|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 13 2014 17:17 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2014 16:48 Danglars wrote:On February 13 2014 14:06 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 13 2014 12:40 _-NoMaN-_ wrote:On February 13 2014 08:21 Wegandi wrote:
Oneofthem, there's been plenty of research on GMO, and none of it has returned evidence that GMO's are harmful to human health. This is why I chuckle when I hear people on the centralized side calling those on the decentralized side anti-science (or whatever). Between the anti-vaccine, anti-GMO, anti-Nuclear, anti-technology (technology killing jobs! jobs! jobs!) people....brings a chuckle at the hypocrisy. Oi vay! Anyways, the issue of Monsanto is separate from GMO's. I'm just tired of people conflating the two. GMO's have nothing to do with their business practices, just like weed has nothing to do with Mexican cartels. Weeds not harmful because cartels mercilessly kill people, just like GMO's aren't harmful, because Monsanto is a ruthless fascist entity. Im sorry, but GMO is precisely the problems with Monsanto's business practices. The argument that GMO are harmful to human health is just a red herring. Its all about controlling the food supply through patents on gene sequences. Edit. Also weed has everything to do with drug cartels. or, to be precise; the illegality of weed. In the same way, its not GMO that is bad per se, but that it is the private property of a multinational corp. Frankly.. patenting genetic sequences is FUCKING ludicrous, unless it's a synthetic sequence designed by someone resulting in something that did not exist before -- a completely new piece of genetic material. Even then it needs to be truly novel, and not just a silent alteration. Eventually we'll get it right, once policy makers catch up. And they are. In human genetics steps are being made, sort of. See Myriad Genetics and the recent retraction of their patents on BRCA1/2 breast cancer implicated genes. But even then, there's still a ways to go, because in that case, it's just the genomic DNA that is now unpatented, while 'man made' complementary DNA, which is necessary to actually conduct experiments, remains patented The whole point of genetic engineering is to synthesize something new using recombination that hasn't existed before. Naturally occurring sequences for crops aren't patentable. Furthermore, no interested observer would even have a clue to distinguish anything truly novel or make distinctions on what constitutes slight alterations. Ludicrous notion. The Myriad Genetics court case was on naturally occurring human genes, and determined its separation of that gene from surrounding did not constitute something patentable. If and until we start mucking with the genetic code of humans (perhaps as part of cloning research), then we might have analogous circumstances to GMOs. er.. when i said "But even then, there's still a ways to go, because in that case, it's just the genomic DNA that is now unpatented, while 'man made' complementary DNA, which is necessary to actually conduct experiments, remains patented", did you miss it? or not understand it? utterly no clue what you mean by "Furthermore, no interested observer would even have a clue to distinguish anything truly novel or make distinctions on what constitutes slight alterations. Ludicrous notion." what are you trying to say exactly..? sounds like an argument from a genetics perspective! so, no biologist has a clue how to distinguish novel sequences among 'natural' background...? erm.. by 'slight alteration' i mean swapping a nucleotide such that the codon change is silent with regard to the structure of the translated protein -- effectively a 'slight alteration' with no actual functional difference, although still readily detectable among non-altered sequences. this 'slight alteration' would certainly, and with your definition's endorsement too, constitute 'something that hasn't existed before', yet it certainly should not be patentable! your confusion aside, from a medical ethics perspective, that there remains a patent on cDNA (re: not gDNA) for BRCA1/2 may be argued to be wrong -- it's what researchers actually utilize in studies on these genes at the bench and in clinical diagnostics, and it is absolutely relevant on at least the same level of importance as any GMO crop issue. MG didn't identify the gene, they certainly didn't make it, yet they currently own rights to the use of its cDNA! i think it's actually a much nastier issue than any GMO fuss oh and i can guarantee you that human genomes will be 'mucked with' long before they're 'mucked with' for 'cloning research'. genetic intervention to correct genetic disease before it manifests will precede 'cloning research', whatever you meant by that buzzword. fun times ahead! I don't understand your point with slight alterations. Are you alleging that novel sequences, with single nucleotide pair swaps, are widely patented and this is a large problem? That independent researchers arrive at the same new sequence and immediately the first one is patented and this causes problems? I'd have to see some articles if this was the case. The main division is with patents on useful changes (say Xanthomonas immunity) to first discover, not if a new base pair was swapped and patented. The funding for useful research is to the immense profits if your researchers discover/create a helpful change and patent it ... and I say that's a very good thing. If new advances were stolen and spread readily, there's no profit, there's reduced development.
I fail to see your problem with patenting minor changes. Who's harmed? Why is this even an issue?
|
On February 13 2014 18:01 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2014 08:21 Wegandi wrote:
Oneofthem, there's been plenty of research on GMO, and none of it has returned evidence that GMO's are harmful to human health. This is why I chuckle when I hear people on the centralized side calling those on the decentralized side anti-science (or whatever). Between the anti-vaccine, anti-GMO, anti-Nuclear, anti-technology (technology killing jobs! jobs! jobs!) people....brings a chuckle at the hypocrisy. Oi vay! Anyways, the issue of Monsanto is separate from GMO's. I'm just tired of people conflating the two. GMO's have nothing to do with their business practices, just like weed has nothing to do with Mexican cartels. Weeds not harmful because cartels mercilessly kill people, just like GMO's aren't harmful, because Monsanto is a ruthless fascist entity. Mix up nuclear, "technology" and GMO in one sentence. It's true there's been plenty of research on nuclear and none of it has returned evidence that it is harmful to human.... Nice argumentation, I understand it all now, we have to let technology do its course because it is not harmful to human, and it's not guns that kill people it's people.
I'll excuse your lack of English comprehension based on your French background. My point was twofold: GMO's are not harmful, and you would be hard-pressed to find a credible scientist who takes such a position; it's funny hearing the folks who call others anti-science come out against GMO, vaccines, nuclear energy, and technology vis a vis job killers (pro tip: this group of people are far more anti-science than any so-called 'teabagger' 'righty' 'republican' 'libertarian' 'insert-not a socialist/communist here' that I hear far too often.
