|
AugmentedVision posted:lol stop talking to it, you'll just get angry because it's either a troll or a person who is so stupid that you will never change their mind no matter how much you inform them Pretty sure the real point of this thread is to smug it up with other people that are down with GMOs and mock chumps like that guy that fundamentally do not understand how all this stuff actually works and now you want to deny me my smugness 
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 16:51 |
|
|
KakerMix posted:Pretty sure the real point of this thread is to smug it up with other people that are down with GMOs and mock chumps like that guy that fundamentally do not understand how all this stuff actually works and now you want to deny me my smugness I was going to correct you by saying dedicated anti-GMO people are basically Trump voters, but then I remembered America recently lost the number one spot in having dumb voters to Britain, so I'll instead consider them the same as Leave voters from the Brexit referendum.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 20:23
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:I was going to correct you by saying dedicated anti-GMO people are basically Trump voters, but then I remembered America recently lost the number one spot in having dumb voters to Britain, so I'll instead consider them the same as Leave voters from the Brexit referendum. I have an engineering PhD and I'm voting Trump so shut the gently caress up. In this case you are the person that is too loving stupid to understand
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Man, americans sure are serious about their mutant maize I understand that GMO based products are easier to produce and harvest, but like I already mentioned, that feature isn't needed in Europe. We already produce far more food than we consume, switching to this stuff would just mean more food goes to waste. Consumers are becoming more health conscious anyway so they probably wouldn't sell that well either. e: I imagine Trump is super pro-GMO which is just another point in an already long list of faults. Don't vote for this racist gently caress my fellow westerners
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
AugmentedVision posted:I have an engineering PhD and I'm voting Trump so shut the gently caress up. In this case you are the person that is too loving stupid to understand Busting out ~PHD~ as some sort of badge is pretty lmao You should really stop eating GMOs
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
kikkelivelho posted:Man, americans sure are serious about their mutant maize If you believe health and eating modern GMOs instead of current European crop varieties do in any way have anything to do with each other, I have a bridge to sell you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
KakerMix posted:Busting out ~PHD~ as some sort of badge is pretty lmao it forces people to try to come up with new owns like this pretty weak one, if I just said I was voting trump people would just call me an inbred dropout which is boring
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
Also I don't recall Trump ever saying anything about GMOs because his base doesn't include enough concerned aged-hippie moms.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
kikkelivelho posted:None of you have mentioned a single benefit to eating GMO poo poo. You just keep defending it by saying it's not that bad or by claiming the good, actually natural products also have flaws (yes, of course, but I'd argue they are minor compared to GMOs). Also the fact that we've engineer foods to be easier to eat isn't a good point. It's one of the main reasons why our immune systems have grown weaker during the last century. Breeding plants naturally is also a completely different thing to creating artificial new breeds in a sterile lab. Digitalis is a toxin found in plants, specifically a neurotoxin. I'm not sure I know what you mean by toxin, though. Apples and oranges and poo poo are all hellish nightmare chimeras of multiple different fruit trees force-bred together over centuries to make the nutritious and edible fruit we enjoy today. There are many orchard crops that actually consist of the fruit tree being grafted onto a heartier root and trunk of a completely different tree. How do you feel about this "natural" practice? Is there mercury, lead or other harmful materials in "GMO" foods that aren't present in "natural" crops? Are food companies splicing in plant poison harmful to humans or grafting snake venom sacs onto cherry pits? Worth noting is that the EU is a giant trade agreement clusterfuck and not any sort of government body, so limiting "evil murrican foods" and importing from other places that likely use similar or identical practices seems more like economic protectionism than "bravely defending the health of European citizens," to me. A little propaganda goes a long way. I don't think there are any direct benefits to GMO over non, except maybe better quality control (taste, texture, size) that matters on a small, local farming scale. For health benefits, it's plausible that someone could engineer through the lab or through traditional breeding a more nutritious version of an already extant food crop. That's what we've been doing for thousands of years. I don't think involving lab equipment in the development end of farming is going to have huge health changes for good or ill. It's mostly about yield and marketability.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
