*quality
California is on fire...I mean fine....but it's apparently only because we don't rake the leaves out of our forests, not from desertification in progress.

Only if you ignore the acidification, heating, and other degradation of the oceans (which contain 99% of the living space and as much as 80% of all life on the planet)...and history. The massive habitat losses there are almost completely unrelated to farming feed crops and dwarf the recent losses on land.


Today creating space for farming is the major single cause for the intentional destruction of terrestrial habitats, but not historically.


Wiki-
Habitat destruction caused by humans includes land conversion from forests, etc. to arable land, urban sprawl, infrastructure development, and other anthropogenic changes to the characteristics of land. Habitat degradation, fragmentation, and pollution are aspects of habitat destruction caused by humans that do not necessarily involve over destruction of habitat, yet result in habitat collapse. Desertification, deforestation, and coral reef degradation are specific types of habitat destruction for those areas (deserts, forests, coral reefs).

...but what do you care? GET YOUWA AZZ TO VEGA!

@Yogi

How can you prove a negative? Studies have consistently found no harm from commercially available GM foods. The one study to the contrary (Séralini, tumours in mice) was found to be fraudulent and retracted.

Even if the effects are not immediate, GM foods have been available since the mid 90s, you would expect after 20 years, for there to be a discernible harmful effect, if there is one.

@billpayer

One of the main benefits GM foods can provide is increased longevity and shelf, which help to reduce wastage.

GM yields in a Mediterranean climate for common western crops are not hugely improved. However, the benefits in harsh conditions to say drought and flood resistance are substantial.

This is particularly why it's so detrimental that the EU has rejected GM foods so universally. Domestic farmers may not see huge benefit, but African producers are forced to use substandard non-GM crops for both domestic and international markets.

This is because GM crops cannot be exported to the EU market and different crop types cannot be effectively segregated. This limits their yields, in turn raises prices in a region of the world with an unsustainable, rapidly growing population and increasingly harsh conditions from climate change driven desertification.

Water is a serious issue for China. They can produce enough food for themselves at the moment, but it's estimated that the population of the country will increase by 200 million before it actually plateaus. The growing cities are eating up the best farmland in the nation, which has caused concerns. And desertification has been growing the Gobi desert too...

Alan Savory - Reversing Desertification With Livestock has been added as a related post - related requested by notarobot.

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Tuesday, March 5th, 2013 7:35am PST - promote requested by notarobot.

*Promote sustainable land use. Those interested in this might also be interested in permaculture.

Savory's extended talk is *related=http://videosift.com/video/Alan-Savory-Reversing-Desertification-With-Livestock

>> ^Trancecoach:
Anyone else read the book, Saharasia? Goes into how the history of these genital mutilation practices came as a result of the patriarchal child rearing practices during the desertification of the fertile crescent.
I've come to believe that circumcision, like corporal punishment and infant swaddling, are archaic and arcane practices of a bygone era.


With condoms these days, and proper hygene, we probably do not need circumcision any more...

Anyone else read the book, Saharasia? Goes into how the history of these genital mutilation practices came as a result of the patriarchal child rearing practices during the desertification of the fertile crescent.

I've come to believe that circumcision, like corporal punishment and infant swaddling, are archaic and arcane practices of a bygone era.

Let me ask you this, if we really do need radical lifestyle changes because of warming/cooling/watershortage/desertification whatever.... are you gonna vote for the guy that actually proposes changes or are you gonna vote for the guy who has a poster with "CHANGE" written on it and a few bandaid policies that keep everyone happy until the apocalypse?


I was going to vote for Gravel in the caucus, but we weren't anywhere near the 15% threshold required to get a delegate. So it boils down to Obama > Hillary > McCain.

>> ^MINK:
my point, darlings, is that Obama pretends to give a shit but his hands are tied. He can't ban meat pollution, even if it is the largest problem, because of the meat industry. He can't say "stop driving" because of the car industry and oil industry. So he says "fill up your tires" as if saying THAT will make a difference (it won't). You all applaud, as if applauding will make a difference (it won't).


That wasn't the point of his speech, the tyre thing was a simple question from an individual about what he could do personally to help the situation...

You're making the same mistake McCain and co. did, inferring that a part of energy policy is filling the tyres. It never was anything but a simple tip, but it drew the ignorant antagonists to him like flies to shit.

Ironic that you watched the video and still made the same mistake...


Let me ask you this, if we really do need radical lifestyle changes because of warming/cooling/watershortage/desertification whatever.... are you gonna vote for the guy that actually proposes changes or are you gonna vote for the guy who has a poster with "CHANGE" written on it and a few bandaid policies that keep everyone happy until the apocalypse?


Hah, or is everyone going to act locally while thinking globally without being led around by a figurehead like an ignorant herd of cattle on the way to said abbatoir...

Highly fucking unlikely imo... People hate change at the best of times, unless an emergency is waved in front of their noses, they don't want to know and/or change, usually until it's too late.

If you really do need a radical change in lifestyle it's going to be too fucking late to worry about who you're voting. Because odds on, you've been cloistered away from reality so long that when the change comes, it'll be too late to change and the candidate that wins will be the person that can facilitate your survival.

Note: You/your etc meaning the world and each nation in it, not directly at you Mink.

hi guys! seeing as the first thing i said was "is he going to say stop eating meat? No."... it's kinda weird that you are all repeating that back to me and upvoting it as if it's a counterargument.

you are so retarded you jump to a "attack" without reading what i wrote.

my point, darlings, is that Obama pretends to give a shit but his hands are tied. He can't ban meat pollution, even if it is the largest problem, because of the meat industry. He can't say "stop driving" because of the car industry and oil industry. So he says "fill up your tires" as if saying THAT will make a difference (it won't). You all applaud, as if applauding will make a difference (it won't).

Let me ask you this, if we really do need radical lifestyle changes because of warming/cooling/watershortage/desertification whatever.... are you gonna vote for the guy that actually proposes changes or are you gonna vote for the guy who has a poster with "CHANGE" written on it and a few bandaid policies that keep everyone happy until the apocalypse?

Thank for this sift. It would be fantastic to reclaim portions of desert.

Desertification is given as one of the reasons for Darfur.
I know that parts of China are becoming desert also with poor farming techniques also.