with less effort
we will still deviate, in part from the subject, but good!
you forget history too quickly
science was never intended primarily to make money, Archimedes allowed the future development of the flotation of heavier than water, he did not work for the lobby of maritime transport, the first mower daisies had only Icarus' dream in mind, Hippocrates did not charge exorbitant fees
after having abolished the nobility and the divine right for the power, it was necessary to find another system to hierarchize the society, the bourgeoisie replaced the nobility, the power of the money to replace the power of the church, base of the divine right
Until then okay! But this is only a small part of history!
So as much as we used to do science for science and therefore for the good of society, as much science has become a way of making money, we should not throw stones at science but at scientists who are eager for power and that's our very recent history, to reject science because of the drift of some is to throw a stone at all those who still work for the good of humanity
Always okay !
you say that if we do the accounts, science does not have a positive balance sheet, do the account of all the people dead because of certain diseases and contrast the number of deaths by vaccination and you will see in which direction the balance will tip, the first factor of population increase is the advancement of science, if science was so bad why are we more than 6 billion?
And off we go for a ride!
So I will answer it in the dedicated subject, not here!
if we replace conventional farming with organic farming, we are not feeding the planet, so so that you can eat well how much should you leave to starve?
Completely wrong! The agriculture formula already
conventional is particularly unsuitable, even usurped. Conventional agriculture is that which has survived the centuries (it is the same stuffing of the skull as for vaccines) At the end of the war this argument was widely used (partly rightly) given the state of agricultural situation, which is the case of all after wars besides. But 100 years ago, even ¾ of a century for the second "world" war, the times, the circumstances and the means have changed since: no?
Behind the pretension of feeding the world, there are immense “American” financial interests which are to the detriment of the poor countries exploited and drowned by these imported products at such low cost that it is no longer worth it for these populations. to work the land to feed on it and we talked about self-centeredness.
https://journals.openedition.org/aof/4283Like getting condensed milk, rather than breastfeeding and it's non-limiting, but not lucrative. (And I'm not going to tell me that scientifically, condensed milk is better than breast milk!)
So, on the contrary, organic food reduces pollution in all its aspects, does not require destroying entire forests (from poor countries to rich countries), avoids toxic chemicals, revives the earth (you are with interest Did 67 more than organic attendance)
and is more nutritious than industrially forced products, tasteless and especially poor in vital nutrients, generators of cancer and other consequences.
when you can go buy organic, drink spring water, do not get vaccinated because behind you know you can count on an efficient health system it is a comfortable life, in some countries the population eats GMOs, drinks water far below our drinking standards when there is, and sometimes has the chance to benefit from a small dispensary and vaccinations that prevent them from dying
You see you still mix everything and hence this confusion.
In most poor countries, water pollution is either chemical (low cost Asian or African industry), or organic by pollution coming from the rubbish of garbage and natural biological eliminations (shit in clear) which pollute well water.
No vaccine will ever replace drinking water! So lack of hygiene and polluted waters = diseases and pseudo vaccines; drinking water, proper hygiene = no diseases and therefore unnecessary vaccines.
The dispensaries provide hygiene care and conditions which go far beyond any vaccination which the populations do not really need, but hygiene and sufficient and quality food: yes! The tetanus vaccine will not prevent these populations walking barefoot and infecting their feet without proper care from entering the body.
So to say that this is good or this is bad, it's easy in a country where you have the choice, but see a little further.
Exactly see a little further! Even countries that believed in the vaccine miracle are backing off because of the serious side effects hidden by the labs, which are proving to be dramatic. It is also necessary to take into account the fact that these countries are not producers of vaccines (quasi American-French monopoly) and therefore less interested in this business, which costs them dearly, and which are therefore more attentive to the real health of their population.
my father refused to eat Jerusalem artichokes 60 years later, too many bad memories of his childhood under the occupation when there was only that to eat, some ate rat to survive, now we serve Jerusalem artichokes in starred restaurants like a luxury dish,
More confusion, a mixture without link or relationship.
I am a child of "war" where, in the cities, there was almost nothing to eat and what was available would have disgusted a pig, including Jerusalem artichokes. The old people refused, after the war, to eat wholemeal bread because they reminded them too much of these breads which contained as much sawdust, wheat husk, rather than real flour and were surprised, after the war, then the resurgence of constipation obstinate and pathologies including cancers, linked to the lack of fiber in fine white bread which provides cardiovascular disease (hyper alpha 2 hemogliasis)
I had to receive Indian people from India who I thought I would like to give them whole rice (well my wife), which we usually eat. They refused to eat it, considering themselves insulted by food intended only for the poor, the untouchables, unable to afford good white rice; generator of beri beri (for exclusive consumption by some), these are the hidden effects which do not appear until late. [*] [*]
we have teenagers who lecture their comrades because they wear leather in the name of animal welfare.
It is a reaction that seems abnormal, excessive, but (by lived experience and still I was an armored adult,) I could not count all the mockery, jokes that still persist obviously, vis-à-vis the eaters of herbs. To survive, populations had to protect themselves from the outside environment, from the cold, and resort to the skin of corpses. Are we, in our country, in these particular conditions of survival? No ! Other means are available without resorting to killing another form of life that resembles us: Cotton, linen, wool, etc.
Do fashion, culture, habits, trade justify the use of this means?
All those who live on these useless deaths will say: yes of course! but are they ethically correct? There it is doubtful!
[*] the other "forgotten" aspect that some will call a conspiracy theory is that America could not experience in real dimension (not on animals) the effect of its bombs on the human population in sufficient quantity to measure the long-term effects. (same thing for Chernobyl: see the crime of Chernobyl) yes, humans are also excellent guinea pigs!
[*] [*] so when the heat engine develops without which there would be no aviation for example, nobody thinks of pollution, the greenhouse effect, or global warming, directly or indirectly.
"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
Is that what glyphosate does?
