|
Adventure Pigeon posted:Are you arguing against GMOs, industrialized agriculture, Monsanto, excessive use of pharmaceuticals, or something else I'm missing? I have views on these things, but I am not currently 'arguing'. I am trying to begin and lay out together a deconstruction that could lead to people having objections. The thing is, it is hard to simply talk about one aspect of the production. When we try to look at the entire thing, rather than picking places that simply justify a way we wish to live, some point of view we might happen to have or some aspect we relate to as intimate to our identity, it becomes very complex very quickly and yes/no arguments are insufficient to either understand it or inform our action. I a, not willing to simply dismiss proponents of GMOs or objectors. Instead, I would like to understand how participation in what systems might condition or reinforce those views, regardless of my on agreement or disagreement. Personally I feel most of the supportive rhetoric about GMOs is disingenuous unless the system of profit maximization and consolidation is kept in mind as a context that guides the R&D and implementation activities. Biodiversity is also a big deal and the current GMO effort is completely counter to that. This creates a highly vulnerable system of agriculture specifically because it is monolithic. In theory amazing things could come from GMO/GE that would not necessarily create the risks associated with monolithic structures (i.e. all your GMO eggs in one basket), but the current system is structured to create such monoliths and profit from the ownership. If you imagine that there is any sort of increased environmental volatility associated with human activity (e.g. climate change) then we are particularly vulnerable at this time in history.
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 00:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 05:12 |
|
|
Sogol posted:There are actually quite a few potential advantages from GE possible including drought resistance, pest control etc. it is not really the current purpose of the system to produce these though. Cross pollination, as in the case of papaya's, should be minimalized and you did not really address that in your post. quote:You are now basically making an elitist argument in which a technocracy should be able to control the market and choices available because the populace is just too stupid and ignorant to do so. The US is pretty much the only place where labeling is an issue and this is in great part due to lobbying efforts. It's not elitist to refuse to acknowledge fearmongering psuedoscience that wants to put a torch to "unnatural" frankenfoods. This is only an issue in Europe because of advocacy and lobbying of environmental groups whose spread misinformation and brands the whole of the scientific community "shills" (unless they are lone-wolf scientist whose fly by night uncontrolled and refuted experiments "prove" that GM corn causes wifi allergies).
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 00:22
|
|
|
Sogol posted:Personally I feel most of the supportive rhetoric about GMOs is disingenuous unless the system of profit maximization and consolidation is kept in mind as a context that guides the R&D and implementation activities. That is stringing up a whole bunch of fallacies here. You can't throw out GM crops because capitalism exists. That's why "makes more money!" is never in the list of provable GM benefits. Sure, you could make otherwise unprofitable GMOs if we lived in a socialist worldwide utopia. But as it stands, GMOs only exist because huge companies are willing to put up the money to do years of R&D to create them in the first place. I'm sorry if that irreparably taints them in your mind, but that doesn't change the fact that GMOs, as they exist right now, still have enormous benefits for us.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 00:26
|
|
|
Sogol posted:I have views on these things, but I am not currently 'arguing'. I am trying to begin and lay out together a deconstruction that could lead to people having objections. The thing is, it is hard to simply talk about one aspect of the production. When we try to look at the entire thing, rather than picking places that simply justify a way we wish to live, some point of view we might happen to have or some aspect we relate to as intimate to our identity, it becomes very complex very quickly and yes/no arguments are insufficient to either understand it or inform our action. I a, not willing to simply dismiss proponents of GMOs or objectors. Instead, I would like to understand how participation in what systems might condition or reinforce those views, regardless of my on agreement or disagreement. First off, a lot of the inability to separate the bad business practices of Monsanto from GMOs is a lot of the reason why GMOs haven't been made into a public resource. That very action has lead to blanket regulation, public ignorance, and environmental terrorism leading to crippling reductions in public GMO research while not really affecting Monsanto. You need to separate the two topics or you just end up doing harm to the wrong people. The most important thing you could've gleaned from the first couple pages is that lumping all these things together into one big blob to rage against is the exact wrong way to handle the issue. quote:
Biodiversity is an easy issue to solve. Wild diversity can bred back into GMO crops without losing the traits if done carefully. The resources just need to be made available. Adventure Pigeon fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Jul 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 00:29
|
|
|
