|
ghetto wormhole posted:all of these things(crop rotation, no-till, etc) are modern best practices lol, you have no idea what you're talking about honestly reading the post you quoted I felt like ive been transported back to 1507 and the local naturalist monk is petitioning the king.
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 15:12 |
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:whats wrong with people dying of cancer, less people imo people dying of natural methods like starvation = totally cool and good people dying of unnatural sorcery such as cancer = no bueno
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
bloodsacrifice posted:honestly reading the post you quoted I felt like ive been transported back to 1507 and the local naturalist monk is petitioning the king. nitrogen fertiliser can also be sun or nuke derived, because the haber bosch process just needs to suck up vast amounts of energy (and some more energy if you want to get your hydrogen from water)
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 18:07
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
The thing that's actually killing the bees is nicotine based fertilizer. basically they love nicotine and can't forage it on their own so they die from withdrawls, lol
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:I don't really like arguing about GMO stuff because I do plant genetics for a living. [...] Hey, sup plant genetics bud Anyway, you'd think this would be true, but actually traditional breeding gains still have tons of room to grow and continue to do so. It's just that hybrids, marker-assisted selection, and GM technology are even better, and work as an excellent complement to traditional breeding that accelerate gains to the point where traditional breeding alone looks weak in comparison. Working on finding the citation of a huge longitudinal study that showed this years back. EDIT: found it http://cropsci.illinois.edu/sites/cropsci.illinois.edu/files/users/smoose/Lucas_et_al_Seed_Genomics_chapter.pdf El Golden Goose fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Jun 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
El Golden Goose posted:Hey, sup plant genetics bud Sup plant buddy. Plateau was probably the wrong word, or at least an oversimplification. Yields are improving for many crops, though some of this is due to GMO technology or more resource intensive farming. Some crops have reached a production plateau, though this may not necessarily mean that new, more productive breeds aren't being developed. Marker assisted breeding, especially with next generation sequencing, is doing wonders for QTL mapping, recombinant screening, and everything else in traditional breeding. It's a great time to be looking for work in plant genetics, since there're a lot of crops that have minimal genomics work done on them, and agricultural companies are just starting to realize this. I guess my biggest point is that traditional breeding's biggest weakness is that it's limited to pre-existing genetic variation that can be introgressed. Ultimately, you either expand your pool of variation by identifying wild relatives that can be reliably crossed with your inbreds, or you develop new ways to cross related species (which can be time consuming and very difficult, especially if you want to produce fertile offspring). All of these methods require a good bit of recombinant screening. A big concern is that the time lag and the limited amount of variation won't be sufficient to keep pace with rising populations, especially as climate change and diseases start to cause problems. GM technology is really just a way of expanding the pool of available genetic diversity and standardizing the introgression while avoiding most of the recombinant issues.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
how does it feel to be wrong 
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
blowfish posted:how does it feel to be wrong GMOWNED
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:GMOs are a valuable tool for continuing the green revolution, and maybe even getting rid of our dependency on chemical fertilizers and pesticides by making plants more resource efficient and disease resistant. Well, I finally just made it through this post, and this is the only part I have issue with. All GMOs do is help raise the carrying capacity for humans on the planet: the opposite of what's needed. GMOs might solve all our food problems in some glorious future to come but right now they're leading to increased pesticide use and a bigger environmental footprint. Drunkboxer posted:Genetic modification of plants is typically done with a bacterial vector, and that bacteria does it willy nilly in the wild anyway except it doesn't care what genes it dumps into it and where. The plants genome isn't some field of undriven virgin snow, and neither is yours. Dogs have hosed up genomes because we've repeatedly selected for the ones with huge mutations instead of gradual mutations like nature does. Also selective breeding doesn't really compare to genetic engineering except in its effects. That's like saying the barrel of gunpowder anticipated the atomic bomb.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
Gay Man Orgies are good things yes
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
i only eat wild teosinte. it is coarse and rough, and my stomach aches for days afterwards. but i remain untouched by the hubris of man
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
babypolis posted:people dying of natural methods like starvation = totally cool and good 
