The debate "The World Should Go Organic" was started by
April 25, 2015, 4:33 am.
53 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 34 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Marvelgirl2002 posted 14 arguments to the agreers part.
Shahmir posted 2 arguments, PsychDave posted 19 arguments, evamara posted 1 argument, GetRekt posted 7 arguments to the disagreers part.
Marvelgirl2002, transfanboy, Sosocratese, wmd, gotitgod, TmlxIss2cool, ScorpionHan, AdamChase, scooter6381, AnkGanu, DanielleR123, PhoenixF1re, TransPanTeen, denno27, spellbeechamp, ferida1237, AstroSpace, dgw23, Yuki_Amayane, mohanraj, debater and 32 visitors agree.
Bodaciouslady16, Shahmir, PsychDave, Jay, Axbecerra, pretty_twin, CountryBoy1776, evamara, soullesschicken, GetRekt, sachit, VIGNESH_V_2000, oscar, AlenaMaisel, cancer_wins and 19 visitors disagree.
Beyond that, I have never said I am a genius, nor did I vote on that one. You are using something I have never claimed as am argument against my intelligence. That is not only irrelevant (since someone else's opinion is not binding to me) it shows that you don't actually understand how debates work. It isn't just state your opinion and insult anyone who disagrees. Debaters should be able to back up their opinions with facts, as both marvelgirl2002 and I have done.
If I got the chance to speak to Einstein and he stated a fact, I would ask him how he knew. Either it would have built on someone else's research, in which case I can learn from it, or it is from his own mathematical proofs, which again gives me the opportunity to learn. I don't have to reinvent the wheel to drive a car, so why would I have to spend millions on research to find the same thing someone else already did?
Do you honestly not understand how to research a subject or are you just trolling?
If Einstein stated a fact on me, there is no way for me to ask on where he got that. because for me he is a Genius and its very pointless for me to question him...
Just like in your case.. You stated a fact on a person who thinks you're a genius and yet you still backs up your fact with an address link? what wsd that suppose for?
FEW WORDS ARE ENOUGH.
If you consider checking facts useless, you must do very well in school.
Putting the address link on where you got your fact is pretty irrelevant. u just clearly proved that you're just making your statements long to impress...
I presented several resources I used so that marvelgirl2002 could see where my information came from and frame her response. Which part of my comment should I have left out?
Evidence you have decided not to present in favor of calling your opponent, who you know nothing about, a hypocrite and telling them to eat a burger?
Why not try to make your statements shorter? I see u as an orthodox style of debater. You're making your statements long just to impress others and look to it as a very knowledgeable statements. And there's this one man who thinks you're a genius. For me the hardest thing to thing to explain is the glaringly evidenent which everybody has decided not to see.
I have given my opinions, now I am backing them up with facts. I was under the impression that facts matter more in the real world than opinions. Would you rather your bank gave their opinion on your worth or the amount of money in your account? By providing verifiable links, I am showing that there is evidence to back up my statements. I look into things rather than post inane comments that provide nothing to the conversation. Props to you for replying, but next time you should put more thought into how ignorant your response will make you appear.
Next time Dave
try to argue using ur own opinion about the topic and try not to use some facts that has already been stated by some individuals. But props to u for that long statement but
with a shallow thought.
The Mayo Clinic has an article about organic foods (http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/organic-food/art-20043880?pg=2) and references a study about the nutritional value of organic vs not, and finds that organic is probably not any more nutritious.
As to added chemicals removing nutrients, that is not accurate. Adding nitrogen rich fertilizer gives the crops nitrogen, it doesn't take anything away.
I understood after your comment that you hadn't been attacking all farmers, I just misinterpreted some of your previous comments.
I think small organic farms are not really all that different from small non organic farms. Both are family operations trying to do their best to produce good crops / livestock. Industrial farming, whether organic or otherwise, is trying to mass produce products and maximize profits. They will do whatever they can get away with to do so.
