Green super rice is coming

Jan 15, 2011

Rice bred to perform well in the toughest conditions where the poorest farmers grow rice is a step away from reaching farmers thanks to a major project led by the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences and the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI).

Green Super is actually a mix of more than 250 different potential rice varieties and hybrids variously adapted to difficult growing conditions such as and low inputs, including no pesticide and less , and with rapid establishment rates to out-compete , thus reducing the need for herbicides. More types of Green Super Rice that combine many of these traits are in the pipeline.

As reported in the latest issue of Rice Today, Green Super Rice is already in the hands of national agricultural agencies in key rice-growing countries for testing and development.

Green Super Rice is an example of what is needed as part of a "Greener Revolution," which is called for by rice scientists around the world and is one of the driving concepts behind the Global Rice Science Partnership (GRiSP) – a plan to improve international partnerships in rice research, its delivery, and impact that would also ensure that rice is grown in an environmentally sustainable way.

With the theme Rice for Future Generations, the 3rd International Rice Congress held in November last year was the perfect venue for the launch of GRiSP. Incredible sharing of rice research and ideas occurred, which Rice Today features in a suite of stories outlining some of the highlights and activities of the event that was attended by more than 1,900 people.

Our Grain of Truth article links Latin America in with GRiSP, highlighting the benefits of sharing expertise and experiences, while in Africa we learn about how improving the quality of rice is critical to reducing the continent's rice imports.

In our mapping section, we see how much yield and yield stability have improved since the 1960s – and also notice how much room for improvement remains.

IRRI's rodent experts, headed by Dr. Grant Singleton, take us on a journey to the northern Philippines to discover both "good" and "bad" rat species. And, we see how they are working with a local community to adopt practices to help reduce rat damage in rice crops – in 2010, rats destroyed between 30% and 50% of the rice crop there.

India is our country profile this issue and we take a look at some rice awareness-raising activities in Singapore. Meanwhile, IRRI's senior economist Dr. Samarendu Mohanty observes the recent fluctuations of rice prices and suggests that freeing up the market and creating a strategic rice reserve would help keep rice prices stable in the long term.

Finally, it is a pleasant surprise to see that nine World Food Prize laureates have had a connection with IRRI – a reminder that rice science is having an impact where it really matters.

Explore further: The origin of the language of life

Provided by International Rice Research Institute

4.8 /5 (10 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Arkansas rice farmers file a lawsuit

Aug 30, 2006

A group of Arkansas rice farmers has filed a state lawsuit against Bayer CropScience and Riceland Foods Inc., concerning genetically modified rice.

Rice research pays off big

Dec 17, 2005

Rice research leading to new and improved varieties resulted in some in farmers being lifted from poverty in China and India, a study shows.

Water-stingy agriculture reduces arsenic in rice markedly

Jul 28, 2008

A new farming method first developed to conserve precious irrigation water may have the added benefit of producing rice containing much less arsenic than rice grown using traditional rice-farming methods, researchers in the ...

Climate change threatens rice production

Oct 16, 2009

Once-in-a-lifetime floods in the Philippines, India's delayed monsoon, and extensive drought in Australia are taking their toll on this year's rice crops, demonstrating the vulnerability of rice to extreme weather.

Recommended for you

The origin of the language of life

22 hours ago

The genetic code is the universal language of life. It describes how information is encoded in the genetic material and is the same for all organisms from simple bacteria to animals to humans. However, the ...

Quest to unravel mysteries of our gene network

Dec 18, 2014

There are roughly 27,000 genes in the human body, all but a relative few of them connected through an intricate and complex network that plays a dominant role in shaping our physiological structure and functions.

EU court clears stem cell patenting

Dec 18, 2014

A human egg used to produce stem cells but unable to develop into a viable embryo can be patented, the European Court of Justice ruled on Thursday.

User comments : 84

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Doug_Huffman
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 15, 2011
Uh oh! Another GMO for starving third world Luddites to eschew upon. That the genetic manipulation was by sloow traditional methods is falsifiably moot. Either it is GM or it is not GM.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 15, 2011
What kind of rice is it?
Indians don't eat the same type of rice as SE Asians.
Moebius
2 / 5 (10) Jan 15, 2011
Falsifiably moot? There is a big difference between natural genetic modification of and from plant genes and inserting an insect gene into an edible plant. It isn't the same to breed plants for genetic modification and inserting genes manually. I'm no Luddite and I don't want to eat artificially GM food. Instead of doing this to feed the starving masses, reduce our population to a sustainable level. Our species and this planet can NOT survive at our current population level, let alone 10 billion. If there were 1 billion people on this planet we would not be able to affect the climate or ecology no matter how we live and there would be no starvation, no shortage of resources, oil would last essentially forever, power would be no problem and war would be unnecessary instead of a way of life. Most of our problems would disappear instead of steadily getting worse. There is probably a direct relationship between all our problems and our population level and our population is growing.
frajo
4 / 5 (8) Jan 15, 2011
The main point in this story is the absence of profit greedy organisms like those who force the farmers to buy seed which cannot yield new seeds and thereby make them dependent on their dealers.
Good news.
geokstr
2 / 5 (12) Jan 15, 2011
Instead of doing this to feed the starving masses, reduce our population to a sustainable level.

