|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On May 03 2016 17:15 hfglgg wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2016 16:33 lord_nibbler wrote:
Always funny how GMO-opponents get labeled 'uninformed worrywarts', anti-science and caught up in propaganda and what not.
And then I read stuff like 'It's just like breeding man.' that could be straight out of a GMO lobby brochure.
Who is the ignorant sheeple here actually? well, gmo is the subject with the biggest discrepancy between scientists and non-scientists, independent from what field people are from. ~90% of scientists think that gmo are completely fine while only ~1/3 of the general population think the same. the other two subjects with large discrepancies are man made climate change (90%/50%) and animal tests (90%/50%). so anti-science and uninformed worrywarts are somewhat accurate descriptions.
And animal tests is also about information, right ?
Most economist are for the tafta, what do we do ?
God damn how stupid those arguments are.
|
On May 03 2016 19:46 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2016 17:15 hfglgg wrote:On May 03 2016 16:33 lord_nibbler wrote:
Always funny how GMO-opponents get labeled 'uninformed worrywarts', anti-science and caught up in propaganda and what not.
And then I read stuff like 'It's just like breeding man.' that could be straight out of a GMO lobby brochure.
Who is the ignorant sheeple here actually? well, gmo is the subject with the biggest discrepancy between scientists and non-scientists, independent from what field people are from. ~90% of scientists think that gmo are completely fine while only ~1/3 of the general population think the same. the other two subjects with large discrepancies are man made climate change (90%/50%) and animal tests (90%/50%). so anti-science and uninformed worrywarts are somewhat accurate descriptions. And animal tests is also about information, right ? Most economist are for the tafta, what do we do ? God damn how stupid those arguments are.
It's really not like you are setting a higher bar though.
|
On May 03 2016 19:46 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2016 17:15 hfglgg wrote:On May 03 2016 16:33 lord_nibbler wrote:
Always funny how GMO-opponents get labeled 'uninformed worrywarts', anti-science and caught up in propaganda and what not.
And then I read stuff like 'It's just like breeding man.' that could be straight out of a GMO lobby brochure.
Who is the ignorant sheeple here actually? well, gmo is the subject with the biggest discrepancy between scientists and non-scientists, independent from what field people are from. ~90% of scientists think that gmo are completely fine while only ~1/3 of the general population think the same. the other two subjects with large discrepancies are man made climate change (90%/50%) and animal tests (90%/50%). so anti-science and uninformed worrywarts are somewhat accurate descriptions. And animal tests is also about information, right ? Most economist are for the tafta, what do we do ? God damn how stupid those arguments are.
Please enlighten me, how is GMO not about Science? Just that it makes some people, for reasons that they most of the time can't explain, uncomfortable is not a reason.
You can still do tons of testing and everything but downright being against it because your gut tells you so is just stupid.
Animal testing is another story because people like animals and so Morals and Ethics play into it.
|
I honestly don't see how GMO is different from selective breeding. Corn used to have protection around each seed. Now you have several hundred seeds to eat within the same protective sheet. It can hardly function in nature without human intervention in the re-production cycle due to that. GMO is taking that 9000 year process and cramming it into 5 years using modern technology. This of course has risks since the 9000 year process had countless trials to make sure it was safe to eat, something we also need to have before judging it safe enough to eat.
|
On May 03 2016 20:59 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2016 19:46 WhiteDog wrote:On May 03 2016 17:15 hfglgg wrote:On May 03 2016 16:33 lord_nibbler wrote:
Always funny how GMO-opponents get labeled 'uninformed worrywarts', anti-science and caught up in propaganda and what not.
And then I read stuff like 'It's just like breeding man.' that could be straight out of a GMO lobby brochure.
