|
Alright i see, i guess in that case that Monsanto is a great company and opposition to reckless and unresearched GMO implementation and adoptation is ridiculous, thanks!
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2013 23:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 05:33 |
|
|
Opposition to reckless and unresearched GMO implementation is fine. I'm also opposed to that. It just doesn't happen very often, and I'm not aware of any instances where Monsanto specifically has done it. So I'm not sure why it's relevant here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2013 23:53
|
|
|
Buller posted:Alright i see, i guess in that case that Monsanto is a great company and opposition to reckless and unresearched GMO implementation and adoptation is ridiculous, thanks! Not one person has argued that in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 00:08
|
|
|
Buller posted:Alright i see, i guess in that case that Monsanto is a great company and opposition to reckless and unresearched GMO implementation and adoptation is ridiculous, thanks! The science of GMOs must indeed be in a pretty terrible state if there's been only three papers about it published in the last 15 years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 00:10
|
|
|
Why don't you post some more papers about GMO - Animal interaction then? After all, Reality is difficult, messy, and often hard to understand.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 00:20
|
|
|
Buller posted:Why don't you post some more papers about GMO - Animal interaction then? Ok, sure. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871141307002442 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301622602000167 http://www.pnas.org/content/98/21/11937.short http://www.pnas.org/content/97/14/7700.short Note that it's difficult to find studies about "GMO - Animal interaction", because nobody without an axe to grind would frame a study that way. Different kinds of transgenic crops have no relevant factors in common, so there are very few reasons to study them as a group. Most good studies will focus on an individual strain of crop as it interacts with a particular animal species.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 00:34
|
|
|
"Thus, our results suggest that at least some potential nontarget effects of the use of transgenic plants may be manageable." From Wraight et al. This is the main problem with GMO, is the human imagination large enough for us to truly understand the impact of throwing this huge unknown factor into a (of course affected by the changing landscape and human manipulation) stabile and established genepool. Also a study in mainland USA may not apply to EU because of weather and wind. And still if the modified maize really does not affect that one particular butterfly larvae theres still an entire ecosystem that can be.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 00:57
|
|
|
Buller posted:"Thus, our results suggest that at least some potential nontarget effects of the use of transgenic plants may be manageable." There is basically nothing we use that we can 100% identify all of the reactions to. Why do you apply this standard to GMOs?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 01:01
|
|
|
Because we have seen how much we hosed up in the past just doing things without understanding what we are doing. You would think we would have learned from that. Nature is an important ressource and a bunch of new research is being made on the ressources we have in nature still, GMOs are a potential degrader of nature and as such it's important to be more careful than with most things.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 01:06
|
|
|
Buller posted:This is the main problem with GMO, is the human imagination large enough for us to truly understand the impact of throwing this huge unknown factor into a (of course affected by the changing landscape and human manipulation) stabile and established genepool. If this is truly your problem, you've got to be opposed to a lot more things than GMOs. You need to be opposed to most modern agriculture, including that from the organic movement. You need to be opposed to any sort of systemic use of pharmaceuticals. You definitely need to be opposed to coal, wind, and hydroelectric power. (Solar power is less troubling but still problematic, and nuclear power is fineish.) And basically every building material is verboten; I hope you're cool with plastic, which escapes concern only because we understand very well the horrible effects the production chain for most plastics has. And that's without even getting into how absurd it is to think that there was anything like a "stable and established gene pool" before GMOs came on the scene. "Won't cause any unexpected systemic consequences" is an absurd bar that very few human activities clear; the alternatives to GMOs certainly aren't exceptions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 01:09
|
|
|
Only if you overly reduce the argument.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 01:12
|
|
|
Buller posted:Only if you overly reduce the argument. No, not really. We don't understand the mechanism of action of a lot of really basic stuff. Just because it's basic doesn't mean it's easy to figure out, it can mean it's at it's most base, most difficult.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 01:44
|
|
|
I absolutely don't care about GMOs one way or the other as I've said before, but "we've acted recklessly and continue to act recklessly in countless numbers of ways, one more can't hurt!" does not strike me as a very good argument.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 02:30
|
|
|
acephalousuniverse posted:I absolutely don't care about GMOs one way or the other as I've said before, but "we've acted recklessly and continue to act recklessly in countless numbers of ways, one more can't hurt!" does not strike me as a very good argument. The problem is that the definition of "not acting recklessly" being proposed is physically impossible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 02:33
|
|
|
acephalousuniverse posted:I absolutely don't care about GMOs one way or the other as I've said before, but "we've acted recklessly and continue to act recklessly in countless numbers of ways, one more can't hurt!" does not strike me as a very good argument. It's not, but that's also not what my argument is. In order to do anything, we must accept the possibility of unintended consequences; as has been covered, even going full Luddite doesn't insulate us from the possibility of serious environmental damage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 02:41
|
|
|