Hmmmm...

I got excoriated by the leftists on this site for daring to suggest that the left was for population control to save Gaia, yet, in thread after thread, this gets proposed by another greenie and/or leftist (but I repeat myself).

And exactly how would you do that, in any kind of time frame that would make a difference - Soylent Green, perhaps?

As a matter of fact, the Western world is already voluntarily (at least the already adult members) are committing population seppuku. (Read anything on demographics by country.) The US is still (barely) reproducing at replacement rates, all the rest are cycling downwards.

But leftist hearts will be warmed to know that the Religion of Perpetual Outrage is still reproducing at prodigious rates. Soon they will reign. (Don't let their penchant for killing gays & unbelievers & enslaving women & marrying preteen girls bother you.)
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (8) Jan 15, 2011
But leftist hearts will be warmed to know that the Religion of Perpetual Outrage is still reproducing at prodigious rates.
The various Christian Fundamentalist sects are the ones with the highest growth rates. The majority of the growth of Islam is comming from the more moderate muslim groups like the Sufis.

I think you need to get a grip on that anger of yours towards Islam. The few wackos don't paint a picture of the 1 billion person populace, just as I don't judge you by Fred Phelps model.
Archetype
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 15, 2011
Instead of doing this to feed the starving masses, reduce our population to a sustainable level. Our species and this planet can NOT survive at our current population level, let alone 10 billion.


Moebius I do not believe it is the population that is our problem, the world has more than enough recources to sustain a huge population. It is the corporations that hold sway over governments that hold us back. I mean if we ran on pure renewable energy and used multi storied hydroponic facilities to grow crops i dont see a real problem. But oil and gas companies exist, and they hold great power...
Quantum_Conundrum
4 / 5 (9) Jan 15, 2011
If there were 1 billion people on this planet we would not be able to affect the climate or ecology no matter how we live and there would be no starvation, no shortage of resources, oil would last essentially forever, power would be no problem and war would be unnecessary instead of a way of life. Most of our problems would disappear instead of steadily getting worse. There is probably a direct relationship between all our problems and our population level and our population is growing.


I take it you don't know much about history.

The amount of wars in the middle east and europe throughout history is mind boggling, and the vast majority of it happened before modern times.

World pop at WWI was 1/4 what it is now, and population during WW2 was 1/3 of what it is now.

Then you figure go back even farther in history to the American Civil war, hundred years wars, and all the wars of europe and the middle east for thousands of years when world population was so much smaller
Quantum_Conundrum
2.4 / 5 (8) Jan 15, 2011
Population has very little to do with war or crime in and of itself.

Evil people cause wars and crimes, not "population" itself.

The maximum theoretically sustainable population of humans on earth, based on available solar energy, is at least an order of magnitude higher than current world population, and at U.S. living standards (adjusted to fix what's broken with consumerism to a reasonable amount of reuse and recycling).
geokstr
1.3 / 5 (13) Jan 15, 2011
The various Christian Fundamentalist sects are the ones with the highest growth rates. The majority of the growth of Islam is comming from the more moderate muslim groups like the Sufis.

Not only are you a liar, but you are exceptionally ignorant of population demographics as well.

But welcome your new Muslim masters. Maybe they'll kill you last.
Moebius
2.7 / 5 (10) Jan 15, 2011
Population was less in the past, but so was the available resources. That argument doesn't hold water.

Unfortunately, I will have to be proven right the hard way, that's human nature.

Our population will be self-limiting, we don't HAVE to do anything. The problem is the self-limiting will be extremely harsh and while the human race may survive it, we may not survive it as a technological species.

The only way we can reduce our population is voluntarily. That isn't going to happen anytime soon. Too many stupid people who think it's a right to be able to reproduce as much as they want.

There is a simple test to determine if many things are right or wrong. Just ask the question would be OK for everyone to do it. If the answer is no it's probably wrong. For example, having 10 kids. Would it be OK if everyone had 10 kids? To most people the answer is obviously no. That makes it wrong in my book. If the question was asked 500 years ago the answer would have been yes, it isn't yes anymore
Moebius
1 / 5 (4) Jan 15, 2011
Population has very little to do with war or crime in and of itself.

Evil people cause wars and crimes, not "population" itself)....


Really, compare the crime rate in Wyoming to California.

Yes, evil people cause war and crime. If the population was 1 billion, 5 out of 6 of those evil people would be gone.

5 out of 6 arsonists would be gone. 5 out of 6 child molesters would be gone. 5 out of 6 murderers would be gone. 5 out of 6 rapists would be gone. 5 out of 6 Taliban would be gone. 5 out of 6 penis eating Chinese would be gone. 5 out of 6 forest burning Brazilians would be gone. 5 out of 6 climate skeptics would be gone. 5 out of 6 stupid people would be gone.

On the bright side, since intelligent people already limit their reproduction, 5 out of 6 of them wouldn't be gone.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 15, 2011
Really, compare the crime rate in Wyoming to California.