There is also the fact that, people get these issues jumbled and confused, equating the evil practices of Monsanto with GMO (which again, have no harmful effects on human health), the same as dumb ass Republicans equate weed and its use with violence and Mexican drug cartels. They're non-sequitur's. One has nothing to do with the other. If you're against the patent issues, then come out and state it without slinging GMO's through the mud as guilt by association. It's insanity! Don't even get me started on the organic, naturalistic fallacy parade.
|
On February 13 2014 09:26 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2014 07:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 13 2014 07:00 Paljas wrote:On February 13 2014 06:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 13 2014 04:29 Mindcrime wrote:On February 13 2014 02:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 13 2014 01:54 Mindcrime wrote:On February 13 2014 00:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 12 2014 14:42 Mindcrime wrote:On February 12 2014 14:27 Danglars wrote:
[quote]Exporting freedom corn, 'murica! Farmers don't like pests, the ones that ate their current corn type, and the ones that wear suits and tell them which corn they can and cannot grow. like Monsanto? Monsanto doesn't do that, so no, not like them  They don't wear suits? They don't sue farmers over seeds that have blown into fields. They also don't tell farmers what they can and can't grow. What is it that you think patents do? Help people make babies? Monsanto doesn't sue farmers for seeds that get blown it. If you want to use their seeds, you have to buy them. That's how it works. If you try to work around their patents, and essentially copy their seeds without paying them for it, you risk getting sued. so, they tell the famers that they cannot grow certain corn... no... they tell farmers that if they want to grow certain corn they have to pay for it. Edit: if a store says a TV is $100 they're not saying you can't have it The disturbing thing about GMO patenting is that eventually their strains may take over the world (not trying to be hyperbolic) and in order to eat or grow your own food you have to pay money to a corporation. Vis a vis freedom of the basics of life is pulled from under our feet. There are just some domains which should be excluded from this kind of reach, and kept free for all people.
Hyperbole much? If the GMOs coming from an "evil" corporation outcompete all other strains, then there is no way they could defend their patent. Patent laws don't work the way you think they do.
|
On February 13 2014 20:15 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2014 18:01 WhiteDog wrote:On February 13 2014 08:21 Wegandi wrote:
Oneofthem, there's been plenty of research on GMO, and none of it has returned evidence that GMO's are harmful to human health. This is why I chuckle when I hear people on the centralized side calling those on the decentralized side anti-science (or whatever). Between the anti-vaccine, anti-GMO, anti-Nuclear, anti-technology (technology killing jobs! jobs! jobs!) people....brings a chuckle at the hypocrisy. Oi vay! Anyways, the issue of Monsanto is separate from GMO's. I'm just tired of people conflating the two. GMO's have nothing to do with their business practices, just like weed has nothing to do with Mexican cartels. Weeds not harmful because cartels mercilessly kill people, just like GMO's aren't harmful, because Monsanto is a ruthless fascist entity. Mix up nuclear, "technology" and GMO in one sentence. It's true there's been plenty of research on nuclear and none of it has returned evidence that it is harmful to human.... Nice argumentation, I understand it all now, we have to let technology do its course because it is not harmful to human, and it's not guns that kill people it's people. I'll excuse your lack of English comprehension based on your French background. My point was twofold: GMO's are not harmful, and you would be hard-pressed to find a credible scientist who takes such a position; it's funny hearing the folks who call others anti-science come out against GMO, vaccines, nuclear energy, and technology vis a vis job killers (pro tip: this group of people are far more anti-science than any so-called 'teabagger' 'righty' 'republican' 'libertarian' 'insert-not a socialist/communist here' that I hear far too often. There is also the fact that, people get these issues jumbled and confused, equating the evil practices of Monsanto with GMO (which again, have no harmful effects on human health), the same as dumb ass Republicans equate weed and its use with violence and Mexican drug cartels. They're non-sequitur's. One has nothing to do with the other. If you're against the patent issues, then come out and state it without slinging GMO's through the mud as guilt by association. It's insanity! Don't even get me started on the organic, naturalistic fallacy parade.
I'll excuse your youth if you don't understand the matter at hand.
It is because you can pattern GMO (and because of some GMO designed caracteristics) that Mosanto can - and when a firm can do something that is profitable, it will - force users to agree with specific conditions on the usage of their products. If you don't understand that, I think you don't understand anything about GMO and how it is used by firms to make farmers totally dependants (look what happened in India). It is not "Mosanto is bad", it is "GMOs are problematic".
It is exactly like gun, or even nuclear energy : the process, the technology in itself can be used wrongly, and altho the technology can have great use for the better, it needs the right legislation. If you can't think a matter to the end, and take matters seriously, I suggest you just don't talk about it : if we could resume all the negativity toward technology with simple "anti-science" bullshit, things would be easy.
|
On February 13 2014 09:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
A big problem with GMO's is that they skip an important part of genetic evolution. They skip the part where they breed non a-sexually(or in a lab) which makes them vulnerable. If one plant is susceptible to a genetic disease all of that GMO would be. Fair enough this could be partly a consideration of practices but inevitably you would end up with only a few strains of any particular crop and there would be an extremely limited variation in genetic makeup.
As mentioned the limited genetic variety would yield an unsustainable susceptibility to disease. The big problem being that it wouldn't be a problem at all until it was already a catastrophe.
Also the intentional inhibition of propagation is just dumb for such a resource, provided they aren't an invasive species.
