YOUR GARDEN IS NOT ORGANIC...

[uglybunny]

3rdtry? nah. I give up. who is uglybunny?

let's put this into perspective. the root of this question philosophy in general, a branch of which is modern science.

For anyone not familiar with the precautionary principle,

if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those who advocate taking the action.

Does everyone agree?

I agree, and I've posted scientific papers which provide evidence of broad scientific consensus.

 

[xmobotx]

the problem is that there are clear drawbacks to chem ferts and pesticides - w/ little apparent resistance (many don't even realize there's a distinction) this is worse when academic monsters advocate the chem as safe

it simply isn't safe nor sustainable

but there's definitely commercial interest in keeping the sheeple convinced that it is

 

[guest2012y]

Zorro?........yoooze guyz are funny in between these hardcore friendly debates.

 

[uglybunny]

the problem is that there are clear drawbacks to chem ferts and pesticides - w/ little apparent resistance (many don't even realize there's a distinction) this is worse when academic monsters advocate the chem as safe

it simply isn't safe nor sustainable

but there's definitely commercial interest in keeping the sheeple convinced that it is

You're going outside the realm of reality and into the realm of conspiracy theories if you think the scientists worldwide are conspiring to get people to buy more fertilizer and destroy the earth. These are people who dedicate their lives to finding the truth as best they can about how nature mechanistically works. There is an entire field of Biology dedicated to development of sustainable ecosystems -- its called Conservation Biology.

They're talking about truly revolutionary ideas such as the Rhizosphere priming effect, low and no-input high-output systems, and no-tillage systems.

I'll tell you where the real commercial interests lie, it is with the people who are trying to convince others that conventional soil management systems are the bane of the earth. They do this to lead people to believe you need to inoculate your soil with microbes, need to maintain certain oxygen levels to produce teas worth a damn, all of which leads to spending more money on "special" ACT brewers.

The truth is you don't need any of that crap, you just need a compost pile and a bucket of water. Takes more work, but you'll see similar benefits and it costs almost nothing.

 

[guest2012y]

I like the tea method. For me the results are almost immediately noticeable. It's easy,cheap,smells great,and it WORKS!
Again,there are so many ways to do this. What is best is really what is best for the individual who undertakes the responsibility to grow organic.

 

[mad librettist]

I agree, and I've posted scientific papers which provide evidence of broad scientific consensus.

that word, consensus - I don't think it means what you think it means.

from wiki:

Examples of non-consensus

The peer review process in most scientific journals does not use a consensus based process. Referees submit their opinions individually and there is not a strong effort to reach a group opinion.

evidence of consensus? what is that anyway? how are you defining consensus?

 

[uglybunny]

I'm not saying the review boards are the ones that are providing the consensus. The scientific community uses papers to have discussions with one another, the review boards are merely peer's that evaluate comments and decide which ones are worthy of publication.

The consensus comes when multiple papers show the same result. The paper I linked to includes many, many citations which you can also read if you have any doubts as to the validity of the author's assertions. Not only that, but MM's paper by Zuberer also reinforces my points. The Forge paper also provided by MM further builds upon the scientific consensus. It includes a large volume of citations as well. See, science is great. Anytime something seems fishy to you, you can read the source, and the source's source, and the source's source's source.

 

[mad librettist]

and yet I am not convinced...

maybe you could lay it all out for us, in layman's terms I can understand?

 

[Dignan]

Uncle Ben, madlib.

 

[uglybunny]

I have many times, perhaps you should reread this thread and the articles. Also, it should be of note, that abstracts of papers are written more for general consumption. They contain most of the relevant information in plain English, without going too much into detail.

 

[mad librettist]

I saw you convince yourself, but not me. You know how other people's opinions never make sense to you? that's how your opinions look to others.

convincing someone else is not so easy. Especially since we've accepted the precautionary principle. There is no scientific consensus on this is the right answer, btw. It's an area of dispute. That's probably why we are talking about it.

 

[guest2012y]

What's the #1 way to convince someone to grow organic? (starts the Jeopardy sound track)

 

[mad librettist]

promises of sex?

 

[growclean]

Telling them how great peruvian bird shit smells?

 

[guest2012y]

promises of sex?

That depends on how hip those girls are.....really though.
Smoke someones head out on your best organic herb,cook them a good organic meal,and give them a good organic beer or glass of wine.
They will only argue if you give them more beer or wine.

 

[mad librettist]

lol.

only the term was not damaged by the total shit at the grocery with an organic label slapped on.

 

[xmobotx]

You're going outside the realm of reality and into the realm of conspiracy theories if you think the scientists worldwide are conspiring to get people to buy more fertilizer and destroy the earth. These are people who dedicate their lives to finding the truth as best they can about how nature mechanistically works. There is an entire field of Biology dedicated to development of sustainable ecosystems -- its called Conservation Biology.

it's more like marketing strategy than conspiracy. are you saying no study has ever been done w/ objectives? how long did the tobacco industry try to hide the harmful nature of cigarettes?

They're talking about truly revolutionary ideas such as the Rhizosphere priming effect, low and no-input high-output systems, and no-tillage systems.

wonderful maybe some action too?

I'll tell you where the real commercial interests lie, it is with the people who are trying to convince others that conventional soil management systems are the bane of the earth. They do this to lead people to believe you need to inoculate your soil with microbes, need to maintain certain oxygen levels to produce teas worth a damn, all of which leads to spending more money on "special" ACT brewers.

The truth is you don't need any of that crap, you just need a compost pile and a bucket of water. Takes more work, but you'll see similar benefits and it costs almost nothing.

lol - some folks need a method spoon-fed to them and those products do fit a niche. MM isn't a millionaire -let alone billionaire and no threat to society or the earth. at least its a step in the right direction

BTW a compost pile and bucket of water describes my methods to a "t"

 

[uglybunny]

I saw you convince yourself, but not me. You know how other people's opinions never make sense to you? that's how your opinions look to others.

convincing someone else is not so easy. Especially since we've accepted the precautionary principle. There is no scientific consensus on this is the right answer, btw. It's an area of dispute. That's probably why we are talking about it.

No, we're talking about it because you refuse to accept that I've provided substantial evidence to support my point. I've provided you with another paper(it also has many, many citations btw) which allows you to overcome your caution due to the precautionary principle. It is not my responsibility to cater to you and spoon feed you information you could easily read yourself. I've already done the research for you and given you basic summaries of research provided, if you're not convinced I've done a good job do your own. The onus is on you, I've done what I can.

 

[mad librettist]

I refuse to accept "substancial evidence" because I am applying the stricter standard you agreed to - scientific consensus.

the burden is on you, remember? you agreed to that. I'm not as selfless as microbeman, passing out studies to flesh out your conception of soil life. I'm content with stopping at first principles if the idea does not pass.

 

[uglybunny]

it's more like marketing strategy than conspiracy. are you saying no study has ever been done w/ objectives? how long did the tobacco industry try to hide the harmful nature of cigarettes?

Of course I'm not saying studies exist without bias. Another added benefit of the peer reviewed system is that the reviewers can also be reviewed. Questions can be asked like: Who provided money for the study? Who funds the journal which published the study? Do the reviewers have competing research interests? There is a strict ethical code, and a violation can be devastating for one's career.

For example, the famed MDMA study which showed decreased serotonin levels in the brain, and neurotoxicity was totally discredited after it was found the lead researcher accidentally injected his mice with Meth( instead of MDMA) and gave them a dose equivalent to many times normal human dosage. Instead of owning up to his mistake he tried to cover it up and was eventually caught.

My point is that, there are systems in place to deal with shill scientists.