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Beef Turret posted:Well, I finally just made it through this post, and this is the only part I have issue with. All GMOs do is help raise the carrying capacity for humans on the planet: the opposite of what's needed. GMOs might solve all our food problems in some glorious future to come but right now they're leading to increased pesticide use and a bigger environmental footprint. So your argument is we need less food so that there will be less people? Population control is an issue separate from agriculture, as shown by the fact that the population is increasing most rapidly in the poorest areas of the world. Regarding pesticide use, organic and non-GMO farming uses tons of pesticides. Here're some https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotenone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_thuringiensis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotenone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrethrin Further, there's evidence organic pesticides may be as harmful to the environment as synthetic ones. Organic just means it's naturally occurring, it has nothing to do with toxicity. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0011250 One of the nice things about synthetic pesticides is you can design them to have a short half life or to be targeted. With organic pesticides you're left with whatever nature gives you. GMOs make farming more efficient, require less pesticide application, and surprisingly require less herbicide application. You keep talking about how much more glyocophosphate is used, but that's a fallacy. It's been widely adopted because it's highly effective, so it's used a lot by volume. If chemical A is used at a concentration of ten gallons per acre by ten million people and chemical B requires a thousand gallons per acre to be effective and is only used by one person, that doesn't mean the world will use less pesticides if everyone adopts chemical B. Similarly, if one thousand people get sick every year due to chemical A, but only ten people get sick every year due to B, that doesn't mean B is safer. Probably the biggest environmental gain from GMOs, in addition to the reduced tilling and the reduced chemical use, is that the fact they're more efficient means we have to use less land for agriculture. The best way to preserve the environment is not to gently caress it up in the first place as opposed to tilling it and growing organic crops on it. Anyways, you seem very confused about the problems specific to industrial farming, the problems specific to GMOs, and the truth versus the perception of organic farming. These are issues you should try to learn more about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
I don't like this thread because of the way it frames it - like someone defending GMOs despite <made up bad things> about them. In truth they are straight up good and so the thread title should be "GMOs are good".
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:So your argument is we need less food so that there will be less people? Population control is an issue separate from agriculture, as shown by the fact that the population is increasing most rapidly in the poorest areas of the world. Uh your science is not conforming to my own personal prejudice views about the issue, I'm going to say you're "making poo poo up" or you're a "republican" because I knew I was automatically right upon entering this conversation and how dare you even attempt to disagree with me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
The Taint Reaper posted:Uh your science is not conforming to my own personal prejudice views about the issue, I'm going to say you're "making poo poo up" or you're a "republican" because I knew I was automatically right upon entering this conversation and how dare you even attempt to disagree with me. I am sorry for triggering you. Actually, everyone has been more civil in this discussion than they were in the D&D version, which is nice. I even think Beef Turret is okay even if I disagree with him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
The Taint Reaper posted:Uh your science is not conforming to my own personal prejudice views about the issue, I'm going to say you're "making poo poo up" or you're a "republican" because I knew I was automatically right upon entering this conversation and how dare you even attempt to disagree with me. no one in the thread disagreed with that post fucko
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
Beef Turret posted:Well, I finally just made it through this post, and this is the only part I have issue with. All GMOs do is help raise the carrying capacity for humans on the planet: the opposite of what's needed. It's funny how you are unaware that the human population will top out at 10-11 billion ish due to the population pyramid filling up to a population cylinder and that the world birth rate is 2.5 and therefore only slightly above replacement 2.1. Oh and the fact that there is a causal link between child survival (and general quality of life) and low population growth so that the only countries with ridiculously high birth rates are precisely the war torn starving hellholes of the world  quote:GMOs might solve all our food problems in some glorious future to come but right now they're leading to increased pesticide use and a bigger environmental footprint. quote:Dogs have hosed up genomes because we've repeatedly selected for the ones with huge mutations instead of gradual mutations like nature does. Also selective breeding doesn't really compare to genetic engineering except in its effects. That's like saying the barrel of gunpowder anticipated the atomic bomb. Do you know what a selective sweep is (without googling)? Do you know what the difference between minor and ~huge~ mutations is (protip: if you use dumb categories based on subjective phenotype characters to define "huge", there is none)? Also why the gently caress are you even talking about dogs in here?  In addition your analogy sucks, the muzzle loading hand cannon anticipating the homing bullet is more like it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
