Should We Revive Extinct Species? Watch Experts Debate De-extinction

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/oct/05/bumblebee-comeback-uk

I went further than declining bees though. I went on to pull up charts of increasing GMO foods in the US, increasing use of EPA approved chemical pesticides and herbicides, increasing incidences of autism and ADHD in the US, etc.

It's spooky. When looked at in graph form, they all align almost perfectly. I thought about starting another thread, but they don't seem to be winning me any friends, so I'll just plod along on my own for now. Keep up the fight; it's important.

Thanks for the links, kramarat.

One of the links references organic farming/gardening as something that we can do. I'm not the gardener my wife was, but the mention of organic got me to wondering what studies are available about hard issues of organic vs. chemical soil amendment, as opposed to the subjective, "tastes" better opinion. There seems to be plenty.

Nitrogen is a key factor in plant disease and pest resistance as discussed in just this one paper -- the conclusion that too much can lower resistance. (I found it not so easy to read and decipher.) Searching for the papers cited at the end of this paper lead to other research, but the key factor of soil nutrients relating to plant health, and, therefore, resistance, seems well established. A good overview is here. (Plenty of citations to follow up on there.) Whether or not chemical can be superior to "organic" in some instances, might be still unanswered. But I'd bet on Nature's optimized, and time-tested processes to win most contests. And we can't overlook the fact that there are a lot of hybrid crops created by us, that aren't so time-tested. (An analogy for chemical vs. organic soil amendment might be the use of TPN in medical practice vs. a well-balanced diet. TPN can be of use in emergency situations, but not for long-term sustenance and health.) Scientists keep dreaming that we will be able to create a near-perfect world via our "manipulation". Nonsense. Babes in the woods, IMO.

My view about pesticides and GMO is similar to my view about antibiotics. It's a short-sighted view. I'd rather let plant health be optimized via natural methods and let the chips fall where they may. (GE and GMO are not natural, in the sense, that, you can cross-pollinate 'til you drop and you'll never get a fish gene into the results.) Cycles of disease, pests, and weather will occur no matter our efforts to control or mitigate them. We can't control Nature to that extent. (Or at all?) If we were really a smart species we wouldn't procreate willy-nilly and then try to deal with it as if it's "destined." Of course, even then, Nature has ways of controlling our population. It's just, usually, not a pleasant mechanism.

Here's a link to an article by the sometimes (?) controversial MJ magazine, that shows how skewed the process of GMO approval can be. (Seems real similar to the parallel flaws in pharmaceutical approval.)

Discussions about GE crops will be, potentially, incendiary. That shouldn't deter the attempt at having a reasoned discussion. Start a thread. On such subjects we know it, likely, won't have a firm conclusion. But just like GW discussions, hopefully, the resulting comments, info., and links can lead to all of us becoming more informed. And who knows, it might prompt us to write a hand-written letter to people who control such things. That is also something we can do.

I've done GMO threads. What I found amazing, is the seeming relationship between GMO, EPA approved chemicals, approved use of antibiotics and growth hormones on food animals, and the increase in autism, childhood food allergies, ADHD, a host of organisms that are immune to our current antibiotics, etc.

All of these things have moved in lockstep over the past few decades; it's impossible not to think there's a correlation.

As far as organic vs chemical soil amendment, I don't think the plants care. Nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium are the same, regardless of source. The problem is runoff from large farms, causing algal blooms. I mix aged horse manure in my garden, and might give it a foliar feeding with some Miracle Grow a couple of times. If I have to use pesticides, (which is rare), I'll use pyrethrin to control mites.

My brother has an organic farm, (about 5 acres), and sometimes he'll have bug problems, but usually everything is fine. He also keeps bees. His primary worry about his bees, is his proximity to Monsanto mega farms.

Monsanto is also ruthless when it comes to accidental cross pollination of crops, from their fields to local farms. It's not allowed, and the locals lose. Government supplied USDA agents act as Monsanto's foot police.

I've got all of the graphs saved on my computer; maybe I'll start a thread after I gather some more evidence.

