GMOs

DwnWthVwls · 12-07-2014, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

@DWV

It's not like they're coming up with new GMOs every day. Not to mention that this is a biological matter and DNA is consistent across species.

1) Biology and Chemistry go hand-in-hand.

2) It's not a matter of DNA. DNA is just a small portion of what our bodies and other living things are made of. I'm not arguing against you that current GMOs are safe, but I think you are being as bullheaded as the people insisting they are dangerous by denying the potential negative effects they could produce.

3) Sure not everyday but I'm pretty sure not a day goes by when they aren't enhancing or mid-development of new GMOs. That's kind of how they make their money. They don't develop something and say "Well my work here is done, let's watch the bank account go up".

William_the_Bloody · 12-07-2014, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

@william_the_bloody

Yup, that's the only study showing any link. It's the MMR-Autism study equivalent of the anti-GMO movement that it's proponents hold to heart like the bible even though it's been thoroughly debunked. I see the resistance as an ideological one rather than one based on the actual research: many just won't be swayed no matter how many studies there are.

@DWV

It's not like they're coming up with new GMOs every day. Not to mention that this is a biological matter and DNA is consistent across species.

Hmmm, I'm not totally convinced yet, the French study was accepted by a peer reviewed magazine in Europe, though it appears political in nature (Sadly you could argue that specific branches of the science department have become politicized themselves) so in short...I think we need more scientific enquiries.

Environmental Sciences Europe | Full text | Republished study: long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize

I don't trust environmental socialist ideologues with utopia agendas, but I sure as hell don't trust the power of big capitalist corporations either, and Monsanto doesn't exactly have an angelic history.

So call me a technocrat, but I'll just sit this one out until science proves or disproves the safety of GMO's, until then I'll be crossing my fingers when I munch down on a Kit Kat bar, cheers.

**Frownland** · 12-07-2014, 07:20 PM

I was mainly referring to gene splicing, which is the most recent development in GMO production. I honestly don't know how often they're coming up with new methods of creating GMOs, but I think they're largely focusing on how to use gene splicing for other uses.

I'm open to new ideas, once there's any evidence of any negative effects of GMOs, I'll begin to be more weary of them. Until then, I see no reason to worry.

DwnWthVwls · 12-07-2014, 07:31 PM

Well I can't comment on the risks of gene splicing. I know nothing about it. I'll take your word for it until I'm motivated enough to do my own research. Good discussion though, I hope some others join in

Freebase Dali · 12-07-2014, 07:58 PM

I'm of the firm conviction that if someone doesn't have any up-to-date, authoritative scientific evidence for the negative effects of GMOs, then any discussion regarding such a thing is basically irrelevant and useless.

~~Lord Larehip~~ · 12-07-2014, 08:15 PM

The truth is, GMOs are causing superweeds that require stronger and stronger herbicides to kill them. Currently, the amount of herbicide used is actually less than with ordinary farming but it is also only a matter of time before that changes because nothing can stop it once it is set in motion. Eventually, we will poison ourselves trying to keep ahead of the superweeds and the eventual superpests that are also inevitable.

The truth is--there are too many people and not enough land. There would have been global mass starvation long ago had it not been for fertilizers but we are reaching a point now where there are simply too many people and not enough land to produce the food necessary to sustain that population and GMOs only prolong the inevitable.

The bottom line is--there must a be mass die-off of humans. No other way around it. If you live in an area where, say, deer are overpopulating, what do they do to solve the problem? They cull the herds IOW, they go out and bag bunch of deer. It is the only solution to a severe food shortage. And with the possibility that we may lose our honeybees, there goes one-third of the foods we normally consume which will intensify the struggle for food.

Eventually "GMO" will mean the same thing as "Soylent Green."

**Janszoon** · 12-07-2014, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Larehip

The truth is, GMOs are causing superweeds that require stronger and stronger herbicides to kill them. Currently, the amount of herbicide used is actually less than with ordinary farming but it is also only a matter of time before that changes because nothing can stop it once it is set in motion. Eventually, we will poison ourselves trying to keep ahead of the superweeds and the eventual superpests that are also inevitable.

The truth is--there are too many people and not enough land. There would have been global mass starvation long ago had it not been for fertilizers but we are reaching a point now where there are simply too many people and not enough land to produce the food necessary to sustain that population and GMOs only prolong the inevitable.

The bottom line is--there must a be mass die-off of humans. No other way around it. If you live in an area where, say, deer are overpopulating, what do they do to solve the problem? They cull the herds IOW, they go out and bag bunch of deer. It is the only solution to a severe food shortage. And with the possibility that we may lose our honeybees, there goes one-third of the foods we normally consume which will intensify the struggle for food.

Eventually "GMO" will mean the same thing as "Soylent Green."

A concise history of tl;dr.

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 12-07-2014, 09:34 PM

i think it's a bunch of environmentalist paranoia. people don't like that we're ****ing with nature, it scares them. oh well. the future is scary. get over it. at the end of the day genetic engineering is too big a opportunity to miss out on just to play **** safe. it would be like if man never started using fire just in case the fire got out of control.

i do think there is probably a legitimate point to the idea that gmos demand stronger pesticides and **** like that. that is a kink they need to work on, not a reason to hault technology. tbh i think eventually the solution will be sanitized massive indoor grows. but first we need to work out renewable energy or we'll be ****ed regardless of who made the dna in the **** we eat.

~~Lord Larehip~~ · 12-08-2014, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth

i think it's a bunch of environmentalist paranoia. people don't like that we're ****ing with nature, it scares them. oh well. the future is scary. get over it.

That's a piss-poor excuse for short term fixes that at best prolong the inevitable and at worst hasten our demise.