That says more about the quality, not the quantity of people.
People in WY know how to live in the cold and to be independent.
CA is not known for needing rugged individuals to survive. It is much easier to exploit and use people when you don't need them to survive the -30F winters.
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (2) Jan 16, 2011
The Earth could easily support much more people than we have today. There are more people that are obese than undernourished. These are facts.

The only reason why this is not the case is that those people that contribute nothing to society (and in return, get nothing back, including food) reproduce the most. This needs to be stopped if we ever want to live in balance with our needs and available resources. Population control is the answer.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jan 16, 2011
Population control is the answer.

How do you plan to implement?
Maybe a good first step is for those who advocate for population control should sterilize themselves or give Dr. Kevorkian a call.
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (2) Jan 16, 2011
Population control is the answer.

How do you plan to implement?
Maybe a good first step is for those who advocate for population control should sterilize themselves or give Dr. Kevorkian a call.


China practices large-scale population control, so I would want something similar implemented, but focused also on restricting the procreation of undesirable elements in society, and the world as a whole.

I am ready to abide by such population control laws myself, I am not a hypocrite.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jan 16, 2011
I am ready to abide by such population control laws myself, I am not a hypocrite.

Why do you need a law to practice this yourself?
It' like the socialists Buffet, Gates, John Heinz Kerry, .... who want to force everyone to pay more in taxes, but they refuse to donate more money to the govt.

As is well documented, the best way to lower fertility rates is to improve the standard of living. The well proven method to improve the standard of living is to promote liberty and property rights, in stark contrast to the state tyranny required to control everyone's reproductive system.
Maybe you prefer the Heinlein way: citizenship must be earned. Only citizens can obtain a license to reproduce. And then you must be prepared for govt search and destroy missions to weed out illegal people.
AaronOliver
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 16, 2011
China practices large-scale population control, so I would want something similar implemented, but focused also on restricting the procreation of undesirable elements in society, and the world as a whole.


Well, if anyone with these policy solutions comes to power, I am going to have to ask you to march down to the nearest military recruiting office, as it sounds like you're going to need a blunt instrument to impose your 'solutions' onto the free peoples of the world.
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (2) Jan 16, 2011
Why do you need a law to practice this yourself?


To force others to practice it, of course.

As is well documented, the best way to lower fertility rates is to improve the standard of living. The well proven method to improve the standard of living is to promote liberty and property rights, in stark contrast to the state tyranny required to control everyone's reproductive system.


Indeed, I fully agree with this. Economic liberty and property rights are essential for economic prosperity and high standard of living. But population control also helps to increase standard of living, so why not have that, too? Standard of living is often sabotaged by increased procreation of the poor, because change in number of children due to higher wealth lags behind change in mortality due to better healthcare and acces to food etc. Google "demographic trap".

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jan 16, 2011
But population control also helps to increase standard of living

Romania practiced your population control in the 60s. They were so effective the dictator was worried there were too few people. The govt banned contraceptive devices and abortions and did nothing to improve the economy because it was a communist dictatorship.
Your population control methods will require a similar state tyranny to implement. Liberty and prosperity die under such tyranny.
Which do you prefer, population control and tyranny or liberty and prosperity?
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (2) Jan 16, 2011
But population control also helps to increase standard of living

Romania practiced your population control in the 60s. They were so effective the dictator was worried there were too few people. The govt banned contraceptive devices and abortions and did nothing to improve the economy because it was a communist dictatorship.
Your population control methods will require a similar state tyranny to implement. Liberty and prosperity die under such tyranny.
Which do you prefer, population control and tyranny or liberty and prosperity?


Such population control measures can be implemented even democratically, I fail to see why tyranny would be required for it. Just a few stories of welfare mothers with lots of babies or overcrowded ghettos, and substantial part of population will agree with it. Even you have not put up any good argument against it yet.
frajo
4 / 5 (4) Jan 16, 2011
Instead of doing this to feed the starving masses, reduce our population to a sustainable level.
Hmmmm...

I got excoriated by the leftists on this site for daring to suggest that the left was for population control to save Gaia, yet, in thread after thread, this gets proposed by another greenie and/or leftist
Your quote was from a torture proponent. That's absolutely incompatibel with a left conviction.
And the greenies are a very mixed population. Here in Europe, they are more rigth than left. They German greenies were the loudest promoters of the aggression war against Yugoslavia.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jan 16, 2011
Such population control measures can be implemented even democratically, I fail to see why tyranny would be required for it.

What if people don't want to be restricted?
So you support mob rule? 51% can force 49% to limit the number of children they can have? Again, how would you force those 49% to comply and not violate their basic human rights?
Decimatus
5 / 5 (1) Jan 16, 2011
Instead of doing this to feed the starving masses, reduce our population to a sustainable level.
Hmmmm...

I got excoriated by the leftists on this site for daring to suggest that the left was for population control to save Gaia, yet, in thread after thread, this gets proposed by another greenie and/or leftist
Your quote was from a torture proponent. That's absolutely incompatibel with a left conviction.
And the greenies are a very mixed population. Here in Europe, they are more rigth than left. They German greenies were the loudest promoters of the aggression war against Yugoslavia.


