[Shadowfax]

There is a difference between 1) cross polinating or animal husbandry (which I have always thought a strange term) and 2) genetic modification of foods–the former might occur in response to “natural” stimuli (and not always with beneficial results), the latter is the forced cross breeding of plants that might not be otherwise compatible, perhaps for very good reasons. We won’t know for sure for decades. We just aren’t very good at projections in this area.

[Shadowfax]

There is a difference between 1) cross polinating or animal husbandry (which I have always thought a strange term) and 2) genetic modification of foods–the former might occur in response to “natural” stimuli (and not always with beneficial results), the latter is the forced cross breeding of plants that might not be otherwise compatible, perhaps for very good reasons. We won’t know for sure for decades. We just aren’t very good at projections in this area.

[Shadowfax]

Oh, and maybe this is all moot: the GMO/natural debate is pointless if Americans can’t wean ourselves off McDonald’s Super Sized everything. Any health benefits between organic and GMO produce are de minimis in the diets of most Americans who don’t eat much fresh food anyway.

But for those who do, at least you won’t die from cancer from that source. But how pure is the air you breathe, the water you drink, how safe is your car, or your living environment. Something will get each of us someday. You can only rule out so many variables.

[Shadowfax]

Oh, and maybe this is all moot: the GMO/natural debate is pointless if Americans can’t wean ourselves off McDonald’s Super Sized everything. Any health benefits between organic and GMO produce are de minimis in the diets of most Americans who don’t eat much fresh food anyway.

But for those who do, at least you won’t die from cancer from that source. But how pure is the air you breathe, the water you drink, how safe is your car, or your living environment. Something will get each of us someday. You can only rule out so many variables.

[Shadowfax]

Oh, and maybe this is all moot: the GMO/natural debate is pointless if Americans can’t wean ourselves off McDonald’s Super Sized everything. Any health benefits between organic and GMO produce are de minimis in the diets of most Americans who don’t eat much fresh food anyway.

But for those who do, at least you won’t die from cancer from that source. But how pure is the air you breathe, the water you drink, how safe is your car, or your living environment. Something will get each of us someday. You can only rule out so many variables.

[Shadowfax]

Oh, and maybe this is all moot: the GMO/natural debate is pointless if Americans can’t wean ourselves off McDonald’s Super Sized everything. Any health benefits between organic and GMO produce are de minimis in the diets of most Americans who don’t eat much fresh food anyway.

But for those who do, at least you won’t die from cancer from that source. But how pure is the air you breathe, the water you drink, how safe is your car, or your living environment. Something will get each of us someday. You can only rule out so many variables.

[Shadowfax]

Oh, and maybe this is all moot: the GMO/natural debate is pointless if Americans can’t wean ourselves off McDonald’s Super Sized everything. Any health benefits between organic and GMO produce are de minimis in the diets of most Americans who don’t eat much fresh food anyway.

But for those who do, at least you won’t die from cancer from that source. But how pure is the air you breathe, the water you drink, how safe is your car, or your living environment. Something will get each of us someday. You can only rule out so many variables.

[Shadowfax]

No expert here either but I agree that produce and products that originate from or contain GMOs should at least be labeled as such so that those who wish to avoid them can do so.

My limited understanding is that the GMO seeds are expensive and that farmers cannot use last year’s crop to generate new seeds, like they normally would. Instead, Monsanto requires they buy new seeds from Monsanto each year. Also, the GMO seeds contaminate their other similar crops–wheat to wheat for example, so if they grow GMO wheat and regular wheat, the GMO wheat contaminates the regular wheat in some way.

I also find it frightening that humans again think they are so superior that they can defeat 1000s of years of evolution in a petri dish. Certain plant species evolve to adapt to certain environments–to be draught resistant or to survive certain infestations. In the case of Inida, to try to wipe that all out with a man-made GMO crop…it’s the worst kind of arrogance.

[Shadowfax]

No expert here either but I agree that produce and products that originate from or contain GMOs should at least be labeled as such so that those who wish to avoid them can do so.

My limited understanding is that the GMO seeds are expensive and that farmers cannot use last year’s crop to generate new seeds, like they normally would. Instead, Monsanto requires they buy new seeds from Monsanto each year. Also, the GMO seeds contaminate their other similar crops–wheat to wheat for example, so if they grow GMO wheat and regular wheat, the GMO wheat contaminates the regular wheat in some way.

I also find it frightening that humans again think they are so superior that they can defeat 1000s of years of evolution in a petri dish. Certain plant species evolve to adapt to certain environments–to be draught resistant or to survive certain infestations. In the case of Inida, to try to wipe that all out with a man-made GMO crop…it’s the worst kind of arrogance.

[Shadowfax]

No expert here either but I agree that produce and products that originate from or contain GMOs should at least be labeled as such so that those who wish to avoid them can do so.

