Gavita Sold To Hawthorne Group

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
I don't have a solution but I do know at some point the system is going to crash and it's not going to be pretty. Just look to nature and see what happens when one species population goes out of control.
I have a solution; learn to live inside the box. Then that box can go anywhere; inner cities, inhospitable land, desert islands, the Arctic, even space.

Such a diaspora would guarantee the survival of humans beyond whatever apocalypse our defense industry owned politicians can dream up.
 

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
The real problem is all these systems rely on growth to sustain them selves,we need some new system that doesn't rely on growth. That's why China got rid of it's one child policy,aging population is a drain on the system and they need young tax paying workers. Here wall street will penalize a companies stock value for no growth,unlimited growth is not sustainable.
We can have growth without population explosion.
 

DankaDank

Well-Known Member
One of the main factors that differentiate humans from other organisms on earth is our ability to exceed the maximum carrying capacity instead of stabilizing to ensure environmental degradation does not occur. If we could keep population growth in line with population loss plus a bit of negative growth, we would be fine, but the population is only growing exponentially .Overpopulation is related to almost every problem we face on earth. Our natural instinct to reproduce, (which churchhaze pointed out earlier) is only exacerbated by lack of education.
 

Sativied

Well-Known Member
I always am impressed when I see their current farming set ups. Their greenhouse technology is pretty fantastic. I've seen greenhouse setups with thousands of gavitas. They made themselves the experts in Europe for cut flower production. Not an easy feat when you don't have crazy cheep labor and your sun is less than ideal. But it's a great way to make a good return off an acre. And being a small country they don't have many acres.

That's our advantage in our industry as well. Growing up doing field tomato, and occasional bean and corn, you need tons of space to make enough money to pay the bills.
Not just cut flower production, but tomato as well, it was the dutch who started growing tomato on vine pusing harvest all year long in greenhouses. Despite the small area (36sq miles of greenhouses) NL is the nr1 exporter of tomatoes in the world (some years it is mexico).

We have a "come in the greenhouse" day (actually a few days, 1-2 April next year) where several larger greenhouses, including a large breeder, and high tech led and hydro farmers, open the doors for the public. Many close to Amsterdam so could be an interesting combined trip for some.

And on-the-off-topic-topic, the dutch also gave us orange carrots. They developed orange carrots, natural gmo sort of speak. All those exported varieties have little to do with the dutch colonizing though. Those were all eaten during WWII... Over a 1000 new varieties enter the european market alone, every year, by many different breeders relying on breeder rights.
 

DankaDank

Well-Known Member
And on-the-off-topic-topic, the dutch also gave us orange carrots. They developed orange carrots, natural gmo sort of speak. All those exported varieties have little to do with the dutch colonizing though. Those were all eaten during WWII... Over a 1000 new varieties enter the european market alone, every year, by many different breeders relying on breeder rights
My dutch grandmother always use to tell that orange carrots were from the Netherlands (random) i also read in an article that purple carrots originated from the hindu kush region (go figure.



Thats years of selective breeding and hybridization for you.
This thread is so fucked.
 

8thGenFarmer

Well-Known Member
Not just cut flower production, but tomato as well, it was the dutch who started growing tomato on vine pusing harvest all year long in greenhouses. Despite the small area (36sq miles of greenhouses) NL is the nr1 exporter of tomatoes in the world (some years it is mexico).

We have a "come in the greenhouse" day (actually a few days, 1-2 April next year) where several larger greenhouses, including a large breeder, and high tech led and hydro farmers, open the doors for the public. Many close to Amsterdam so could be an interesting combined trip for some.

And on-the-off-topic-topic, the dutch also gave us orange carrots. They developed orange carrots, natural gmo sort of speak. All those exported varieties have little to do with the dutch colonizing though. Those were all eaten during WWII... Over a 1000 new varieties enter the european market alone, every year, by many different breeders relying on breeder rights.

One of my favorite stories about Dutch farming was the tulip investment bubble that arose in the 1600's. There are cautionary warning for all farmers in that. The intersection of politics, finance and agriculture.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania
 

Sativied

Well-Known Member
My dutch grandmother always use to tell that orange carrots were from the Netherlands (random)
It's a well known story here because of the "orange" in our founding father's and fake-royal family's name. It's like breeding a stars-and-stripes carrot :) The yellow is a mutated purple, from which the orange was developed. Nearly 200 years before F1 hybrids carrots became the standard in the 1950s. Hence the by nature gmo comment. It's mutagenesis, something nature does. something monsanto does too.

also read in an article that purple carrots originated from the hindu kush region (go figure.
Yes carotene (orange) carrots vs anthocyanin (purple) carrot. The fact cannabis afghanicas (includes kush) is often higher in anthocyanin too is not a coincidence.