Right, because the people who attacked Yugoslavia are obviously in the wrong here. I mean, every nation has the right to kill as many of it's own citizens as it wants. Afterall, the people are government property right?
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (4) Jan 16, 2011
What if people don't want to be restricted?
So you support mob rule? 51% can force 49% to limit the number of children they can have? Again, how would you force those 49% to comply and not violate their basic human rights?


Unfortunately, "Mob rule" is all any government is anyway. Democracy has always been 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner, especially in America.

We've already seen the true evil behind these people on this thread, as the cloak of deception was even freely cast aside here, revealing their totalitarian, inhuman intentions.

We also know that fully half of the world population increase in the past century was in Asia plus Muslim nations. today, just under 2/3rds of the world population is in Asia and the middle east, in spite of atheistic communism's all out assault on human rights and the traditional family.

Asia and the middle east have twice the population of Australia, Africa, Europe, and the western hemisphere combined...
Decimatus
not rated yet Jan 16, 2011
QC

With the advancement of technology, those populations may well be sustainable.

The combination of renewable energies and mankind spending ever greater amounts of time in virtual worlds, I think will create a world that has room for literally 10 times more people.

The challenge is going to be what it has always been. The problems of catastrophe, greed, and inequality.

Will China and the US duke it out? Perhaps not under todays reality, but what about when China experiences resurgent nationalism after it's economy is crushed under the weight of it's grey hair?

If we can make it to the next century, I think we are home free. Whatever the population level. Our biggest challenge will be dealing with economic catastrophies that can make normally sane governments and populations do some pretty crazy things.

I am sure back in 1900, a world of ~1 billion people looked at a world of 6+ billion as a giant problem. It didn't turn out so bad, we cope.
frajo
5 / 5 (1) Jan 17, 2011
I mean, every nation has the right to kill as many of it's own citizens as it wants.
No. You mean, the NATO has the right to kill as many foreign innocent people as they want.
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (2) Jan 17, 2011
Such population control measures can be implemented even democratically, I fail to see why tyranny would be required for it.

What if people don't want to be restricted?
So you support mob rule? 51% can force 49% to limit the number of children they can have? Again, how would you force those 49% to comply and not violate their basic human rights?


What basic human rights? I dont consider procreation to be an inalienable human right, but a privilege that should be granted only to those materially and mentally ready.

Are you an anarchist? If not, then your position is not consistent, because every law we have is based on combination of mob rule (democracy) and rule of legal experts. So I ask you, what if murderers or people commiting violence, or violating other current laws dont want to be restricted?
Decimatus
5 / 5 (1) Jan 17, 2011
I mean, every nation has the right to kill as many of it's own citizens as it wants.
No. You mean, the NATO has the right to kill as many foreign innocent people as they want.


If by "foreign innocent", you mean genocidal state police, then yeah, NATO can kill them all day long.
Bogey
not rated yet Jan 17, 2011
Well, this is getting ugly, so I will have another go:-

I have been waiting for a suitable time to share a recent discovery of mine, and this story would seem to be perfect. The whole situation is dependent on better use of existing resorces. While I live in a first world rich country, I am by those standards extremely poor, which quite often forces me to improvise, simply to get by.

I am on benefit, and when my gas credit expired recently, I experimented with a different way to cook rice.
I discovered by trial and error, that if you put a measured ammount of rice into an ordinary thermos flask, and
the correct amount of boiling water from a kettle, after an hour and fifteen miniuts, the rice is cooked to perfection.

Bogey
5 / 5 (3) Jan 17, 2011
cont

This has several advantages.
Less energy is used.
Less water is used.
Less agitation during the cooking seems to retain more of the nutrition/starch in the rice. The grains dont stick together.

Now I havent done the maths, or the scientific calorific experiments, but given that rice is the staple diet of, I think, half the worlds population the savings in resorces could be tremendus.

I have studied product design, and realise that a differently shaped flask could be specialy developed for this purpose, but for those that allready posses one, any old flask will do.

In the public domain,

Bogey
Moebius
1 / 5 (2) Jan 17, 2011
That's a good idea. A similar thing is on the market for cooking pasta.
Moebius
2 / 5 (4) Jan 17, 2011
I am so disgusted with so many stupid people who can't see that that we are overpopulated and that the planets ecosystem is overburdened and on the point of breaking. Do you people not read the news? Do you forget everything you read? Do you just not believe anything? Or are you so young that you just don't know anything or care? When I was a kid National Geographic was always about new things being discovered, now it's always about those things dying. Then they were exploring the rain forests, now they are destroying them. Then they were discovering new species, now they are going extinct. Did you see the show about Beijing being surrounded by illegal garbage dumps everywhere? How about the story that 17,000 Indian farmers committed suicide in 2009, 150,000 in the last decade. I've been reading things like this for the last 30 years. I don't remember it all but I remember the trend. The evidence is overwhelming if you have the brains to understand, we ARE overpopulated, massively.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 17, 2011
dont consider procreation to be an inalienable human right, but a privilege that should be granted only to those materially and mentally ready.