Irregardless, you have made an argument that I am too stupid to be able to make choices about what food I choose to eat and that this choice should effectively be taken away from me. Regardless of the reasons for such an argument it is a very extreme argument to make, it seems to me. The distinction that says that the only options we have are ubiquitous GMO or ubiquitous organic is simply an artificial argument. Clearly these are not the only options. The argument that GMOs are 'necessary' to feed the world is even more disingenuous. Currently GMOs are a profit mechanism. They do not produce higher yields. The 'efficiency' gains are artificial since they destroy yield over time, because of the need to monocrop at scale in order for the GMO to be profitable. The destruction of the soil system is not a problem for the system of industrial ag since it requires escalated use of fertilizers. I am really am not saying anything about Frankenfoods. I honestly don't think we know enough to say those things one way or another. The argument that GMOs are somehow necessary however is false. They are only 'necessary' within that particular system of profit. If you believe in that morality of profit, then you might ascribe to that necessity. If you do not, then the question is very different. I brought up pharma. The reason I did so is that in order to understand the profit model for proprietary seeds it is necessary to understand the entire supply chain, the deployment of which makes GMOs profitable. Pharma is intimate to that supply chain and if you look at almost any of the big ag entities you will see that they have intimate ties across this supply chain, including pharma. Bayer is a good example of course, but so is Monsanto. Sogol fucked around with this message at 00:46 on Jul 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 00:38
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:First off, a lot of the inability to separate the bad business practices of Monsanto from GMOs is a lot of the reason why GMOs haven't been made into a public resource. That very action has lead to blanket regulation, public ignorance, and environmental terrorism leading to crippling reductions in public GMO research while not really affecting Monsanto. You need to separate the two topics or you just end up doing harm to the wrong people. The most important thing you could've gleaned from the first couple pages is that lumping all these things together into one big blob to rage against is the exact wrong way to handle the issue. I really agree with this first point you are making, but also feel that it is not just Monsanto, but the functioning system in which a Monsanto can thrive. As to biodiversity, why would anyone make such resources available? In what context would that make sense? Is that context the functioning context or an idealized one? I will tag on here about cross-pollination. Currently, regardless of how we might wish it to be, cross pollination is a market issue, aside from whatever safety issues one might believe to be present or not. The mutant wheat found in Oregon is an example of this. If that 'got loose' it would destroy the international wheat market for the US, since almost all countries prohibit the importation of GMO wheat. I have also wondered a lot why it is that China basically has almost no GMO acreage (compared for instance to the 70m hectares of US GMO agriculture). Any views on that? Sogol fucked around with this message at 00:49 on Jul 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 00:45
|
|
|
Sogol posted:I really agree with this first point you are making, but also feel that it is not just Monsanto, but the functioning system in which a Monsanto can thrive. This seems to be a general "gently caress capitalism" argument rather than anything specific to GMOs at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 00:49
|
|
|
Sogol posted:Irregardless, you have made an argument that I am too stupid to be able to make choices about what food I choose to eat and that this choice should effectively be taken away from me. Regardless of the reasons for such an argument it is a very extreme argument to make, it seems to me. I'm perfectly fine with you making choices about the food you eat. I think you lack the education in this field to make choices about what food other people eat. quote:
I said industrialized agriculture is necessary to feed the world, not GMO. GMO technology is still relatively nascent, but in time it likely will become necessary to respond to environmental change and plant pathogens emerging from globalization. Explain how monocrops lead to reduction in efficiency over time as well please? Yes, I understand they all require fertilizers, but that doesn't make the gains artificial. Rather, it creates a technological hurdle we will have to overcome when the fertilizers run out or the food supply will drop precipitously. Being able to efficiently convert many forms of energy into food is basically what lead to the green revolution. quote:
Pharma has nothing to do with this topic at all. Many of the companies that got into agriculture were also involved in pharma since the sort of research done is very similar. It's a logical transition to make. quote:As to biodiversity, why would anyone make such resources available? In what context would that make sense? Is that context the functioning context or an idealized one? My lab is trying to get funding right now to do this research. Other labs are as well. It makes sense in the context that maybe, just because we disagree with you, doesn't mean all scientists are assholes who just want to make money while shoving poison foods down the maw of humanity. Just because you're against capitalism doesn't mean the sole motivation of everyone on the other side is capitalism, and until you understand that, you're incapable of appreciating the topic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 00:55
|
|
|
Sogol posted:Irregardless, you have made an argument that I am too stupid to be able to make choices about what food I choose to eat and that this choice should effectively be taken away from me. Regardless of the reasons for such an argument it is a very extreme argument to make, it seems to me. And I made that requiring labeling GM foods give legitimacy to unfounded fears and misinformation, helping to perpetuate the existence of groups to will refuse to accept this Other food for essentially dogmatic reasons. quote:The distinction that says that the only options we have are ubiquitous GMO or ubiquitous organic is simply an artificial argument. Clearly these are not the only options. The argument that GMOs are 'necessary' to feed the world is even more disingenuous. Currently GMOs are a profit mechanism. They do not produce higher yields. The 'efficiency' gains are artificial since they destroy yield over time, because of the need to monocrop at scale in order for the GMO to be profitable. The destruction of the soil system is not a problem for the system of industrial ag since it requires escalated use of fertilizers. quote:I am really am not saying anything about Frankenfoods. I honestly don't think we know enough to say those things one way or another. The argument that GMOs are somehow necessary however is false. They are only 'necessary' within that particular system of profit. If you believe in that morality of profit, then you might ascribe to that necessity. If you do not, then the question is very different. This is the goddamn cherry on the poo poo sundae. You don't think we know enough, but Actual Scientists who spend their life working on this poo poo disagree. No one claimed GMs are necessary (well, they were necessary to save Hawaii's papayas, but whatever), but you are claiming they are unecessary because they only exist to make money. That is demonstrably false. Something can make profit and be a good thing as well. The same line of reasoning is what leads one to believe that vaccines are a conspiracy because Pharmas only exist to make profit, right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 00:56
|
|
|
Yiggy posted:There is a certain richness in you coming into threads like these and lecturing others about their communication skills given your long rap sheet Adventure Pigeon posted:My lab is trying to get funding right now to do this research.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 01:00
|
|
|
Yeah, GMO labelling is stupid. Even if you're against GMOs, GMO labelling is stupid. Seriously, it's a bloody foodstuff, if it's unsafe it should be handled by the food regulation authorities - GMOs aren't going to give you extra cancer or anything; there is literally nothing about the GMO status of a foodstuff in itself that would imply a change in how healthy the thing is. That has to be taken, like any other nutrient, on a case-by-case basis as, obviously, certain specific GMOs could be dangerous. That's not because they're GMOs, though, that's because they're individually dangerous.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 01:02
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:Seriously, it's a bloody foodstuff, if it's unsafe it should be handled by the food regulation authorities
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 01:04
|
|
|
I think it should be pointed out in regards to the GMOs only exist to make money argument, Golden rice (genetically modified rice rich in vitamin A) is being developed by a couple of professors and a charitable foundation as part of a humanitarian effort to reduce the numbers of deaths from nutritional deficiency in the developing world.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 01:04
|
|
|
I think the real criticism of the anti-Monsanto people, and the green movement in general, is that it essentially ignores labor and the working class, and is at its core a petty bourgeois, feel good movement. With that said, certainly Monsanto are a bunch of assholes, but so are most multinational companies. Environmental destruction and climate change are also huge problems, but despite that, there absolutely is a lot of uneducated, gut feeling dislike of Monsanto and love for anything organic or 'green', even if it's not the majority. See anti-nuclear hysteria, anti-vax, fair trade coffee which is essentially a marketing scheme to wring more money out of coffee farmers, etc.
icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Jul 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 01:10
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:The relevant problem with this idea as it relates to Monsanto (in particular) is the fact that Monsanto has managed to place a rotating crew of its employees in FDA seats. GMO labeling is absolutely the wrong way to go about dealing with this. By mandating GMO labels for this reason, you would be explicitly shaping food safety regulations to achieve your political goals. Do you not see how dangerous that is?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 01:11
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Yes. My decade-old account on SA, and a variety of probations including "arguing about Dungeons and Dragons on the internet" is relevant to real-world discussions, as well as the OPs self-stated (and obvious) inability to successfully participate in them because...? Please understand, then, why it's very important to separate opposition from Monsanto to opposition to GMOs. Opposition to GMO research hurts public and academic researchers a lot more than corporate research.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 01:12
|
|
|
Apparently I have really misrepresented myself in this thread. Apologies for that. I will try to address that quickly. It is not my intent in doing so to attempt to authorize in some artificial way. People seem to be responding to me as if I were anti GMO and by association anti science in some way. My current work is funded by several million dollars of grants from the National Science Foundation. This work takes place at one of the well known STEM institutions in the US that has a very strong ag component. In addition to the direct research, for which I am a primary author, designer and practitioner, I work with some students in this capacity, but most of my work is teaching STEM faculty. I have been flown to DC several times this year by the NSF as a result of their request that I deconstruct the current NSF STEM educational strategy and then facilitate strategic work with the advisory committee responsible for STEM education. It is a bit ironic to imagine that I am anti-science. I do have questions about GMOs and the system in which and by which they are being produced. I do have questions about both objectivism and scientism and the implications in practice. I am not 'anti' something