blowfish posted:The solution to human overpopulation: have a few famines, pour encourager les autres. I suggest we starve Beef Turret first. This is a good point. Improving food stability will reduce poverty and conflict, stabilizing or reducing the population of the world in a non-violent manner, rather than the opposite. This is doubly true if we can improve food stability at the level of the farmers who toil in those countries, which will do even more to improve the quality of life.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
My main concern with GMOs isn't that nature is sacrosanct or that humans will cause the end of the biosphere through hubris or any nonsense like that. Fact is that right now roundup ready crops are a cornerstone in the lives of so many that to take it away is impossible. By having built in resistances GMOs naturally accelerates the pesticide arms race creating "superweeds" (yes I know they're just regular weeds with a specific resistance) similar to how overuse of penicillin creates omni-resistant bacteria. That leads to needing ever increasing concentrations in a mechanism analogous to vendor lock-in in the software world. Most technology follows a predictable arc from luxury to mandatory to slavery, just look at the role of the car and the cellphone in the work place. Technical people always think that the technologies they work with are neutral and that the ill effects stem solely from errors in policy. Even the ones who design drones that kill ppl think they're blameless. Fact is technicians are part of a superstructure that's helping to poison the planet. They're hired to solve problems caused by a way of life that hires them in the first place blowfish posted:It's funny how you are unaware that the human population will top out at 10-11 billion ish due to the population pyramid filling up to a population cylinder and that the world birth rate is 2.5 and therefore only slightly above replacement 2.1. I saw that UN report too. Thank god really. Unfortunately GMOs (and more resources in general) would just make it safe for those 4+ billion people to begin industrializing and hence poo poo up the planet even more. I'd wager most ppl itt are pro-GMO not because they've weighted the evidence and concluded that GMOs really are a good long-term solution (possibly they are) but because rejecting novelty goes against their technophilia. The luddites are irrational too but on the side of caution at least. When in doubt, I trust nature over the jews Beef Turret fucked around with this message at 21:26 on Jun 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
Beef Turret posted:My main concern with GMOs isn't that nature is sacrosanct or that humans will cause the end of the biosphere through hubris or any nonsense like that. Fact is that right now roundup ready crops are a cornerstone in the lives of so many that to take it away is impossible. By having built in resistances GMOs naturally accelerates the pesticide arms race creating "superweeds" (yes I know they're just regular weeds with a specific resistance) similar to how overuse of penicillin creates omni-resistant bacteria. That leads to needing ever increasing concentrations in a mechanism analogous to vendor lock-in in the software world. Most technology follows a predictable arc from luxury to mandatory to slavery, just look at the role of the car and the cellphone in the work place. The problem is that any pesticide or herbicide will, at some level, do this. What do you propose as a solution? One would be to create GMOs that are resistant to a variety of herbicides then rotate which ones are used to minimize any one selective pressure on weeds. Secondary tilling is another way of getting rid of weeds, but evidence has shown that it has some really bad side effects.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
Remember when those people went around destroying golden rice farms but couldn't explain what was wrong with golden rice? Good times.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
Yaos posted:Remember when those people went around destroying golden rice farms but couldn't explain what was wrong with golden rice? Good times. Greenpeace lusts for child death and blindness when they aren't destroying priceless cultural artifacts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
Beef Turret posted:GMO crops mean more pesticide use. Since the crops are designed to be resistant to proprietary pesticides farmers overuse them and eventually create weeds and pests resistant to them. Which means even stronger toxins are needed which creates even more resistant etc etc. Me, I'll stick with something that isn't filled with Roundup-derived endocrine disruptors. How is this dude always wrong about everything
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
What's bad about superweeds? You can't use roundup with them? But...your solution is don't use roundup anyway, negating the only upside? I'm not sure I get it. Not overusing penicillin is a good reason not to put penicilllin in like, hand soap and fabric softener and whatnot, but we still should use it when human lives are at stake. PS You are a good poster in that I have no idea if you're serious about anything, no matter how much effort is involved, so I can't tell if I'm dumb for responding seriously. Way to walk the line.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