Err, this isn't a criticism against GMOs. In fact, it is one of the main reasons TO genetically modify plants rather than our current practice, which has led to the very limited genetic variety in crop plants. If the plants are susceptible to some disease, we can add genes from plants that AREN'T susceptible (and eventually, in a few decades, design our own tailor-made genes for that purpose).
|
On February 13 2014 20:32 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2014 20:15 Wegandi wrote:On February 13 2014 18:01 WhiteDog wrote:On February 13 2014 08:21 Wegandi wrote:
Oneofthem, there's been plenty of research on GMO, and none of it has returned evidence that GMO's are harmful to human health. This is why I chuckle when I hear people on the centralized side calling those on the decentralized side anti-science (or whatever). Between the anti-vaccine, anti-GMO, anti-Nuclear, anti-technology (technology killing jobs! jobs! jobs!) people....brings a chuckle at the hypocrisy. Oi vay! Anyways, the issue of Monsanto is separate from GMO's. I'm just tired of people conflating the two. GMO's have nothing to do with their business practices, just like weed has nothing to do with Mexican cartels. Weeds not harmful because cartels mercilessly kill people, just like GMO's aren't harmful, because Monsanto is a ruthless fascist entity. Mix up nuclear, "technology" and GMO in one sentence. It's true there's been plenty of research on nuclear and none of it has returned evidence that it is harmful to human.... Nice argumentation, I understand it all now, we have to let technology do its course because it is not harmful to human, and it's not guns that kill people it's people. I'll excuse your lack of English comprehension based on your French background. My point was twofold: GMO's are not harmful, and you would be hard-pressed to find a credible scientist who takes such a position; it's funny hearing the folks who call others anti-science come out against GMO, vaccines, nuclear energy, and technology vis a vis job killers (pro tip: this group of people are far more anti-science than any so-called 'teabagger' 'righty' 'republican' 'libertarian' 'insert-not a socialist/communist here' that I hear far too often. There is also the fact that, people get these issues jumbled and confused, equating the evil practices of Monsanto with GMO (which again, have no harmful effects on human health), the same as dumb ass Republicans equate weed and its use with violence and Mexican drug cartels. They're non-sequitur's. One has nothing to do with the other. If you're against the patent issues, then come out and state it without slinging GMO's through the mud as guilt by association. It's insanity! Don't even get me started on the organic, naturalistic fallacy parade. I'll excuse your youth if you don't understand the matter at hand. It is because you can pattern GMO (and because of some GMO designed caracteristics) that Mosanto can - and when a firm can do something that is profitable, it will - force users to agree with specific conditions on the usage of their products. If you don't understand that, I think you don't understand anything about GMO and how it is used by firms to make farmers totally dependants (look what happened in India). It is not "Mosanto is bad", it is "GMOs are problematic". It is exactly like gun, or even nuclear energy : the process, the technology in itself can be used wrongly, and altho the technology can have great use for the better, it needs the right legislation. If you can't think a matter to the end, and take matters seriously, I suggest you just don't talk about it : if we could resume all the negativity toward technology with simple "anti-science" bullshit, things would be easy.
Actually, it sounds to me like you have a problem with the current patent system (which is a different discussion) and not with GMOs.
Also, I don't think you actually know what happened in India. Here, I'll help you educate yourself: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2013/03/11/the-real-seeds-of-deception/#.UvywXvldW1E
|
On February 13 2014 20:32 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2014 20:15 Wegandi wrote:On February 13 2014 18:01 WhiteDog wrote:On February 13 2014 08:21 Wegandi wrote:
Oneofthem, there's been plenty of research on GMO, and none of it has returned evidence that GMO's are harmful to human health. This is why I chuckle when I hear people on the centralized side calling those on the decentralized side anti-science (or whatever). Between the anti-vaccine, anti-GMO, anti-Nuclear, anti-technology (technology killing jobs! jobs! jobs!) people....brings a chuckle at the hypocrisy. Oi vay! Anyways, the issue of Monsanto is separate from GMO's. I'm just tired of people conflating the two. GMO's have nothing to do with their business practices, just like weed has nothing to do with Mexican cartels. Weeds not harmful because cartels mercilessly kill people, just like GMO's aren't harmful, because Monsanto is a ruthless fascist entity. Mix up nuclear, "technology" and GMO in one sentence. It's true there's been plenty of research on nuclear and none of it has returned evidence that it is harmful to human.... Nice argumentation, I understand it all now, we have to let technology do its course because it is not harmful to human, and it's not guns that kill people it's people. I'll excuse your lack of English comprehension based on your French background. My point was twofold: GMO's are not harmful, and you would be hard-pressed to find a credible scientist who takes such a position; it's funny hearing the folks who call others anti-science come out against GMO, vaccines, nuclear energy, and technology vis a vis job killers (pro tip: this group of people are far more anti-science than any so-called 'teabagger' 'righty' 'republican' 'libertarian' 'insert-not a socialist/communist here' that I hear far too often. There is also the fact that, people get these issues jumbled and confused, equating the evil practices of Monsanto with GMO (which again, have no harmful effects on human health), the same as dumb ass Republicans equate weed and its use with violence and Mexican drug cartels. They're non-sequitur's. One has nothing to do with the other. If you're against the patent issues, then come out and state it without slinging GMO's through the mud as guilt by association. It's insanity! Don't even get me started on the organic, naturalistic fallacy parade. I'll excuse your youth if you don't understand the matter at hand. It is because you can pattern GMO (and because of some GMO designed caracteristics) that Mosanto can - and when a firm can do something that is profitable, it will - force users to agree with specific conditions on the usage of their products. If you don't understand that, I think you don't understand anything about GMO and how it is used by firms to make farmers totally dependants (look what happened in India). It is not "Mosanto is bad", it is "GMOs are problematic". It is exactly like gun, or even nuclear energy : the process, the technology in itself can be used wrongly, and altho the technology can have great use for the better, it needs the right legislation. If you can't think a matter to the end, and take matters seriously, I suggest you just don't talk about it : if we could resume all the negativity toward technology with simple "anti-science" bullshit, things would be easy.