or other and do not even feel such 'anti' positions are in any way useful. People seem to be responding to me as if I were anti capitalist in some way. At the turn of the century I was involved in the strategic formulation, design, implementation and integration of several of the largest mergers in history up to that point, in exactly the industries involved in the hydrocarbon supply chain including oil, pharma, chems and ag. I have several decades of experience working with the largest corporations around the world from the CEO suite to shop floor in a variety of ways, in almost 50 countries. It is also a bit ironic to paint me as anti capitalist. I have very serious questions about how that system works, based on intimate familiarity. I have worked successfuly over the last ten years to increasingly divest myself from what occurs for me as the unethical nature of that system. I work in education now primarily because I feel that the system of higher education is failing to prepare current generations for the world we are leaving them. Of course it is possible to consider GMOs as if they were being produced in isolation of larger systemic events, its just not all that useful, it seems to me. It is reductionist. Useful for some things, not so much for others. The basic issue can be considered one of safety. Are they safe? Do we consider them safe? How do we know? Are there any risks? If so how are we balancing risk and benefit? What is the basis for that? Are the questions of safety personal, process or systemic in nature? They are all quite different and require different questions. Considering safety in the current industrial system is always a bit funky. The safest thing that can be done with respect to a particular asset is to turn it off. The operations of the assets or process are not contextualized by safety (or environment, or social good). They are contextualized by profit consolidation and maximization. This has massive implications and is relevant to GMOs. One of the things I suggested is that it might be necessary to deconstruct objectivism to some extent. This is not because I am anti-science, but because I think scientism is not so useful. Objectivism has a particular status because one aspect of it is to assert absolute truth and to then authorize that truth in the hands of a few people. Additionally it asserts a competitive model, which includes the relationship to other models. The effect of this is that it is not related to as a model and seeks to eliminate other models. This does not mean it is not useful. It just means that it has a particular use orientation and it is important to understand that and the implications of that. Regardless of the idealized notion of GMOs, what is the current purpose and use orientation? Why might that be upsetting for people? Why might they conflate what they experience about that with some reality and symbol like Monsanto? It is insufficient to paint objectors as crazy, anti-science, ignorant, etc. Potentially convenient, but insufficient. It also does not get at the question of how one might talk to such objectors. Sogol fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Jul 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 03:28
|
|
|
Puntification posted:I think it should be pointed out in regards to the GMOs only exist to make money argument, Golden rice (genetically modified rice rich in vitamin A) is being developed by a couple of professors and a charitable foundation as part of a humanitarian effort to reduce the numbers of deaths from nutritional deficiency in the developing world. Yes, the most promising GMO developments are related to nutrition and things like drought resistance, it seems to me. These are not what are planted, researched or funded at any scale.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 03:30
|
|
|
Sogol posted:One of the things I suggested is that it might be necessary to deconstruct objectivism to some extent. This is not because I am anti-science, but because I think scientism is not so useful. Objectivism has a particular status because one aspect of it is to assert absolute truth and to then authorize that truth in the hands of a few people. Additionally it asserts a competitive model, which includes the relationship to other models. The effect of this is that it is not related to as a model and seeks to eliminate other models. This does not mean it is not useful. It just means that it has a particular use orientation and it is important to understand that and the implications of that. ...actually, scratch that. I don't think this paragraph is actually written in English. Can you rewrite it in a way that makes me feel less like I have an IQ of 40?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 04:04
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:Okay, I'm really confused here. You keep saying "objectivism". That's Ayn Rand's thing, right? Where does Monsanto come into that? I'm assuming he's trying to talk about positivism or empiricism or something and doesn't know the right term for it. Ignoring this lapse, his discussion is similar to most of his other points in that none of them are particularly wrong, but they're all made kind of vaguely, assume the reader is an idiot and add in background most people already know about, and tend to dance around the real issues we're discussing by being related but never directly relevant. Also, I don't think he gets that "anti-capitalist" isn't really an insult here at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 04:37
|
|
|
Also that response is basically confirmation that he doesn't actually have any direct scientific knowledge of the topic being discussed, which means he falls back on the standard rhetorical strategy for specialists stepping out of their area of expertise by throwing anything vaguely related to the topic that he does know into the reply, inevitably (and sometimes even unintentionally) swamping people in irrelevant factoids and jargon. Then you can pull the whole "but I'm taking the big picture and giving context you small-minded fools" thing when people complain. Also ask lots of rhetorical questions and never answer them, that helps too. The same goes for credential dickwaving that conveniently leaves out the formal training part, which based on a pure guess is probably one of the less rigorous systems areas like project management or something. Or maybe a greybeard systems engineer from the 70s who never actually did any engineering work, though I don't smell engineer in the diction.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 05:13
