Drama Vote: Voice your opinion on the recent drama.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Alright, listen. What the fuck LMNO just said.

If someone says something along the lines of "That fact about human behavior is irrational, therefore how can it be true?" and the answer is "Because human beings are not typically very rational, and therefore often behave in irrational ways" what should the respondent do, sugar-coat the actual answer into something else? Really, the reason we don't use logical, reasonable sustainable farming methods is because ook ook, motherfucker. Too bad, so sad.

Is there a solution? You bet your fucking ass there is. But if you don't take ook ook into account, that solution will never be implemented.

Human beings are driven largely by food, sex, competition, envy, and oooh shiny! not  necessarily in that order. Logic and concern for the future are pretty low on our list of motivations. That doesn't mean we will always be this way, but there must be compelling reasons for change or we'll go right ahead and Roman-Empire ourselves right into the Dark Ages again and again.

Alright listen, I don't think anything I said refuted that.  So, tell me, what are the compelling reasons?

Compelling reasons for change? The compelling reasons to change our farming practices are, unfortunately, similar to the reasons we ended up with the entirely-predictable Dust Bowl, so it's likely that we will have to endure a similar crisis before we will change our current disaster-inviting farming practices.

[hooplala]

I believe it was brought up after you said planting a monoculture crop wouldn't be very scientific, at which point it was given as an explanation as to why we might implement a less than perfect farming system.

There's no "might" about it. We DO implement a completely irrational farming system which has not only historically been shown to be an invitation to disaster, but is CURRENTLY demonstrating an agricultural disaster.

The people of Mexico and India may very well disagree with you.

I may be making little sense because my best girl came over with a pint of really excellent bourbon last night for my birthday, and I'm operating on a hangover and very little sleep.

Perhaps it might be time to step away from the computer then, before another meltdown occurs.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I believe it was brought up after you said planting a monoculture crop wouldn't be very scientific, at which point it was given as an explanation as to why we might implement a less than perfect farming system.

There's no "might" about it. We DO implement a completely irrational farming system which has not only historically been shown to be an invitation to disaster, but is CURRENTLY demonstrating an agricultural disaster.

The people of Mexico and India may very well disagree with you.

I may be making little sense because my best girl came over with a pint of really excellent bourbon last night for my birthday, and I'm operating on a hangover and very little sleep.

Perhaps it might be time to step away from the computer then, before another meltdown occurs.

Oh, you're just hilarious. By "meltdown" I assume you mean "trolling TTM into delightful heights of hysteria".

What would the people of Mexico disagree with me about, the statement that the US predominantly practices monoculture? Or my reference to the banana catastrophe?

[hooplala]

Alright, listen. What the fuck LMNO just said.

If someone says something along the lines of "That fact about human behavior is irrational, therefore how can it be true?" and the answer is "Because human beings are not typically very rational, and therefore often behave in irrational ways" what should the respondent do, sugar-coat the actual answer into something else? Really, the reason we don't use logical, reasonable sustainable farming methods is because ook ook, motherfucker. Too bad, so sad.

Is there a solution? You bet your fucking ass there is. But if you don't take ook ook into account, that solution will never be implemented.

Human beings are driven largely by food, sex, competition, envy, and oooh shiny! not  necessarily in that order. Logic and concern for the future are pretty low on our list of motivations. That doesn't mean we will always be this way, but there must be compelling reasons for change or we'll go right ahead and Roman-Empire ourselves right into the Dark Ages again and again.

Alright listen, I don't think anything I said refuted that.  So, tell me, what are the compelling reasons?

Compelling reasons for change? The compelling reasons to change our farming practices are, unfortunately, similar to the reasons we ended up with the entirely-predictable Dust Bowl, so it's likely that we will have to endure a similar crisis before we will change our current disaster-inviting farming practices.

Ok, so once that happens, can we discuss Grant Morrison's point without frothing at the mouth about overpopulation, or will it STILL be an issue?   And if it IS still an issue, then is it fair to say that the ook ook argument really is saying it will never get better so why try?  

And why does it still seem like people are wishing for collapse and starvation?  

[hooplala]

I believe it was brought up after you said planting a monoculture crop wouldn't be very scientific, at which point it was given as an explanation as to why we might implement a less than perfect farming system.

There's no "might" about it. We DO implement a completely irrational farming system which has not only historically been shown to be an invitation to disaster, but is CURRENTLY demonstrating an agricultural disaster.

The people of Mexico and India may very well disagree with you.

I may be making little sense because my best girl came over with a pint of really excellent bourbon last night for my birthday, and I'm operating on a hangover and very little sleep.

Perhaps it might be time to step away from the computer then, before another meltdown occurs.

Oh, you're just hilarious. By "meltdown" I assume you mean "trolling TTM into delightful heights of hysteria".