First off, I will excuse your youth (or ignorance). GMO's have saved billions of peoples lives, and without GMO's current world population is simply unsustainable. Do you know Norman Borlaug? You know that India that apparently is beset by GMO bugaboo's? Half the population of India would die within a year without GMO's (Borlaug practically gave rise to the billion + people living in India today). Again, you are conflating GMO's with patent issues, and some non-sense about force....Contracts are voluntary interactions. Farmers are free to contract with whom they wish. We can argue about the validity of patents (I'm anti-IP fyi), if you want, but it has nothing to do with the actual science and efficacy of GMO's.
Of course, though, you seem to imply that one necessitates the former, or that some Government 'regulation' will cure the patent issue, not noticing that patents are Government-writs! You don't use Government to solve problems rising from Government. Maybe this is an area where we could get some agreement that patents, copyrights, and IP in general should be delegalized. If people want to use GMO's they should be free to do so, and if people don't want to, then they too should be free to do so. As far as I am aware, this is generally how it is now-a-days. No one from Monsanto is going up to farmers with armed security personnel and having them sign contracts under duress. If you can please show me evidence pointing to this, then it might lead me to take you more credibly. Monsanto is a bad company because of its abuse of patent and IP, not because of GMO's, or some mythical action of coercion, violence, and force they've perpetuated on ignorant populations...
|
On February 13 2014 20:36 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2014 09:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
A big problem with GMO's is that they skip an important part of genetic evolution. They skip the part where they breed non a-sexually(or in a lab) which makes them vulnerable. If one plant is susceptible to a genetic disease all of that GMO would be. Fair enough this could be partly a consideration of practices but inevitably you would end up with only a few strains of any particular crop and there would be an extremely limited variation in genetic makeup.
As mentioned the limited genetic variety would yield an unsustainable susceptibility to disease. The big problem being that it wouldn't be a problem at all until it was already a catastrophe.
Also the intentional inhibition of propagation is just dumb for such a resource, provided they aren't an invasive species. Err, this isn't a criticism against GMOs. In fact, it is one of the main reasons TO genetically modify plants rather than our current practice, which has led to the very limited genetic variety in crop plants. If the plants are susceptible to some disease, we can add genes from plants that AREN'T susceptible (and eventually, in a few decades, design our own tailor-made genes for that purpose).
The problem is that we can't create such a variety in crop as nature. You didn't understand his point : you can genetically manufacture a crop to resist to a specific disease (and that is a good thing) but to do that you need a plant that is already resistant to that disease.
But, the implantation of GMOs in some countries resulted in a net decrease in the variety of crops, to the point where scientists all over the world are gathering various grains before they completly disappear. Modern culture is monoculture, genetically manufactured to be exactly the same, to be resistant to specific disease / natural conditions and to be productive. But when they have to face new diseases or conditions, they are not armed to face it and change naturally, and the limited variety that we produce would be dangerous.
Let's say it in another way : you create a crop very very productive, that resist to A B C. It is so productive that you plant it everywhere on the surface of the earth, food is cheap, everybody is happy.
Then D happens to arrive, all your very productive crop is touched and the production decrease a lot while before the variety of natural crops would have resulted in a negative impact but rather heterogenous on production.
|
On February 13 2014 20:50 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2014 20:36 Acrofales wrote:On February 13 2014 09:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
A big problem with GMO's is that they skip an important part of genetic evolution. They skip the part where they breed non a-sexually(or in a lab) which makes them vulnerable. If one plant is susceptible to a genetic disease all of that GMO would be. Fair enough this could be partly a consideration of practices but inevitably you would end up with only a few strains of any particular crop and there would be an extremely limited variation in genetic makeup.
As mentioned the limited genetic variety would yield an unsustainable susceptibility to disease. The big problem being that it wouldn't be a problem at all until it was already a catastrophe.
Also the intentional inhibition of propagation is just dumb for such a resource, provided they aren't an invasive species. Err, this isn't a criticism against GMOs. In fact, it is one of the main reasons TO genetically modify plants rather than our current practice, which has led to the very limited genetic variety in crop plants. If the plants are susceptible to some disease, we can add genes from plants that AREN'T susceptible (and eventually, in a few decades, design our own tailor-made genes for that purpose). The problem is that we can't create such a variety in crop as nature. You didn't understand his point : you can genetically manufacture a crop to resist to a specific disease (and that is a good thing) but to do that you need a plant that is already resistant to that disease. But, the implantation of GMOs in some countries resulted in a net decrease in the variety of crops, to the point where scientists all over the world are gathering various grains before they completly disappear. Modern culture is monoculture, genetically manufactured to be exactly the same, to be resistant to specific disease / natural conditions and to be productive. But when they have to face new diseases or conditions, they are not armed to face it and change naturally, and the limited variety that we produce would be dangerous. Let's say it in another way : you create a crop very very productive, that resist to A B C. It is so productive that you plant it everywhere on the surface of the earth, food is cheap, everybody is happy. Then D happens to arrive, all your very productive crop is touched and the production decrease a lot while before the variety of natural crops would have resulted in a negative impact but rather heterogenous on production.
You are conflating GMOs and monoculture farming practice. They are not the same thing. Our farming practices have, for the last couple of centuries (if not millennia) been leading to a reduction in plant varieties. However, they are also the most (if not only) efficient way of feeding the 7billion (and growing) number of humans populating the planet. Unless you advocate dropping a couple of atom bombs on overpopulated areas, large monoculture farms are here to stay.
GMOs are a new practice that allows us to speed up the process that farmers have been using for thousands of years: cross breeding plants to get *better* versions of the plants they were already growing. Compare the bananas you find in the supermarkets to the bananas you find growing in the wild around South and Central America. The former are big, yellow and delicious. The latter are small, mostly green (although there's some other colours too) and ranging from tasteless to vile. However, the big, yellow, delicious banana is a single genetic strain: all bananas are clones of each other, and there is a rampant disease that is quickly wiping them out. Genetic modification is actually one of our WEAPONS to combat this. Note that the single strain of bananas doesn't come from genetic modification (at least, not in its modern sense), but from cross breeding over the course of generations. Also note that wild bananas haven't been wiped out, they are just inedible (although the rampant destruction of forests everywhere so we can plant more sugar cane, soy beans and corn to feed the world is putting quite a number of wild species at risk of extinction).
