Dangerous ignorance: The hysteria of Kony 2012
- Thread starter ColdBlooded
- Start date
Once again, you either didn't read what I posted or if you did, you completely failed to understand it.
Yes, local agriculture is what eventually we will have to do, and it will have to be integrated within the local ecosystem. Which, BTW, is a bit different from the way you seem to see it, but let's, for the sake of the argument assume we mean the same thing.
Do you seroiusly think this can feed the current population, especially in places like the Sahel? With an ever-expanding population?
Yes, local agriculture is what eventually we will have to do, and it will have to be integrated within the local ecosystem. Which, BTW, is a bit different from the way you seem to see it, but let's, for the sake of the argument assume we mean the same thing.
Do you seroiusly think this can feed the current population, especially in places like the Sahel? With an ever-expanding population?
I think on one hand you really can't argue with the SUCCESS of the actual marketing campaign. I think that type of campaign will be able to be reintroduced over and over again to the general public, whether the issue is oil drilling, dictators, etc.
Obviously the general consensus of the public now is "how much of this is really true" and "how much of a ride" were we taken on?
Even larger I think, is the general idea that a bunch of rich liberal white people somehow changed Uganda, and the general consensus there seems to be "no." But one thing that they did take a lot of credit for in their documentary was getting American advisers over there. Given the whole premise "no one cares about Africa" and dictators that don't harm US interest, it wouldn't be out of the ordinary to think that some type of lobbying took place to make that happen. But going full circle, how effective are the American advisers really? It seems like they were put there AFTER the bulk of the conflict took place. Was it American advisers by way of KONY protestors who made the changes there? Probly not.
Obviously the general consensus of the public now is "how much of this is really true" and "how much of a ride" were we taken on?
Even larger I think, is the general idea that a bunch of rich liberal white people somehow changed Uganda, and the general consensus there seems to be "no." But one thing that they did take a lot of credit for in their documentary was getting American advisers over there. Given the whole premise "no one cares about Africa" and dictators that don't harm US interest, it wouldn't be out of the ordinary to think that some type of lobbying took place to make that happen. But going full circle, how effective are the American advisers really? It seems like they were put there AFTER the bulk of the conflict took place. Was it American advisers by way of KONY protestors who made the changes there? Probly not.
Right, because people die when they have healthy organic food. Gotcha, comrade.
In the countries where people have the most food, reproductive rates are below replacement rate. It is the unfed and uneducated, who reproduce at such a rapid rate. Even Cuba, where they grow organic food every place where it can be planted is only reproducing at a 1.44 children per family, below replacement rate.
Everything you say seems to revolve around the idea that humans are some sort of disease. It is actually just reinforcing my personal view that Statism is the most dangerous religion on Earth. So, thank you sir.
In the countries where people have the most food, reproductive rates are below replacement rate. It is the unfed and uneducated, who reproduce at such a rapid rate. Even Cuba, where they grow organic food every place where it can be planted is only reproducing at a 1.44 children per family, below replacement rate.
Everything you say seems to revolve around the idea that humans are some sort of disease. It is actually just reinforcing my personal view that Statism is the most dangerous religion on Earth. So, thank you sir.