My limited understanding is that the GMO seeds are expensive and that farmers cannot use last year’s crop to generate new seeds, like they normally would. Instead, Monsanto requires they buy new seeds from Monsanto each year. Also, the GMO seeds contaminate their other similar crops–wheat to wheat for example, so if they grow GMO wheat and regular wheat, the GMO wheat contaminates the regular wheat in some way.

I also find it frightening that humans again think they are so superior that they can defeat 1000s of years of evolution in a petri dish. Certain plant species evolve to adapt to certain environments–to be draught resistant or to survive certain infestations. In the case of Inida, to try to wipe that all out with a man-made GMO crop…it’s the worst kind of arrogance.

[Shadowfax]

No expert here either but I agree that produce and products that originate from or contain GMOs should at least be labeled as such so that those who wish to avoid them can do so.

My limited understanding is that the GMO seeds are expensive and that farmers cannot use last year’s crop to generate new seeds, like they normally would. Instead, Monsanto requires they buy new seeds from Monsanto each year. Also, the GMO seeds contaminate their other similar crops–wheat to wheat for example, so if they grow GMO wheat and regular wheat, the GMO wheat contaminates the regular wheat in some way.

I also find it frightening that humans again think they are so superior that they can defeat 1000s of years of evolution in a petri dish. Certain plant species evolve to adapt to certain environments–to be draught resistant or to survive certain infestations. In the case of Inida, to try to wipe that all out with a man-made GMO crop…it’s the worst kind of arrogance.

[Shadowfax]

No expert here either but I agree that produce and products that originate from or contain GMOs should at least be labeled as such so that those who wish to avoid them can do so.

My limited understanding is that the GMO seeds are expensive and that farmers cannot use last year’s crop to generate new seeds, like they normally would. Instead, Monsanto requires they buy new seeds from Monsanto each year. Also, the GMO seeds contaminate their other similar crops–wheat to wheat for example, so if they grow GMO wheat and regular wheat, the GMO wheat contaminates the regular wheat in some way.

I also find it frightening that humans again think they are so superior that they can defeat 1000s of years of evolution in a petri dish. Certain plant species evolve to adapt to certain environments–to be draught resistant or to survive certain infestations. In the case of Inida, to try to wipe that all out with a man-made GMO crop…it’s the worst kind of arrogance.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=flu]Do you realize what you are saying here? It’s YOUR viewpoint that kids don’t get enough physical activity.. It’s YOUR viewpoint that we should spend more resources in school on encouraging more physical activity beyond x. The problem with this is just that. IT’s your viewpoint, and you’re asking for the school to make things mandatory in a public school in which other parents do not share the same viewpoint as you.

Public schools need to be lowest common denominator. It’s for that very reason why they never have and never will, and probably never should teach subjects like personal finance in a public school…It’s PERSONAL finance. Not everyone shares the same viewpoints on finances as you do. You and I think it’s horrible to ATM to death equity in a house and get foreclosed on…There’s plenty of people that don’t share your viewpoint and if you were to TEACH the subject matter that borrowing at 20%APR on a credit card is BAD, there is probably some J6P that doesn’t think that’s the case and there probably some other person who knows it’s bad but can’t help it for whatever reasons.

But consider the other extreme. Let’s assume the majority of americans are financially irresponsible. And that the majority consumers feel like it’s ok to borrow money and make minimum payments…Would you be ok if some politician decides to put into a public school curriculum that teaches kids that you can borrow $10,000 on a credit card and only make $10 monthly payments and that no one needs to return the money anytime soon,and if you can’t afford to pay off the debt, it’s the bank’s fault? Probably not..And that’s why some of these topics shouldn’t ever be taught in school….And for your kid the next day to come home and say “Mommy/daddy, my teacher taught me that I can get a credit card and spend $10,000 now, and only pay $10 everyone month, and it’s fine”…Sexuality is another such grey area topic (and anything that touches it)…[/quote]

Actually, no, I don’t think schools should be paying for athletic programs. It’s nice when they do, but I wouldn’t require it. My statements were general to the state of our youth at large–that they are poorly nourished and too sedentary. We are lucky that our school does provide PE several times a week, but the kids can get activity in a recess period.

I think life skills would be a nice 1 or 2 session course, an elective in high school–something multidisciplinary with elements from math, science and health. I am not advocating that it should be required. It would be nice though to have it presented in an organized way. (Maybe the credit card interest can be covered in one lesson in a math class–math applied to the real world.) And, like any other subject, it should be inclusive, so you can present what a credit card is, what interest is, what a savings account or investment account is and run some scenarios. Show what happens when you pay it off in full and show what happens when you only pay the minimum. Then let the kids decide. You are making this too extreme to be a coherent argument, flu. Just present the schools of thought and let reasonably intelligent, almost-adults come to their own conclusions.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=flu]Do you realize what you are saying here? It’s YOUR viewpoint that kids don’t get enough physical activity.. It’s YOUR viewpoint that we should spend more resources in school on encouraging more physical activity beyond x. The problem with this is just that. IT’s your viewpoint, and you’re asking for the school to make things mandatory in a public school in which other parents do not share the same viewpoint as you.