The same goes for plenty of other plants. Have you ever seen wild apples? Most of them you can put the entire fruit in your mouth at once, and it is sour as all hell. However, the farmed apples are not particularly genetically varied: we don't want genetic variety (which leads to tiny, disgustingly sour apples in many of the plants). We want big, juicy apples.
|
On February 13 2014 20:50 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2014 20:36 Acrofales wrote:On February 13 2014 09:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
A big problem with GMO's is that they skip an important part of genetic evolution. They skip the part where they breed non a-sexually(or in a lab) which makes them vulnerable. If one plant is susceptible to a genetic disease all of that GMO would be. Fair enough this could be partly a consideration of practices but inevitably you would end up with only a few strains of any particular crop and there would be an extremely limited variation in genetic makeup.
As mentioned the limited genetic variety would yield an unsustainable susceptibility to disease. The big problem being that it wouldn't be a problem at all until it was already a catastrophe.
Also the intentional inhibition of propagation is just dumb for such a resource, provided they aren't an invasive species. Err, this isn't a criticism against GMOs. In fact, it is one of the main reasons TO genetically modify plants rather than our current practice, which has led to the very limited genetic variety in crop plants. If the plants are susceptible to some disease, we can add genes from plants that AREN'T susceptible (and eventually, in a few decades, design our own tailor-made genes for that purpose). The problem is that we can't create such a variety in crop as nature. You didn't understand his point : you can genetically manufacture a crop to resist to a specific disease (and that is a good thing) but to do that you need a plant that is already resistant to that disease. But, the implantation of GMOs in some countries resulted in a net decrease in the variety of crops, to the point where scientists all over the world are gathering various grains before they completly disappear. Modern culture is monoculture, genetically manufactured to be exactly the same, to be resistant to specific disease / natural conditions and to be productive. But when they have to face new diseases or conditions, they are not armed to face it and change naturally, and the limited variety that we produce would be dangerous. Let's say it in another way : you create a crop very very productive, that resist to A B C. It is so productive that you plant it everywhere on the surface of the earth, food is cheap, everybody is happy. Then D happens to arrive, all your very productive crop is touched and the production decrease a lot while before the variety of natural crops would have resulted in a negative impact but rather heterogenous on production.
What Acrofales says is true. Most GMO's are done on a local scale with local problems in mind. For instance, here in Hawai'i all of the pineapple is GMO engineered to deter specific Hawai'in pests and problems. GMO's aren't homogenous products. I understand your hesitancy concerning global food being wiped out by a heretofore unknown endemic vector, but that's not a realistic scenario precisely because of the aforementioned GMO practice. You also blithely ignore the fact that without GMO's world population would probably be halved. In other words, while you worry about population issues, you seem to gloss over the very real population crash that would result without GMO's.
That's also ignoring the issue that all organisms even GMO's under go genetic mutations, even if somehow 'programmed' to not reproduce. As it was said in Jurassic Park....life finds a way.
|
On February 13 2014 20:51 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2014 20:50 WhiteDog wrote:On February 13 2014 20:36 Acrofales wrote:On February 13 2014 09:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
A big problem with GMO's is that they skip an important part of genetic evolution. They skip the part where they breed non a-sexually(or in a lab) which makes them vulnerable. If one plant is susceptible to a genetic disease all of that GMO would be. Fair enough this could be partly a consideration of practices but inevitably you would end up with only a few strains of any particular crop and there would be an extremely limited variation in genetic makeup.
As mentioned the limited genetic variety would yield an unsustainable susceptibility to disease. The big problem being that it wouldn't be a problem at all until it was already a catastrophe.
Also the intentional inhibition of propagation is just dumb for such a resource, provided they aren't an invasive species. Err, this isn't a criticism against GMOs. In fact, it is one of the main reasons TO genetically modify plants rather than our current practice, which has led to the very limited genetic variety in crop plants. If the plants are susceptible to some disease, we can add genes from plants that AREN'T susceptible (and eventually, in a few decades, design our own tailor-made genes for that purpose). The problem is that we can't create such a variety in crop as nature. You didn't understand his point : you can genetically manufacture a crop to resist to a specific disease (and that is a good thing) but to do that you need a plant that is already resistant to that disease. But, the implantation of GMOs in some countries resulted in a net decrease in the variety of crops, to the point where scientists all over the world are gathering various grains before they completly disappear. Modern culture is monoculture, genetically manufactured to be exactly the same, to be resistant to specific disease / natural conditions and to be productive. But when they have to face new diseases or conditions, they are not armed to face it and change naturally, and the limited variety that we produce would be dangerous. Let's say it in another way : you create a crop very very productive, that resist to A B C. It is so productive that you plant it everywhere on the surface of the earth, food is cheap, everybody is happy. Then D happens to arrive, all your very productive crop is touched and the production decrease a lot while before the variety of natural crops would have resulted in a negative impact but rather heterogenous on production. You are conflating GMOs and monoculture farming practice. They are not the same thing. Our farming practices have, for the last couple of centuries (if not millennia) been leading to a reduction in plant varieties. However, they are also the most (if not only) efficient way of feeding the 7billion (and growing) number of humans populating the planet. Unless you advocate dropping a couple of atom bombs on overpopulated areas, large monoculture farms are here to stay. GMOs are a new practice that allows us to speed up the process that farmers have been using for thousands of years: cross breeding plants to get *better* versions of the plants they were already growing. Compare the bananas you find in the supermarkets to the bananas you find growing in the wild around South and Central America. The former are big, yellow and delicious. The latter are small, mostly green (although there's some other colours too) and ranging from tasteless to vile. However, the big, yellow, delicious banana is a single genetic strain: all bananas are clones of each other, and there is a rampant disease that is quickly wiping them out. Genetic modification is actually one of our WEAPONS to combat this. Note that the single strain of bananas doesn't come from genetic modification (at least, not in its modern sense), but from cross breeding over the course of generations. Also note that wild bananas haven't been wiped out, they are just inedible (although the rampant destruction of forests everywhere so we can plant more sugar cane, soy beans and corn to feed the world is putting quite a number of wild species at risk of extinction). The same goes for plenty of other plants. Have you ever seen wild apples? Most of them you can put the entire fruit in your mouth at once, and it is sour as all hell. However, the farmed apples are not particularly genetically varied: we don't want genetic variety (which leads to tiny, disgustingly sour apples in many of the plants). We want big, juicy apples.
