Pro/Anti Green Revolution?
435728
I am in favor of green revolution because half the world population is still suffering for paucity of food grains.Yes there are many harm especially to environment but Human existence should be priority.
622287
My south is social genocide on one side and golf courses and $300,000.00 houses on the other. I worry about the environment too, but I'm afraid I may be the only one.  Check out hydrogen power and spread the word to your friends.  It will save our planet if we act.  Also, adaptation is our only means of survival...those who fear change perish....infuse modernity with all things natural...see what you come up with.
161949
Fungi?\nWell,if it's everything the article indicates it might be,\nsuch a fuel could be a godsend-especially if it really does cut down greenhouse emissions.I would have to reserve judgement on that until it's confirmed,though,it could be just political hype.Even if it's all true,we should continue exploring other alternatives such as solar energy\nwhich would have no effect at all on the environment.\n Still,this could possibly be the one positive result of Bush's Presidency.
148212
I am sure the term "environmentalism" does not go back that far.  As to people who were concerned about their environment, I expect most farmers were, and certainly people who were responsible for forests.  It did not become an academic discipline to be taken seriously until the time of Rachael Carson.  "Conservation" was a term used earlier, and the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, among others, took that seriously.
577741
As a transition fuel I think bio fuel is good. There are  grasses, straw, sugar cane, corn, many things to try.  No I don't think it will harm our food supply, at least not for a transition period. \n\nI'd like to see research into capturing some of the heat generated in an engine to help move a car, and the use to solar collectors and possibly capturing energy from wind generated as a vehicle travels through the air.  \n\nI'm confident others have more inventive ideas, but until the price of oil started to anger us, those who have an interest in selling us oil have quashed efforts to produce alternative systems.
328022
I've spent an entire semester in university listening to and researching over this issue ... and yes the "peak" has passed ... if you look at the bell curve, we're heading towards (or already are) on the decline side of the curve ... and soon it's going to be all over.  \n\nbasically we need to look into alternative source... and that's where this thing gets tricky.  oil is, for the most part, needed for transportation... and cars and transport means that do not require fossil fuels are either not fast enough or they're too expensive.  so what to do now?\n\nwell.... the answer lies in changing the minds of the human race... we live in an economy-driven world... they worry about making money, dont care where it comes from... \n\nbut the good news is that there's an abundant amount of awareness about all the environmental issues out there... i'm in my 20s and i don't remember this type of awareness happening 5 - 10 years ago... so we're headed in the right direction... question is are we alreadfy too late?  the answer is: only time will tell!\n\nand i can go on and on, but due to lack of time i have to end here ... if i have more time before u close this q i might add more in! \n\noh, but before i go... here's a recommendation (a documentary):\nEnd of suburbia dicrected by gregory greene\n\nit talks about the peak-oil crises!\n\ncheers!
771108
I totally agree with you. We should build big, indoor, climate-controlled farms. This way we will can grow the food our peoples need no matter what the weather decides to do with itself. These big, indoor farms could even become the prototypes for farms on space stations or colonies on planets that have no weather or extreme weather. Mass starvation is avoidable, at this point in time. I would also like to add, at this point, that genetically modified vegetables are much more acceptable to the American consumer than GM meats. These farms could be at the fore-front of advanced farming techniques. \n\nThe climate changes all by itself. We HAVE contributed to this batch of it, but we are not the only reason it is changing. We cannot, currently, stop or reverse the climate change. The only option open to us is adapt or die.
552248
LOL none I'm already a vegeterian. Hey! wait a minute don't they work on farms also, Dammit. Just kidding, but seriously, NONE.
342372
green revolution is something that are measures which help increase crop yield .\n\nif u have a printer u can go to google open advance search , type green revolution , type - word and there u get a ready project and then just print it out
1146554
You are right on target!  See the new movie "An Inconvenient Truth" - it lays out the FACTS, pure and simple, unadorned.  Those who want to fight facts are simply running away - and we simply don't have time for that.\n\nThe data on CO(2) parts per million, just by itself, is worth the price of admission.  Ascarta and others, there is nothing in history that compares to the current numbers and the current situation.  YOU are the problem now.
482950
I'm a conservative, and I'm also pro-environment and pro-animal rights.  But I do think that the entire "global warming crisis" has been blown out of proportion by special interests.  The scientists who speak the truth are silenced.
782745
"Are we destroying the earth with technology or is the earth doing business as usual"\nI suggest you track the changes scientists have found in the entire history of the earth, warming, freezing, wet and even effects of smoke from Krakatoa. Then compare what is happening now with pollution and the depletion of the ozone layer and ask the readers to make their own conclusion.
757758
I have heard it as "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction" As for people and environment.  Someone cuts down a forest- what happens? Soil biodiversity changes, animal species in that area change, CO2 consumption in that area decreases.\n   People put more black top up- absorbs and reflects heat warming the earth's surface more. There are a ton of examples, I am not sure what you are looking for specifically.
