Drama Vote: Voice your opinion on the recent drama.

[Sir Squid Diddimus]

I thought the #1 thing that drove people to farm stupidly is

MONEY

Also the reason we get our energy from where we do.


In fact, I think people are more CHA-CHING than ook ook.

?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I thought the #1 thing that drove people to farm stupidly is

MONEY

Also the reason we get our energy from where we do.


In fact, I think people are more CHA-CHING than ook ook.

?

CHA-CHING is the "oooh shiny!" part of ook ook.

[Shibboleet The Annihilator]

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?

If you were really trolling, you need to work on your technique. Basically all you managed to do was piss everyone off while I made fun of you. Just sayin.

EDIT:

Basically all you managed to do was piss everyone off..

I take that back, if you were trying to troll me specifically your trolling sucks. If you were trying to troll the whole board then you did OK.

[Dysfunctional Cunt]

I thought the #1 thing that drove people to farm stupidly is

MONEY

Also the reason we get our energy from where we do.


In fact, I think people are more CHA-CHING than ook ook.

?

Actually this is more on the mark than most people realize.  The problem with modern farming is big business.  Seed requirements, lawsuits against farmers whose crops get crosspollenated when their neighbor decides to grow for a major manufacturer.  Cost cuts in order to save every penny you can since big business names it's price when it "gives" you the required seed.  It all leads to one giant cluster fuck and the smaller countries can't compete.  Hell US farmer's can't compete.

I would hazard a guess that commercial farming in the US will be gone within the next 10-15 years.  It will be private farming only.  Except for tobacco, tea, maybe grain, but that's a big maybe.

[Shibboleet The Annihilator]

LET'S SUBSIDIZE THE FUCK OUT OF EVERYTHING!!1
\

[Dysfunctional Cunt]

LET'S SUBSIDIZE THE FUCK OUT OF EVERYTHING!!1
\

I'm going to let you direct that where you meant it to go before I say anything just in case it wasn't directed towards me.....

[Vene]

Well, the question might be, how did the medical methods change; and could knowing that help us in implementing new methods and ideas for agriculture?

Good question.  I am not entirely certain how exactly medical methods changed.  Admittedly, most likely NOT by committee.   

Define "by committee." A lot of change in the medical field was done using the boring peer review methodology that makes up science (as well as conferences and such). But, there's a definite difference in values between a group of scientists and a group of average people (even when that group includes scientists). Mostly because science is one of the few places were rationality matters more than presentation. So, yeah, a big part of why there's progress in medicine is because they recognized their monkey aspects and in acknowledging them, were able to see the flaws and actively work to counter them.

There is nothing wrong with being a monkey, it just is, but there is something wrong when you forget you're a monkey.

[hooplala]

Well, the question might be, how did the medical methods change; and could knowing that help us in implementing new methods and ideas for agriculture?

Good question.  I am not entirely certain how exactly medical methods changed.  Admittedly, most likely NOT by committee.   

Define "by committee." A lot of change in the medical field was done using the boring peer review methodology that makes up science (as well as conferences and such). But, there's a definite difference in values between a group of scientists and a group of average people (even when that group includes scientists). Mostly because science is one of the few places were rationality matters more than presentation. So, yeah, a big part of why there's progress in medicine is because they recognized their monkey aspects and in acknowledging them, were able to see the flaws and actively work to counter them.

There is nothing wrong with being a monkey, it just is, but there is something wrong when you forget you're a monkey.

I don't consider the peer review process a committee.  In a committee things are voted for, and opinion takes a certain place in the proceedings.  In science either it works and is verifiable and repeatable, or it isn't. 

[Faust]

I thought the #1 thing that drove people to farm stupidly is

MONEY

Also the reason we get our energy from where we do.


In fact, I think people are more CHA-CHING than ook ook.

?