Who is the ignorant sheeple here actually? well, gmo is the subject with the biggest discrepancy between scientists and non-scientists, independent from what field people are from. ~90% of scientists think that gmo are completely fine while only ~1/3 of the general population think the same. the other two subjects with large discrepancies are man made climate change (90%/50%) and animal tests (90%/50%). so anti-science and uninformed worrywarts are somewhat accurate descriptions. And animal tests is also about information, right ? Most economist are for the tafta, what do we do ? God damn how stupid those arguments are. Please enlighten me, how is GMO not about Science? Just that it makes some people, for reasons that they most of the time can't explain, uncomfortable is not a reason. You can still do tons of testing and everything but downright being against it because your gut tells you so is just stupid. Animal testing is another story because people like animals and so Morals and Ethics play into it.
Ok let me argue a little. The basic argument pro GMO have is SCIENCE, that is dumb. Discuss the merit of a scientific innovation, but do not oppose "non scientific" judgement to scientific judgement like it's "informed" vs "non informed". Also, an innovation have no value outside of its actual use in the production.
For exemple, "GMO" as a tag does not mean much. There are tons of GMO, and as it is today, GMO have been mainly designed to permit heavier use of pesticide. Result is, contrary to common belief (even among scientist), study shows GMO have increased pesticide consumption (more pesticide use overall and even more pesticide use PER kg produced). Now do you know the european parlament is actually trying to lessen pesticide use and forbid some pesticides ?
What about the effect of pesticide on health ?
And what about the fact that most GMOs are manufactured by huge compagnies that have all the possible market power (and that usually also manufacture pesticides) ?
But forget about all that difficult talk, it's really simpler to just resume this to ignorance vs informed judgement and act all high and mighty ("the US could teach"... yeah sure). In fact, US scientism and non aversion for risk is both a blessing from an economical standpoint, and a stupidity that lead them to absurd situation (like all the fiascos over water, the recent discovery over fracking, and everything else).
On May 03 2016 23:20 Yurie wrote:
I honestly don't see how GMO is different from selective breeding. Corn used to have protection around each seed. Now you have several hundred seeds to eat within the same protective sheet. It can hardly function in nature without human intervention in the re-production cycle due to that. GMO is taking that 9000 year process and cramming it into 5 years using modern technology. This of course has risks since the 9000 year process had countless trials to make sure it was safe to eat, something we also need to have before judging it safe enough to eat.
The biggest difference is the lack of diversity. Selective breeding take generations and leads to very different result in regards to the climate, the country, the use, etc. This create huge diversity ; GMO are manufactured in a specific environment, sometime very far from the place where they are used, and farmers can't replant them after and are forced to use crop that comes directly from the firm that produce the GMO, effectively reducing both their independance and the crop diversity.
You gain productivity, you lose quite a lot in return. For exemple, GMO crop can be heavily susceptible to disease : if one disease happen to attack a GMO, it could heavily reduce the overall production due to the lack of diversity (disease would spread faster).
|
On May 04 2016 01:52 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2016 23:20 Yurie wrote:
I honestly don't see how GMO is different from selective breeding. Corn used to have protection around each seed. Now you have several hundred seeds to eat within the same protective sheet. It can hardly function in nature without human intervention in the re-production cycle due to that. GMO is taking that 9000 year process and cramming it into 5 years using modern technology. This of course has risks since the 9000 year process had countless trials to make sure it was safe to eat, something we also need to have before judging it safe enough to eat. The biggest difference is the lack of diversity. Selective breeding take generations and leads to very different result in regards to the climate, the country, the use, etc. This create huge diversity ; GMO are manufactured in a specific environment, sometime very far from the place where they are used, and farmers can't replant them after and are forced to use crop that comes directly from the firm that produce the GMO, effectively reducing both their independance and the crop diversity. You gain productivity, you lose quite a lot in return. For exemple, GMO crop can be heavily susceptible to disease : if one disease happen to attack a GMO, it could heavily reduce the overall production due to the lack of diversity (disease would spread faster).