797629
Well I would have to say, the consumers, the growers, and ironically enough, the environmentalists.\n\nConsumers benefit from lower prices, bigger, healthier food, and less pesticides.\n\nThe growers benefit from greatly enhanced yields and a reduced need for toxic & costly pesticides.\n\nAnd finally, the enviros benefit in two ways.  The mature, intelligent ones benefit because greater yields means less farmland needed to grow the same amount of food, and also fewer pesticides used is better for the environment.  Meanwhile, the more ignorant and teeth-gnashing enviros benefit from biotech because they have another cause to protest and another means of whining about how totally evil capitalism is.\n\nEver read "Liberation Biology" by Ronald Bailey?  It's a fantastic book about biotech.  It looks at not just crop biotech but also medical biotech like gene therapy & stem cell research.  The book is all about both the technologies themselves (and let me tell ya, there's some pretty amazing stuff in the pipeline), and about the moral & ethical implications of it.  The book is written for the educated layman; it's not really technical, but has hundreds of footnotes & references included to back up what he says about biotech.
168885
It is NOT the right answer. There are so many other ways to combat hunger and end famine. (if only they were financially beneficial to those with the power to implement them) Western countries are looking for ways to financially benefit from trade agreements and biotech contracts instead of altruistically wishing to end hunger and poverty. And all of it at the cost of the environment and human health and lives.\n\n"Resistance to GMOs in Africa made the headlines in 2002 when Zambia rejected GM food aid at a time of critical food shortages in parts of the country. \n\n"Despite pressure from around the world, the Zambian government maintains that it has made a responsible decision by not accepting GMO food aid. We argue that the long-term impacts of GMOs and products derived from them are not fully understood and, therefore, safety and caution should take precedence over other interests including international trade agreements," says Dr. Mwananyanda Mbikusita Lewanika, Executive Director of the National Institute for Scientific & Industrial Research in Zambia."\n\nGMOs are BAD for people and the environment.\nhttp://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/genetic-engineering/feeding-the-world-facts-vers\nhttp://www.alternet.org/story/11224/tp://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_print.asp?ID=2080\nhttp://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/genetic-engineering\nhttp://www.truefoodnow.org/\nhttp://ipcb.org/
236694
.THIS PLANET IS NOW DRYING OUT.In northern china the 2 major deserts are merging to create a super desert.\n\nthousands of farmers that once were food producers are now running for their lives before the advancing dust storms.The Sahara is growing by 7 kilometros a day\n\n.The world population has doubled in the last fifty years ,faster than  humanity has ever done since we became homosapians. we are loosing species every minute.We are in fact witness to a mass extinction for the first time again since the day of the dinasaurs.\n\nAGRICULTURAL LAND IS LOST ALL OVER THE GLOBE.TO DESERTIFICATION ,OVERPUMPING OF CARBON AQUIFIERS.\nForest fires and deforestacion (to create more farmlands )are detroying that which make the water.\n\nEACH YEAR THERE ARE LESS AND LESS FARMERS,their sons becoming something else , in Africa there are many dying of aids  In china many lost their lands, \n\nAnd each year these less and less farmers have to feed an increase of (,at the moment) 70 million people.(But this is speeding up.)\n\nTo produce a ton of maize takes 1000 tons of water.If you havent got water but you have money,such as China,you will buy water in the form of maize,and at high prices.\n\nCanada and Australia have limited their sales already and only to their regular good customers.Other countries WILL sell causing inflation and rising food prices at home and so produce unstable governments.\n\nwe find ourselves in a bubble econemy about to burst.\n\nthe bottom line is that with less land,less farmers and less water.the global farming comunity will not be able to feed everybody in the world.\n\nThe disapearing biomass is threatening our very atmosphere.\neach rise of temperature by one degree means 10% of croploss.And the planet is getting hotter.\n\nThe sea is rising ,which means more loss of agricultural land.\n\nThe world desperately needs alternative ways to produce food.\n\nso to save Mankind,to save the world ,to change the tide, to tip the balance and to answer the question ,\n\nthe solution is that \nif the billions of people on this planet who have any ground at all ;grow something.\n\nTo combat rising food prices by bringing an enormous amount of food unto the local markets ,\n\ncombat the threat to the global environment ,by creating an enormous amount of biomass which will produce humidity,\nAnd all of it outside and beyond the concept of agriculture.\n\nThe many billions of pieces of land are there,and so are the people.Just buy a spade and get some seeds.the books exist,\n\nI recommend Permaculture since that is my area ,but their are many other concepts.\n\nAnd you will get healthy and cheap food,not to speak of making the place beautifull.\n\nIn this way we can get to Paradise without having to die first
674203
A few ideas as to the Economic Pro's + and Cons -\n\nMechanised (Contemporary)\nEconomies of Scale +\nEfficient +\nGreater production yield (Mass Production) +\nFewer Manual resource's +\nDifferent Type of Labour Skill (Machinist rather than labourer)\nHomogeneous products +\nLess fertile land from over production -\nGreater supply leads to a decrease in price -\nOver production (stock piling)-\nPollution -\nImproved wholesale and distribution +\nProduct into the shops quicker +\n\nTraditional Farming\nFree Range Organic Natural Produce +\nEnvironmentally Friendly +\nLabour intensive -\nManual harvesting and packaging, less fresh when it arrives for sale -\nGreat cost of production and distribution -\n\nHope that gives you a few areas for thought!