What would the people of Mexico disagree with me about, the statement that the US predominantly practices monoculture? Or my reference to the banana catastrophe?

I believe they would disagree that there is an agricultural disaster when so many of them that formerly were starving can now eat.  It's easy to poo-poo the little things with a full stomach and a hangover.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Alright, listen. What the fuck LMNO just said.

If someone says something along the lines of "That fact about human behavior is irrational, therefore how can it be true?" and the answer is "Because human beings are not typically very rational, and therefore often behave in irrational ways" what should the respondent do, sugar-coat the actual answer into something else? Really, the reason we don't use logical, reasonable sustainable farming methods is because ook ook, motherfucker. Too bad, so sad.

Is there a solution? You bet your fucking ass there is. But if you don't take ook ook into account, that solution will never be implemented.

Human beings are driven largely by food, sex, competition, envy, and oooh shiny! not  necessarily in that order. Logic and concern for the future are pretty low on our list of motivations. That doesn't mean we will always be this way, but there must be compelling reasons for change or we'll go right ahead and Roman-Empire ourselves right into the Dark Ages again and again.

Alright listen, I don't think anything I said refuted that.  So, tell me, what are the compelling reasons?

Compelling reasons for change? The compelling reasons to change our farming practices are, unfortunately, similar to the reasons we ended up with the entirely-predictable Dust Bowl, so it's likely that we will have to endure a similar crisis before we will change our current disaster-inviting farming practices.

Ok, so once that happens, can we discuss Grant Morrison's point without frothing at the mouth about overpopulation, or will it STILL be an issue?   And if it IS still an issue, then is it fair to say that the ook ook argument really is saying it will never get better so why try?  

And why does it still seem like people are wishing for collapse and starvation?  

Oh, I think you're conflating my posts with someone else's, because I have never addressed overpopulation, only agriculture. However, my opinion on overpopulation is that it is undesirable because it reduces quality of life, and that since increased rates of education and better standards of living reduce birth rates, the best solution is to address third-world living and working conditions. However, I also fully realize that the dream of a first-world planet may be entirely wishful thinking, and I'm not enough of a genius to have designed a global solution to poverty. Wish I was.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I believe it was brought up after you said planting a monoculture crop wouldn't be very scientific, at which point it was given as an explanation as to why we might implement a less than perfect farming system.

There's no "might" about it. We DO implement a completely irrational farming system which has not only historically been shown to be an invitation to disaster, but is CURRENTLY demonstrating an agricultural disaster.

The people of Mexico and India may very well disagree with you.

I may be making little sense because my best girl came over with a pint of really excellent bourbon last night for my birthday, and I'm operating on a hangover and very little sleep.

Perhaps it might be time to step away from the computer then, before another meltdown occurs.

Oh, you're just hilarious. By "meltdown" I assume you mean "trolling TTM into delightful heights of hysteria".

What would the people of Mexico disagree with me about, the statement that the US predominantly practices monoculture? Or my reference to the banana catastrophe?

I believe they would disagree that there is an agricultural disaster when so many of them that formerly were starving can now eat.  It's easy to poo-poo the little things with a full stomach and a hangover.

It's interesting that you are wholly dismissing my points about monoculture and the historical (and current) weaknesses thereof based on Mexico's farming practices, and me being hung over.

Can you explain exactly how Mexico has changed their farming practices over the last 200 years, and how it has benefited them, and then also explain how those changes are relevant to this conversation?

[hooplala]

Alright, listen. What the fuck LMNO just said.

If someone says something along the lines of "That fact about human behavior is irrational, therefore how can it be true?" and the answer is "Because human beings are not typically very rational, and therefore often behave in irrational ways" what should the respondent do, sugar-coat the actual answer into something else? Really, the reason we don't use logical, reasonable sustainable farming methods is because ook ook, motherfucker. Too bad, so sad.

Is there a solution? You bet your fucking ass there is. But if you don't take ook ook into account, that solution will never be implemented.

Human beings are driven largely by food, sex, competition, envy, and oooh shiny! not  necessarily in that order. Logic and concern for the future are pretty low on our list of motivations. That doesn't mean we will always be this way, but there must be compelling reasons for change or we'll go right ahead and Roman-Empire ourselves right into the Dark Ages again and again.

Alright listen, I don't think anything I said refuted that.  So, tell me, what are the compelling reasons?

Compelling reasons for change? The compelling reasons to change our farming practices are, unfortunately, similar to the reasons we ended up with the entirely-predictable Dust Bowl, so it's likely that we will have to endure a similar crisis before we will change our current disaster-inviting farming practices.

Ok, so once that happens, can we discuss Grant Morrison's point without frothing at the mouth about overpopulation, or will it STILL be an issue?   And if it IS still an issue, then is it fair to say that the ook ook argument really is saying it will never get better so why try?  

And why does it still seem like people are wishing for collapse and starvation?  