You must be a socialist.
Democracy IS mob rule which enable the majority to murder and abuse the minority. Unless there exists a constitution to guarantee individual rights that cannot be subjected to mob rule.
I ask again, how do you plan to enforce your anti-breeding law if people don't want to comply? Would you force them to undergo a medical procedure to sterilize them? Would you force women to have abortions and murder unauthorized babies?
Maybe you prefer a Logan's Run solution. Everyone over 35 must die.
who can't see that that we are overpopulated

I have pointed out that all 7billion people could fit into the state of Texas with each person having 100 m^2.
The solution to food is free markets and the end of govt food subsidies. Zimbabwe used to feed itself and export food.
Moebius
2 / 5 (4) Jan 17, 2011
This planet can not support a technological civilization at our current level of technology and there are only a couple billion people that actually are at that level of technology now. Meanwhile the other few billion are scrambling to get to our level of consumption and waste. How long do you think we can go on like this? This planet could support us for millions of years, are we acting like we want to nurture it for that long and ensure our survival? We are destroying it, not nurturing it and we will be lucky to survive the century, let alone the millenium.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jan 17, 2011
This planet can not support a technological civilization at our current level of technology

Why not?
Did you know that Cubans are now allowed by the state to plant gardens in Havana and sell or trade the products?
How much technology is applied to food production around the world? Most rice is still planted by hand and dried in the sun with tarps on a local road.
Moebius
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 17, 2011
You are one of the idiots I am talking about. Sure 7 billion people could fit in Texas. But not only would they not have the freedom to move, they would lose the freedom to do anything. Would they all be able to have a back yard barbecue, would they even have a back yard? Would they all be able to go for a drive on Sunday? Would they all be able to own a gun and go hunting? Would there be room for businesses and stores for them to work? This example is a vision of the future for us, it is also the present for some.

Overpopulation is robbing us of freedom and population control would ensure our freedom not take it away.
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (2) Jan 17, 2011

You must be a socialist.
Democracy IS mob rule which enable the majority to murder and abuse the minority. Unless there exists a constitution to guarantee individual rights that cannot be subjected to mob rule.


A socialist? I have always voted for a right-wing party, so I dont consider myself a socialist. But maybe from the US (I assume you are from there) point of view I am a socialist, these things vary from country to country.

ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (2) Jan 17, 2011
Democracy IS mob rule which enable the majority to murder and abuse the minority. Unless there exists a constitution to guarantee individual rights that cannot be subjected to mob rule.


I agree, democracy is a mob rule. I certainly do not support absolute democracy, it must be limited by law experts (constitution and high courts in your case) so that it does not lead to abuse of human rights, just as you said.

The thing is, I dont consider procreation to be a human right, but a privilege, just like driving on public roads or plenty of other licences or activities limited by law.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Jan 17, 2011
The thing is, I dont consider procreation to be a human right, but a privilege, just like driving on public roads or plenty of other licences or activities limited by law.
You don't need additional equipment to procreate. You do need equipment or technology to engage in other license bearing activities. If anything, it is one of the few natural rights out there.

When you control procreation, your only aim is to control the population.
A socialist? I have always voted for a right-wing party, so I dont consider myself a socialist. But maybe from the US (I assume you are from there) point of view I am a socialist, these things vary from country to country.

Socialism isn't a left or right proposition.
ShotmanMaslo
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 17, 2011
I ask again, how do you plan to enforce your anti-breeding law if people don't want to comply? Would you force them to undergo a medical procedure to sterilize them? Would you force women to have abortions and murder unauthorized babies?


All right, so we have moved on from whether this law is moral or not to whether it can be enforced in practice or not.

Based on Chinese population control enforcement with some changes, I believe the best way to enforce such laws would be by combination of fines, probation, low amount of jail time or public service, up to forced sterilization for repeated offenders.
I am against late-term abortions, and early forced abortions could be emotionally damaging for parents, so I dont think that is the way to go.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 17, 2011
I dont consider procreation to be a human right, but a privilege,

How do you plan to enforce the your law and not violate individual rights?
Overpopulation is robbing us of freedom

How? Is Japan more free as their population declines? How about North Korea? they are dying from starvation. Are they more free.
Many US states are losing populations. Are they more free? These states losing population have oppressive govts and are less free. Which is why they are moving to more free states like TX.
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (3) Jan 17, 2011
You don't need additional equipment to procreate. You do need equipment or technology to engage in other license bearing activities. If anything, it is one of the few natural rights out there.


I fail to see how whether additional equipment is needed is relevant in some way to determine whether something is moral or not.

Unlimited procreation is definitely not a natural right. You are mixing up natural rights with laws of nature, those are entirely different things.

Natural rights are those that are considered to be universal and self evident. For example a right of a baby to grow up in good material and psychological conditions, with responsible parents. Not a right to pop out as many babies as you want and whenever you want.
frajo
5 / 5 (2) Jan 17, 2011
I mean, every nation has the right to kill as many of it's own citizens as it wants.
No. You mean, the NATO has the right to kill as many foreign innocent people as they want.


If by "foreign innocent", you mean
You are lacking the bravery to stay with the topic. Instead, you have one comma too much.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Jan 17, 2011
Socialism isn't a left or right proposition.

It's a liberty or tyranny proposition.