Yes it's true that it is more a problem of monoculture, but GMOs increase the problem.
To be fair I just read one book on the subject some years ago (a scientist who explained his trip in under developped countries to find old crop, with very low productivity but high resistance to specific and extreme natural conditions) and don't exactly remember the whole detail as to why GMO increase the problem, so I will try to limit myself from saying idiocies. I don't consider GMO as a negative practice btw, just that, like all technologies, they need to be discussed. History is never over, and our production is always perfectible.
On February 13 2014 21:03 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2014 20:50 WhiteDog wrote:On February 13 2014 20:36 Acrofales wrote:On February 13 2014 09:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
A big problem with GMO's is that they skip an important part of genetic evolution. They skip the part where they breed non a-sexually(or in a lab) which makes them vulnerable. If one plant is susceptible to a genetic disease all of that GMO would be. Fair enough this could be partly a consideration of practices but inevitably you would end up with only a few strains of any particular crop and there would be an extremely limited variation in genetic makeup.
As mentioned the limited genetic variety would yield an unsustainable susceptibility to disease. The big problem being that it wouldn't be a problem at all until it was already a catastrophe.
Also the intentional inhibition of propagation is just dumb for such a resource, provided they aren't an invasive species. Err, this isn't a criticism against GMOs. In fact, it is one of the main reasons TO genetically modify plants rather than our current practice, which has led to the very limited genetic variety in crop plants. If the plants are susceptible to some disease, we can add genes from plants that AREN'T susceptible (and eventually, in a few decades, design our own tailor-made genes for that purpose). The problem is that we can't create such a variety in crop as nature. You didn't understand his point : you can genetically manufacture a crop to resist to a specific disease (and that is a good thing) but to do that you need a plant that is already resistant to that disease. But, the implantation of GMOs in some countries resulted in a net decrease in the variety of crops, to the point where scientists all over the world are gathering various grains before they completly disappear. Modern culture is monoculture, genetically manufactured to be exactly the same, to be resistant to specific disease / natural conditions and to be productive. But when they have to face new diseases or conditions, they are not armed to face it and change naturally, and the limited variety that we produce would be dangerous. Let's say it in another way : you create a crop very very productive, that resist to A B C. It is so productive that you plant it everywhere on the surface of the earth, food is cheap, everybody is happy. Then D happens to arrive, all your very productive crop is touched and the production decrease a lot while before the variety of natural crops would have resulted in a negative impact but rather heterogenous on production. What Acrofales says is true. Most GMO's are done on a local scale with local problems in mind. For instance, here in Hawai'i all of the pineapple is GMO engineered to deter specific Hawai'in pests and problems. GMO's aren't homogenous products. I understand your hesitancy concerning global food being wiped out by a heretofore unknown endemic vector, but that's not a realistic scenario precisely because of the aforementioned GMO practice. You also blithely ignore the fact that without GMO's world population would probably be halved. In other words, while you worry about population issues, you seem to gloss over the very real population crash that would result without GMO's. That's also ignoring the issue that all organisms even GMO's under go genetic mutations, even if somehow 'programmed' to not reproduce. As it was said in Jurassic Park....life finds a way.
Can you stop saying bullshit please ? At which point did I discussed the impact of GMO on population ? I said they were more productive.
|
In general I don't think I'm opposed to some genetically modified organisms. I don't think that, overall, they are an immediate human health concern. However, there are potential ecological problems with them. There is a very possible danger of some GMOs interbreeding with wild populations. Escaped domesticated salmon, for example, routinely interbreed with wild populations, to the extent that, at the least, the structure of neutral genetic variation in wild populations is now significantly altered. Hybrids from these crosses also typically exhibit reduced fitness, and when you have a large number of these escapees interbreeding with wild populations it might have severe negative demographic implications.
And that's only with domesticated salmon subject to artificial selection. The clusterfuck of unknown consequences if genetically modified fish escaped (both genetic impacts on natural populations and ecological impacts of essentially novel invasive species) makes me very skeptical about any kind of aquaculture involving GMO fish that is not in a completely isolated and contained environment.
The same can apply to a ton of other GMO organisms capable of escaping into natural environments.
|
On February 13 2014 20:51 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2014 20:50 WhiteDog wrote:On February 13 2014 20:36 Acrofales wrote:On February 13 2014 09:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
A big problem with GMO's is that they skip an important part of genetic evolution. They skip the part where they breed non a-sexually(or in a lab) which makes them vulnerable. If one plant is susceptible to a genetic disease all of that GMO would be. Fair enough this could be partly a consideration of practices but inevitably you would end up with only a few strains of any particular crop and there would be an extremely limited variation in genetic makeup.
As mentioned the limited genetic variety would yield an unsustainable susceptibility to disease. The big problem being that it wouldn't be a problem at all until it was already a catastrophe.