As to organic farmers using pesticides, in 2014 the CBC did a study and found that 45.8% of organic produce tested had pesticide present, and 1.8% was over the maximum pesticide allowable under Canadian law. Now some of the pesticide traces could be from a neighboring farm spraying, or other cross contamination, but almost half of organic produce contained pesticides, meaning half of it wasn't as healthy as advertised. If someone paid extra for the fact that it was organic, they did not get what they paid for.
Berkeley has an article about organic farming (https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html) that goes through what organic legally means and talks about the misconceptions about it.
I'm sorry, I wasn't getting notified with updates. I will respond shortly.
No need to call me shallow! I do not like these foods. They are flavourless compared to an organic dish. They have been messed around with so much that they are disgusting if you have tasted organic. And, I wouldn't just give up on a whole company just because I didn't get ?cheese on my burger'.
And I'm not trying to be rude but can PsychDave please add in an argument. (At least his arguments are of use.)
As if you like vegetables more than popcornz. I think u just ate an burger without cheese and suddenly u decided to choose organic kinds of foods. Very SHALLOW
I am not being a hypocrite. I do not like McDonalds, KFC, Burger King or anything like that.
Don't be a hypocrite! we all know that everyone of us loves pizza and burgers.. ugh
Seriously? McDonalds? You know the foam that goes into foam sofas and mattresses? That stuff is in, like, the buns of McDonald's produce
vegetables down mc donalds up!
Wait, what? I never said that ?farmers were big in pharma's pockets' I said big companies. And most of them are ignorant to what is happening. Like you, and the rest of the public. My sources? My Mum and Dad - my Mother sells organic produce for a living and my Dad does a lot of research into all topics that I have discussed with you and more - a historian whose name I can't remember said that he didn't like the fact history focused on peasants and kings, we need to know what life was like for those that could afford food and a decent job and home, it is also something that my Dad has researched. My family has multiple links to farms, so you're not the only one, both my Mother's family and especially my Father's family have owned and worked on farms. My Gran is another source, she has experienced a lot. I was brought up learning about this and since I was ten years old I have been educated on such stuff. That is how I am so knowledgeable. I can put two and two together and work something out about this topic, and when my Dad researches it I am close half of the time. Common sense.
I wasn't being misleading and I do know how probability works. Like I said, I got the statistics from a source.
I hope you can answer this: do you eat low-fat produce?
Adding chemicals to the crops takes away nutrients from the food - it doesn't add it.
I appreciate that, and I apologize for my tone in the first paragraph of my response. I had not received your second response when I started replying. It struck a nerve when it seemed like you were attacking farmers in general
I am curious, you earlier impli d that farmers were in big pharma's pocket, not are saying they are just ignorant. What is your background that you are so knowledgeable?
I was not trying to drag the debate off topic, I was giving an analogy to illustrate that either you were being misleading or did not understand how probability works. If chemotherapy was a 50/50 chance if either it kills the cancer or kills you, half of the people who took chemotherapy would die of the treatment. This is not true. There are some forms and dosages of cancer where you might only get a 30% better chance of surviving 5 years, and if you only had a 10% chance before that means the treatment is taking your chances from 10% to 13%. Not a huge improvement, but more of a chance than you had before.
Farming to the point that the soil is depleted and becomes barren is about as natural as clear cutting a forest and not replanting. Every crop you remove takes with it the nutrients that were used to grow it. One or two years wouldn't remove enough to do real damage, but after 5 to 10 you start to see diminished yields as there is no longer enough nutrients to grow large, healthy crops. Obviously the time required changes based on what crop is grown and, like I said earlier, crop rotation can help, but unless you put back something when you remove crops, eventually it is no longer sustainable. In nature, crops are not harvested and removed. Animals eat the plants, and leave their droppings and every year some does not get eaten and falls, decomposes and goes back to the soil. Soil depletion is not natural.
Most of my information comes from my background in farming and common sense, but some also comes from researching the subject after reading your responses. How about yourself? I asked for references several times (life expectancy claims, conspiracy theories) and so far you have yet to provide them, so I cannot refute what I cannot find information about. Could you provide those now?
