Janic wrote: ...
Everything that human beings can eat, in harmony with their physiology, has been tried since the dawn of humanity and what has proven toxic has been listed from generation to generation ...
Free affirmation and quibbles. For example, treatments can make things that are not initially edible, and this can evolve with knowledge and techniques. I do not see why I should deprive myself of red-footed boletus or golmots, on the pretext that they are toxic raw.
It's a good one there!
In the discourse on evolution, in which you are obliged to piously believe, it is said (rather supposed) that hominids did not invent fire like that, by miracle, and therefore until then, they did like the others animals, that is to say eating raw and, no bowl, every time they ate red boletus or golmottes, they snapped. But, it is well known, as they were stupid as brooms (or any other stupid instrument) they continued to work for millions of years and even after this time, they still did not understand that c was poison. Nazes the guys we are supposed to be descendants of! But by dint of persistence, they persisted, "
and if we invented fire, it would cook them which would remove their toxicity (the beginning of science!) and Eureka, it worked !
We really take people for dummies!
Finally you answer literally about the cabbage, and not to the spirit that brought it on the carpet, forgetting the subject like a goldfish the landscape after a round of jar, which was your mistake of consistent reasoning to suggest that what is not necessary (in your opinion, like glyphosate) should be prohibited.
Another prose empty of meaning and intellectual rigor. You talk about cabbage, I say cabbage as a good materialist as you like them. When in mind it's not your cup of tea usually, then hard to believe that you are interested in it. (You see the goldfish remembers something)
Now this!
was your rationale for suggesting that what is not necessary (in your opinion, like glyphosate) should be prohibited.
I don't seem to have said anything like that! My infinite tolerance towards others is not for the forbidden, any more than for the obligations. Using reason, near and far human history should be enough to encourage reflection on what is wise or reasonable to do and what can be harmful or dangerous (like vaccines obviously)
Regarding glyphosate, I am not a chemist, nor the farmers either, but the damage caused by various products considered in their time as safe (by exle DDT) led States to consider the principle of precaution as major and imperative and no longer expect disasters on future generations (but some states do not care completely.) So if the French state has recognized
also its dangerousness and decided to withdraw, in the short term, this product, it is up to him to answer you. Personally, I consider that all synthetic products (including glyphosate and not necessarily the worst actually) are harmful to human health, but more generally for the living (is it not its function to destroy plant life?)
There remains effectively the problem of farmers who are already in financial difficulty, but only following the agricultural system which devalued agriculture by strangling these professionals, but it is above all the responsibility of political leaders (who are generally under pressure from financiers and industrial lobbies) reluctant to take into consideration the fate of the individuals concerned, not only the producers but also the consumers exploited by the merchant lobbies. Our national ecologist has come to realize that all his efforts to change something have been and will be in vain.
Times are changing, the tide is changing, the AB yesterday decried, vilified, is currently becoming the top of the top and everyone is getting started and we come to wonder how all the adversaries who have become supporters of the BIO today, without dyes, without pesticides, without preservatives, etc… find their products when the policy and the finance prevented as much as possible, the emergence of this cultural way more respectful of the life… Mystery!
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré