Random trivia

Conor said:
Was it somebody who came up with a cure for a disease?
Click to expand...

My guess would be Alexander Fleming, for his discovery of Penicillin.  But I don't think that Antibiotics have saved that many lives, especially considering that the deaths that can be attributed to the tyrants Duke mentionned are nearly into the billions.
 
Raven said:
My guess would be Alexander Fleming, for his discovery of Penicillin.  But I don't think that Antibiotics have saved that many lives, especially considering that the deaths that can be attributed to the tyrants Duke mentionned are nearly into the billions.
Click to expand...
Duke also said the guy is alive today.

Could it have been someone who had warned people of a natural disaster? This thing about direct action, is this just one action he took (i.e. warned) or was it a series of actions (like creating a warning system)?
 
Yes, the person is still alive.
And no, the person didn't warn people of a disaster. The exact figure of lives saved is estimated by UN agencies to be around 1,000,000,000 (one billion, with a f**king B)

Good guesses though.
 
OK, this is staring to sound like the yes/no thinking game.

By the fact that he has saved lives in the countries you mentioned and the fact that Greenpeace hate him, is he credited with doing something to help people in these countries and in doing so upset the ecobalance? Could it be helping these people to build shelter, for example, whilst encroaching on local wildlife? Or could he be killing/eliminating local animals/insects/etc. (and possibly endangering them at the same time) that are potential human killers? Basically, it sounds like this guy spares the human but not the animal or ecosystem.

If any of this is correct, it may not help me - but it may jig someone else's memory and, hopefully, answer the question.
 
ABandOn said:
Norman Borlaugh, the father of the "Green Revolution"?  :)
Click to expand...

We have a winner! Dr. Norman Borlaug is the researcher who developed new strains of rice, wheat, and corn which increased productivity and yeilds per acre by up to 6x. His timely interventions averted famines in Mexico, Africa, India, and China during the 1950s-70s. It is estimated that roughly 1,000,000,000 peple would've died from hunger without his research (both in the lab and in the field).  He was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 for his efforts, and continues to use genetics to develop crops which feed ever more people.

Because he's the father of the GM Food movement, many environmentalists (from rich countries where food is plentiful and cheap) think he's an evil evil man.
 
IronDuke said:
Because he's the father of the GM Food movement, many environmentalists (from rich countries where food is plentiful and cheap) think he's an evil evil man.
Click to expand...

Not wanting to provoke an argument, but it's been African countries that rejected buying American GM seeds four or five years ago.  -_-
 
Perun said:
Not wanting to provoke an argument, but it's been African countries that rejected buying American GM seeds four or five years ago.  -_-
Click to expand...

Because American and European environmental activists convinced the leaders of those countries that GM seeds were evil. Green Peace told them lies beyond lies - that GM wheat, for example, was carcinogenic; and that GM foods have caused birth defects. They didn't seem to care that starving people would've had food - they just wanted to push their own agenda and try to get countries to reject them so they'd have political clout in Western nations.
 
IronDuke said:
Because American and European environmental activists convinced the leaders of those countries that GM seeds were evil. Green Peace told them lies beyond lies - that GM wheat, for example, was carcinogenic; and that GM foods have caused birth defects. They didn't seem to care that starving people would've had food - they just wanted to push their own agenda and try to get countries to reject them so they'd have political clout in Western nations.
Click to expand...

There is no need for GM seeds in Africa at the moment. The problems are drought and failure of distribution.
 
Umm, no.
Africa, for the most part, lacks arable land in quantities enough to feed its population using traditional seeds. The deserts are expanding, populations sky-rocketing, and a lot of what good land there is has been ruined by improper practices or rendered unusable due to war.

And in drought conditions, wouldn't it make sense to try to squeeze as much yeild per acre as you can out of the areas which do get enough rain? Hence the need for GM crops.

I doubt you and I, Per, in Germany and Canada, will ever know hunger like millions in Africa know each day of their lives. UNtil we do, I don't think we, or anyone from our countries, have any right to tell them to grow less food when we know there's a way to grow more.

I really don't see what the big deal with GM foods are - humans have been selectively breeding crops for thousands of years to get better outputs. Why do you think modern corn cobs are 10x bigger than the maize originally cultivated in Mexico? Why are apples bigger, juicier, and sweeter than their wild cousins? Why are bovines docile and slow but the aurochs were mean, fast, and snarly? It's what we do. We're not talking about putting pig genes into tomatoes here, we're talking about enhancing properties already present in plants by manipulating their structure. I
 
IronDuke said:
I really don't see what the big deal with GM foods are - humans have been selectively breeding crops for thousands of years to get better outputs.
Click to expand...

Dukey, I could just hug you and kiss you and... well, no. Maybe I wouldn't go that far.  ::)

Anyway, thanks for supporting biotech!  :ok:
 
(Sorry Forostar)

Just one last comment, Duke. Last year, the Kenyan harvest was big enough to comfortably feed the entire population. While in the southern parts of the country the granaries were bursting, the north was starving.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top