Not every farmer is out to poison the world. I am not calling your Dad evil.
Right, your dad is not a big company I assume. There is a difference between owning a farm and then owning massive food companies like Heinz or something that actually get paid. And many people who own farms are forced into giving their animals vaccines and putting pesticides on crops, they are told it is for the best and are not knowingly doing it.
And, OK, I explained it wrong but chemotherapy is a 50/50 chance and is nothing like the chances of going swimming and drowning. All you are doing here is dragging the debate off topic.
Organic means that it is all natural and NO manmade solutions are added. You saying that things are added to the soil to help improve the nutrients is in a way wrong.
If the nutrients in the soil fades then it fades. We shouldn't mess with it. It is what Earth is programmed to do, it's like trying to stop a tree from dying and falling over. It is a natural way of life and we shouldn't mess with it. If it was going to kill species in the planet it wouldn't do it.
Where are you getting all your information on in this topic?
Organic farming limits resources in several ways. First, since no pesticides or other chemicals are used, crops are more likely to suffer from insects eating them, reducing yield. There is a reason we don't have swarms of grasshoppers or locusts destroying entire crops anymore. If you have ever read the Little House on the Prairie series, one of the books talks about a grasshopper swarm sweeping through eating everything. Second, the removal of chemical fertilizer removes nutrients from the equation. Chemical fertilizer can be designed to replace the specific nutrients that a crop is removing from the soil, keeping it from becoming barren. Broad spectrum fertilizer can as well, but if a plant is not removing much nitrogen from the soil, and you keep adding more year after year, eventually the soil will not support the crops you are growing. Crop rotation can solve this to an extent, but with the dependence on wheat and corn, there is only so much rotation possible before you start causing shortages. This will only get worse if we move away from fossil fuels and toward renewable ethanol fuels, which require a great deal of corn. Natural fertilizer can replace chemical fertilizer, but it is not as efficient, not as consistent, and harder to come by in large quantities. Human waste being used as fertilizer could partially solve this, but human waste is often contaminated as other things are flushed down the toilet as well.
For organic meats, the problems are similar. The first issue is food supply for the animals (as outlined in the previous paragraph). The second is that organic means no antibiotics. I do not agree with dosing animals with antibiotics before they are sick to prevent infection, as that is one way to develop antibiotic resistant bacteria, but if animals are sick, antibiotics can Dave lives, just as they do with people.
Is that a sufficient explanation? I explained it similarly in previous points, but not as in depth since I didn't want to belabor a point.
I apologize. I said almost none of is is organic, which in my mind means something very similar to nearly all of is is not organic.
Having two possible outcomes does not make the chances 50/50. For something to have a 50/50 chance, either outcome has to be exactly as likely. Flipping a coin for example. When going swimming, either you drown or you don't. That doesn't mean that you are as likely to drown as not. Likewise, while chemotherapy isn't a magic bullet that cures all cancer instantly, neither is it taking poison and hoping for the best. It is a medical treatment to try to stop cancer that is too advanced for surgery alone.
You say there is a vast, multinational conspiracy to poison everyone with non-organic products, could you show any proof of that?
As to what I do for a living, at the moment I am on parental leave, so I am a stay at home dad. I grew up on a dairy and beef farm, which my parents still own. It is not an organic farm, so are you implying that my father is part of this conspiracy to poison the world and is knowingly feeding his children and grandchildren tainted food? Why should he do that? He has never seen any income from big pharma.
?This would cover, as I said, nearly all modern medicine." You never said ?nearly' you said ?all' go back and read what you put. And you didn't ask for my opinion very clearly.
You either die or the cancer does. Two chances, making the 50/50 chance. That is how I got it, and also quoted by a source. But with organic around cancer won't be nearly as common.
And finally, you are being made to believe things too easily. It is the government's excuse for using non-organic produce.
Yes, I am suggesting that they are knowingly making us eat it to be ill. They like to make the work nice and easy.
Earlier you said that going organic limits resources. I don't understand how?