Oh, I think you're conflating my posts with someone else's, because I have never addressed overpopulation, only agriculture. However, my opinion on overpopulation is that it is undesirable because it reduces quality of life, and that since increased rates of education and better standards of living reduce birth rates, the best solution is to address third-world living and working conditions. However, I also fully realize that the dream of a first-world planet may be entirely wishful thinking, and I'm not enough of a genius to have designed a global solution to poverty. Wish I was.

OK, I just read about the banana extinction, and yes it does definitely point to a problem with our current agricultural practices,  No doubt about that.  Perhaps the banana will be the catastrophe you spoke of a few posts back?  We lose the banana but gain a wider understanding of how narrow-minded be can be... is it fair to say we might learn from it?  Or do you believe this will just keep happening to different crops until there is no food left?

The article I read said that "a global effort is now under way to save the fruit"... I guess time will tell how the ook ook argument works out.

[hooplala]

I believe it was brought up after you said planting a monoculture crop wouldn't be very scientific, at which point it was given as an explanation as to why we might implement a less than perfect farming system.

There's no "might" about it. We DO implement a completely irrational farming system which has not only historically been shown to be an invitation to disaster, but is CURRENTLY demonstrating an agricultural disaster.

The people of Mexico and India may very well disagree with you.

I may be making little sense because my best girl came over with a pint of really excellent bourbon last night for my birthday, and I'm operating on a hangover and very little sleep.

Perhaps it might be time to step away from the computer then, before another meltdown occurs.

Oh, you're just hilarious. By "meltdown" I assume you mean "trolling TTM into delightful heights of hysteria".

What would the people of Mexico disagree with me about, the statement that the US predominantly practices monoculture? Or my reference to the banana catastrophe?

I believe they would disagree that there is an agricultural disaster when so many of them that formerly were starving can now eat.  It's easy to poo-poo the little things with a full stomach and a hangover.

It's interesting that you are wholly dismissing my points about monoculture and the historical (and current) weaknesses thereof based on Mexico's farming practices, and me being hung over.

Can you explain exactly how Mexico has changed their farming practices over the last 200 years, and how it has benefited them, and then also explain how those changes are relevant to this conversation?

At the moment, no, I am at work and it would take too long to write up.  But I will tonight.

And I apologize for bringing the hangover up again.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

FWIW, I am NOT a teenage child who glamorizes societal collapse. I have no yearning for human suffering, and I think/hope that change will come before we reach that point globally. Please don't tar me with that brush.

[hooplala]

FWIW, I am NOT a teenage child who glamorizes societal collapse. I have no yearning for human suffering, and I think/hope that change will come before we reach that point globally. Please don't tar me with that brush.

Fair enough.  I can only comment on how things are perceived by me, and that was how it was starting to look, but if you say thats not your view, its good enough for me.  I won't say it again.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Alright, listen. What the fuck LMNO just said.

If someone says something along the lines of "That fact about human behavior is irrational, therefore how can it be true?" and the answer is "Because human beings are not typically very rational, and therefore often behave in irrational ways" what should the respondent do, sugar-coat the actual answer into something else? Really, the reason we don't use logical, reasonable sustainable farming methods is because ook ook, motherfucker. Too bad, so sad.

Is there a solution? You bet your fucking ass there is. But if you don't take ook ook into account, that solution will never be implemented.

Human beings are driven largely by food, sex, competition, envy, and oooh shiny! not  necessarily in that order. Logic and concern for the future are pretty low on our list of motivations. That doesn't mean we will always be this way, but there must be compelling reasons for change or we'll go right ahead and Roman-Empire ourselves right into the Dark Ages again and again.

Alright listen, I don't think anything I said refuted that.  So, tell me, what are the compelling reasons?

Compelling reasons for change? The compelling reasons to change our farming practices are, unfortunately, similar to the reasons we ended up with the entirely-predictable Dust Bowl, so it's likely that we will have to endure a similar crisis before we will change our current disaster-inviting farming practices.

Ok, so once that happens, can we discuss Grant Morrison's point without frothing at the mouth about overpopulation, or will it STILL be an issue?   And if it IS still an issue, then is it fair to say that the ook ook argument really is saying it will never get better so why try?  

And why does it still seem like people are wishing for collapse and starvation?  

Oh, I think you're conflating my posts with someone else's, because I have never addressed overpopulation, only agriculture. However, my opinion on overpopulation is that it is undesirable because it reduces quality of life, and that since increased rates of education and better standards of living reduce birth rates, the best solution is to address third-world living and working conditions. However, I also fully realize that the dream of a first-world planet may be entirely wishful thinking, and I'm not enough of a genius to have designed a global solution to poverty. Wish I was.