|
|
|
Interestingly most of the questions I have asked have not been engaged. My personal comments were meant to be contextualizing since attributions were being made. I expected something like these responses. It's easy enough to simply check my post history for depth and consistency. I am not claiming any sort of expertise and never claimed anything about expertise with respect to GMOs, nor would I. I am very specifically not an expert nor a 'specialist' and have worked very hard most of my life to avoid becoming one. I am not confused about criticisms of capitalism not being a problem in the forum. It is in great part why I chose to participate. I have found the conversations typically well informed, thoughtful and have learned a great deal from some threads and some interactions. I have often been asked to give talks on 'sustainability'. I will usually start these talks by saying that after having studied, spoken with experts around the world and been involved in many sustainability efforts I have no idea what that really is. I do know intimately and thoroughly how to participate in a model in which the planet is viewed as a separate object and merely a resource for the production of consumer society. I was raised in such a social contract and have spent much of my life working to both alter aspects of the institutional expressions, contribute to the design of alternatives and mitigate the unintended consequences. I am a practitioner in the domain of very large scale change, not an academic of any sort. Empiricism is a form of objectivism. Rationalism is another. This is wiki reference. It precedes Rand. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy) There is a good deconstruction in Lakoff's 'Metaphors We Live By' that is more thorough than this generic wiki entrance. Aspects are also deconstructed by Kuhn. The basic premise is not simply an independent world, but the assertion that our modeled world is isomorphic with that. An idependent, fungible notion of subject as observer and an independent inviolate third frame of reference are required. It can sometimes be considered to stand in counterpoint to subjectivism. Lakoff considers himself a constructivist. The Einstein-Bohr debate is about this same question. Objectivism when institutionalized tends to lead to expert models that have great depth with a very small scope. Interestingly, to me at least, I have not actually advocated for anything in this thread. Mostly I have asked questions and suggested different contexts through which to approach the questions asked in the OP. Many of the questions have not been addressed. Some have. So far they have mostly been treated as if I were a 'denier' of some sort. Again, what seems to be asked in the thread is how or why people could have concern about GMOs and why vilify Monsanto. I have offered ways in which that might happen. Those have not been explored; just reacted to. Though I am sure a great deal of that has to do with my own character flaws I also feel that the question of why it is difficult to talk with 'such people' is also being answered and modeled independent of my numerous, obvious and irreparable flaws. Sogol fucked around with this message at 06:09 on Jul 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 06:02
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:Amen. Dennet's rigorous materialist viewpoint is pretty refreshing after all the woolly mealymouthed stuff I've just had to wade through here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 06:30
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:The relevant problem with this idea as it relates to Monsanto (in particular) is the fact that Monsanto has managed to place a rotating crew of its employees in FDA seats. Well, I agree that regulatory capture is a problem, but it's not really a problem with GMOs and it doesn't mean that it makes sense to specifically label GMOs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 13:09
|
|
|
drat I can't wait to start up an evil multinational corporation. Apparently no matter what you do everything can be hand-waved away with "well that's just how capitalism is baby, every company is evil so I don't see why you're criticizing me in particular! ha!" This thread was very obviously made to mock new age hippies scared of GMOs and not in any good faith desire to understand people's exact reasons for disliking Monsanto, since every point that was acknowledged to be factual and valid was ignored with some variation of that quote. You're a pretty bad anti-capitalist if you think pointing out specific instances of the failures of capitalism is somehow the wrong thing to do. You're probably a pretty annoying person to be around if you go around with an "I'm sane and reasonable and everyone else is crazy and stupid" attitude, too.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 14:19
|
|
|
acephalousuniverse posted:drat I can't wait to start up an evil multinational corporation. Apparently no matter what you do everything can be hand-waved away with "well that's just how capitalism is baby, every company is evil so I don't see why you're criticizing me in particular! ha!" This thread was very obviously made to mock new age hippies scared of GMOs and not in any good faith desire to understand people's exact reasons for disliking Monsanto, since every point that was acknowledged to be factual and valid was ignored with some variation of that quote. No one is hand-waving it away, but only refusing to accept it as the reason for why Monsanto is singled out in particular. It reeks of rationalization after the fact for a gut dislike of Monsanto. It comes down to people saying, "I hate Monsanto because A, B, and C" and A is trivially disprovable, B is long accepted by the scientific community, and C is something that every company does. Singling out Monsanto for "C" is just another example of presenting it as exceptional, for the sole purpose of justifying existing feelings without rationally reassessing them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 15:12
