It's rather difficult to fallow an orchard...
Note that those orchards took years to grow, and were grown in the first place because annual crops, like tomatoes and melons, weren't nearly as profitable. If you had worked as a responsible citizen to prop up legislation meant to curtail orchard growth in favor more flexible annuals, perhaps almonds wouldn't present a noticeable draw on water today. Or maybe if you had agreed to pay higher prices for annuals, farmers wouldn't have been incentivized to grow almonds in the first place. At this point, though, it's exceedingly unfair to tell farmers that they just need to forfeit years of effort and expenses to satisfy the water demands of people like you. I mean, can you really blame farmers for planting more profitable crops when nobody raised any objections?
By the way, another way to end the California water crisis would be for people like you to leave. Oh, don't like that suggestion?
In my experience, higher-ups for mergers like this aren't afraid to cut until it hurts, then hire back later (if absolutely necessary).
Similar to how you probably wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) use Uber to transport a VIP, you wouldn't use Uber's product service to transport high-value, hard to replace goods. Instead, this service would be useful for goods which are readily replaceable, and just need to get from A to B. If something happens on the first attempt, you reroute with a 2nd attempt, deliver the good, and get reimbursed for the good that was lost. They'd essentially be treating goods as packets, and I'd think that could work pretty well for several cases, but certainly not cases that the service wasn't designed to accommodate.
It's just like those "scientific" crazies to attempt to convince good, skeptical geocentrists that the Earth actually revolves around the sun, right? I mean, there's tons of evidence to support a geocentric view, and Captain Janeway even narrated a documentary about it. Given the community of geocentrists thriving in the face of supposed evidence to the contrary, clearly, the "science" of heliocentrism is really just another religion in disguise.
Seriously, why was this marked insightful? Maybe the mods confused insight with incite?
Ok, a few points:
1) "overwhelming scientific evidence" applies to my mention of vaccines and evolution. My point, obviously lost on you, is that people who reject such knowledge despite mountains of data and cross validation will dismiss a study regarding genetic modification outright; the substance of the study will be rejected without even any examination.
2) "impossible to prove a negative" applies in any scenario, not just safety regarding genetically modified crops. For example, you can't prove with absolute certainty that there isn't a link between vaccines and autism, but you can show, through widespread observation and statistical analysis, that such a link appears to be incredibly unlikely.
The point of the article, which you seem to have ignored, is that ingestion of genetically modified crops has been studied for quite some time, across multiple generations of livestock, by multiple independent groups (24 of them) with no apparent ill effects. This situation is very similar to vaccines in that there is a significant benefit of genetically modified crops (e.g. increased yields and pest resistance), and little in the way of substantial drawbacks (besides being politically incorrect, of course). Being that you seem to fall into the category of "I don't care what's said, I'm right you're wrong" I know this point probably means nothing to you, but you're welcome to scrutinize the 24 studies mentioned.
3) I know you're just trying to troll, but I'm always up for more education. Since you know so much about what I do or do not know, could you please point me at the peer reviewed articles that fill in my knowledge gaps? I'm especially interested in those articles which dispassionately enumerate the observed and measured (not just theoretical) risks associated with genetically engineered crops, and which examine the projected costs of such risks (not just monetarily, of course) relative to benefits. Thanks.
perhaps this study will help to ease the fears of genetically engineered food and foster a more scientific discussion on the role of agricultural biotechnology
Yeah, because people who reject vaccines and evolution despite overwhelming scientific evidence are going to suddenly embrace reason concerning genetically modified crops. If anything, this study will somehow reinforce their views. Already, I see others on
So, I can assume that you'll be volunteering to be spayed/neutered and, if you already have kids, volunteering them as well, right? Can I also assume that you'll be forgoing vaccinations and any medical treatments developed in the past 100 years? Regarding population control, every little bit counts. Do your part.
I know that you were half-joking with your statement, but only half, and, like most everyone else making such statements, probably believe that you're somehow entitled to propagation and a comfortable lifestyle while the rest of us are not. They have a word (well several, actually) for people making statements like yours.
I wasn't aware that the entertainment industry was a scientific establishment.
As has been said, science doesn't presume absolute truth; if a scientific theory is questionable, one can always attempt to disprove it and offer a different explanation. Scientists understand this and, though they may initially view your competing explanation with serious skepticism, they will accept it if it does indeed agree with reality more than a prior theory.
I'd suspect that most of those in the entertainment industry are more politically motivated than scientifically motivated. On this particular subject (global warming), they may be on the more scientifically accepted side than you, but that doesn't make their stance or arguments scientific.