I agree that GMO can be used badly and that you get the results you post about at that time. Having plants that aren't possible to replant is a major downside in case we have a societal collapse. Using a modification for drought climates in a zone with a lot of rain is also a problem. As I see it GMO will become simpler with time so we will still have variations due to the cost benefits it gives (patents and similar will also run out, it just takes time). There is no point having a plant that requires 20% more fertiliser or grows 20% slower due to fitting a different climate if it is easy to get the exact plant you want. We will still likely have the problem that the same regions will have the same plant since it is the most efficient. I would assume that is how it is now but with a bit more breeding spread than we would have with the "perfect" GMO plant.
The downside with having 1000 breeding programs for a plant (the alternative to GMO like development) is that we waste a lot of time and money on 900 projects that will never amount to anything since we don't know which 100 will have advantages over the other ones.
The biggest upside I see with GMO is that we can get plants that produce a perfect nutrition for us if the ground can supply all the minerals needed with a slower growth rate. Or a faster growth rate with just the energy needed but not as many minerals. Especially when we start talking about Mars colonies or generation ships seriously we will need GMOs. Breeding programs would kill those colonies since they take too long.
|
On May 04 2016 02:15 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2016 01:52 WhiteDog wrote:On May 03 2016 23:20 Yurie wrote:
I honestly don't see how GMO is different from selective breeding. Corn used to have protection around each seed. Now you have several hundred seeds to eat within the same protective sheet. It can hardly function in nature without human intervention in the re-production cycle due to that. GMO is taking that 9000 year process and cramming it into 5 years using modern technology. This of course has risks since the 9000 year process had countless trials to make sure it was safe to eat, something we also need to have before judging it safe enough to eat. The biggest difference is the lack of diversity. Selective breeding take generations and leads to very different result in regards to the climate, the country, the use, etc. This create huge diversity ; GMO are manufactured in a specific environment, sometime very far from the place where they are used, and farmers can't replant them after and are forced to use crop that comes directly from the firm that produce the GMO, effectively reducing both their independance and the crop diversity. You gain productivity, you lose quite a lot in return. For exemple, GMO crop can be heavily susceptible to disease : if one disease happen to attack a GMO, it could heavily reduce the overall production due to the lack of diversity (disease would spread faster). I agree that GMO can be used badly and that you get the results you post about at that time. Having plants that aren't possible to replant is a major downside in case we have a societal collapse. Using a modification for drought climates in a zone with a lot of rain is also a problem. As I see it GMO will become simpler with time so we will still have variations due to the cost benefits it gives (patents and similar will also run out, it just takes time). There is no point having a plant that requires 20% more fertiliser or grows 20% slower due to fitting a different climate if it is easy to get the exact plant you want. We will still likely have the problem that the same regions will have the same plant since it is the most efficient. I would assume that is how it is now but with a bit more breeding spread than we would have with the "perfect" GMO plant. The downside with having 1000 breeding programs for a plant (the alternative to GMO like development) is that we waste a lot of time and money on 900 projects that will never amount to anything since we don't know which 100 will have advantages over the other ones. The biggest upside I see with GMO is that we can get plants that produce a perfect nutrition for us if the ground can supply all the minerals needed with a slower growth rate. Or a faster growth rate with just the energy needed but not as many minerals. Especially when we start talking about Mars colonies or generation ships seriously we will need GMOs. Breeding programs would kill those colonies since they take too long.
From my point of view, the biggest problem with GMO is they are manufactured by firms that would do anything for profit, and not by independant scientist. Oftentime, institutions or organization that are charged to survey the evolution of GMOs have not enough founding, take too long to produce the result of their research, are not independant enough, etc. I don't see any huge problem with our current production (we produce more than enough food for our population already), so I don't really see why we should force GMO with all the downsides it has and the unstability it could create.