Its also the reason we will never hit that crisis point hard, for the other basic human cliche:
Someone will prepare, allow supplies to enter a danger point and then exploit peoples coming dependence for decades to come.
Just as certain of every crisis being caused by the monkey mentality, there is a cartel waiting to take advantage of that.

[Kai]

Well, the question might be, how did the medical methods change; and could knowing that help us in implementing new methods and ideas for agriculture?

Good question.  I am not entirely certain how exactly medical methods changed.  Admittedly, most likely NOT by committee.   

Define "by committee." A lot of change in the medical field was done using the boring peer review methodology that makes up science (as well as conferences and such). But, there's a definite difference in values between a group of scientists and a group of average people (even when that group includes scientists). Mostly because science is one of the few places were rationality matters more than presentation. So, yeah, a big part of why there's progress in medicine is because they recognized their monkey aspects and in acknowledging them, were able to see the flaws and actively work to counter them.

There is nothing wrong with being a monkey, it just is, but there is something wrong when you forget you're a monkey.

I don't consider the peer review process a committee.  In a committee things are voted for, and opinion takes a certain place in the proceedings.  In science either it works and is verifiable and repeatable, or it isn't. 

Eh...

I think you should investigate just what goes on with peer review. It's just as opinionated as a jury, but just like a jury it's necessary.

Not that I want to derail this thread any further with a discussion of the pitfalls of peer review. Just pointing out the monkey in the process.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Well, the question might be, how did the medical methods change; and could knowing that help us in implementing new methods and ideas for agriculture?

Good question.  I am not entirely certain how exactly medical methods changed.  Admittedly, most likely NOT by committee.  

Define "by committee." A lot of change in the medical field was done using the boring peer review methodology that makes up science (as well as conferences and such). But, there's a definite difference in values between a group of scientists and a group of average people (even when that group includes scientists). Mostly because science is one of the few places were rationality matters more than presentation. So, yeah, a big part of why there's progress in medicine is because they recognized their monkey aspects and in acknowledging them, were able to see the flaws and actively work to counter them.

There is nothing wrong with being a monkey, it just is, but there is something wrong when you forget you're a monkey.

I don't consider the peer review process a committee.  In a committee things are voted for, and opinion takes a certain place in the proceedings.  In science either it works and is verifiable and repeatable, or it isn't.  

Ideally, yes. In practice, status quo and status within the scientific community tend to skew things a great deal.

ETA: What Kai said.

[Doktor Howl]

Science, by it's strictest definition, is impossible.

[Kai]

Science, by it's strictest definition, is impossible.

Well, it /is/, but not on a collective level.

[hooplala]

Well, the question might be, how did the medical methods change; and could knowing that help us in implementing new methods and ideas for agriculture?

Good question.  I am not entirely certain how exactly medical methods changed.  Admittedly, most likely NOT by committee.   

Define "by committee." A lot of change in the medical field was done using the boring peer review methodology that makes up science (as well as conferences and such). But, there's a definite difference in values between a group of scientists and a group of average people (even when that group includes scientists). Mostly because science is one of the few places were rationality matters more than presentation. So, yeah, a big part of why there's progress in medicine is because they recognized their monkey aspects and in acknowledging them, were able to see the flaws and actively work to counter them.

There is nothing wrong with being a monkey, it just is, but there is something wrong when you forget you're a monkey.

I don't consider the peer review process a committee.  In a committee things are voted for, and opinion takes a certain place in the proceedings.  In science either it works and is verifiable and repeatable, or it isn't. 

Eh...

I think you should investigate just what goes on with peer review. It's just as opinionated as a jury, but just like a jury it's necessary.

Not that I want to derail this thread any further with a discussion of the pitfalls of peer review. Just pointing out the monkey in the process.

This thread was never railed to begin with, so please, enlighten me to how to the peer review system works.

[Doktor Howl]

Science, by it's strictest definition, is impossible.

Well, it /is/, but not on a collective level.

Well, that's where Nenslo's Lobster Theory comes into play, Kai.