Beef Turret posted:My main concern with GMOs isn't that nature is sacrosanct or that humans will cause the end of the biosphere through hubris or any nonsense like that. Fact is that right now roundup ready crops are a cornerstone in the lives of so many that to take it away is impossible. By having built in resistances GMOs naturally accelerates the pesticide arms race creating "superweeds" (yes I know they're just regular weeds with a specific resistance) similar to how overuse of penicillin creates omni-resistant bacteria. That leads to needing ever increasing concentrations in a mechanism analogous to vendor lock-in in the software world. Most technology follows a predictable arc from luxury to mandatory to slavery, just look at the role of the car and the cellphone in the work place. I agree that we should ban GMOs lest africans stop starving.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:What's bad about superweeds? You can't use roundup with them? But...your solution is don't use roundup anyway, negating the only upside? I'm not sure I get it. Not overusing penicillin is a good reason not to put penicilllin in like, hand soap and fabric softener and whatnot, but we still should use it when human lives are at stake. Penicilin is just one example, its anti biotics as a whole that are hosed. People pour massive amounts of anti biotics down the drain aswell which furthers virus progression. Vomit into the toilet when sick, virus experiences antibiotics as it travels down tbe stream. the other thing being that we use certain antiobiotics so much that viruses work harder and harder to infect us and become more resistant to them http://www.m.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20131217/e-coli-superbug--may-pose-major-health-threat-study
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
Beef Turret posted:My main concern with GMOs isn't that nature is sacrosanct or that humans will cause the end of the biosphere through hubris or any nonsense like that. Fact is that right now roundup ready crops are a cornerstone in the lives of so many that to take it away is impossible. By having built in resistances GMOs naturally accelerates the pesticide arms race creating "superweeds" (yes I know they're just regular weeds with a specific resistance) similar to how overuse of penicillin creates omni-resistant bacteria. That leads to needing ever increasing concentrations in a mechanism analogous to vendor lock-in in the software world. Most technology follows a predictable arc from luxury to mandatory to slavery, just look at the role of the car and the cellphone in the work place.  quote:Technical people always think that the technologies they work with are neutral and that the ill effects stem solely from errors in policy. Even the ones who design drones that kill ppl think they're blameless. Fact is technicians are part of a superstructure that's helping to poison the planet. The problems they're hired to solve are the way of life that causes them in the first place quote:I saw that UN report too. Thank god really. Unfortunately GMOs (and more resources in general) would just make it safe for those 4+ billion people to begin industrializing and hence poo poo up the planet even more. I'd wager most ppl itt are pro-GMO not because they've weighted the evidence and concluded that GMOs really are a good long-term solution (possibly they are) but because rejecting novelty goes against their technophilia. The luddites are irrational too but on the side of caution at least. When in doubt, I trust nature over the jews  (no wait, actually it would perpetuate a humanitarian disaster and we should manage the industrialisation of the remaining third world shitholes in a less environmentally destructive way instead of doing colonialism 2: colonialise harder)GMOs are just an arbitrary variety of hopefully high yield crops and as a land sparing advocate I think high yield crops are good and cool because the amount of new farmland needed to feed an extra 4 billion people will merely be challenging instead of a complete loving disaster for the planet. If those 4 billion people also get low carbon electricity from a renewable/nuclear grid that's even better and when the remaining third world shitholes finally get rich they can put GMO crops in greenhouses and vertical farms which are another way to turn agricultural pollution into manageable point sources and save space. I don't actually give a gently caress about GMO crops for their own sake either because the production of GMO whatever is a boring non-event for me (I'm an
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
this is a dumb conversation because US laws aren't going to stop China or whoever from doing it anyway people always seem to forget there isn't like a world government lol
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:This is a common myth. The event that lead to the most famous case of Monsanto suing a farmer did start with GMO seeds being dispersed into his field. After the farmer realized this had happened, though, he proceeded to spray the part of his field that had the GMO plants with Roundup, killed all the plants that weren't GMO, then propagated the GMO seeds. His field basically went from being 2-3% GMO one year to 97-98% GMO the next. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/10/monsanto-wins-lawsuit_n_3417081.html This is a little bit more objective of an article... even if it's huffpo... considering it's not hosted by the very company with a vested interest in downplaying controversy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:What's bad about superweeds? You can't use roundup with them? But...your solution is don't use roundup anyway, negating the only upside? I'm not sure I get it. Not overusing penicillin is a good reason not to put penicilllin in like, hand soap and fabric softener and whatnot, but we still should use it when human lives are at stake. In all honesty, that posting is a welcome change from the usual anti-GMO MO which is to spam ungodly numbers of easily disproven articles about the evils GMOs, and while the person prepares a response the anti-GMO dude is preparing their next batch of articles. No matter how poor the articles are or how well formed the arguments against them, the anti-GMOer doesn't care because they're not really being honest about their beliefs anyways. It's not that they believe GMOs are bad because of what's in the article, the articles just happen to coincide with their real belief which is usually some conspiracy theory ranging from. "Corporations are evil. GMOs are a tool of the corporations to control the food supply" to "GMOs are a tool UN Agenda 21 under the auspices of the zionist jew lizards to render white males infertile and impregnate the females with alien babies. Also cancer.". They can't be argued with because anyone disagreeing with them is, in their mind, branded a tool of the corporations or a member of the conspiracy and therefore, not a credible source. It takes an incredible amount of patience and willpower to discuss things with them to the point where they might be willing to come around, and I lack that dedication to changing people's minds.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