The fear people have for GMO is very similar to the fear of fire people had thousands of years ago. GMO itself is not the problem, it's what humans do with it what people should worry about. DNA is just code, written by nature, and whether breeders combine code using traditional means or state-of-the-art tech, it should not lead to them patenting any of that code and obstruct others from using it.
 

Sativied

Well-Known Member

sanjuan

Well-Known Member
Science News is an old, middle-of-the road publication. A recent issue concluded GMO is OK, with reasonable precautions.
 

DankaDank

Well-Known Member
The fear people have for GMO is very similar to the fear of fire people had thousands of years ago. GMO itself is not the problem, it's what humans do with it what people should worry about. DNA is just code, written by nature, and whether breeders combine code using traditional means or state-of-the-art tech, it should not lead to them patenting any of that code and obstruct others from using it.
I believe humans use genetic engineering, and nature uses mutations to create variety amongst a species hoping few will have acquired desired characteristics to thrive and reproduce while the other will die off .There are various types of mutations whether its chromosomal aberration, frame shift or another (can’t remember all, high school was a blur) it all comes down to the rearrangement of nucleotides/nitrogenous bases.

I like to think of it as GMO being an artificially forced mutation rather than the work of Satan.

Although the long term affects are unknown but I do appreciate the scientific work that goes into Genetic engineering and biotechnology
 

Sativied

Well-Known Member
I like to think of it as GMO being an artificially forced mutation rather than the work of Satan.
That sums it up nicely. Although it's can be indirect too, that is, through transgenesis genes from one species are introduced into another. I think that's the scary part for many, but it works because dna across all species is very similar. We're indirectly all mutants from the same ancestors.


[110] Nobelists To Greenpeace: Drop Your Anti-Science Anti-GMO Campaign
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2016/07/04/nobelists-to-greenpeace-drop-your-anti-science-anti-gmo-campaign/



 

captainmorgan

Well-Known Member
Splicing genes between plants is one thing and probably pretty safe but splicing genes from something other than a plant to a plant is quite dangerous and quite possible unhealthy if you feed people with it. We are just guinea pigs for all this and why do you think they are so dead set against honest labeling of food,guess the sheeple don't have a right to know what they are eating.

Soylent Green for the masses.
 

JorgeGonzales

Well-Known Member
I'd like GMO labeling simply to steer clear of supporting the Monsanto extortionists and "Roundup Ready" crops. That's reason enough for me, regardless of the science.

But yes, just like nuclear energy, Greenpeace needs to embrace GMOs. Both are pretty outdated stances considering the alternatives are polluted air, climate change, and starvation.
 

DankaDank

Well-Known Member
Splicing genes between plants is one thing and probably pretty safe but splicing genes from something other than a plant to a plant is quite dangerous and quite possible unhealthy if you feed people with it. We are just guinea pigs for all this and why do you think they are so dead set against honest labeling of food,guess the sheeple don't have a right to know what they are eating.

Soylent Green for the masses.
If people implemented subsistence farming we would not have this problem to such an extent.
 

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
I'd like GMO labeling simply to steer clear of supporting the Monsanto extortionists and "Roundup Ready" crops. That's reason enough for me, regardless of the science.

But yes, just like nuclear energy, Greenpeace needs to embrace GMOs. Both are pretty outdated stances considering the alternatives are polluted air, climate change, and starvation.
We can do without nuclear power just fine, and we really should. It's just too fucking dangerous. If a society as technologically advanced as Japan had a catastrophe, it can and will happen anywhere.

The answer is fuel cells. First, we convert our power generation to mostly small scale, onsite cogeneration of electricity and useful heat in homes, businesses, shops and industrial facilities.

A smart grid, upgraded not in capacity but in the ability to work with customers will distribute and deliver excess energy from producers large and small to those who need it. This power grid that already connects everything becomes smarter and thus we have stunningly more efficiency in electrical generation and delivery. After all, fully HALF of all electricity generated in the United States today is lost in transmission from large, remote power plants to the user.
 

JorgeGonzales

Well-Known Member
We can do without nuclear power just fine, and we really should. It's just too fucking dangerous. If a society as technologically advanced as Japan had a catastrophe, it can and will happen anywhere.

The answer is fuel cells. First, we convert our power generation to mostly small scale, onsite cogeneration of electricity and useful heat in homes, businesses, shops and industrial facilities.

A smart grid, upgraded not in capacity but in the ability to work with customers will distribute and deliver excess energy from producers large and small to those who need it. This power grid that already connects everything becomes smarter and thus we have stunningly more efficiency in electrical generation and delivery. After all, fully HALF of all electricity generated in the United States today is lost in transmission from large, remote power plants to the user.
Fukushima was a 40 year old power plant built in an active earthquake and tsunami zone, and it took the tsunami to actually do it in. These are both avoidable natural disasters, not to mention 40 years of technological and engineering progess to help with safety.

It's so not a big deal...and if we had converted to nuclear instead of whining about it in the last few decades, we wouldn't be so far along the crisis curve now. It's pretty sad.
 
Top