Research on GMO (especially by independant scientists), in specific areas, I'm all up for it of course.
|
I don't knwo shit about GMO but isn't the lack of diversity pretty easy to solve. Just save seeds of all the variants that excist now and which are tested in giant seed banks. Or maybe not all but the top 10% or something.
|
On May 04 2016 02:27 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2016 02:15 Yurie wrote:On May 04 2016 01:52 WhiteDog wrote:On May 03 2016 23:20 Yurie wrote:
I honestly don't see how GMO is different from selective breeding. Corn used to have protection around each seed. Now you have several hundred seeds to eat within the same protective sheet. It can hardly function in nature without human intervention in the re-production cycle due to that. GMO is taking that 9000 year process and cramming it into 5 years using modern technology. This of course has risks since the 9000 year process had countless trials to make sure it was safe to eat, something we also need to have before judging it safe enough to eat. The biggest difference is the lack of diversity. Selective breeding take generations and leads to very different result in regards to the climate, the country, the use, etc. This create huge diversity ; GMO are manufactured in a specific environment, sometime very far from the place where they are used, and farmers can't replant them after and are forced to use crop that comes directly from the firm that produce the GMO, effectively reducing both their independance and the crop diversity. You gain productivity, you lose quite a lot in return. For exemple, GMO crop can be heavily susceptible to disease : if one disease happen to attack a GMO, it could heavily reduce the overall production due to the lack of diversity (disease would spread faster). I agree that GMO can be used badly and that you get the results you post about at that time. Having plants that aren't possible to replant is a major downside in case we have a societal collapse. Using a modification for drought climates in a zone with a lot of rain is also a problem. As I see it GMO will become simpler with time so we will still have variations due to the cost benefits it gives (patents and similar will also run out, it just takes time). There is no point having a plant that requires 20% more fertiliser or grows 20% slower due to fitting a different climate if it is easy to get the exact plant you want. We will still likely have the problem that the same regions will have the same plant since it is the most efficient. I would assume that is how it is now but with a bit more breeding spread than we would have with the "perfect" GMO plant. The downside with having 1000 breeding programs for a plant (the alternative to GMO like development) is that we waste a lot of time and money on 900 projects that will never amount to anything since we don't know which 100 will have advantages over the other ones. The biggest upside I see with GMO is that we can get plants that produce a perfect nutrition for us if the ground can supply all the minerals needed with a slower growth rate. Or a faster growth rate with just the energy needed but not as many minerals. Especially when we start talking about Mars colonies or generation ships seriously we will need GMOs. Breeding programs would kill those colonies since they take too long. From my point of view, the biggest problem with GMO is they are manufactured by firms that would do anything for profit, and not by independant scientist. Oftentime, institutions or organization that are charged to survey the evolution of GMOs have not enough founding, take too long to produce the result of their research, are not independant enough, etc. I don't see any huge problem with our current production (we produce more than enough food for our population already), so I don't really see why we should force GMO with all the downsides it has and the unstability it could create. Research on GMO (especially by independant scientists), in specific areas, I'm all up for it of course.
Right on. The real issue with GMO is not the GMOs themselves, it's who produces them.
|
On May 04 2016 02:45 RvB wrote:
I don't knwo shit about GMO but isn't the lack of diversity pretty easy to solve. Just save seeds of all the variants that excist now and which are tested in giant seed banks. Or maybe not all but the top 10% or something.
That's being done actually, by public research an private alike I believe.
Doesn't solve the problem, if in the end farmers use the same crop because it's more productive.
|
Zurich15366 Posts
The real issue with GMO is that they taste like bland nothing compared to real food (completely anecdotal evidence from living in the US)
|
|
|
On May 04 2016 06:21 zatic wrote:
The real issue with GMO is that they taste like bland nothing compared to real food (completely anecdotal evidence from living in the US)
Definitely some truth to this. As a general rule, my (anecdotal) experience has also been fresh produce in the US tastes worse than it does in other countries.
|
Focussing on GMO as an objection to TTIP is ridiculous. Its not just about consumer rights, its about workers rights, a general pro-corporation and anti-public attitude and a complete selling out of what many European citizens would describe as our collective political and economic identity (this coming from a generally pro European UK citizen)
GMO is irrelevant compared to that.
|
The real issue with GMO is that they make terrible TL discussions
|
On May 03 2016 17:15 hfglgg wrote:
~90% of scientists think that gmo are completely fine while only ~1/3 of the general population think the same. I really would like a quote on this.