Do you eat low fat produce? And what do you do for a living?
Also organic can include deodorants.
If you will notice, I asked for clarification about your opinion on medicine and, when you responded with a fairly vague statement about "loads of medicines prescribed from the hospitals" that "aren't natural." from this I inferred that you wanted to discard non natural medicines. This would cover, as I said, nearly all modern medicine. Could you clarify what your position is, rather than what it isn't, if you are not opposed to all medical treatments that are not naturally derived?
I am aware of how chemotherapy works. It is a last ditched attempt to kill cancer cells to prolong someone's life. Yes there are terrible side effects, because you are right, it destroys all fast dividing cells and not just the cancer, but if it increases the chances of survival, hair grows back. Also, where did you get your statistic about it being a 50/50 chance? I couldn't find general survival rates for chemotherapy since it is used to treat different types of cancer, each with a different prognosis.
Finally, from the I formation I have seen, life expectancy has been going up for hundreds of years as technology and medicine improved, however it is a case of too much if the wrong information. When I look into it I get a great deal of information about current and recent life expectancy, but very little before that. Could you point me to your resources that gave the life expectancy in Britain historically?
I am confused by your last point. Are you suggesting that agricultural companies are knowingly selling food to make us sick so that pharmaceutical companies can sell us the cure? That seems like a pretty far reaching conspiracy. Why is this more likely than agricultural companies farming in the most cost effective way so that they maximize their cost to income ratio?
Unfortunately, for you, there are things wrong with your arguments too. ?It seems like you are advocating abandoning all modern medicine? I'm not.
If you read my argument correctly then you will see that I said 'most' and not 'all'. Yes, chemotherapy should be abandoned (I take it you don't know how it works) It kills all cells, cancer or normal cells will be destroyed. The hospitals only hope that the treatment kills the cancer before it kills you. It's a 50/50 chance.
Have you ever heard much of the wealthy in Britain (and countries like ours) that lived a few hundred years ago? I haven't seen much in history books, and documentaries. It is simply because they don't want you to hear about their life expectancies. They ate organic, they didn't go down mines, they had safe jobs. Much like us today except for the organic part. They don't give much of the life expectancies because these people were living just as old as we are today. Few went into their hundreds. Their wealth would be around ours today, we probably have more. And yet we are getting more diseases, like cancer, our health depends on what goes into our bodies.
And no big companies give you organic foods because they are connected to pharmaceutical companies and if they give you healthy stuff to eat then you aren't going to have to go to the pharmaceutical companies, and they won't get money.
As to the medicine argument, it seems like you are advocating abandoning all modern medicine, since almost none of it is organic. If this is inaccurate, let me know, but if that is what you meant, you may want to look into how life expectancy has increased as medicine developed. Chemotherapy is certainly not organic, but are you suggesting that people would be better off without it? What about diabetics taking insulin?
I agree that people are being over prescribed antibiotics, but to stop prescribing them altogether would mean that people would go back to dying of conditions that currently are easily cured. Vaccines are certainly not organic, but they are better than having children die or be disfigured by rubella, mumps or measles.
There are a few things wrong with your arguments. It is easy to feed a town on purely organic gardens and surrounding farms. It is difficult to produce enough to supply a city like Toronto, New York or Las Vegas (especially since Vegas is surrounded by desert). Organic doesn't just mean no pesticides. People used to manage just fine before because there were fewer people.
If farming organically could be as cost effective as not, why does any company not? At the moment they could charge a premium with no added expenses. Organic farming on a large scale will never be as cheap because you are removing inexpensive ways of increasing yield.
Organic doesn't just mean no pesticides, it means no fertilizers as well (other than compost and manure). By removing the fertilizers, you lower yield.
Pesticides do not remove nutrients from the soil. Minerals and fertilizer are not alive to be killed by poisons. Industrial farming does deplete the soil if it isn't replenished by crop rotation or artificially, but replenishing it with chemicals wouldn't be organic.
