Comments on Casaubon's Book: How Much Did the Green Revolution Matter? or Can W...

puma mens shoes puma shoes puma speed nike shoes n...

2009-12-24T18:46:13.734-08:00

puma mens shoes
puma shoes
puma speed
nike shoes
nike air
nike air shoes
nike air max 90
nike air max 95
nike air max tn
nike air rift
nike shox r4
nike air max 360
nike shox nz
puma cat
air max trainers
mens nike air max
sports shoes
nike air rifts
nike air rift trainer
nike air
nike shoes air max
nike shoes shox
air shoes
Lucyliu IS Lucyliu
nike shoe cart
puma future
cheap puma
nike rift
jeans shop
diesel jeans
levis jeans
nike rift shoes
cheap nike air rifts
bape shoes

christian louboutin boots high heels womens boots ...

2009-12-14T21:56:31.450-08:00

christian louboutin
boots
high heels
womens boots
heels
women's shoes
knee boots
women's boots
black shoes
boots shoes
new shoes
high boots
black boots
manolo
Chloe
christian
----------------------------------------------
christian shoes
manolo blahnik
giuseppe zanotti
miu miu
christian louboutin pumps
christian shoes spring 2010
salvatore ferragamo
jimmy choo
choo shoes
christian louboutin shoes
christian louboutin pumps
manolo sale
blanhnik shoes
miu miu shoes
knee high boots
thigh high boots
knee high
pumps shoes
red shoes
brown shoes
leather shoes
louboutin size shoes
black leather shoes
leather shoes boots
designer shoes
women's sandals

Hello, everybody. I am a new hand to be here. So n...

2009-10-30T01:28:57.310-07:00

Hello, everybody. I am a new hand to be here. So nice to meet you all. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差、...

2009-09-17T20:41:29.423-07:00

艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差、打工,兼差,或者八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、酒店兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想兼職工作日領、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!

艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚，無業績壓力，無脫秀無喝酒壓力，高層次會員制客源，工作輕鬆，可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已，對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有！艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪，不需擔心！只提供最優質的酒店上班,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表

水水們妳有缺現領、有兼職、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學缺錢嗎?妳是傳播妹??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,假日兼職賺錢的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??
艾葳酒店台北酒店經紀招兵買馬!!徵專業的酒店打工,想要去酒店的水水,想要短期日領,酒店日領,禮服酒店,制服店,酒店經紀,ktv酒店,便服店,酒店工作,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀人,
等相關服務幫您快速的實現您的夢想~!!

China Wholesale has been described as the world’s ...

2009-07-22T01:41:53.254-07:00

China Wholesale has been described as the world’s factory. This phenomenom is typified by the rise ofbuy products wholesalebusiness. Incredible range of products available with China Wholesalers “Low Price and High Quality” not only reaches directly to their target clients worldwide but also ensures that wholesale from china from China means margins you cannot find elsewhere and China Wholesale will skyroket your profits.

酒店打工酒店經紀酒店上班酒店兼差禮服店酒店小姐酒店兼職假日打工台北酒店經紀童...

2009-06-04T19:57:13.933-07:00

酒店打工

酒店經紀

酒店上班

酒店兼差

禮服店

酒店小姐

酒店兼職

假日打工

台北酒店經紀

童裝批發

童裝批發

童裝

童裝

酒店喝酒

暑假打工

寒假打工

酒店

酒店經紀人

酒店現領

Wow.Maybe you all need to learn how to do math.A 2...

2007-02-24T23:13:00.000-08:00

Wow.

Maybe you all need to learn how to do math.

A 250 percent increase is exactly the same as an increase by a factor of 3.5.

Say your initial level is 100, and your new level is 350 (3.5 times the intitial level.

The way to calculate a percentage increase is to divide the absolute change [350 - 100] by 100, and then multiply by 100 to convert the decimal into a percent.

([350 - 100]/100)*100 = 250%

You won't gain much credibility if you can't perform simple maths such as this. Scientists don't look charitably upon being off by orders of magnitude.

wow, you beat Michael Pollan to the punch by 3 day...

2007-01-31T09:56:00.000-08:00

wow, you beat Michael Pollan to the punch by 3 days:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.html?ref=magazine&pagewanted=all

In an interview with Julian Darley over on Global ...

