Grant Morrison @ Disinfocon

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

That is exactly my problem with the argument.  I want details, I want variables, and conditions... not some shorthand answer which amounts to "fuck you".  I mean, I love Kai, he is one of my favourite posters here and we had a good time when we met up in Toronto, but that "humans = irrational monkeys" post was possibly the most insulting thing I've had addressed to me in my time on this board.  Which, as a lot of you probably know, is saying a lot.

Why not just read up on agriculture, then?

[hooplala]

That is exactly my problem with the argument.  I want details, I want variables, and conditions... not some shorthand answer which amounts to "fuck you".  I mean, I love Kai, he is one of my favourite posters here and we had a good time when we met up in Toronto, but that "humans = irrational monkeys" post was possibly the most insulting thing I've had addressed to me in my time on this board.  Which, as a lot of you probably know, is saying a lot.

Why not just read up on agriculture, then?

I am not referring simply to the conversation about agriculture at this point Nigel... this is about the "humans = irrational monkeys" argument.

I'm actually not much interested in discussing agriculture... I came into this thread to discuss Morrison's ideas, which devolved into a discussion about agriculture because people are obsessed with believing the world is going to hell in a hand basket.  Which I simply don't agree with.

[LMNO]

HERE.

Borlaug's work was a successful aspect of the Green Revolution, but there are some consequences to it that weren't foreseen that we're just dealing with today.  Blanketing soil with nitrogen based fertlizers, factory farming leading to soil depletion, vast monocultures, etc.  Creating high yield disease resistant crops was obviously a great thing, but how long until a disease mutates to bypass those defenses and wipes out everything planted with only that one breed?

Planting with only one breed wouldn't be very scientific, would it?

people = irrational monkeys.

EoC directly spoke to unintended consequences of Borlaug's work, when those ideas moved from the lab to the marketplace.

You made a flippant comment regarding the irrationality of the way Borlaug's ideas were used, and Kai answered you, straight up.


EoC: Borlaug had good ideas, but the results kind of fucked things up.
Hoops: Why would people fuck up Borlaug's ideas?
Kai: Because humans are irrational.


SEE?

[hooplala]

HERE.

Borlaug's work was a successful aspect of the Green Revolution, but there are some consequences to it that weren't foreseen that we're just dealing with today.  Blanketing soil with nitrogen based fertlizers, factory farming leading to soil depletion, vast monocultures, etc.  Creating high yield disease resistant crops was obviously a great thing, but how long until a disease mutates to bypass those defenses and wipes out everything planted with only that one breed?

Planting with only one breed wouldn't be very scientific, would it?

people = irrational monkeys.

EoC directly spoke to unintended consequences of Borlaug's work, when those ideas moved from the lab to the marketplace.

You made a flippant comment regarding the irrationality of the way Borlaug's ideas were used, and Kai answered you, straight up.


EoC: Borlaug had good ideas, but the results kind of fucked things up.
Hoops: Why would people fuck up Borlaug's ideas?
Kai: Because humans are irrational.


SEE?

But the problem is, Borlaug's ideas haven't fucked up.  At least not yet.  People in Mexico and India that would have been starving are eating... this was all based around the concept that the ideas probably would fuck up.  

But I suppose its inevitable since humans are irrational monkeys.  What more proof do I need other than the fact that I keep coming back to check this goddam thread?  I am one hell of an irrational monkey.  Ook ook.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

But it's not Borlaugh's farming principles that spurred this argument; it was a combination of the risks of monoculture and a discussion on overpopulation, neither of which actually have jack shit to do with Borlaugh.

[hooplala]

But it's not Borlaugh's farming principles that spurred this argument; it was a combination of the risks of monoculture and a discussion on overpopulation, neither of which actually have jack shit to do with Borlaugh.

Well, I believe monoculture was brought up after I mentioned Borlaug, and I think he does have something to do with the problem of overpopulation, since the problem with overpopulation is rarely space.  Its mostly food.

I will admit I don't know enough about monoculture to argue it well, I'm no expert in agriculture.  But I think there is enough reason at the present to be optimistic about the food problem.  If you think I am wrong, that's fine.

Until I learn more about monoculture I really can't present anything else useful to this conversation, consider me beaten, and I believe I will withdraw provided there are no objections and nobody will decide to claim Ayn Rand compelled me to opt out.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I guess what I am wondering is what your basis is for optimism, and what is desirable about sustaining a higher population than the one we presently have?

What are the benefits, as a species and as individuals?

[Eater of Clowns]

But it's not Borlaugh's farming principles that spurred this argument; it was a combination of the risks of monoculture and a discussion on overpopulation, neither of which actually have jack shit to do with Borlaugh.

Well, I believe monoculture was brought up after I mentioned Borlaug, and I think he does have something to do with the problem of overpopulation, since the problem with overpopulation is rarely space.  Its mostly food.

I will admit I don't know enough about monoculture to argue it well, I'm no expert in agriculture.  But I think there is enough reason at the present to be optimistic about the food problem.  If you think I am wrong, that's fine.

