> I wasn't talking about 1950 and neither were you previously, so let's not shift focus.
I actually was. I said that hunger has decreased since the 1960s, and that was due to things like automation and chemistry - which means things like pesticides - so the 1950s would have been what things looked like before these changes were made, and when the UN official says
>“Using more pesticides is nothing to do with getting rid of hunger. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), we are able to feed 9 billion people today. Production is definitely increasing, but the problem is poverty, inequality and distribution.”
He's talking about using more pesticides than now.
> They do and will reduce it by 50%
Good. No reason to use chemicals that aren't necessary. The problem is, many people across the world have a fundamental lack of understanding on whether pesticides are necessary at all. There are people who think that you can do that, and if you don't show that to not be the case, they'll try it, and people will literally starve.
... which goes back to the point that I made earlier about the lack of the understanding on the bargain we make with these things.
I actually was. I said that hunger has decreased since the 1960s, and that was due to things like automation and chemistry - which means things like pesticides - so the 1950s would have been what things looked like before these changes were made, and when the UN official says
>“Using more pesticides is nothing to do with getting rid of hunger. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), we are able to feed 9 billion people today. Production is definitely increasing, but the problem is poverty, inequality and distribution.”
He's talking about using more pesticides than now.
> They do and will reduce it by 50%
Good. No reason to use chemicals that aren't necessary. The problem is, many people across the world have a fundamental lack of understanding on whether pesticides are necessary at all. There are people who think that you can do that, and if you don't show that to not be the case, they'll try it, and people will literally starve.
... which goes back to the point that I made earlier about the lack of the understanding on the bargain we make with these things.
> Not sure why you are so apologetic there.
I wasn't?