All right, so we have moved on from whether this law is moral or not to whether it can be enforced in practice or not.

Such a law IS immoral on its face and in its implementation.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Jan 17, 2011
Unlimited procreation is definitely not a natural right. You are mixing up natural rights with laws of nature, those are entirely different things.
The laws of nature are the only rules that actually exist.
Socialism isn't a left or right proposition.
It's a liberty or tyranny proposition.
Only to you.
ShotmanMaslo
2.3 / 5 (4) Jan 17, 2011
The laws of nature are the only rules that actually exist.


There is only one law of nature: might makes right, kill or be killed, otherwise known as law of the jungle. This has nothing to do with the concept of natural rights, except in name.

Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 17, 2011
There is only one law of nature: might makes right, kill or be killed, otherwise known as law of the jungle.
Wrong.
This has nothing to do with the concept of natural rights, except in name.
Morality is a law of nature. It is in your nature to adhere to it or not. Our instincts and social orders, even our society and laws are based on these simple statements that are within our nature.

It is against our nature to control reproduction. The only way to change that would be to change society and that's through education, not regulation.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 17, 2011
There is only one law of nature: might makes right, kill or be killed,

That is a fallacy. Survival is the objective of all living things. Killing may be required, but it involves considerable personal risk to survival. Unless, you can monopolize power in a gang to minimize the personal risk to murder.
"Might makes right" is the motto of the statists.
Socialism retires tyranny to implement. That is also an view of many respected, award winning economists.
gwrede
4 / 5 (8) Jan 17, 2011
So far, only three commentators have mentioned the word "rice". Many don't know the difference between plant breeding and Genentic Manipulation. Many call anybody who disagrees a communist.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jan 17, 2011
There is only one law of nature: might makes right, kill or be killed,

That is a fallacy. Survival is the objective of all living things. Killing may be required, but it involves considerable personal risk to survival. Unless, you can monopolize power in a gang to minimize the personal risk to murder.
"Might makes right" is the motto of the statists.
Socialism retires tyranny to implement. That is also an view of many respected, award winning economists.

You were on to something until you decided to get political.
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (2) Jan 17, 2011
Morality is a law of nature. It is in your nature to adhere to it or not. Our instincts and social orders, even our society and laws are based on these simple statements that are within our nature.


You are again mixing up laws of nature and natural laws. Whether something occurs in nature (and so is natural in that sense) has nothing to do with whether it is moral or not (natural rights and self-evident morality stemming from them).

To kill someone and rape his wife is natural, because it happens in nature and also in human societes. But it violates natural rights of the victim nonetheless.

In the same way to reproduce when there is a shortage of resources available is natural, it happens in nature all the time, and also in human societes. But it is morally wrong, because it is against natural rights of the offsprings.

Let me tell it this way: mother nature gave us natural rights, but she does not practice them herself. You fail to make this distinction.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jan 17, 2011
You fail to make this distinction.
because there is no distinction. You're creating this distinction arbitrarily to attempt to delinate civilization from uncivilized behavior by stating one is instinctual and the other intellectual. This is arbitrary and false. Our intellect is form by nature, as such it is instinctual hence our traditions cultures, law and bias.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Jan 17, 2011
The main point in this story is the absence of profit greedy organisms like those who force the farmers to buy seed which cannot yield new seeds and thereby make them dependent on their dealers.
Good news.


Starving IS better...you're right. What WERE they thinking.

Tool...
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (2) Jan 17, 2011
You fail to make this distinction.
because there is no distinction. You're creating this distinction arbitrarily to attempt to delinate civilization from uncivilized behavior by stating one is instinctual and the other intellectual. This is arbitrary and false. Our intellect is form by nature, as such it is instinctual hence our traditions cultures, law and bias.


So you are a moral relativist then? On what ground are you even criticizing my stance?

Nature is full of killing, violence and other immoral behavior. You could use the same absurd logic you are using to justify these actions. Natural rights have nothing to do with physical nature, period. Including our instincts and ability to procreate, which are part of physical nature.

Natural rights mean moral-absolutist rights stemming from absolute self-evident morality.

Now I dont know about you, but it is clearly morally wrong for me to reproduce when there is a shortage of resources.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Jan 17, 2011
Now I dont know about you, but it is clearly morally wrong for me to reproduce when there is a shortage of resources.


Even if there were no shortage of resources, it would be clearly morally wrong for you to reproduce...

Realistically though it's when there is a definite shortage of resources that mammals "overproduce" young. It's a survival mechanism, and it works...hence it's quite moral.

It's only when there is no perceived shortage of resources that we tend to cut back on reproduction, and in fact most if not all industrialized nations are below replacement in the birth rate area.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Jan 17, 2011
So you are a moral relativist then? On what ground are you even criticizing my stance?
You're calling for regulation of reproduction. That is totalitarian and contrary to morality and human nature.
Now I dont know about you, but it is clearly morally wrong for me to reproduce when there is a shortage of resources.
Yes, it is for all of us. The problem is that there are a lot of people living in fantasy land thinking that God will provide, or the end is comming, or technology will save us in the nick of time, or any number of other silly things because they aren't aware of the shortage and the potential rammifications. Educated societies have a declining birth rate.
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (2) Jan 17, 2011
Now I dont know about you, but it is clearly morally wrong for me to reproduce when there is a shortage of resources.