|
|
|
Sogol posted:Yes, the most promising GMO developments are related to nutrition and things like drought resistance, it seems to me. These are not what are planted, researched or funded at any scale. Depends what you mean by scale, Monsanto got final approval for testing of Droughtguard a drought resistance maize variety and planted 10,000 acres last year. There are also biofortification efforts in China and India involving GMOs, I couldn't find exact numbers on the size of these projects but to say they aren't being researched and funded isn't true, not being planted is arguable because as they are not at the stage of being commercially available of course they will not be planted as much as the first generation GM crops.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 15:22
|
|
Slanderer posted:No one is hand-waving it away, but only refusing to accept it as the reason for why Monsanto is singled out in particular. It reeks of rationalization after the fact for a gut dislike of Monsanto. It comes down to people saying, "I hate Monsanto because A, B, and C" and A is trivially disprovable, B is long accepted by the scientific community, and C is something that every company does. Singling out Monsanto for "C" is just another example of presenting it as exceptional, for the sole purpose of justifying existing feelings without rationally reassessing them. Who gives a poo poo? Honestly? Monsanto is bad, disliking Monsanto is reasonable, why the hell do you need to be a crusader in favor of "reasonableness" making sure everyone knows they should dislike a particular evil corporation JUUUUUUST the right amount? Why don't you try radicalizing people or doing what the one guy said, explaining how Monsanto IS evil but explaining why or how capitalism is the root problem? Why do you come off as a reactionary concern troll defending Monsanto rather than someone who wants to solve anything? Going around complaining about how people dislike an admittedly destructive organization for the wrong reasons accomplishes precisely nothing except to further your own smugness. Look at how someone like Chomsky for example deals with people like truthers and Paulites vs how you come off in this thread.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 15:24
|
|
|
acephalousuniverse posted:...solve anything? What would "solve anything" mean in this context?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 15:33
|
|
|
Puntification posted:Depends what you mean by scale, Monsanto got final approval for testing of Droughtguard a drought resistance maize variety and planted 10,000 acres last year. There are also biofortification efforts in China and India involving GMOs, I couldn't find exact numbers on the size of these projects but to say they aren't being researched and funded isn't true, not being planted is arguable because as they are not at the stage of being commercially available of course they will not be planted as much as the first generation GM crops. Yes, the rice has been mentioned too. I think there are several strains being developed in China, specifically for water conservation. I still wish i understood why China has almost no GMO acreage. I have spoken with people in China about it, and beyond a concern about the proprietary nature of the model and someone else owning the food source I have not yet found much of an answer. There have been some largish philanthropic efforts to develop protein enriched corn for human consumption, meant to be cultivated in Africa. I am probably just cynical in a way that prevents me from fully seeing what is emerging. This would not surprise me at all. One of the things I was doing with pharma was the attempt in two of the largest pharmco's to redesign and reorganize the entire R&D process such that the model could include provision of generic drugs in non-industrialized areas, without compromising the pharmco's ability to develop and patent the 'blockbuster' drugs that are at the center of their commercial (patent) strategy. Structurally and financially this was completely possible and they recognized this. It required a fairly large 'cultural' change within the organizations though. People within the R&D function (from discovery to clinical trials) could see it was possible, but there was such a severe dissonance between the enactment of that possibility and the current culture that they could not do it, even though almost any individual you talked with in the organization was actually supportive and actively trying to do it. This was not some 2 month effort. The work lasted almost a decade and was taking place in two of the largest pharma's. That work did not even involve the R&D effort to discover and produce something unique to that need and independent of the ongoing effort or profit model, as in the case of many of the beneficial GE efforts rightly being pointed to in this thread, It was taking place in post merger environments where such change is much easier in some ways, because everything is changing. There was also a pretty thoroughgoing dissonance between what individuals throughout the hierarchy of the system saw as possible and 'the right thing to do' and structural conditions underpinning the ability to act in a way consistent with that realization. A very similar thing happened in the two cases where big oil was authentically trying to shift from a hydrocarbon to an electron model via a transition through alternative energy. Those efforts had a similar profile, involved billions of dollars of investment, roughly a decade of effort from talented, authentically committed people at all levels of those organizations. When and if the organization feels something akin to a threat to its survival (financial crashes, industrial accidents, etc.) it tends to return to the historical model, abandoning