OK, I just read about the banana extinction, and yes it does definitely point to a problem with our current agricultural practices,  No doubt about that.  Perhaps the banana will be the catastrophe you spoke of a few posts back?  We lose the banana but gain a wider understanding of how narrow-minded be can be... is it fair to say we might learn from it?  Or do you believe this will just keep happening to different crops until there is no food left?

The article I read said that "a global effort is now under way to save the fruit"... I guess time will tell how the ook ook argument works out.

Yes, the banana blight is exactly what I was referring to. I would have some hope that we might learn from it if it wasn't a recurring story in agriculture over the last 200 years or so... we have experienced pretty much an identical situation with quite a few crops, including potatoes, coffee, and even previous banana strains (look up Big Mike). We (as people and as corporations) just have a hard time overlooking the short-term profitability of monoculture in favor of the long-term sustainability of diversity.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

FWIW, I am NOT a teenage child who glamorizes societal collapse. I have no yearning for human suffering, and I think/hope that change will come before we reach that point globally. Please don't tar me with that brush.

Fair enough.  I can only comment on how things are perceived by me, and that was how it was starting to look, but if you say thats not your view, its good enough for me.  I won't say it again.

And I apologize for bringing the hangover up again.

Thank you. I'm just acknowledging that I might not be entirely clear in my arguments today, and if I inexplicably leave out words or write incomprehensible sentences, that's why. Tip of the hat to Daff0dil!

[hooplala]

Alright, listen. What the fuck LMNO just said.

If someone says something along the lines of "That fact about human behavior is irrational, therefore how can it be true?" and the answer is "Because human beings are not typically very rational, and therefore often behave in irrational ways" what should the respondent do, sugar-coat the actual answer into something else? Really, the reason we don't use logical, reasonable sustainable farming methods is because ook ook, motherfucker. Too bad, so sad.

Is there a solution? You bet your fucking ass there is. But if you don't take ook ook into account, that solution will never be implemented.

Human beings are driven largely by food, sex, competition, envy, and oooh shiny! not  necessarily in that order. Logic and concern for the future are pretty low on our list of motivations. That doesn't mean we will always be this way, but there must be compelling reasons for change or we'll go right ahead and Roman-Empire ourselves right into the Dark Ages again and again.

Alright listen, I don't think anything I said refuted that.  So, tell me, what are the compelling reasons?

Compelling reasons for change? The compelling reasons to change our farming practices are, unfortunately, similar to the reasons we ended up with the entirely-predictable Dust Bowl, so it's likely that we will have to endure a similar crisis before we will change our current disaster-inviting farming practices.

Ok, so once that happens, can we discuss Grant Morrison's point without frothing at the mouth about overpopulation, or will it STILL be an issue?   And if it IS still an issue, then is it fair to say that the ook ook argument really is saying it will never get better so why try?  

And why does it still seem like people are wishing for collapse and starvation?  

Oh, I think you're conflating my posts with someone else's, because I have never addressed overpopulation, only agriculture. However, my opinion on overpopulation is that it is undesirable because it reduces quality of life, and that since increased rates of education and better standards of living reduce birth rates, the best solution is to address third-world living and working conditions. However, I also fully realize that the dream of a first-world planet may be entirely wishful thinking, and I'm not enough of a genius to have designed a global solution to poverty. Wish I was.

OK, I just read about the banana extinction, and yes it does definitely point to a problem with our current agricultural practices,  No doubt about that.  Perhaps the banana will be the catastrophe you spoke of a few posts back?  We lose the banana but gain a wider understanding of how narrow-minded be can be... is it fair to say we might learn from it?  Or do you believe this will just keep happening to different crops until there is no food left?

The article I read said that "a global effort is now under way to save the fruit"... I guess time will tell how the ook ook argument works out.

Yes, the banana blight is exactly what I was referring to. I would have some hope that we might learn from it if it wasn't a recurring story in agriculture over the last 200 years or so... we have experienced pretty much an identical situation with quite a few crops, including potatoes, coffee, and even previous banana strains (look up Big Mike). We (as people and as corporations) just have a hard time overlooking the short-term profitability of monoculture in favor of the long-term sustainability of diversity.

A lot of the people who work on banana plantations are little more than slaves, according to an article I recently read, can't remember where now.  I think it might have been a Canadian magazine.  I could find it if you are interested.  The blight may be the best thing thats happened to them in a while, though I suppose the big companies would just move onto a different fruit with the same end results.

I hope this is the catastrophe that is needed to change the way people behave when it comes to agriculture.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

A lot of the people who work on banana plantations are little more than slaves, according to an article I recently read, can't remember where now.  I think it might have been a Canadian magazine.  I could find it if you are interested.  The blight may be the best thing thats happened to them in a while, though I suppose the big companies would just move onto a different fruit with the same end results.

I hope this is the catastrophe that is needed to change the way people behave when it comes to agriculture.

This is a repeat of a scenario that has occurred again and again and again. It hasn't engendered change so far...