He may understand computers but he has no CLUE about GM foods. He is no scientist and he sounds to me like is in the back pocket of Monsanto as they have an intense desire to dominate the seeds out there to own patents so that farmers are stuck growing only their seeds while the heirloom seeds are lost forever.
Frankenfoods...even in Africa.

In typical wingnut fashion, redhead completely ignores the part where the people doing the development are NOT in industry and brings Monsanto into the argument. This is akin to the wingnuts' yammering about socialism and death panels any time that a government plan is proposed to attack any problem.

Sir you cannot be this stupid! Take the time to read whst is happening to us form eating GM Food.

.
Bill Gates, the computer guy? Microsoft? the giant corrupt software company that set out on a single goal.. to be on every computer in the planet? ... That same "corporatist" now sees the "genius" behind Monsanto, I'm sure, in that if you own the seeds, you have a perpetual revenue stream... the "contracts" and in-viability of these seeds to progenate means you have "food slaves".. Bill is trying to do the same thing in the Computer world with software.. you never "buy" it, you just lease it every year from him, forever. Now he's splitting off into the food world, and that, to you, is like a "government plan"?

Color me confused.

So far, no one here has mentioned the REAL danger of GM foods, namely, the unintended (well maybe not) consequences of actually EATING the GM foods. When the gene gun shoots the foreign gene into the target, this crude technique cannot select WHERE in the DNA the spliced gene will eventually reside. This WHERE is critical in that the various ORDERS of the genes result in various and UNPREDICTABLE outcomes in the ultimate nutritional value or lack of same in the "food" which is the end product. The unintended additional consequences of the technique obviously will alter the plant DNA, but additionally alter the reaction in the gut and entire body of the beings ingesting the resulting "food". Credible evidence from a variety of sources has shown that animals, when given a choice, will avoid GM foods. Lab rats fed a GM diet fail to thrive and while they can continue to reproduce, their babies die before maturity. In the human population that consumes the products, it has been shown that serious food allergies have skyrocketed to unprecedented levels in recent years due to the intestinal "climate change" produced by trying to digest the "food". The changed DNA of the "food" impacts the natural intestinal bacteria, creating more inflammatory conditions, not only in the stomach and bowel, but in the entire body -- even affecting our own DNA. When the GM foods such as soy, corn, rice, beets, etc. are avoided, these deleterious effects subside. Problem is, GM foods in the USA are not labeled, organic food is expensive, tracking effects from the farm to the doctor's office takes years so, like the issue with cigarettes and cell phones or towers, it will be DECADES before the evidence is clear and convincing that GM foods are dangerous. Meanwhile, millions will suffer and die while Monsanto and others fatten their bottom line.

this statement doesn't hold up in the light of facts witnessed in the indian sub-continent so far:

Gates said, “This global effort to help small farmers is endangered by an ideological wedge that threatens to split the movement in two. On one side is a technological approach that increases productivity. On the other side is an environmental approach that promotes sustainability. It's a false choice, and it's dangerous for the field.”

despite gates' noble efforts a doing something honourable with his gajillions, the real motivation of monsanto and others is not a helping hand in feeding their fellow man- but profits. unless things have changed considerably, the seed bought with loans from these agri-giants is designed to self-destruct - plants don't produce usable seed for following seasons as has always been practiced by subsistence farmers. they find themselves ever deeper in dept and some must sell their offspring or meager parcels to pay off loans. tens of thousands of peasant farmers have committed suicide to date as far as i know.

this blood, too, is on the karmic hands of the stockholders and in the bellies of the families that partake of such profits - along with all profits derived from pain, suffering, destruction and death.

What we need are less people, less "marketing" and adoption of a consumption based lifestyle that America is known for. Responsible family planning and downsizing of our population is the key. Less people - less consumption. Just get snipped - men and women. In a generation we can greatly reduce our numbers. Of course that will wreck havoc on our "grow the economy" corporate profit margins, etc, but better that than being a bunch of lemmings rushing over the side of a cliff.

Are you suggesting the answer to hunger in Sub Saharan Africa is sterilizing the population? Have I got that right?

I'm talking about consciously realizing we can't exponentially grow our population off the charts beyond the capacity of the earth's ability to provide for us. This goes for all continents, all cultures. So read my words again... I said nothing about sterilizing ala China. I'm really emphasizing an awareness that we as a species need a significant shift in our way of life. Part of that is not having Octo-moms, John and Kate had eight, etc. etc. Sorry if you took it that way. Actually I'm not, You'll take whatever you want. I know what I'm stating. Read it.