"gmo" are ultimately a convenient divisive pet issue neatly split along party lines that takes up a lot of space in news broadcasts and politician speeches and distracts the mewling masses from the real issues like the fact that our government is ruled by lobbyists htfh trump 2016
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
AugmentedVision posted:"gmo" are ultimately a convenient divisive pet issue neatly split along party lines that takes up a lot of space in news broadcasts and politician speeches and distracts the mewling masses from the real issues like the fact that our government is ruled by lobbyists htfh trump 2016 i dunno i would take monsanto lobbyists over trump in 2016 because they might accidentally do environmental good (by making it easier to get new gm crops approved)
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
The deal is that GMOs don't fix the structural problems that actually lead to food poverty one bit, and have led to stupid IP fuckery and an incredible concentration of corporate power and wealth that is unfortunate when you're dealing with something that doesn't matter like smartphones, and potentially deadly when done with food. Well, hope that helps.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
blowfish posted:i dunno i would take monsanto lobbyists over trump in 2016 because they might accidentally do environmental good (by making it easier to get new gm crops approved) I understand that you think this is more important than not voting for a dynasty of oligarchs that would rather you didn't have a vote at all. It's natural for human brains to substitute easier questions when the big picture is too hard to comprehend. I read about it in bestselling book "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Nobel laureate David Kahnemann
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Also I don't recall Trump ever saying anything about GMOs because his base doesn't include enough concerned aged-hippie moms. I don't think this largely matters to the Republican base unless it fucks with the production of red meat. Pvt.Scott posted:Worth noting is that the EU is a giant trade agreement clusterfuck and not any sort of government body, so limiting "evil murrican foods" and importing from other places that likely use similar or identical practices seems more like economic protectionism than "bravely defending the health of European citizens," to me. A little propaganda goes a long way. Recently, Russia pulled this as well in protest against the sanctions from their seizure of Crimea and covert invasion of Ukraine. They put some sort of ban on GMOs, then claimed that all food from the EU was GMOs or similarly unsafe for consumption, even going so far as filming bulldozers going over wheels of French cheeses in a garbage dump as Russia is experiencing food shortages. Meanwhile, Belarus is importing the same stuff, relabeling it's country of origin, and importing it into Russia.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
AugmentedVision posted:it forces people to try to come up with new owns like this pretty weak one, if I just said I was voting trump people would just call me an inbred dropout which is boring The need for someone to come up with a GMO 'own' for the dude rattling off about politics in a thread about GMOs mixed in with his insecurities about his internet cred is silly when the owning is naturally there and doesn't need to be domesticated.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
KakerMix posted:You should really stop eating GMOs Yeah, I try to be fairly careful with what I put in my stomach but sometimes the options are somewhat limited. Even in Europe there's already a considerable amount of foods that are only available in GMO form. Thanks for actually giving an explanation instead of going on about Trump, PHds and maize. There's definitely multiple views on the issue right now and we still seem to be missing a clear consensus on the pros and cons of GMO products. It's certainly possible that I'm wrong about this but right now I really don't think that's the case
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:The deal is that GMOs don't fix the structural problems that actually lead to food poverty one bit, and have led to stupid IP fuckery and an incredible concentration of corporate power and wealth that is unfortunate when you're dealing with something that doesn't matter like smartphones, and potentially deadly when done with food. The deal is that GMOs have also been involved in programmes aimed at fixing these structural problems, such as the African Orphan Crops Consortium I linked to earlier. It's almost like putting a gene into an organism intentionally rather than by dumb luck is just another technology that you can use for good or bad purposes  AugmentedVision posted:I understand that you think this is more important than not voting for a dynasty of oligarchs that would rather you didn't have a vote at all. It's natural for human brains to substitute easier questions when the big picture is too hard to comprehend. I read about it in bestselling book "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Nobel laureate David Kahnemann You're in luck, I'm actually German so I can just point and laugh at the English-speaking world as it implodes (then quickly run for the hills as Germany also implodes).