Yes, correlations. Indeed. Patterns are missed unless one steps back far enough to see the forest for the trees. ;) (Emoticons don't seem to be working at the moment.)

I would agree that nitrogen is nitrogen, potassium is potassium, etc. It's all the "other stuff" that is lacking in chemical fertilizers. Organic, as I understand it, is about the living parts of soil that tend to decline with persistent use of chemical fertlizers and no "organic" components. There's so much more than N,P and K to soil health and plant nutrition/health. Of course, you realize that, as do most... because you add aged horse manure to your soil. :D

Even if one only considers the problem of "runoff," it isn't trivial.

Kudos to your brother's efforts.

I'll be on the lookout for a thread... "coming to a theater near you."

As far as soil goes, there are lots of safe microbial soil amendments that work well.

The push for chemicals comes in part from the government insistence on ethanol use. They don't differentiate between food corn and fuel corn. The government is not about to say that the chemicals are bad, while they are pushing ethanol. They also won't say that the chemicals can't be used on other crops, because they would have to admit that they were allowing bad chemicals to be used on corn. It's a mess.

The average, (non-organic), eating human, is getting these things in virtually everything they eat. The bee decline is an early indicator. Personally, I think that when government tells us that increases in autism, ADHD, food allergies, etc., are completely inexplicable, they are lying. I'm not that smart, and the correlation is as plain as day.

Here's a small sampling:

http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur01rep/figures/fig7.htm

This one is the increase in "reduced risk" pesticide use, from the link.

Food allergies in kids under 18:

The link below that first graph (at the link you supplied), where the use is indexed "by chemical" is, as an example, the kind of data that people who end up writing books pour over. The data is detailed and with disclaimers/caveats as to ultimate accuracy. What a daunting task for anyone who wants and tries to sort through this information. That is why trends are the best info. to glean from such reports and what the graphs summarize. The possible correlations with other "trends" such as health states and disease occurrence, is the step that too often is overlooked, ignored, and even ridiculed (as the nitrogen/carbon issue seems to have been).

A "mess" for sure. But somebody should pay attention to this, point to it and attempt/seek some analysis. That is why mention, either via a thread discussion or, at least in posts, such as the ones you've made here, is important.

It is very easy for any of us to have a reaction of numbness. There are more issues of concern than we truly know how to process at the same time in our brains. But noticing trends is the way to get at the underlying issues that are like the trunk of a tree, with the others being limbs and twigs. Trees that are diseased and dying should be cut down, or treated such that unwanted limbs (i.e., tomato plant "suckers") are removed.

Unfortunately, the inertia of the system -- industries, employment, etc. -- is hard to stop. Even if we could, the result could also be catastrophic. As you say... what a mess. Hopefully, a gradual shift will happen such that a metamorphosis can happen without such consequences. (Highly unlikely, but one can hope.) The issues you are correlating -- mainly health issues -- are drastic, in the here and now, and affecting lives in serious and permanent ways.

In our age of "science" skeptics say "Prove it" regarding such correlations. The intent is, often, not to appeal to true investigation, but rather to, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." A confused and numb public is paralyzed by the appeal to the scientific method. In that regard, science can be both a blessing and a curse. While we "wait" for proof of whether there is a leak and what is causing it, the boat may sink.

Hiding and/or ignoring evidence as warning signs can become evil.

(I apologize to readers for extending a back and forth, off-topic sub-thread. I'll stop here. To be continued somewhere else, I think.)

This is one of the things that Foster Gambel points out in ithe video at 'thrivemovement.com'. A good portion fo the rest of the world has outlawed GMO products. Our government and officials have been comandeered by the banks that own the corporations and foundations that produce in the name of corporate profit... i.e the bailout in 2008 and the supression of information by the FDA. When someone points this out, it is labeled 'conspiracy theory' and ridiculed. Meanwouhile we lose the right to chose...guns, drugs, insurance, fuels, you name it, there is an appointed czar figureing out how to limit your choice or how to tax, fee, or fine you out of another dollar. Those who would have things provided by the government vote in more of the same. Stand in line...get your 'free' stuff- The constitution is being whittled away. It may be too late already!

Only if it is Howard Hughes.