Thanks for clearing it up. I was pretty sure that's what you meant, but not quite.

Problem is, overpopulation is greater in less affluent countries. How would you address that?

Hardly. Read what I said. I'm strongly suggesting what I wrote earlier. Education goes without saying.

.
It is "an" answer, yes.

It is "not" a "viable" answer, it is not a reasonable answer, it is not an acceptable answer..

But one should also ask themselves, why do people who can't feed themselves have kids? Kids end up being a _side effect_ of them having sex because they have nothing else to do. This is where "education" comes in, and perhaps finding "easy, cheap" ways to "temporarily sterilize" people (men and women, with their CONSENT) so they can have all the sex they want without making babies they can't care for.

And this isn't just Africa, this is all of the world. Women take the pill in America for a reason, right?

As with many of my posts, the solution is rooted in two main things.. Education and abolishing money.. www [dot] thevenusproject [dot] com ...

It is acceptable. It is reasonable. Given what we are faced, then it wouldn't be. People have sex for a whole hosts of reasons, not because they don't have "anything" to do. Love, hormones, youthful vigor, it feels good, etc. But many cultures encourage increasing the size of the family in order to be provided for/cared for in old age and/or to overcome high infant mortality rates. Not because the Moose Lodge is closed on a Saturday night. No where at all has anything been implied as this being a forced issue - NO WHERE! Nor is it even implied being for sub-Saharan people only - NO WHERE. Quite the opposite. Read my words: A shift in awareness - aka personal awareness. Education is obvious. Either the need for it, or the lack of it. Women take the pill with disastrous results. We don't need any more octo-moms, granted she is on the far end of the spectrum in my opinion. So yeah... to further my point - education is essential. The fate of the world hinges on this. More people, need more food, need more energy, add to soil erosion, and CO2 - where mainly North Americans come in.

.
We're agreed on the benefits of education. Super. That doesn't change the fact that without resources (pills, condoms, etc) education is immaterial, and education doesn't prevent hormones, youthful vigor, et. al., from still happening.

Voluntary sterilization is [extreme] birth control, and it is an individual's choice. You'll not find many willing to make an irreversible decision like that.

The key you hit on is "culture", and education tends to lead to certain kinds of culture. Some current cultures don't want to change and it will take a long time to convince them to step out of the dark ages. In the mean time, what do we do? ... your "words" that have been "read" _implied_ we should force sterilization on people. That forcing is not acceptable. You didn't mean "forcing", that is now clear (and I didn't suspect you did, which is why I didn't respond to YOUR post, but to the guy that clearly thought you DID mean to forcibly sterilize entire nations because they were "backwards").

"Read my words: A shift in awareness"

Those words were not in your original post. Nothing to read, just interpretations to be made. You and I are on the same page, I responded to someone that was thinking something different than what you "meant" only because you did NOT use the words that undeniably conveyed what you "meant".

I wrote what I did. It's in the second post. The implied interpretations are from others.That is the point I repeatedly made.You're right, the first post had nothing about "shift in awareness". It was in the second post to clarify further my thoughts. And then I brought it up again "I'm really emphasizing an awareness that we as a species need a significant shift in our way of life". So to Savantster and Damixaustex, I'll admit I may have came across defensive. Apologies. Good dialogue though. As far as resources for developing countries or 3rd World countries, we make enough cash through the exporting of arms, surely some Industrial Military Complex War monger somewhere will take on a project such as this?? Yeah, right. My case being is we have the resources to work with countries regarding this topic, if they wanted to. Unfortunately, it seems our right to lifers find population control "ungodly" - and I'm not even referring to abortion, which is an entirely other volatile subject. Where ever the two of you may be, have a good evening. It's been a good weekend. Cheers to all.

I appreciate that you elaborated. You and I agree more than you first assumed.

"NO WHERE! Nor is it even implied being for sub-Saharan people only - NO WHERE."

The article is about sub saharan africa, so I was checking to make sure. It's clear now. You want to raise awareness of overpopulation everywhere.
Still, tho, it's gonna be difficult to tell a farmer in southeast asia that he should have fewer kids. They see more kids as more opportunity for success, playing the odds, so to speak.
Fewer kids per household correlates with increased income and education. It sure seems like it would be easier to try to make sure economic stability is within reach of more people.
Or, as Savanster points out, get rid of money altogether.

