be really looking or simply looking away and whistling.

To grow or not to grow?
Anyone who hasn't been asleep in a cave for 50 years knows the U.S. government pays farmers not to grow crops.
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/25260459.html

Rice shortage? U.S. paid millions to farmers to not plant it.
Following on our post on the food riots story: It has since escalated to actual rice rationing here in the Pacific Northwest,
Imagine, then, that our federal government paid hundreds of millions of dollars in 2006 to keep farmers from growing rice.
http://blog.seattlepi.com/environment/archives/137608.asp

USDA Urged To End Paying Farmers Not To Grow Crops.
At issue is the Conservation Reserve Program, under which the government has paid farmers to stop growing row crops, such as corn and soybeans, on 34 million acres across the country.
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/jul/11/na-usda-urged-to-end-paying-farmers-not-to-grow-cr/

Di0genes wrote: »

I'm not advocating GM crops per see. But consider your friend in Amsterdam. The vast majority of people in the world don't have the opportunity or ability to grow crops for pleasure or entertainment. They grow to provide food for themselves and their family. You have the luxury of growing crops for fun and eating organic food.

I don't really get what it is your saying here, I know not everybody has the luxury of fertile land under their feet, but there is a lot of it around, take this little island we live on, drive from any city to another and look out the window, there is enough life giving land on this planet to feed it.
There was enough excess food discarded today worldwide, thrown into bins to feed millions of people, this whole world functions wrong, this is a sad fact me or you are powerless to change, but it is wrong.
Basically what I'm saying is there is no need for GM seeds/crops, their only funtion is to control, and given time these GM crops will spread, its something that could threaten horticulture and possibly even destroy it as we know it, I could be totally wrong but I don't know that and neither do these mad scientists or rockerfeller, gates and co.



SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF GMO RISKS
"Modern man does not experience himself as part of nature, but as an outside force destined to dominate and conquer it. He even talks of a battle with nature – forgetting that, if he won the battle, he would find himself on the losing side."
– Fritz Schumacher, Small is Beautiful


http://www.gmfreeireland.org/resources/documents/science/index.php