the change or transition effort, even when the core identity is endemic to the production of the perceived threat. One aspect of the system is that such changes almost always stimulate a survival response and it is only in very rare cases, or contained bubbles, that the organization can persist in the face if these perceived threats. One of the positive things that can happen as a result of such efforts is that something gets created and spun off. In the last efforts in which I was involved we designed this in from the beginning, using the 'mother ship' of the historic corporation as an incubator, without exactly publicizing that as the overt strategy. This worked pretty well and allowed the development of some good things to come into the world and market in benevolent ways. Sometimes this would manifest as an entire organization. Often the people involved in such efforts throughout the hierarchy of the organization would leave to go work on such benevolent transition even when no such organizational emergence was present. Even such benevolent actions usually continue to be structurally determined by the overall system of profit maximization and consolidation from the level of individual to organizational entity. This is one of the reasons why I bring up use orientation and the question of how the current system discovering and producing GMOs functions. The structural conditions reach all the way from the academic research and methodology to the pointy end of the market. They include and condition the science. While that is in place it is very difficult for even very benevolently minded individuals, groups, teams, divisions, CEO's, etc. within the organization to implement and make real anything that is not consistent with the immediacy of a linear growth model, measured quarterly. The designation of 'good/evil' is simply not useful for actual change, as it tends to obsfucate the actual phenomena, making it very difficult to work with meaningfully. The overall nature of the system promotes consolidation rather than diversity, meaning the small independent efforts, from discovery to implemented practice, are increasingly difficult. One of the ways to understand this is to consider it a form of structural determinism. Another is to take it as a direct expression of the means for production conditioning consciousness. This dynamic is easier to see in the upstream part of the industrial process, such as a refinery where three generations of people in the area have run the refinery for owners who are not local. It becomes harder to see as you move more into the 'abstract' parts of the business such as marketing, lobbying, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 16:33
|
|
|
acephalousuniverse posted:Who gives a poo poo? Honestly? Monsanto is bad, disliking Monsanto is reasonable, why the hell do you need to be a crusader in favor of "reasonableness" making sure everyone knows they should dislike a particular evil corporation JUUUUUUST the right amount? Why don't you try radicalizing people or doing what the one guy said, explaining how Monsanto IS evil but explaining why or how capitalism is the root problem? Why do you come off as a reactionary concern troll defending Monsanto rather than someone who wants to solve anything? Going around complaining about how people dislike an admittedly destructive organization for the wrong reasons accomplishes precisely nothing except to further your own smugness. Look at how someone like Chomsky for example deals with people like truthers and Paulites vs how you come off in this thread. If there were someone who hated Monsanto, but was otherwise fine with GMOs, sure. This would be a productive and effective technique. But that situation doesn't really happen. The only people I've encountered who hate Monsanto specifically are using it as a proxy to hate GMOs. Convincing them that other companies are also bad won't do anything to solve this; people are perfectly capable of both being socialist and irrationally hating GMOs. It'd be like responding to rants about how nuclear power companies cut corners with "Well, other companies also cut corners for profits!" You may convince them that capitalism is lovely, and that's not a bad result, but you'll never convince them that nuclear power isn't evil that way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 17:21
|
|
|
Sogol posted:Yes, the rice has been mentioned too. I think there are several strains being developed in China, specifically for water conservation. I still wish i understood why China has almost no GMO acreage. I have spoken with people in China about it, and beyond a concern about the proprietary nature of the model and someone else owning the food source I have not yet found much of an answer. There have been some largish philanthropic efforts to develop protein enriched corn for human consumption, meant to be cultivated in Africa. I am probably just cynical in a way that prevents me from fully seeing what is emerging. This would not surprise me at all. China's biggest macro problem agriculturally is first that they don't have a lot of arable land relative to their population, and second that they've already depleted most of their major aquifers, which is why they currently import heavily from the US (and don't care if it's GMO or not) and are working to acquire large amounts of land in Africa in exchange for cash, arms, and development projects. This is also why their domestic GMO efforts are focused on water conservation instead of reduced pesticide usage or reduced labor costs, both of which they don't really care about. Again, you ask a question about something you don't know much about, but instead of doing the research or just leaving it at the question, you go off on another tangent and expound on something vaguely related but not at all relevant. This is not contributing. It's pompous and irritating, and comes off as you wanting to show off and ramble. Being a "thinker" and coming up with possibilities is useless without the knowledge necessary to distinguish between what is relevant and useful and what is a waste of time. I can make up uneducated guesses based on first impressions, too. I just don't subject other people to them without the courtesy of developing my thoughts and making them directly relevant to the topic, or at the very least keeping the length of the guess in proportion to how strong the connection really is. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Jul 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 17:34