Let them eat patents!

In the June issue of Harpers Magazine was an excellent article by Frederick Kaufman about Bill Gates and the hungercrats currently advancing their agendas by pretending to work the hunger crisis. Professor Jean Ziegler was United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food from until April 2008 and has written a scathing book about his experience with the same crowd with the fitting title "The Empire of Shame". Frederick Kaufman's article could lead the reader to the conclusion, that there is an honest debate about whether or not “forward contracting” by the WFP will actually do more good than harm. He correctly describes the goal for such programs as to enable small farmers to acquire better seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides etc. and this is actually the key to understanding what is really going on here. "Forward contracting" with public and private funds is not intended to end world hunger. Much like farm subsidy programs in the US or Europe, it is actually just a way of creating a market in the developing world for the products of multinational agro-giants like Monsanto. This is actually the crowd Bill Gates is hanging out with and who's Kool-Aid he's drinking. Unfortunately President Obama much like his hapless predecessor is falling for the same corporate propaganda and seems to have been convinced that "improved seeds" meaning genetically modified patented seeds are the answer to feeding a hungry world and solving the climate change problem. When Germany banned Monsanto's GM-corn MON-810, the Obama Administration summoned the German ambassador to show their displeasure. When Professor Jean Ziegler refused to buy into this agenda, the Bush Administration tried to get him fired from his UN position. When this effort failed, the US "diplomats" tried to bully him into resigning. When The International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) concluded last year, that genetically modified seeds are likely to be counterproductive in solving the problem of world hunger, companies like Monsanto and Syngenta pulled out in protest from the project. Putting somebody like Josette Sheeran in charge of the World Food Program and getting Bill Gates to pitch in is a prefect way to once again advance this dangerous agenda unchecked by any democratically elected body. Patented seeds will be as helpful to feeding impoverished people in the developing world as patented medicines have been in curing their diseases. This will be about all of us forking over cash to those who control the food supply through patented seed. It is not surprising, that the founder of Microsoft would be very comfortable with our food security being monopolized in the hands of a few multinational corporations.

Kind regards,

Walter Haefeker

-------------------------------------------------------------

President
European Professional Beekeepers Association
Member of the Board of Directors
German Professional Beekeepers Association
Deutscher Berufs und Erwerbsimkerbund e.V
Mobile: +49 151 58 565 444
Fax and Voicemail: +49 (89) 92 185 666
E-Mail: walter.haefeker@berufsimker.de
http://www.berufsimker.de

When you see all these people like Greenpeace and other progressive organizations opposing one of the few means left to increase food production based on what is essentially a religious objection, you have to wonder at their real motive. I hate to say it, but the right wing may be correct that liberals are racists at heart. There is no rational reason to oppose genetic modification of plants, to go around claiming that KFC is producing GM chickens with six legs, to sound just like Michelle Bachmann. There has to be something else. If anyone can suggest another option, I would be glad to consider it.

texasaggie - you ignorant fool. GMO foods are not six-legged chickens or seedless grapes and GMO has *nothing* to-do with left or right, conservative or liberal. GMO foods have *foreign* genes blasted into their DNA with a gene gun. Sounds safe to you right? This of course is inherently unsafe and the results are weakly tested. Nobody should be ingesting these foods and Bill Gates shouldn't contributing to using starving people for experimentation. Did you know GMO seeds can not reproduce, i.e. these farmers can not use part of their GMO field to get more seeds and re-plant next year? They must buy more seeds, and from guess who? What happens when the grant money runs out? Seriously, wake up and do you own research... and no, by research I don't mean flipping to CNN in between football games.

"Did you know GMO seeds can not reproduce,...."

Ah, if only that were true. The scariest part of gmo crops is the modified plants that can "escape into the wild." BT corn, plastic potatoes, patented varieties.

But what you say is true for some crops. The developing company decided to make them sterile to assure repeat business.
But, genetic modification can also create plants that yield so much seed there's plenty to feed everyone AND yield next years plantings, and the crops can be modified to grown in the regions where they're needed, reducing the distribution problems.
So why skip GMO entirely just because some company thinks they can use it to control the food supply? It makes more sense to use the technology to combat those efforts.