Get rid of the IRS, the DEA, and the Federal Reserve right off the bat, and audit the DoD. Eliminate all agricultural and industrial subsidies. The list is long.
A fly in the ointment (one of many): These three acts alone will uncover such a level of fraud, insolvency, and eviscerated industrial infrastructure that we will start to realize that the current recession is barely a prologue.
Mathew:
Commercial fertilizers are just ammonium salts and phosphate salts, maybe with a few other purified substances thrown in. There is no magic, just water-soluble materials that are essential for some basic processes like amino acid and nucleic acid synthesis, which are in turn used to make proteins and gene-encoding molecules like DNA and RNA, respectively. The ammonia comes from an exteremely energy-intensive industrial process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia#Synthesis_and_production), which is largely why it gets such a bad rap.
"Organic" or "natural" fertilizers have other forms of nitrogen and other materials, which plants and other organisms in soil can make great use of. The nitrogen is not nearly as concentrated, but these fertilizers are quite effective nonetheless and offer a wider array of biologically useful materials.
You'll find all sorts of information about the pros and cons of both, as well as of the benefits of crop rotation, animal grazing, and much more. It all depends on how industrialized you want to be, how large your operation is, how much money you have, and whether you are going to receive a government subsidy. Your remark about needing more tractors or other resources if you don't use the artificial stuff depends on what you are doing and is a bit off the mark.
Your comment actually does have relevance. HFCS and animal feedlots are only practical in the presence of government subsidies and artificial fertilizer. If they are released to fend for themselves in an unsubsidized market, they are not profitable.They need gifts of our tax dollars in order to provide us unhealthy calories and coliform-infested meats.
That 5 % difference is likely to be inconsequential. The study you quote does not appear to be comparing the things you are drawing conclusions about.
There is a greater issue in this thread that I find disturbing. There is an undercurrent of superstition with regards to cane sugar, which is apparently regarded as "good" sugar, and HFCS, regarded as "bad" sugar. There is also the implicit insistence that drinking sugary sodas is a perfectly legitimate habit, or at least it is if the soda has cane sugar instead of HFCS. This is not the case.
We should stop drinking sugary sodas entirely, not just drink less of them. Once you stop drinking them, you will not want to "enjoy soda now and then" because you will have lost the taste, habit, and dependence on artificially flavored and colored sugar water. Quit drinking it completely for a few months then try it again. You will wonder how you ever thought you could like the stuff.
On a larger scale is the superstition that our American Dream lifestyle is sustainable or desirable. We are on the wrong road in a grand way, and drinking sugar water is but one of many, many ill habits that we need to extinguish.
"I would totally be okay with regular sugar - that's just fine with me."
There is no significant dietary or health risk difference between cane sugar and HFCS. To your body, they are both empty calories. You will have practically the same risk of diabetes, heart disease, etc. with both. Drink plain water, not sugar water. Where the sugar comes from is of no importance.
Real sugar is NOT healthier. It is the same. Empty calories are empty calories. The unhealthiness is in the habit of drinking sugar water, not in the source of the sugar.
I know you don't want to hear that, and you may arbitrarily choose to disbelieve it, but that's the way it is. Many, many years ago we got suckered into this unhealthy habit. Drink water, not sweetened beverages.
|
3 Actions
|
3 Actions
|