Also the intentional inhibition of propagation is just dumb for such a resource, provided they aren't an invasive species. Err, this isn't a criticism against GMOs. In fact, it is one of the main reasons TO genetically modify plants rather than our current practice, which has led to the very limited genetic variety in crop plants. If the plants are susceptible to some disease, we can add genes from plants that AREN'T susceptible (and eventually, in a few decades, design our own tailor-made genes for that purpose). The problem is that we can't create such a variety in crop as nature. You didn't understand his point : you can genetically manufacture a crop to resist to a specific disease (and that is a good thing) but to do that you need a plant that is already resistant to that disease. But, the implantation of GMOs in some countries resulted in a net decrease in the variety of crops, to the point where scientists all over the world are gathering various grains before they completly disappear. Modern culture is monoculture, genetically manufactured to be exactly the same, to be resistant to specific disease / natural conditions and to be productive. But when they have to face new diseases or conditions, they are not armed to face it and change naturally, and the limited variety that we produce would be dangerous. Let's say it in another way : you create a crop very very productive, that resist to A B C. It is so productive that you plant it everywhere on the surface of the earth, food is cheap, everybody is happy. Then D happens to arrive, all your very productive crop is touched and the production decrease a lot while before the variety of natural crops would have resulted in a negative impact but rather heterogenous on production. You are conflating GMOs and monoculture farming practice. They are not the same thing. Our farming practices have, for the last couple of centuries (if not millennia) been leading to a reduction in plant varieties. However, they are also the most (if not only) efficient way of feeding the 7billion (and growing) number of humans populating the planet. Unless you advocate dropping a couple of atom bombs on overpopulated areas, large monoculture farms are here to stay. GMOs are a new practice that allows us to speed up the process that farmers have been using for thousands of years: cross breeding plants to get *better* versions of the plants they were already growing. Compare the bananas you find in the supermarkets to the bananas you find growing in the wild around South and Central America. The former are big, yellow and delicious. The latter are small, mostly green (although there's some other colours too) and ranging from tasteless to vile. However, the big, yellow, delicious banana is a single genetic strain: all bananas are clones of each other, and there is a rampant disease that is quickly wiping them out. Genetic modification is actually one of our WEAPONS to combat this. Note that the single strain of bananas doesn't come from genetic modification (at least, not in its modern sense), but from cross breeding over the course of generations. Also note that wild bananas haven't been wiped out, they are just inedible (although the rampant destruction of forests everywhere so we can plant more sugar cane, soy beans and corn to feed the world is putting quite a number of wild species at risk of extinction). The same goes for plenty of other plants. Have you ever seen wild apples? Most of them you can put the entire fruit in your mouth at once, and it is sour as all hell. However, the farmed apples are not particularly genetically varied: we don't want genetic variety (which leads to tiny, disgustingly sour apples in many of the plants). We want big, juicy apples.
What you don t adress with your stupid scientist utopy are the abuses of GMO which are the possibility for industrials to do everything for profit at the expense of everything be it environment, product variety, farmer dependence, certain side products dependance, the need to buy semance every year. And no GMO haven t saved any lives, if industrials had put more effort into making sustainable and.more nutritive plants hunger would have vanished already. Look at the state of african and indian agricultors, it would have been better if they didnt buy any of that shit be it semance, fertilizers or pesticides...
And I know the same argument every big company which works for the consumer world says... But... But... You know... The technology isn t there yet... Like with phones developping the internet goes at the cost of their durability... So by searching a gene for resistance against a desease for a plant we will try to add other genes and if pesticides owned by other companies kill our plant you will just have to buy ours, yes fate is cruel.
You know short termist practicies are acceptable with unessential products like phones but we are talking about food and agriculture so it shouldnt work the same way because the will of industrials is to keep making money so drop your dreams, GMO should only be used if they are developped and funded by states and nothing else.
Now I will finish my rant with my views on the pro genetic modifications. You along with others are part of the new wave of scientists which this time is believing in GMO. And GMO isn t harmless like computer technology and manufacturing (harmless for us, not for the environment), because if it s allowed everywhere perhaps it will spread to animals or even us. The point is that we wont even be able to know anymore what was modified and more importantly what were they modified for.
|
On February 14 2014 00:58 Acertos wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2014 20:51 Acrofales wrote:On February 13 2014 20:50 WhiteDog wrote:On February 13 2014 20:36 Acrofales wrote:On February 13 2014 09:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
A big problem with GMO's is that they skip an important part of genetic evolution. They skip the part where they breed non a-sexually(or in a lab) which makes them vulnerable. If one plant is susceptible to a genetic disease all of that GMO would be. Fair enough this could be partly a consideration of practices but inevitably you would end up with only a few strains of any particular crop and there would be an extremely limited variation in genetic makeup.
As mentioned the limited genetic variety would yield an unsustainable susceptibility to disease. The big problem being that it wouldn't be a problem at all until it was already a catastrophe.
