Comments by "remliqa" (@remliqa) on "Действительно ли органическая еда лучше? Здоровая пища или модная афера?" video.

  1. The plus side is we probably will never have more than around 12 billion people on earth at any time.
    96
  2. Hence why I advocate vertical farming with GMO crops (we currently have the tech for both) for our future needs. At least until we can get replicators and nanomachine sorted out , that is.
    48
  3.  @crazytosh1  We will be using less land if we stop going organic. There is no tangible benefit to go organic at all.
    46
  4.  @MrIcaru5  Vertical farming with GMO crops is the future of farming. Unless we can fabricate any food with in a factory with nanotech , that is.
    41
  5.  @21satspleb  Or skip organic farming entirely. It doesn't seem to have any much benefit to begin with.
    15
  6.  @MrIcaru5  Seriously? Gene leak? Hence that why vertical farming still haven't taken off, it is still far cheaper to farm on one flat land (open of greehouse ) despite vertical farming potentially producing tens or even hundred times more output on the same plot of land. As for GMO, most of the criticism of it are either overblown ,minor one that can easily be rectified or just straight up bullshit (GMO cause cancer and autism eg) . There is no justification for anti-GMO sentiment
    8
  7.  @MrIcaru5  Explain to me why it is a legitimate concern rather than a seriously overblown possibility.
    5
  8.  @MrIcaru5  Firstly, the only way a weed or pest can adapt the genes in a GMO crop is if they're very closely related to the species and and even then there is no guarantee that it would be beneficial to the pest/weed species let alone be harmful to humans. Secondly, there are farming methods for open farm that can mitigate (or even eliminate) the risk of that happening. For close system like vertical farming, the risk for unintended cross species gene transfer is literally almost zero. Finally, non or this are really a concern for GMO provided adequate measure are implemented hence the risk is at best overblown.
    3
  9.  @crazytosh1  Going organic will make that a lot ,lot worse.
    3
  10.  @revilorere  Sure, now we just need to bio-engineer ourselves to digest grass.
    2
  11.  @c2lredstone946  They also have more resource to contribute to the world than anyone else. Just look at Bill Gates (who is saving million of lives in his philanthropic endeavours ) or Musk who is furthering humanity with his projects.
    2
  12. @Arakaneï Vertical farming is far more productive than permaculture is and ever will be. The only current downside to vertical farming is cost .
    2
  13. Nothing.
    2
  14.  @c2lredstone946  What' this irrational hate for rich people come from?
    1
  15.  @revilorere  We're already doing that.
    1
  16.  @revilorere  Wow, you actually miss reply to someone (I don't remember making ant of the points you're "rebutting" ) and then throw a hissy fit and leave. You do realise that it paint you as an irrational guy that posted ridiculous comments (without anything to back it up) , right?
    1
  17.  @c2lredstone946  Ironic that you accuse me of cherry picking when you're doing exactly the same. Have Kanye West and Kim Kardashian (I know for fact that she at least manage to get a few people to receive Presidential Pardon eg) ever contributed to charity or for any good cause? If yes than they have contributed positively to humanity and the world . "when compared to the majority of rich people." Majority of people? Unless you known most if not all rich people in the world then you don't have the authority or statistics to back this up. I'm willing to bet that the majority of rich people have contributed more to charitable cause than you ever will in your entire lifetime .
    1
  18.  @c2lredstone946  Noted, I would like to remind you again that the amount of resource they consume would still seem minuscule compared to the good they can do with their wealth and power , hence why they are a net positive.
    1
  19.  @mdg140  No it is not.
    1
  20.  @GunkTheUnk  That's bulshit. No projection came to that conclusion .
    1
  21.  @thebob2751  There is also no studies that show any health risk either So anti GMO don't really have anything to pint to. BTW, your example is false. It took only 30 years from the first studies of lung cancer (1920s) to its conclusion that smoking is indeed factor for lung cancer.
