I can't speak for Chuck, but I find your argument "amusing" because it
appears to me to be a transparent, cynical, poorly reasoned attempt to
turn environmentalists against each other, _not_ because I do not
recognize the horrors of habitat destruction.
> But remember, one of the historic justifications for organic farming
> has been that it was kinder to wildlife. That's why you have the
> public's approval!
It may be one minor justification, but you cannot state with any
certainty at all that it's the reason why "we" have public approval. I
would guess (yours is just a guess, after all, unless you can supply
references) that personal health and general environmental concerns
(clean air, clean water, etc.) are the primary reasons for "our" public
> Most of the wildlife the world is losing has been the result of
> extending low-yield organic farming methods in countries like Ecuador
> and Nigeria.
Peer reviewed references, please. It's my impression that there's been
quite a bit of export of your brand of agriculture to developing
countries. You know, another handy way to exploit their resources by
hooking them on our expensive technology.
Dennis, would you please address the Earth's limited carrying capacity?
Is it your belief that our technological prowess will enable us to grow
in population forever? How do you counter arguments that, once our
petroleum reserves are exhausted, your agriculture becomes impossible?
Will new technology save us? Or, are petroleum reserves unlimited? Or,
will we colonize outer space? I'm truly interested in understanding
your point of view in this regard.
-- Robert Stevahn | Ours is not to feed the world. Let's learn firstname.lastname@example.org | to feed ourselves, then teach the world. Boise Food Connection | Population: Birth Control xor Death Control.