The organic food will be roughly the same price as food is now, if people can't afford food now then they aren't suddenly going to be unable to afford it even more. It won't make a difference in the costs. How does it produce less produce? People managed fine before.
Also organic produce is not limiting the land's resources, I don't know where you got that from. How is it?
The use of pesticides kills the nutrients in the ground and that land will then be unable to produce food, now THAT is a waste.
It's loads of medicines prescribed from the hospitals, they aren't natural. Sure, it might fix the illness that you have, but then it would give you another one and so on. This only means more money for the hospitals, because that's what a lot of the population think is the most important think in the world.
That doesn't change the issue of volume. Organic farming does not produce as much yield. Therefore even if the price came down, it would never be as low. That is why non-organic farming is big business. I'm sorry you found it rude, but what part of my statement did you take exception to? You are advocating organic, which limits resources. For people with very limited resources, that is asking the impossible.
You state that you don't just mean food, but medicine too. What medicines do you feel should not be used? I don't want to make assumptions about your perspective.
Did you not read my last argument?
And to be honest, I actually found that last remark quite rude. Middle to high income families are the only ones who can afford it? Understanding. But they are not wrong at all.
And I'll say it again. If the world did go organic the prices would fall and there would be a local farmer that you would get produce from. Therefore it won't leave people starving.
Organic is a good thing, if you can afford it. The problem is that there are many people who cannot afford it. Inorganic farming has larger, more consistent yields, and does so cheaper. For developing nations, that is invaluable. For low income families, it is a necessity. Most people who feel strongly that everyone should go organic come from middle to high income families, and don't consider the fact that not everyone has their resources. Organic is good, being able to afford to feed your family is better.
Do you drink eater straight from the tap?
As non organic foods are knocked away from the world the prices if organics will fall. It won't leave people starving.
And organic doesn't necessarily mean food, it can be medicine and more.
People coped fine with organic before.
Organic means not using pesticides. That is a good thing for the environment since bees and other necessary creatures we not being poisoned, but it is also a bad thing since bugs cam destroy the crops. It also means no chemical fertilizer. Again, good for the environment since there would be no runoff chemicals, but bad for crop yield.
Organic farming generates less pollution and exposes people to fewer chemicals. If you can afford organic products, they can be better both for you and for the environment.
Where I disagree with the statement is that it says the world should switch. There are many people who are either barely getting by or are starving in the world. To say that they should be forced to spend more on healthy things like vegetables means that they could afford feed of them, leaving them going hungry. Given the choice between eating non-organic produce and going without food periodically since u have spent all of my grocery money, I will go with what is most cost effective.
1. First of that is an extremely bad excuse. Of course people would rather eat that than nothing. People eat cars. But is it actually healthy? No. Tell me what nutrition is in a car.
2. Do you know what organic means? It HASN'T used pesticides or a form of unnatural process to be made. Those pesticides are what is doing the harm. When it's not organic then there is no such thing as nutritious.
And just so you know, it is not a stereotype! It is for real. There is harm.
For example inorganic foods are one of the key causes of cancer. A hundred years ago there was something like one in one hundred people getting cancer (I'm not sure about that one), forty years ago (a few decades after pesticides were introduced) it was one in ten. Now? One in two. I am not 100% on the first statistics because I'm sure it's more because I learnt it ages ago, but I have been updated with today's results so I'm sure it is one in two.
Please, do your research and at the beginning of your next post please write down the definition.
Well, two things.
1. The mass production of inorganic food, simply saying, would you rather have inorganic food or no food at all. Which is more 'safer' or 'healthier'.
2. There are plenty of nutritious inorganic food. Just to name a few, golden rice, cross breeded crops, pest resistant crops, crops that can withstand environmental hazards. There is generally broad scientific consensus that inorganic food does not have any harms as stereotyped and misconscepted.
How are non-organic foods more nutritious and healthy?
Organic food? Yes, there are certain benefits of organic food but equally as well there are much needed inorganic nutritious food and food that needs to be mass produced I'm order to maintain a safe society per say.
Elaborate if you disagree.