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
kikkelivelho posted:it's certainly possible that I'm wrong about this but right now I really don't think that's the case it is
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
Pvt.Scott posted:Is there mercury, lead or other harmful materials in "GMO" foods that aren't present in "natural" crops? Are food companies splicing in plant poison harmful to humans or grafting snake venom sacs onto cherry pits?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
kikkelivelho posted:There's definitely multiple views on the issue right now and we still seem to be missing a clear consensus on the pros and cons of GMO products. It's certainly possible that I'm wrong about this but right now I really don't think that's the case There is a consensus. There are thousands of studies on the food safety aspects of GMOs and a very recent meta-analysis of available data by the US National Academy of Sciences. There is no meaningful evidence for GM making things unhealthy. If you claim that GMOs are inherently unhealthy, you're literally worse than a climate change denier.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
One of the largest benefits of GMOs was actually for the environment. When roundup ready was introduced, it greatly reduced the amount of secondary tilling required for weed control, in turn reducing field runoff. This resulted in a huge decline in soil erosion and "dead zones" in rivers, lakes, and the gulf of Mexico caused by runoff. For a while we didn't see any health benefits from GMOs in first world countries, but there're a lot of blind people in Southeast Asia that probably would've liked to have gotten some vitamin A from golden rice. Now, though, we're actually starting to see some taste and health improvements from GMOs. Innate potatoes don't bruise or brown easily and have less acrylamides when fried, which improves taste and reduces the amount of carcinogens. Arctic apples follow a similar idea, where genes that produce products harmful to humans are knocked out. The goal of GMOs, though, is usually to make crops heartier and require less care. As climate change and disease globalization become a bigger thing, being able to adapt crops quickly rather than trying to improve them through a 5-8 year breeding cycle is pretty important. Anyways, GMOs have pretty much already won the agriculture war. In 10 years, they'll be widespread and only a few nuts will still oppose them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
blowfish posted:The deal is that GMOs have also been involved in programmes aimed at fixing these structural problems, such as the African Orphan Crops Consortium I linked to earlier. It's almost like putting a gene into an organism intentionally rather than by dumb luck is just another technology that you can use for good or bad purposes The truth is that food poverty has gone absolutely nowhere in places that use GM heavily like India and agritech firms are not interested in getting involved in the politics necessary to change that, meanwhile they are talking up their increased yields as if they really matter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:I don't think the worry is about roundup ready crops themselves it's about the extremely casual application of the chemicals you can put on top of em (and indeed the extra ones people are having to pour on now that pests are already becoming immune to certain types of GM + pesticides; the euphemism for this is 'stacked traits' and it would be a disaster for the GM lobby if it was appreciated by the public). Nah this is basically normal resistance by pests, except people claim it's new and exciting because it now happens to GM crops. Conventional breeding is barely able to deal with every pest overcoming every resistant strain of crop in a few years, so breathing space from being able to make a lot of GM strains is very appreciated here. If you did your planting and pesticide use smart you could get more mileage out of each strain but the current status is basically "farmers are still terrible at coordinating with each other, like they have always been".
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Nah this is basically normal resistance by pests, except people claim it's new and exciting because it now happens to GM crops. Conventional breeding is barely able to deal with every pest overcoming every resistant strain of crop in a few years, so breathing space from being able to make a lot of GM strains is very appreciated here. If you did your planting and pesticide use smart you could get more mileage out of each strain but the current status is basically "farmers are still terrible at coordinating with each other, like they have always been". The non-GMO method for pest control is pretty much the same as GMO anyways. Dump a bunch of pesticides on the plant and hope they work. Hell, until GMO based BT was introduced, Greenpeace actually had articles about how awesome BT was for pest control. "Degrades quickly, doesn't wash into the soil, isn't hazardous to non-pest animals, etc". As soon as GMO BT plants arrived, they used the exact same arguments against it: "BT lingers, is carcinogenic, washes into the soil, kills bees, etc".
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Greenpeace is such a bunch of loving retards, worst organization
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:Yeah the GM lobby loves to give out little pet projects like this and that Golden Rice poo poo. How about Glorius Chinar, which will probably become the largest user of GM crops (after buying up half the world's companies active in GM). Indian, GM cropland is mainly cotton, so a few cotton farmers can now sell slightly more cotton each year. This is the usual story of cash crops vs food crops which is so utterly common that it made its way into high school geography textbooks like 25 years ago, so at most you can say that GM didn't magically solve problems (of course it doesn't unless you apply it correctly, like every other potential solution).
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
AugmentedVision posted:Greenpeace is such a bunch of loving retards, worst organization somehow i 100% agree They were good 40 years ago and then they just kind of stopped and doubled down on every awful idea they had without bothering to double check with reality. Adventure Pigeon posted:The non-GMO method for pest control is pretty much the same as GMO anyways. Dump a bunch of pesticides on the plant and hope they work. Hell, until GMO based BT was introduced, Greenpeace actually had articles about how awesome BT was for pest control. "Degrades quickly, doesn't wash into the soil, isn't hazardous to non-pest animals, etc". As soon as GMO BT plants arrived, they used the exact same arguments against it: "BT lingers, is carcinogenic, washes into the soil, kills bees, etc". They are still totally ok with Bt as long as it comes out of a spray can and not out of a plant ribosome.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
gmos are bad because the media said they are bad and they cost less which clearly means they are bad because its for poor people who are bad, and im not a bad person, im a good person, who wants to eat good food, so i wont eat things that are bad (like gmos). i'll stick to good things like corn and oranges (organic only).
