Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Environment & Energy

wtmusic

(39,166 posts)

18. Let's ask Nick.

Reply to pscot (Reply #16)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 10:51 AM

Apr 2013

Either he supports feeding people who are hungry - in which case nitrogen fixation is a miracle - or he doesn't. Not a lot of room in between.

Which begs the question - who deserves to eat? And since we're writing off 30 million people/year, should we not at least euthanize them on humanitarian grounds?

Let's cut to the chase.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

21 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Nitrogen fertilizer is bad stuff — and not just because it could blow up your town [View all] xchrom Apr 2013 OP

The bad news can be overwhelming sometimes bloomington-lib Apr 2013 #1

It takes first-world blinders to see nitrogen fixation (Haber process) as anything but a miracle. wtmusic Apr 2013 #2

It is what made it possible to grow our population to 7+ billion NickB79 Apr 2013 #4

Actually sex is what made it possible. wtmusic Apr 2013 #5

So how have the other population controls worked out? NickB79 Apr 2013 #7

Wrong. wtmusic Apr 2013 #9

In 1978, China had 950 million people NickB79 Apr 2013 #10

The effect of China's program was one out of every two births was prevented. wtmusic Apr 2013 #11

Yes, it has been wildly successful NickB79 Apr 2013 #12

You would be willing to let members of your family starve to support this goal wtmusic Apr 2013 #13

An appeal to emotion fallacy NickB79 Apr 2013 #14

No, it isn't. wtmusic Apr 2013 #15

That's unfair pscot Apr 2013 #16

Let's ask Nick. wtmusic Apr 2013 #18

The thing is, Supply constraints may not be negotiable pscot Apr 2013 #19

so you're saying there is no environmental damage from nitrogen pollution? CreekDog Apr 2013 #8

nitrogen is not "green" wet.hen88 Apr 2013 #3

Meanwhile we send all our urine down the drain. eom roody Apr 2013 #6

I get it. ConcernedCanuk Apr 2013 #21

Unless you like starvation, it's wonderful stuff n/t Yo_Mama Apr 2013 #17

national geographic article wet.hen88 Apr 2013 #20