Also the intentional inhibition of propagation is just dumb for such a resource, provided they aren't an invasive species. Err, this isn't a criticism against GMOs. In fact, it is one of the main reasons TO genetically modify plants rather than our current practice, which has led to the very limited genetic variety in crop plants. If the plants are susceptible to some disease, we can add genes from plants that AREN'T susceptible (and eventually, in a few decades, design our own tailor-made genes for that purpose). The problem is that we can't create such a variety in crop as nature. You didn't understand his point : you can genetically manufacture a crop to resist to a specific disease (and that is a good thing) but to do that you need a plant that is already resistant to that disease. But, the implantation of GMOs in some countries resulted in a net decrease in the variety of crops, to the point where scientists all over the world are gathering various grains before they completly disappear. Modern culture is monoculture, genetically manufactured to be exactly the same, to be resistant to specific disease / natural conditions and to be productive. But when they have to face new diseases or conditions, they are not armed to face it and change naturally, and the limited variety that we produce would be dangerous. Let's say it in another way : you create a crop very very productive, that resist to A B C. It is so productive that you plant it everywhere on the surface of the earth, food is cheap, everybody is happy. Then D happens to arrive, all your very productive crop is touched and the production decrease a lot while before the variety of natural crops would have resulted in a negative impact but rather heterogenous on production. You are conflating GMOs and monoculture farming practice. They are not the same thing. Our farming practices have, for the last couple of centuries (if not millennia) been leading to a reduction in plant varieties. However, they are also the most (if not only) efficient way of feeding the 7billion (and growing) number of humans populating the planet. Unless you advocate dropping a couple of atom bombs on overpopulated areas, large monoculture farms are here to stay. GMOs are a new practice that allows us to speed up the process that farmers have been using for thousands of years: cross breeding plants to get *better* versions of the plants they were already growing. Compare the bananas you find in the supermarkets to the bananas you find growing in the wild around South and Central America. The former are big, yellow and delicious. The latter are small, mostly green (although there's some other colours too) and ranging from tasteless to vile. However, the big, yellow, delicious banana is a single genetic strain: all bananas are clones of each other, and there is a rampant disease that is quickly wiping them out. Genetic modification is actually one of our WEAPONS to combat this. Note that the single strain of bananas doesn't come from genetic modification (at least, not in its modern sense), but from cross breeding over the course of generations. Also note that wild bananas haven't been wiped out, they are just inedible (although the rampant destruction of forests everywhere so we can plant more sugar cane, soy beans and corn to feed the world is putting quite a number of wild species at risk of extinction). The same goes for plenty of other plants. Have you ever seen wild apples? Most of them you can put the entire fruit in your mouth at once, and it is sour as all hell. However, the farmed apples are not particularly genetically varied: we don't want genetic variety (which leads to tiny, disgustingly sour apples in many of the plants). We want big, juicy apples. What you don t adress with your stupid scientist utopy are the abuses of GMO which are the possibility for industrials to do everything for profit at the expense of everything be it environment, product variety, farmer dependence, certain side products dependance, the need to buy semance every year. And no GMO haven t saved any lives, if industrials had put more effort into making sustainable and.more nutritive plants hunger would have vanished already. Look at the state of african and indian agricultors, it would have been better if they didnt buy any of that shit be it semance, fertilizers or pesticides... And I know the same argument every big company which works for the consumer world says... But... But... You know... The technology isn t there yet... Like with phones developping the internet goes at the cost of their durability... So by searching a gene for resistance against a desease for a plant we will try to add other genes and if pesticides owned by other companies kill our plant you will just have to buy ours, yes fate is cruel. You know short termist practicies are acceptable with unessential products like phones but we are talking about food and agriculture so it shouldnt work the same way because the will of industrials is to keep making money so drop your dreams, GMO should only be used if they are developped and funded by states and nothing else. Now I will finish my rant with my views on the pro genetic modifications. You along with others are part of the new wave of scientists which this time is believing in GMO. And GMO isn t harmless like computer technology and manufacturing (harmless for us, not for the environment), because if it s allowed everywhere perhaps it will spread to animals or even us. The point is that we wont even be able to know anymore what was modified and more importantly what were they modified for.
[citation needed]
Fear mongering in the face of new technology has been done since forever. Farmers complained that steam trains would cause their cows to give sour milk. Unless you have some actual evidence for all this stuff you're claiming will happen, just.. well.. don't.
|
Republican lawmakers in Tennessee are threatening to withhold tax incentives for a potential expansion of Volkswagen's automotive plant there if auto workers decide to join the United Auto Workers.
Fifteen hundred workers will vote Wednesday through Friday on whether to join the UAW, according to the Detroit Free Press.
But Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist and other lawmakers are trying to steer the auto workers from joining the union.
"It has been widely reported that Volkswagen has promoted a campaign that has been unfair, unbalanced and, quite frankly, un-American in the traditions of American labor campaigns," Tennessee State Sen. Bo Watson said in a statement according to the Free Press. "Should the workers choose to be represented by the United Auto Workers, then I believe additional incentives for expansion will have a very tough time passing the Tennessee Senate."
The state's governor, Bill Haslam (R), through a spokesman, signaled that tax incentives would likely be part of any discussion with Volkswagen auto workers going forward.
Source
|
On February 14 2014 02:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Republican lawmakers in Tennessee are threatening to withhold tax incentives for a potential expansion of Volkswagen's automotive plant there if auto workers decide to join the United Auto Workers.
Fifteen hundred workers will vote Wednesday through Friday on whether to join the UAW, according to the Detroit Free Press.
But Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist and other lawmakers are trying to steer the auto workers from joining the union.
"It has been widely reported that Volkswagen has promoted a campaign that has been unfair, unbalanced and, quite frankly, un-American in the traditions of American labor campaigns," Tennessee State Sen. Bo Watson said in a statement according to the Free Press. "Should the workers choose to be represented by the United Auto Workers, then I believe additional incentives for expansion will have a very tough time passing the Tennessee Senate."
The state's governor, Bill Haslam (R), through a spokesman, signaled that tax incentives would likely be part of any discussion with Volkswagen auto workers going forward. Source
Oh look, blackmailing. how original
|
Tennessee is about as ass backwards as it gets here in the US so this isn't too surprising.
|
Shouldn't that be between the company and workers? Tax incentives should have a goal in mind such as pulling value producing plants into your region and securing good paying jobs. If they are represented by a strong union are the jobs TOO good paying? I think GOP is more afraid of the union dues going to the Dems.
|
It's not clear to me who is receiving these tax benefits. Is it VW, the workers, or the union?
|
On February 14 2014 02:46 TheFish7 wrote:
It's not clear to me who is receiving these tax benefits. Is it VW, the workers, or the union?
The tax incentive would go to Volkswagen, to incentivize them to expand their plant. It says so right there in the text?
So basically what the GOP is saying here is that they only want the industry if they can exploit their labourers. Are these actual examples of the inbred hillbillies I keep hearing about when people stereotype the US?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