|
|
Amarkov posted:If there were someone who hated Monsanto, but was otherwise fine with GMOs, sure. This would be a productive and effective technique. But that situation doesn't really happen. The only people I've encountered who hate Monsanto specifically are using it as a proxy to hate GMOs. Convincing them that other companies are also bad won't do anything to solve this; people are perfectly capable of both being socialist and irrationally hating GMOs. So what? Convincing someone that capitalism is lovely is insanely more important than anything to do with GMOs or nuclear power. It's better to convert someone to the radical left even if they hold one or two beliefs you disagree with than be a huge douche and cry tears that someone isn't as "pro-science" as you, leaving someone who could be out there marching in the dust and accomplishing nothing valuable. I don't give a poo poo what anyone thinks about nuclear power or GMOs considering every other problem in the drat world right now.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 19:38
|
|
|
acephalousuniverse posted:So what? Convincing someone that capitalism is lovely is insanely more important than anything to do with GMOs or nuclear power. It's better to convert someone to the radical left even if they hold one or two beliefs you disagree with than be a huge douche and cry tears that someone isn't as "pro-science" as you, leaving someone who could be out there marching in the dust and accomplishing nothing valuable. I don't give a poo poo what anyone thinks about nuclear power or GMOs considering every other problem in the drat world right now. Except the only leftist positions they'll take is "ban GMOs" which is only incidental to capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 19:40
|
|
computer parts posted:Except the only leftist positions they'll take is "ban GMOs" which is only incidental to capitalism. So is "support GMOs." Either way, if this is true then you haven't actually convinced them that capitalism is lovely. I mean if someone really is so stubborn or "crazy" then who on earth gives a poo poo what they believe in the first place, what good does trying to proselytize to them rather than speaking with people who are sympathetic do?
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 19:45
|
|
|
acephalousuniverse posted:So is "support GMOs." Either way, if this is true then you haven't actually convinced them that capitalism is lovely. I mean if someone really is so stubborn or "crazy" then who on earth gives a poo poo what they believe in the first place, what good does trying to proselytize to them rather than speaking with people who are sympathetic do? Because "GMOs are evil and scary Frankencritters" is an easy belief to fall into. Anyone who might think "Hey Monsanto is bad but a GMO itself is not inherently evil" probably is already on your side anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 19:50
|
|
computer parts posted:Because "GMOs are evil and scary Frankencritters" is an easy belief to fall into. Anyone who might think "Hey Monsanto is bad but a GMO itself is not inherently evil" probably is already on your side anyway. This does not seem to contradict my point in any way.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 19:52
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:The problem with the scifi stuff is that it is just scifi. Regardless of the PR, longterm consequences of many of these things are not that well understood. (Which is why after thousands of attempts to patent loving anything all Monsanto can do is push Bt crops and lawyers.) The research should absolutely continue - and anyone that is a fan of it should be screaming that it should be conducted in public labs and not patentable. I scream about this every chance I can get, but then we end up with fields being destroyed, laboratories burned to the ground, and a huge number of folks on the left actively fighting further research. Most public research universities don't have the means to protect their labs and field stations like Monsanto can. What do you say to a team of scientists who have had years of research destroyed by vandals too lazy to take a loving science class? Where am I going wrong being dismissive of such people?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 20:50
|
|
|
acephalousuniverse posted:This does not seem to contradict my point in any way. You asked why people don't focus on people who are sympathetic to your arguments. It's because you're (at best) preaching to the choir. The vast majority of people think GMOs are bad but Capitalism is just dandy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 20:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 05:12 |
|
|
Here is an article on gene flow for bt brinjal in India. Brinjal is eggplant and the first GMO food crop in India. They put a temporary moratorium on it earlier this year. The GE is similar to the papaya case in that it makes the eggplant resistant to two of the primary insect pests. The article is commissioned by Greenpeace so clearly there is an agenda. Here is the article summary: quote:Concerns over the commercial release of genetically engineered (GE), also called genetically modified (GM), Bt brinjal, also called aubergine or talong, relate to biosafety. One major concern is the potential for transgene flow from Bt brinjal to wild, weedy and cultivated relatives. As a consequence, selective advantage gained by the Bt pest resistance gene could enable these relatives to become aggressive weeds. The potential for disruption of ecological balance and plant biodiversity is therefore considerable. http://www.greenpeace.org/india/PageFiles/446445/GE-Bt-brinjal-revisited.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 21:15
|
|