Until I learn more about monoculture I really can't present anything else useful to this conversation, consider me beaten, and I believe I will withdraw provided there are no objections and nobody will decide to claim Ayn Rand compelled me to opt out.

Hoopla, I wan't specifically talking about monoculture as a result of Borlaug.  It was a side effect of the Green Revolution that he helped jump start.  Other results of the Green Revolution have led us to farming practices that were immediately successful but the long term consequences of which we are just now learning about and dealing with.  You're absolutely right about him stopping widespread starvation.  What I intended with my response was that like many things, it came at a price, and one that we have yet to discover how to appropriately deal with.

Monoculture was a bit of a leap, so here's how my thinking went.  He crossbred wheat plants that are more resistant to diseases because of their combined immunities.  Now we've taken that, and massively planted wheat and corn with those immunities.  But if bacteria or pests adapt to overcome said immunities, here we have enormous fields of crops that will succumb to the same disease - creating famine, examples of which were given by Nigel.

[hooplala]

I guess what I am wondering is what your basis is for optimism, and what is desirable about sustaining a higher population than the one we presently have?

What are the benefits, as a species and as individuals?

Oh, I don't think there are really any benefits.  I'm not a pro-population person, and I apologize if thats the impression I gave.  I simply don't think overpopulation is the problem that a lot of people do.  But I could be completely wrong, I won't deny that.

The basis for my optimism is that neither optimism or pessimism really gets anyone anywhere... they're just mindsets.  If neither get you anywhere, I don't see  the point in choosing pessimism.   I should qualify that by stating that I don't propose mindless optimism.  One should always consider negative ramifications of actions.

[hooplala]

But it's not Borlaugh's farming principles that spurred this argument; it was a combination of the risks of monoculture and a discussion on overpopulation, neither of which actually have jack shit to do with Borlaugh.

Well, I believe monoculture was brought up after I mentioned Borlaug, and I think he does have something to do with the problem of overpopulation, since the problem with overpopulation is rarely space.  Its mostly food.

I will admit I don't know enough about monoculture to argue it well, I'm no expert in agriculture.  But I think there is enough reason at the present to be optimistic about the food problem.  If you think I am wrong, that's fine.

Until I learn more about monoculture I really can't present anything else useful to this conversation, consider me beaten, and I believe I will withdraw provided there are no objections and nobody will decide to claim Ayn Rand compelled me to opt out.

Hoopla, I wan't specifically talking about monoculture as a result of Borlaug.  It was a side effect of the Green Revolution that he helped jump start.  Other results of the Green Revolution have led us to farming practices that were immediately successful but the long term consequences of which we are just now learning about and dealing with.  You're absolutely right about him stopping widespread starvation.  What I intended with my response was that like many things, it came at a price, and one that we have yet to discover how to appropriately deal with.

Monoculture was a bit of a leap, so here's how my thinking went.  He crossbred wheat plants that are more resistant to diseases because of their combined immunities.  Now we've taken that, and massively planted wheat and corn with those immunities.  But if bacteria or pests adapt to overcome said immunities, here we have enormous fields of crops that will succumb to the same disease - creating famine, examples of which were given by Nigel.

You make a very good point.  I will need to look into monoculture and its problems more, I would certainly hope that scientists are aware of this and figuring it into future plans for combating starvation.  Bananas may be the key, they are very popular in North America and if they suddenly disappear it may (may!) be the wake-up call that people need to see that these issues are much more serious than people may have thought.

If I might use a slightly different example of how this may work I would point to the recycling movement.  30 years ago nobody really recycled, but word got out that things were fucking up and it slowly caught on... now its practically ubiquitous in our culture.  Perfect?  Certainly not, but it is positive step in the right direction isn't it?  Isn't that reason enough for an optimistic view of the future?  Or am I sucking on exhaust pipes?

[Eater of Clowns]

It's okay Hoopla, in moments of weakness I've been known to be an optimist myself. 

[hooplala]

It's okay Hoopla, in moments of weakness I've been known to be an optimist myself.  

Someone once asked me if I considered myself an optimist or a pessimist.   I answered "An optimist... unfortunately."

That about sums it up.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Bananas aren't the key. It's happened before, with another strain of bananas and with coffee and with potatoes as well as with other crops. It's a very well-known and well-documented problem, and "scientists" know all about it. The thing is, "scientists" aren't the ones practicing agriculture, and until farmers and farm corporations can be compelled to abandon immediately greater profits in favor of long-term sustainable farming practices and diversity, they will continue fostering an agriculture that invites these problems.

Recognizing the problem is crucial to resolving it.

[hooplala]

Bananas aren't the key. It's happened before, with another strain of bananas and with coffee and with potatoes as well as with other crops.

Granted, but when those blights happened we didn't have mass media, which would figure into the problem.  People would not ignore the extinction of the banana.

I think it might be the key to the recognizing of the problem, as you point out.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Bananas aren't the key. It's happened before, with another strain of bananas and with coffee and with potatoes as well as with other crops.

Granted, but when those blights happened we didn't have mass media, which would figure into the problem.  People would not ignore the extinction of the banana.

I think it might be the key to the recognizing of the problem, as you point out.

We totally had mass media in the 1950's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gros_Michel_banana