I agree we need to keep the poors of the world poor so they can't industrialize. I can't move to any of these places and live like a poor because I am a unique captain of industry and without me everything would grind to a halt. I sure am lucky that I wasn't born a poor, or I might think it would be a good idea not to starve to death. Anyhow, vertical farming is the next big thing. An order of magnitude more production per hectare, year round production, and no pesticides. Won't be too long before lab grown meat is commercialized and McDonald's replaces their tasteless burgers with lab grown meat burgers. Yaos fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Jun 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:Penicilin is just one example, its anti biotics as a whole that are hosed. People pour massive amounts of anti biotics down the drain aswell which furthers virus progression. Vomit into the toilet when sick, virus experiences antibiotics as it travels down tbe stream. Viruses don't give a gently caress about antibiotics anyway, unless you are talking about bacteriophages running out of hosts  Animal farming / medical waste going down the drain / doctors prescribing various antibiotics against the loving common cold / your poop are much more important contributors to antibiotic resistance than you barfing into the shitter. In addition evilutionary biology dictates that if you apply selective pressure stuff will either die out (hahaha lol we're talking about microbes) or will adapt, which bacteria are doing. The obvious solution is to change selective pressure to something different (preferably imposing wildly different requirements to the thing your bugs have already adapted to but you take what you can get) and therefore rotate different treatments so that bacteria will have a hard time becoming resistant to all the things at once.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Yaos posted:I agree we need to keep the poors of the world poor so they can't industrialize. I can't move to any of these places and live like a poor because I am a unique captain of industry and without me everything would grind to a halt. I sure am lucky that I wasn't born a poor, or I might think it would be a good idea not to starve to death.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
5er posted:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/10/monsanto-wins-lawsuit_n_3417081.html That article basically is Monsanto saying "We don't do the thing you're saying we don't do but might, so why are you suing us so we don't do it?" It's people in a panic over the representation of Monsanto by biased organizations being told they're dumb by the courts. There's almost no information in that article about the actual substance or outcomes of the lawsuits Monsanto has pursued, which is the key issue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
5er posted:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/10/monsanto-wins-lawsuit_n_3417081.html So... organic farmers sued Monsanto over the vague fear of being sued at some point and lost I guess? e: beaten like the court case 
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
blowfish posted:So... organic farmers sued Monsanto over the vague fear of being sued at some point and lost I guess?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:The problem is that any pesticide or herbicide will, at some level, do this. What do you propose as a solution? One would be to create GMOs that are resistant to a variety of herbicides then rotate which ones are used to minimize any one selective pressure on weeds. Secondary tilling is another way of getting rid of weeds, but evidence has shown that it has some really bad side effects. The only solution is to change people's attitude towards technology. If you look at it objectively, in the west, technological necessity has replaced divine providence. People talk poo poo about how evangelicals dont give a gently caress about the environment since we're gonna get raptured to heaven soon anyway so it wont matter. But that's the exact same attitude technicians, farmers, consumers, and politicians have with regards to technological innovation. They think human ingenuity is limitless and will solve all our problems, so really we should just accelerate technology and make way for innovation and growth... The DDT fiasco should have humbled people but it didn't
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 15:12 |
|
|
Rotating crops just slows the inevitable. And there is no way we would ever allow them to industrialize except on our terms, and it would still probably lead to resource wars anyway. I'm against nuclear energy for that very reason. We shouldn't raise the energy ceiling unless we're sure there's enough to go around and that the environment can handle it, and there isn't and it cant, not unless you want to live in a hosed up exhausted planet Also I don't really get people's aversion to death, even in the millions. At least in nature if you lost (and comparatively few anatomically modern human did) you just die and it's over with. With civilization if you lose (and most people do) you get to live a semi-conscious life of wage serfdom and misery until you waste away in a retirement home or some other total institution. Compared to the 3rd world horror stories nature is loving merciful
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 22:17
|
|