Public schools need to be lowest common denominator. It’s for that very reason why they never have and never will, and probably never should teach subjects like personal finance in a public school…It’s PERSONAL finance. Not everyone shares the same viewpoints on finances as you do. You and I think it’s horrible to ATM to death equity in a house and get foreclosed on…There’s plenty of people that don’t share your viewpoint and if you were to TEACH the subject matter that borrowing at 20%APR on a credit card is BAD, there is probably some J6P that doesn’t think that’s the case and there probably some other person who knows it’s bad but can’t help it for whatever reasons.

But consider the other extreme. Let’s assume the majority of americans are financially irresponsible. And that the majority consumers feel like it’s ok to borrow money and make minimum payments…Would you be ok if some politician decides to put into a public school curriculum that teaches kids that you can borrow $10,000 on a credit card and only make $10 monthly payments and that no one needs to return the money anytime soon,and if you can’t afford to pay off the debt, it’s the bank’s fault? Probably not..And that’s why some of these topics shouldn’t ever be taught in school….And for your kid the next day to come home and say “Mommy/daddy, my teacher taught me that I can get a credit card and spend $10,000 now, and only pay $10 everyone month, and it’s fine”…Sexuality is another such grey area topic (and anything that touches it)…[/quote]

Actually, no, I don’t think schools should be paying for athletic programs. It’s nice when they do, but I wouldn’t require it. My statements were general to the state of our youth at large–that they are poorly nourished and too sedentary. We are lucky that our school does provide PE several times a week, but the kids can get activity in a recess period.

I think life skills would be a nice 1 or 2 session course, an elective in high school–something multidisciplinary with elements from math, science and health. I am not advocating that it should be required. It would be nice though to have it presented in an organized way. (Maybe the credit card interest can be covered in one lesson in a math class–math applied to the real world.) And, like any other subject, it should be inclusive, so you can present what a credit card is, what interest is, what a savings account or investment account is and run some scenarios. Show what happens when you pay it off in full and show what happens when you only pay the minimum. Then let the kids decide. You are making this too extreme to be a coherent argument, flu. Just present the schools of thought and let reasonably intelligent, almost-adults come to their own conclusions.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=flu]Do you realize what you are saying here? It’s YOUR viewpoint that kids don’t get enough physical activity.. It’s YOUR viewpoint that we should spend more resources in school on encouraging more physical activity beyond x. The problem with this is just that. IT’s your viewpoint, and you’re asking for the school to make things mandatory in a public school in which other parents do not share the same viewpoint as you.

Public schools need to be lowest common denominator. It’s for that very reason why they never have and never will, and probably never should teach subjects like personal finance in a public school…It’s PERSONAL finance. Not everyone shares the same viewpoints on finances as you do. You and I think it’s horrible to ATM to death equity in a house and get foreclosed on…There’s plenty of people that don’t share your viewpoint and if you were to TEACH the subject matter that borrowing at 20%APR on a credit card is BAD, there is probably some J6P that doesn’t think that’s the case and there probably some other person who knows it’s bad but can’t help it for whatever reasons.

But consider the other extreme. Let’s assume the majority of americans are financially irresponsible. And that the majority consumers feel like it’s ok to borrow money and make minimum payments…Would you be ok if some politician decides to put into a public school curriculum that teaches kids that you can borrow $10,000 on a credit card and only make $10 monthly payments and that no one needs to return the money anytime soon,and if you can’t afford to pay off the debt, it’s the bank’s fault? Probably not..And that’s why some of these topics shouldn’t ever be taught in school….And for your kid the next day to come home and say “Mommy/daddy, my teacher taught me that I can get a credit card and spend $10,000 now, and only pay $10 everyone month, and it’s fine”…Sexuality is another such grey area topic (and anything that touches it)…[/quote]

Actually, no, I don’t think schools should be paying for athletic programs. It’s nice when they do, but I wouldn’t require it. My statements were general to the state of our youth at large–that they are poorly nourished and too sedentary. We are lucky that our school does provide PE several times a week, but the kids can get activity in a recess period.

I think life skills would be a nice 1 or 2 session course, an elective in high school–something multidisciplinary with elements from math, science and health. I am not advocating that it should be required. It would be nice though to have it presented in an organized way. (Maybe the credit card interest can be covered in one lesson in a math class–math applied to the real world.) And, like any other subject, it should be inclusive, so you can present what a credit card is, what interest is, what a savings account or investment account is and run some scenarios. Show what happens when you pay it off in full and show what happens when you only pay the minimum. Then let the kids decide. You are making this too extreme to be a coherent argument, flu. Just present the schools of thought and let reasonably intelligent, almost-adults come to their own conclusions.

[Author]

Posts