2007-01-26T10:14:00.000-08:00

In an interview with Julian Darley over on Global Public Media, Helena Norberg-Hodge makes a comment about the loss you're talking about and the true motives behind the green revolution:

"JULIAN: Do you think that one of the reasons why this [the industrialization of agriculture] is happening – and there are lots of ways one can approach this question – but, there has grown, and possibly there has been fostered, a demand for vast quantities of cheap flesh, particularly cheap meat, but also of cheap fish. And so, isn’t that one of the reasons that drives this building of huge factory farms, apart from the fact that there is an ever-growing number of people on this planet?

HELENA: No. I would say that that is a common myth that’s presented to the public. And I think often the public, as well as the businesses that promote that thinking, believe it, but if you actually analyze why and how this has happened, it has very little to do with consumer demand. Because in actual fact, what is happening is that the whole system, and the whole mode of production, at a global level, is destroying millions of viable food producers who were producing food in a much more sustainable way.

The myth is that this is necessary to provide cheap food for this very large global population. In actual fact, if you look at what goes behind it, you will see that large chemical and pharmaceutical corporations got involved – particularly in a major way after the Second World War – in food production, turning the same chemicals that we use for bombs, to the land. And that the system did become dominated by the need for profits for corporations, not the need to feed the global population. And that, whether you go back to the earlier days of the Green Revolution and look at how many farmers were destroyed because Green Revolution technologies demanded ever more expensive inputs: large scale technology, lots of petroleum, lots of toxic chemicals, chemical fertilizers, pesticides, antibiotics, hormones.

All of this destroyed the farmer’s ability to produce, generation after generation, without spending any money, without being beholden to either banks or large corporations. The net result was whole parts of the world suffering from famines. Sometimes a generation earlier, sometimes many generations earlier, those same parts of the world had been flourishing agricultural areas as well as with a lot of wilderness. And of course, the population at that time in many places was lower, but the main reason for the change was not some kind of sudden explosion in the population. The main reason was the concentration of food production in the hands of for-profit corporations."

Hi Ulu - you are right, of course, about all the a...

2007-01-25T13:44:00.000-08:00

Hi Ulu - you are right, of course, about all the above, espcecially my numerical typo. That I shall correct, and thank you for the comments and critique.

I personally don't agree that the population issue does *contradict* the yield vs. output issue - I think it is an important factor, and one that the book will say more about (I don't like to write anything longer than 5 pages on the blog - too tough on the eyes).

The population issue is also complicated, however, by the persistence of nitrogen in the human body - that is, of course, one of the most compelling issues of how integral fossil fuels are to us - how much do we need nitrogen fertilizers. The answer is one I am still analyzing, but may well be "not as much as we think." But the difficulty of coming up with precise numbers is a serious issue for us.

But concentrating on grain yields *does* accomodate the population factor - the rise was not per person, but in toto - that is, the Green Revolution increase in yields is enough to feed everyone the planet right now (quite comfortably if we ate less meat and didn't burn food in cars), and the total food output before the Green Revolution may actually have been enough to feed everyone on the planet - or it may not have been, but it isn't clear that it couldn't be, even given careful and sustainable practice.

There is no doubt that climate change, soil erosion and pollution will also be factors there, and I don't think anyone knows precisely how much. But I think the basic point, that we can do better than we think we can, may yet hold. I hope so.

Sharon

Do I think that we should be attempting to expand food yields forever - hell no. But I consider it good and useful news to know that we might well be able to feed the coming population, at least for a while, without necessarily borrowing from the future. Or that we could come closer than many pessimists believe.

Sharon

Sharon, Well done once again, nice deep digging, ...

2007-01-25T12:37:00.000-08:00

Sharon,

Well done once again, nice deep digging, and a message of hope for all those who feel there's no way we will be able to feed ourselves without chemicals. Our output used to be much better, and might be again. Well, pollution and extreme weather permitting.

We should not forget, though, the correlation between the Green Revolution and population growth. That link can't be denied. And seems to contradict the yield vs output argument, in a way that I can't oversee either.

A subject you do not touch upon here, but which is essential to the Green Revolution, is that cheap transport has had a pivotal role in the centralization of our food production, and of course all the negative effects that came with it.

The strongest of all may be that no-one owns their own food anymore, that everything has to be bought, and comes from far away. That is the biggest threat to anyone's independence that has ever existed, and few people seem to understand or pay attention.

Suffice it to say that without transport, there wouldn't have been any Green Revolution. It all boils down to oil, for the gas and the chemicals, in a perfect diabolical pas-de-deux.

Our grip on our food production was stolen long before GMO reared its ugly head. GMO is just the finishing touch, the final blow.

PS a 250% increase is NOT the same as a '250 fold' or '250 times' increase. It's 100 times, or 10.000%, less.