Subject: Re: BT yet again
From: [email-masked]
Date: 13 Jul 1994 20:43:15 GMT
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture

you are a lunatic. you need some help, get some.  May I suggest
Silent Spring by Rachel Carson?In article <1994Jul6.195045.4805@tower>, [email-masked] writes:
>In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Louis Hom) writes:
>> In article <[email-masked]>,
>> Sal Schettino <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>>I don't understan why people lately are bum raping growing food organic.
>>>they seem to want to justify their action by pointing out that there are 
>>>natural poisons and because some things in natural are bad for you. That 
>>>no way = organic grown food is bad.  what a joke.  Organic farmers don't have to 
>>>use every thing in nature to grow food. I sorry but I cannot see any 
>>>reason to flame organic farming.
>>>
>> 	I think the reasons people are suddenly questioning the benefits of
>> organic versus non-organic come from a growing 'awareness' (true or not) that
>> there is a much smaller difference between 'natural' and 'synthetic' than
>> many of us would like to believe and that we are paying large sums of money
>> for that very small difference.  There are healthy ways and there are unhealthy
>> ways to grow the things we eat and some people don't think that the healthy
>> ways are restricted to organic practices or that the unhealthy ways are
>> restricted to non-organic farming.
>
>	'Organic farming' is a ripoff. It is used to seperate the
>	gullible from their money, devalue objective reasoning
>	and spawn incredible volumes of incredibly bad federal
>	regulations. 'Organic' farming, and the 'naturalistic'
>	cult it is embedded in survives by creating a shell of
>	half-truths, cabalistic mumbo-jumbo, non-sequitors,
>	pseudo-science, panic-mongering and some outright lies.
>	How many farmers have had to give up because insane
>	regulation made it too expensive to farm ? How many
>	people in the chemical sector were put out of work
>	because the Fed, egged-on by the 'nature' cults, 
>	decides their farm chemicals were 'bad' ? How many
>	tons of food were *not* availible to the world because
>	the proper insecticides were no longer availible ?
>
>	'Organic' and 'natural' are lies. If the terms are
>	coming under more and more scrutiny then it must be
>	because the LSD is finally wearing-off after all these
>	years. 'Organic' cannot withstand close scrutiny
>	any more than a TV faith healer can. It's the
>	same old smoke & mirrors game, triumph of image
>	over substance, magic over sensibility. 
>
>	The only thing the 'natural' folks accomplished that
>	is of value is to increase the general *awareness*
>	about the proper use of traditional insecticides.
>	'Overkill' use of pesticides was not a good thing
>	and does have some negative ecological effects. 
>	Alas, in discouraging 'overkill', they cut off a
>	leg to cure a hangnail - making it almost
>	impossible to use the right pesticide at the
>	right time in the right way. 
>
>	Time to reveal the false prophets of 'organic' farming
>	and 'naturalism' in general - before they can do
>	more damage. 
>
>	'Sustainable Agriculture' is a theme which need have
>	no loyalty to the 'organic' cult. There are many ways
>	to implement sustainable agriculture ... including some
>	of the tricks the 'organic' people use ... but any
>	dogged adherence to the "100% natural" idea represents
>	*fewer* ways to achieve sustainable agriculture. 
>	Use WHATEVER IT TAKES to preserve the viability of
>	our farm lands - chemicals, man-made or otherwise,
>	are a vital key to achieving this goal.
>
>	-- {the soapbox is now free} -