I am not against GMO's.

[Hasbinbad]

Originally Posted by Korisek [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The effect on the produce itself was healthier crops, but not more.

Healthier than what?

I think you meant to say "healthy," implying that they are as healthy as normal crops, but this would not produce crops that were "healthier" than normal crops grown on non-depleted soil.

Crop rotation was invented to fix the devastation caused to soil ecosystems by monoculture.

At present, there is massive research into how to keep monoculture viable. This, in fact, drives a lot of GMO R&D, and certainly much of modern horticultural science.

They say you should let your children play in the dirt to pick up immunities. The outcome you're trying to avoid by this truism is a bubble boy - someone who has never been exposed to the microlife all around us, and who will probably now have a bad reaction if exposed to the world. Well, Monsanto et al have been making bubble corn for the longest fucking time. Sterilized fields, antibiotics, chemicals to prevent infection.. all in an effort to protect these now extremely delicate organisms from dying by way of the normal world. Now they are trying to introduce traits from other organisms to make these sick plants live, because all the chemicals in the world aren't working. Farmers have inadvertantly developed monocultures of superbugs that you can't just kill anymore by killing off the variety of life (the superbugs competition).

Stripping the ground of nutrients is only the tip of the iceberg of the idiocy of modern farming.

There ARE good reasons to be strongly against Monsanto, "GMOs R EVIL" is not one of them.

Very little if any of the GMO research is being done to make food better than normal, it's mostly being done to make food plants survive the hellish world they've created for them.

[Korisek]

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Healthier than what?

I think you meant to say "healthy," implying that they are as healthy as normal crops, but this would not produce crops that were "healthier" than normal crops grown on non-depleted soil.

Crop rotation was invented to fix the devastation caused to soil ecosystems by monoculture.

That's pretty much exactly what I was saying in the post you quoted. Complete with me saying that crops grown with crop rotation were healthier than crops grown on depleted soil.

So, pardon my French, but c'est quoi ce bordel? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Hasbinbad]

Originally Posted by Korisek [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That's pretty much exactly what I was saying in the post you quoted. Complete with me saying that crops grown with crop rotation were healthier than crops grown on depleted soil.

So, pardon my French, but c'est quoi ce bordel? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

They are no healthier than their natural state. They are healthier than they otherwise would be, in their fucked up monoculture state. These are two different things. Do you understand that with English as a second language or should I explain what I mean further so that we can at least agree on what each other means? (not sarcastic)

[Korisek]

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

They are no healthier than their natural state. They are healthier than they otherwise would be, in their fucked up monoculture state. These are two different things. Do you understand that with English as a second language or should I explain what I mean further so that we can at least agree on what each other means? (not sarcastic)

I think the meaning you're thinking of for "healthier" is the meaning I think of for "more nutritious," whereas the meaning I had in mind was more along the lines of "in good health, not being sick or weakened by substandard soil conditions."

Also yes I took my sweet time getting back to this thread.