    1
  22.  @FAQUERETERMAX  Poison flavour?
    1
  23.  @GunkTheUnk  The good thing is we wouldn't be getting to 13 billion. All the estimates/projection indicates that the Earth's population will plateau at around 12 billion and we won't rise more than that.
    1
  24.  @GunkTheUnk  No, pretty much everyone expected the 7 billionth human to be born in the 21st century even decades in last century ( I remember having such conversation way back then) so it was a surprise to no one . Except of course to the Erclichian/Malthusian believers who think that we would surpass that number even before the end of the 20th century and that the world would be plunged in chaos due to the "population bomb ( a famously debunked idea) . The people who make that projection (that humanity would stabilise at 12 billion) also took into effect China and Africa. The thing is , as the quality of life improves the population growth would taper off. This have been observed in every single country on Earth be it in South East Asia , South America and even the Middle East. China already have population growth curve that is similar to developed nation to the point that the main concern for the Chinese government (The Communist party) is that they will have a huge population drop in the future . Sure your projection of around 20 billion if possible in the worst case scenario where Africa and the rest of developing nation failed to raise their country's human development index ,but worst case scenario isn't exactly realistic or plausible. Anyway our planet is more than capable of supporting 20 billion people (that is still afr from this planet's full carrying capacity). I mean we currently (2018) produced more than enough food to feed 10 billion people, all thanks to conventional farming.
    1
  25. How productive are agroecology and permaculture compared to conventional farming? I already seeing the potential problems with such methods, especially for urban dweller.
    1
  26. @Arakaneï Ironically that is false. Vertical farming actually have less impact than permaculture and alot more environmentally friendlier. Vertical farming have less impact on on the environment (especially with "green" electricity ) than any other farming methods while being far more productive . It is calculated that vertical farming can literally produce tens or even hundreds of times more output on a single plot of land than conventinal farming (let alone permaculture ) . Furthermore because the "farm" are self contained the need for pesticide , herbicides and other type of "cides" are far lower (can even go to zero if the "farm is properly contained).Because you don't rely on land for nutrients, you can set up you "farm" anywhere on earth with poor soil (desert) , any climate ( tundra eg) or state of land (heavily irradiated toxic landscape). Heck you don't even need to put it on land (in seas or underground) as you don't need the sun at all (LED lighting with GM crops that are optimised for photosynthesis ). We currently do have the tehcnoogy to do all that I wrote in the above paragraph.The only current problem with vertical farming is it is still too expensive and farming on land (be it open field or greenhouse) is a lot cheaper .
    1
  27. You entire statement is false. Did you not even watch the video before posting?
    1
  28.  @erejnion  That's more subjective rather than an objective fact.
    1
  29. The only organic that is worth buying is organic , non-GMO table salt.
    1
  30. No ,they are not. Only complete ignoramus would believe that GMO are bad.
    1
  31.  @blackdaan  I suggest you read history before lecturing me on it: Science have proven that cigarettes are bad for you. Likewise science have also proven that burning fossil fuel is bad for the environment. The same can't be said about GMOs, We have been making GMOs for millenias ( check what the ancestors of modern animal and crops originally look like) with no horrible effects and science have shown how safe and effective GMOs are. As I said only those who are ignorant of science and history think GMOs are bad.
    1
  32.  @blackdaan  ' "wonder why Europe banned it?" Populist move based on sentiment rather than facts . Nice cherry picking btw, you are against government approving GMO and yet quick to call upon their authority this time. Nice hypocrisy. " Wonder why people protest against it." Ignorance. People protested again vaccination too, remember? These anti GMO people are no better than flat earthers and conspiracy nutjobs "do your own research" I suggest you follow your own advice instead of blind following the scientifically illiterate.
    1
  33. You don't even need soil with vertical farming. On top of that its productivity is magnitude ( estimated to be tens or even hundred of times ) higher than conventional farming .
    1