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
blowfish posted:There is a consensus. There are thousands of studies on the food safety aspects of GMOs and a very recent meta-analysis of available data by the US National Academy of Sciences. There is no meaningful evidence for GM making things unhealthy. If you claim that GMOs are inherently unhealthy, you're literally worse than a climate change denier. I know there are pro-GMO studies, I never claimed otherwise. Nor did I claim that they never had ANY benefits. I just think it's dangerous to accept these things as absolute truths when history has shown us that even things we once considered to be airtight facts have turned out to be false when science has advanced. Not long ago we thought atoms were the smallest components of our universe. I just think the jury is still out on this issue. Is that such a strange view to have?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
Caramel macchiato
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
kikkelivelho posted:I know there are pro-GMO studies, I never claimed otherwise. Nor did I claim that they never had ANY benefits. I just think it's dangerous to accept these things as absolute truths when history has shown us that even things we once considered to be airtight facts have turned out to be false when science has advanced. Not long ago we thought atoms were the smallest components of our universe. I just think the jury is still out on this issue. Is that such a strange view to have? 2) You don't understand science. At all. 3) Any empirical effect such as "it's toxic so it harms you" that can be and is independently measured doesn't normally get overturned. It gets refined, but if the current knowledge is that GMOs are somewhere between "not dangerous" and "not dangerous at all" then the chance that we later find that GM-ing something makes it toxic is negligible. Note that basically every case of something turning out to be awful after the fact begins with people not bothering to check if it causes problems in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
People against GMOs are basically cavemen afraid of fire.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
But hey, go ahead and cling to 18th century farming techniques that allow a population density equal to that of Wyoming.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
There's a very prevalent fallacy that natural=better, which ignores the fact that nature is actually random with a minor skew towards reproductive capability. The idea that doing what nature does, but better (direct genetic manipulation vs. waiting for the genes to change on their own), is somehow bad is heavily ingrained in environmentalist thought. Hell, we've been doing that exact thing ever since we decided to select crops to grow based on their traits: we're passing down those genes on purpose, and have been doing so since we stopped being hunter-gatherers. It's probably the single most awful thing about the left that doesn't involve bigotry and how to deal with it E: Like, GMO stands for "genetically modified organism". It says nothing about how that's carried out, and in terms of actual effect, breeding sweet tomatoes with other sweet tomatoes instead of a random tomato variety is just as much genetic modification as tinkering directly with DNA is: both result in the genetic code for "sweetness" (which is more likely to be like 75 genes and epigenetic effects, because DNA is loving complicated) being present in the offspring of the tomato. Jen X fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Jul 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
Sergg posted:But hey, go ahead and cling to 18th century farming techniques that allow a population density equal to that of Wyoming. Hey now, the Green Revolution already happened to make things somewhat less poo poo (with a well deserved Nobel for the trouble), and it involved using then-unprecedented levels and precision of mucking about with plant genomes. Somehow it didn't kill us all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
My brother is like weird pro-GMO for the reason that "those organic farmers don't have the same standards as normal farmers and they over-fertilize with manure and it runs off and they're ruining the planet" 
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
If global warming is real, and it's too late to stop substantial changes no matter what, GMO's are probably going to be pretty important in the battle to maintain our current standard of living in the coming century, imo
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
My favorite part about GMOs is that random mutation breeding, i.e. zapping seeds with x-rays or other radiation and seeing what you get, is not regulated or controversial in the least like transgenic plants are.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
General Dog posted:If global warming is real, and it's too late to stop substantial changes no matter what, GMO's are probably going to be pretty important in the battle to maintain our current standard of living in the coming century, imo Yes, absolutely. People don't get that farming isn't "take good crop, plant and fertilise without changing anything for the next 500 years", but a constant arms race between plant breeding and agricultural technology vs. pests and the changing environment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 16:51 |
|
|
El Golden Goose posted:My favorite part about GMOs is that random mutation breeding, i.e. zapping seeds with x-rays or other radiation and seeing what you get, is not regulated or controversial in the least like transgenic plants are. Yeah that's one of the more hosed up parts of GMO research that pro-GMO people rarely talk about. I don't think anyone can honestly say that they wouldn't want more regulations, but GMOs are the sole domain of massive multinational corporations so good luck with that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 22:02
|
|