Even if there were no shortage of resources, it would be clearly morally wrong for you to reproduce...


I am not the one who supports child abuse..
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) Jan 17, 2011
Now I dont know about you, but it is clearly morally wrong for me to reproduce when there is a shortage of resources.


Even if there were no shortage of resources, it would be clearly morally wrong for you to reproduce...


I am not the one who supports child abuse..


LMFAO, mmmmkay. You were one of those kids that sat in the corner, picked his nose and couldn't quite get the knack of coloring inside the lines...weren't you...
ShotmanMaslo
2 / 5 (4) Jan 17, 2011
You're calling for regulation of reproduction. That is totalitarian and contrary to morality and human nature.


It is no more totalitarian than state having the authority to imprison, fine, or kill (in some countries) its citizens, take their children away, and plenty of other things you agree with.

It is definately not contrary to morality, that is my main point. Quite the opposite, reproduction anarchy is contrary to morality.

As for human nature, I have already said that nature does not care about any rights (including natural ones, if you believe in them).
ShotmanMaslo
2 / 5 (4) Jan 17, 2011
Now I dont know about you, but it is clearly morally wrong for me to reproduce when there is a shortage of resources.


Even if there were no shortage of resources, it would be clearly morally wrong for you to reproduce...


I am not the one who supports child abuse..


LMFAO, mmmmkay. You were one of those kids that sat in the corner, picked his nose and couldn't quite get the knack of coloring inside the lines...weren't you...


You know you have won the discussion when opponent has no other means to continue except insults..
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Jan 17, 2011
Now I dont know about you, but it is clearly morally wrong for me to reproduce when there is a shortage of resources.


Even if there were no shortage of resources, it would be clearly morally wrong for you to reproduce...


I am not the one who supports child abuse..


LMFAO, mmmmkay. You were one of those kids that sat in the corner, picked his nose and couldn't quite get the knack of coloring inside the lines...weren't you...


You know you have won the discussion when opponent has no other means to continue except insults..


What you were assuming that I actually DO support child abuse? Or is casting that aspersion against someone not considered an insult on your planet? On mine it is...it's a blue one, third from the sun, roundish...
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jan 17, 2011
Quite the opposite, reproduction anarchy is contrary to morality.

What 'morality' is that?
Skultch
not rated yet Jan 17, 2011
@ Bogey and others,

A similar in concept "new" way of cooking:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sous-vide


It's popular in high-end restaurants to eliminate overcooking and achieve very accurate results, but it also relies on low temps for longer periods, which might be economical.
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (3) Jan 17, 2011
Quite the opposite, reproduction anarchy is contrary to morality.

What 'morality' is that?


Natural rights based one, or common sense one.

Reproducing when there is a shortage of resources available is immoral. It is our moral duty to fight this irresponsible procreation.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Jan 17, 2011
Reproducing when there is a shortage of resources available is immoral. It is our moral duty to fight this irresponsible procreation.
This is actual Hitlerspeak and I don't think you realize that.
Paljor
not rated yet Jan 17, 2011
Well we do have too many people. IN SOME AREAS!!! So just move them to a place where there is more space. Look at the midwest (for example only). people are LEAVING the midwest faster than they are going to it. Put them there. It is good farmland but everybody here thinks that the CITY is paradise. (yeah right.) Ohh... and let me share with you all an interesting fact. In India educated women aren't always the only ones to realize that they have too many kids. They did a study with 1000 (or more) women. Those who were educated had 2.6 kids on average. (don't joke about the .6 you know that it isn't a defect or something) those who WATCHED TELEVISION had on average 3.3 kids. Uneducateds had 5.7 (on average) And about the television watchers they had 1 hour a day... And with western culture being the main thing on the T.V. they saw what it was like in the USa and other western nations. Just thought i would share that little tid bit. (India is still going up like 6 to 1 people though.)
frajo
1 / 5 (1) Jan 17, 2011
To kill someone and rape his wife is natural,
...
it violates natural rights of the victim nonetheless.

Grammatical singular. Sic.
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (3) Jan 17, 2011
Reproducing when there is a shortage of resources available is immoral. It is our moral duty to fight this irresponsible procreation.
This is actual Hitlerspeak and I don't think you realize that.


No, it is a right thing to do. You are incapable of proving me wrong, so you mention Hitler in a failed attempt of Argumentum ad Hitlerum. I do not advocate any killing.
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (2) Jan 17, 2011
Yes, it is for all of us. The problem is that there are a lot of people living in fantasy land thinking that God will provide, or the end is comming, or technology will save us in the nick of time, or any number of other silly things because they aren't aware of the shortage and the potential rammifications. Educated societies have a declining birth rate.


The only difference between your stance and my position is that I want to actually enforce what is right, while you dont want to enforce it, either because faulty government may be incapable to do it well in practice (I may accept that), or because you have been preconditioned that population control = Hitler.
frajo
5 / 5 (1) Jan 17, 2011
The main point in this story is the absence of profit greedy organisms like those who force the farmers to buy seed which cannot yield new seeds and thereby make them dependent on their dealers.
Good news.
Starving IS better...you're right.
Non sequitur. Peccator es cum mente insana.
geokstr
1 / 5 (5) Jan 17, 2011
...people that contribute nothing to society...