Quote:

at the end of the day genetic engineering is too big a opportunity to miss out on just to play **** safe. it would be like if man never started using fire just in case the fire got out of control.

Much of Europe as well as wealthier Asian countries as Japan and South Korea have either banned GMOs outright or severely restrict their use. Plowing on full-speed ahead with a technology we can't possibly understand all the ramifications of is reckless and irresponsible. Already most of our cotton and corn is GMO. GMOs are a bandage on the problem that we are running out of space to live because there are too many of us. The UN estimates that there will be 9-10 billion people on earth by 2050 and may top 15 billion by 2100. That is simply unsustainable.

The more food we produce to support this ballooning population will only cause that population to continue ballooning. Populations expand as long as there is the food to sustain them. Far from helping, GMOs are ultimately hurting us by allowing us to keep breeding unchecked. We are running out of living space and that is causing other animals to run out of living space as we build over their habitats. We are producing ever increasing amounts of waste with nowhere to put it and that is polluting other creatures' habitats as well as our own:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...science-world/

We can't stop it because most people refuse to admit the true problem. It isn't poverty or disease or lack of food--it's over-population of the human race. This planet was not meant to support 7 billion of us and counting. You've heard of housing bubbles and credit bubbles? We are a population bubble--inevitably it will have to burst. The idea that GMOs will prevent this is laughable and tragic. GMOs are a catalyst to bring it about.

Quote:

i do think there is probably a legitimate point to the idea that gmos demand stronger pesticides and **** like that. that is a kink they need to work on, not a reason to hault technology. tbh i think eventually the solution will be sanitized massive indoor grows. but first we need to work out renewable energy or we'll be ****ed regardless of who made the dna in the **** we eat.

The problem is that we grow GMOs as single crop farms. The superweeds can be reduced by varying what we grow through crop rotation but the problem is that this only slows the process of decline and moreover many areas of the world have a soil that is conducive only to one crop. These areas will eventually be choked out. Then we have to grow food to send them and that is exactly the same old problem all over again. Monsanto does not tell farmers the truth because they want to make huge amounts of money. They pushed Roundup as this super savior which is what created the superweeds. Now that they are out there, they will never go away. That genie doesn't go back in the bottle.

Sparky · 12-07-2014, 11:31 PM

I think it also stems from a distrust of other food that the media hype as toxic.
People may be less lenient towards the idea of gmos due to adverse effects of artificial sweeteners, processed meats and such.

As an uninformed consumer it can be hard to keep track of what is safe when it's all deemed ok by the fda.

This thread has made me re-evaluate my outlook. I took an entire class in college that fed me(pun not intended)the absolutely opposite of what a quick internet search tells me is empirical truth.

12-07-2014, 07:20 PM	#3 (permalink)
Frownland SOPHIE FOREVER Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: East of the Southern North American West Posts: 35,541	I was mainly referring to gene splicing, which is the most recent development in GMO production. I honestly don't know how often they're coming up with new methods of creating GMOs, but I think they're largely focusing on how to use gene splicing for other uses. I'm open to new ideas, once there's any evidence of any negative effects of GMOs, I'll begin to be more weary of them. Until then, I see no reason to worry. __________________ Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth. d e a f b o x

12-07-2014, 07:58 PM	#5 (permalink)
Freebase Dali Partying on the inside Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,584	I'm of the firm conviction that if someone doesn't have any up-to-date, authoritative scientific evidence for the negative effects of GMOs, then any discussion regarding such a thing is basically irrelevant and useless. __________________

12-07-2014, 08:15 PM	#6 (permalink)
~~Lord Larehip~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 899	The truth is, GMOs are causing superweeds that require stronger and stronger herbicides to kill them. Currently, the amount of herbicide used is actually less than with ordinary farming but it is also only a matter of time before that changes because nothing can stop it once it is set in motion. Eventually, we will poison ourselves trying to keep ahead of the superweeds and the eventual superpests that are also inevitable. The truth is--there are too many people and not enough land. There would have been global mass starvation long ago had it not been for fertilizers but we are reaching a point now where there are simply too many people and not enough land to produce the food necessary to sustain that population and GMOs only prolong the inevitable. The bottom line is--there must a be mass die-off of humans. No other way around it. If you live in an area where, say, deer are overpopulating, what do they do to solve the problem? They cull the herds IOW, they go out and bag bunch of deer. It is the only solution to a severe food shortage. And with the possibility that we may lose our honeybees, there goes one-third of the foods we normally consume which will intensify the struggle for food. Eventually "GMO" will mean the same thing as "Soylent Green."

12-07-2014, 09:34 PM	#8 (permalink)
~~John Wilkes Booth~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 2,235	i think it's a bunch of environmentalist paranoia. people don't like that we're **ing with nature, it scares them. oh well. the future is scary. get over it. at the end of the day genetic engineering is too big a opportunity to miss out on just to play safe. it would be like if man never started using fire just in case the fire got out of control. i do think there is probably a legitimate point to the idea that gmos demand stronger pesticides and like that. that is a kink they need to work on, not a reason to hault technology. tbh i think eventually the solution will be sanitized massive indoor grows. but first we need to work out renewable energy or we'll be ed regardless of who made the dna in the ** we eat.

12-07-2014, 11:31 PM	#10 (permalink)
Sparky not really Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 5,223	I think it also stems from a distrust of other food that the media hype as toxic. People may be less lenient towards the idea of gmos due to adverse effects of artificial sweeteners, processed meats and such. As an uninformed consumer it can be hard to keep track of what is safe when it's all deemed ok by the fda. This thread has made me re-evaluate my outlook. I took an entire class in college that fed me(pun not intended)the absolutely opposite of what a quick internet search tells me is empirical truth.