pseudobrit said:It's easy to look at things from a non-argicultural viewpoint. Farmers operate on razor-thin margins, even in areas of the world where food is abundant. Each of them will feed thousands of us. They cannot afford to lose a harvest to pests in the interest of keeping their fields "natural."
The whole idea of "natural farming" is absurd because the whole idea of farming is unnatural. It's an entirely artificial human technology. Foraging is natural.
Exactly, and organic foods cost more because of this. If anyone were really interested in reducing the cost of food, they would make the grow-ship-package-ship-sell process a little more efficient. Supermarkets throw out a lot of food. Here's a link that passively mentions how much food is wasted due to industry in the UK each year. 17 million tonnes isn't exactly trivial.
I'd love it if the entire planet rolled back ten thousand years and went back to foraging, but that's far from feasible today. Foraging actually gives a chance of survival to other creatures on Earth, but a popupation of six billion is way too much to support with such opportunistic methods. The human population would have to be decimated before that idea could even get off the ground.
pseudobrit said:There's plenty of landfill space and (as I've pointed out) the energy to sift through someone's "special garbage" can (aka recycling bin) is at least as wasteful and inefficient as sifting through it in a landfill 30 years from now.
I disagree. For example, which is more efficient?
1) Pile all your garbage in one corner of the room and sort through it all once it builds up to the ceiling.
2) Catagorise your waste at it is made and either reuse it or place it in the appropriate corner.
Either way, you're going to end up catagorising at some point. The difference is whether or not you have to sort through a mountain of garbage.
pseudobrit said:Maybe for the same reason I haven't moved into an old folks' home. I mean, someday I'll be old and might require that type of housing arrangement, so I may well get used to it today, right? Everything has its time. The nation learned how to recycle in less than 20 years. It can be scaled back until we need to start recycling more material and relearned quickly.
Recycling and preparing for the future is more analogous to getting a pension or RRSP than moving into a retirement home decades early.
pseudobrit said:I'm not afraid of unorthodox solutions. I despise the charlatans who prey upon the gaps in science and the fears of the uninformed and trusting public to give them false hope (at best) defraud them of their money, and risk their lives or kill them (at worst) for profit.
You seem bitter. Is there a story behind this? If so, I'd love for you to share it with us!
The vast majority of alternative medicine does nothing at all except make people feel better about themselves. But in the case of someone who has a terminal illness, wouldn't you place at least some value on their mental well-being for the remainder of their time on Earth?
Rather than declare war on anything different, why not try to take the best parts of it and incorporate it into a much more beautiful and effective tapestry?
If you're so much against "charlatans" taking people's money, perhaps you should have a look at the track record of scientifically-backed pharmaceutical companies. Here's some satire of the whole situation.
pseudobrit said:"Stress" is something con men love. Find a way to quantify it and they'll have to find another bogeyman to claim they cure. I wonder whatever happened to women experiencing "hysteria"? Or radium water?
Here's why I hate massage therapy (in practice):
...
The fish stinks from the head.
http://www.quackwatch.org/
I sincerely hope that you're not trying to downplay the role of stress in everyday life. If you've never experienced it, then I both envy you and feel sorry for you at the same time. If you want scientific backing, please either read the links I've already given you, do some of your own research, or follow this link.
There are quite a few studies out there with results revealing the multifaceted nature of stress. You haven't yet provided any useful information that works to support your position on stress.
That quackwatch.org site you linked has many detailed documents about stress, massage therapy, and the like, but none that I have found have reached any definite conclusions. They all end with statements like "possible anticancer effects of these interventions in other patients have not been confirmed". The only conclusions they reach are conclusions that the studies are inconclusive!
Just to clarify what you actually think, do you believe that stress exists? Do you think stress can have an impact on day-to-day life?