Ah, you mean the subspecies, homo sapiens leftlingus.

But really, they contribute so much to our society, like millions of pages of unintelligible regulations, and dependence on freebies to perpetuate poverty, and controls on free speech and guns, and reams and reams of studies "proving" the apocalypsism of the week, and race-baiting, and other wondrous things.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Jan 17, 2011
...people that contribute nothing to society...

Ah, you mean the subspecies, homo sapiens leftlingus.

But really, they contribute so much to our society, like millions of pages of unintelligible regulations, and dependence on freebies to perpetuate poverty, and controls on free speech and guns, and reams and reams of studies "proving" the apocalypsism of the week, and race-baiting, and other wondrous things.

This is why people call you gents fascists. You can see above there's a poor attempt to differntiate, to make people with a different ideology out to be a different species, and through this, somehow lesser than the ideologue who initially comes up with the statement.

Very sad.
Paljor
5 / 5 (1) Jan 17, 2011
Why don't we focus on commenting on THE ARTICLE ABOUT NEW RICE instead of population!
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Jan 17, 2011
The main point in this story is the absence of profit greedy organisms like those who force the farmers to buy seed which cannot yield new seeds and thereby make them dependent on their dealers.
Good news.
Starving IS better...you're right.
Non sequitur. Peccator es cum mente insana.


Huh, people don't starve for a lack of rice that might have grown had conditions been different in the growing season?

It is Earth you live on right?
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2011
Why don't we focus on commenting on THE ARTICLE ABOUT NEW RICE instead of population!

I am still wonder what type of rice this is. Basmati, short, long, medium grain?
Rice eaters have their preferred variety.

I want to actually enforce what is right,

That's how all socialist tyrants get started. They want to enforce what is 'right'. Pol Pot did that.
Or you could use Stalin's technique and starve people out. In any case, what ever method you use will require deadly force (might makes right). Which puts in that special class of tyrants: Hilter, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Saddam Husein, and all DPRK leaders, Vlad, ....among others.
Bogey
not rated yet Jan 17, 2011
Skultch thanks for the link, I had not heard of that before. Like you say, there are huge energy savings to be made here, and my rice has never been better.
I just have to put it in an hour earlier.
ShotmanMaslo
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 18, 2011
That's how all socialist tyrants get started. They want to enforce what is 'right'. Pol Pot did that.
Or you could use Stalin's technique and starve people out. In any case, what ever method you use will require deadly force (might makes right). Which puts in that special class of tyrants: Hilter, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Saddam Husein, and all DPRK leaders, Vlad, ....among others.


Deadly force? You are attacking a strawman you have created in your head, instead of my idea. The force of course needs to be appropiate to crime being commited. A fine, low amount of jail, or maybe sterilization for repeated offenders etc. Think about Chinese population control enforcement minus forced abortions. No killing.
Paljor
not rated yet Jan 18, 2011
So what would you do with the extra child? And as for the ACTUAL TOPIC i believe it comes in many varieties different ones to fit different needs.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 18, 2011
maybe sterilization for repeated offenders etc.

Forced sterilization by the state? Sounds like a socialist paradise.
Of course those with money and influence would not have to worry will they?
As I stated in the EPA coal thread, the more power the state has, the more opportunities for corruption.
Limit the power, limit the corruption.
Modernmystic
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 18, 2011
Reproducing when there is a shortage of resources available is immoral. It is our moral duty to fight this irresponsible procreation.
This is actual Hitlerspeak and I don't think you realize that.


No, it is a right thing to do. You are incapable of proving me wrong, so you mention Hitler in a failed attempt of Argumentum ad Hitlerum. I do not advocate any killing.


I'll play this game. So what did you mean by "fight" in the context of "irresponsible procreation"? And yeah it's chilling speech buddy, you're a scary person for having said that...

ON EDIT: Oh NM you answered it...yeah you're a fucking fascist...no doubt at all.
geokstr
1 / 5 (3) Jan 18, 2011
You can see above there's a poor attempt to differntiate, to make people with a different ideology out to be a different species, and through this, somehow lesser than the ideologue who initially comes up with the statement.

Very sad.

It's called sarcasm and ridicule, the application of Alinsky's Rule #5 (look it up), that those on the right have been relentlessly subjected to by the left in media, Hollywood, and the professoriate for the last century. Now we too know what the game is. It's payback time, and it's going to be a bitch.

You don't like it - stuff it. Especially you.
Paljor
5 / 5 (2) Jan 18, 2011
I don't know about socalist. I don't think that having your man or woman hood is a constitutional right. And in india they sometimes just round up poor people and send them to a medical tent to me starilized (january issue of National geographic.)
Terrible_Bohr
not rated yet Jan 22, 2011
Why don't we focus on commenting on THE ARTICLE ABOUT NEW RICE instead of population!

You must be new.

That's not how things work around here. ;)

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.