I have a very hard time to believe, that there is even a single scientist out there, who would claim that any possible modification is always going to be harmless. Especially when you think about the lack of long term research in the field.
I would wager that your 90% count is very dependent on the question asked. If you ask a scientist, if any research on GMO should be categorically prohibited, of course you get your 90%. (They became scientist for a reason.) But if you ask them whether GMOs 'are completely fine', I suspect a very different answer...
|
On May 04 2016 06:26 Jockmcplop wrote:
Focussing on GMO as an objection to TTIP is ridiculous. Its not just about consumer rights, its about workers rights, a general pro-corporation and anti-public attitude and a complete selling out of what many European citizens would describe as our collective political and economic identity (this coming from a generally pro European UK citizen)
GMO is irrelevant compared to that.
The reason why there is so much fuss about GMO is pretty simple. There is a HUGE farm lobby in the EU. This is the same reason why the EC will not agree to allow GMO... ever. And why we have bullshit policies like the Common agricultural policy (CAP).
All we need to do is to sign a simple "free trade agreement" and that's it. You know, like the ones we have with dozens of other countries. Now the EC is trying to shove down into our throats this huge agreement with complicated name which contains god knows what. Of course the people don't believe the politicians... Even their own mothers don't.
|
On May 04 2016 07:43 lord_nibbler wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2016 17:15 hfglgg wrote:
~90% of scientists think that gmo are completely fine while only ~1/3 of the general population think the same. I really would like a quote on this. I have a very hard time to believe, that there is even a single scientist out there, who would claim that any possible modification is always going to be harmless. Especially when you think about the lack of long term research in the field. I would wager that your 90% count is very dependent on the question asked. If you ask a scientist, if any research on GMO should be categorically prohibited, of course you get your 90%. (They became scientist for a reason.) But if you ask them whether GMOs ' are completely fine', I suspect a very different answer...
http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/
here you go.
the question was "is genetically modified food generally safe to eat?"
funnily enough another question was whether pesticides are generally safe to use and there is a large split as well (30/70 public/scientist)
my argument is solid though. if a subset has a vastly different view on a subject than then the general public, and this subset is better educated and smarter than the average plus the subject in question has very little chance for a possible bias, then the view of the subset is the most likely to be correct. i like to take the most likely position on anything, seems like the only smart choice to me.
of course others are free to make dumb choices, but dont be mad when you are ridiculed for it :|
|
GMO's have been around since the early 1980's, so to think that in 30 years we know everything about the DNA of plants and whats beneficial to us and what isnt and make claims with absolute certainty is simply Hubris. Even though I'm pro science, I can't deny that many scientists are guilty of this.
With that said, I dont think GMO's are bad, but claiming that they are 100% safe is also not true. They way I see it, humans have adapted their chemistry according to the chemistry present in the foods we eat, even a slight change in that chemistry leads to changes in our chemistry as well. With only 30 years of research in GMO's its pretty safe to assume that we dont know everything so I'll take all of the claims, be it pro or anti GMO, with a grain of salt.
I consume some GMO foods because I have no choice. Given the choice I wouldnt, but not because Im too concerned about their safety, but because they simply dont taste good.
|
Nobody (serious) says that all the possible products of GM are 100% safe. The real issue is whether you can determine via trials and testing etc which ones are safe, and then go ahead and market those. The answer to that has so far been yes.
We have similar controls on medication that work quite well, and, importantly, we do not have similar controls on a huge variety of significantly more dangerous chemical products. Among their "peers", GMOs are hugely over-scrutinized.
The ethical questions around Mosanto etc. are a different issue. An important one, but an entirely different one. Plus, the average person on the street isn't opposed to GM because of those questions, they're opposed out of a vague fear that the technology will harm them. That is not true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