d3c0y2 posted:Yeah, I hate that you can't declare yourself opposed to genetically modified food anymore without people assuming you're some kind of crazy new age hippy who believes chewing ginger can cause a broken leg. Here here, I find it kind of concerning that suddenly this anti-GMO food craze seems to be sort of a "flavor of the week". If it is so, then it will die as fast as it exploded in popularity and people will move onto other things..who knows what could be next. I remember for a while "Pitbulls" were a huge craze. I find these sort of flash-flood activism crazes get passed through so many vectors that, just in the way of broken telephone, facts get so muddled up it becomes extremely difficult to sort out right from wrong. That being said I agree and totally get where you're coming from with saying that GM food is freeky-deeky, and remember hearing about it in Jr. Highschool and thinking the same but I guess I must of mostly forgotten about it, it seemed so out there! "Tomatoes with Flounder fish genes!? As if, science." The fact that it has been ruled as "illegal" to label foods with GM products (what is it, 80% of processed foods?) totally sketches me out maximally. One of the major muddelings that really irks me is confusing GMO food and the associated corporations with all GM science. I think (and I'm sure some people oppose this) that there is also some totally amazing GM science (mainly health and medicine science) going on in the world, too. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 02:41
|
|
|
Puddums posted:The fact that it has been ruled as "illegal" to label foods with GM products (what is it, 80% of processed foods?) totally sketches me out maximally. What are you referring to? Nothing like this has happened.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 03:21
|
|
|
acephalousuniverse posted:I absolutely don't care about GMOs one way or the other as I've said before, but "we've acted recklessly and continue to act recklessly in countless numbers of ways, one more can't hurt!" does not strike me as a very good argument. Please tell me how traditional tillage is not acting recklessly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 04:10
|
|
karthun posted:Please tell me how traditional tillage is not acting recklessly. Please tell me when I said it wasn't.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 04:13
|
|
|
Puddums posted:Here here, I find it kind of concerning that suddenly this anti-GMO food craze seems to be sort of a "flavor of the week". If it is so, then it will die as fast as it exploded in popularity and people will move onto other things..who knows what could be next. I remember for a while "Pitbulls" were a huge craze. I am pretty sure he explicitly rejected the "freeky-deeky" reasoning, though, and you are not making much of a case for not being the ginger-chewing hippie he lamented, dude. If you think genetic modification is okay in medicine, how is that less weird to you than in food? Is a replacement enzyme therapy harvested from GM bacteria (for example) materially different from something like golden rice, which incorporates genes from daffodils and bacteria to produce vitamin A?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 04:18
|
|
|
acephalousuniverse posted:Please tell me when I said it wasn't. You seem opposed to methods that allow us not to till land.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 04:19
|
|
karthun posted:You seem opposed to methods that allow us not to till land. How did you infer that from when I said I'm not for or against GMOs and don't care either way?
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 04:21
|
|
|
Could we possibly go back to the original discussion about having conversations about GMO products and dealing with the fact the few bother to learn the loving science behind them?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 05:31
|
|
quote:Anyone know how to go about arguing with those existing at the edges of internet echo chambers like this, or is it mostly wasted effort? I'm not looking to debate Monsanto here, because threads on that have historically turned to poo poo, but merely using it as an example since I'm most familiar with it. This seems to be the original point of the thread. He said specifically he doesn't want to debate Monsanto or GMOs, because he's automatically and unquestionably right in his opinion on them. He simply wanted to know how to "debate" those crazy, brainwashed idiots who disagree with him so vehemently that rational explanation of the facts has no effect. The only possible answer to this question, it seems to me, is "why bother you silly douchebag" which is what anyone would be telling someone who came in and wanted advice on, say, how to convert Free Republic posters to Branch Davidianism or something equally goofy.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 05:42
|
|
mugrim posted:The poo poo Monsanto does to the third world is bad enough you really don't have to give a poo poo why other people are upset by them. Don't debate them on GMO's, tell them about the actual evils they do because that will upset people much more and they'll focus on it. Hell, that's what happened to me. I disagree, since argumentum ad Monsantium is used by the anti-science and anti-GMO types I know to discredit all GMO food and scientific research. I don't think anything Monsanto does could be as bad as attacking GMO crops and trying to push laws that stop GMO research. These people - and I know many of them, mostly hippie types - are willing to let people die of starvation and malnutrition rather than accept things that aren't 'natural'. It honestly frightens me, since the anti-GMO types are so fanatical and so insisting in their easy appeals to the naturalistic fallacy. When I was a child I dreamed of a world transformed by genetic engineering. I hope Monsanto is half as powerful as opponents say and that it can force governments to ignore the protests of ill-informed Luddites babbling about toxins and organic food. What's a good way to debunk them? I've been pushing Mark Lynas but of course the hippies dismiss him as a shill for 'Big Pharma'.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 09:53
|
|
Count Chocula posted:I disagree, since argumentum ad Monsantium is used by the anti-science and anti-GMO types I know to discredit all GMO food and scientific research. I don't think anything Monsanto does could be as bad as attacking GMO crops and trying to push laws that stop GMO research. These people - and I know many of them, mostly hippie types - are willing to let people die of starvation and malnutrition rather than accept things that aren't 'natural'. No amount of genetic engineering is going to solve problems of malnutrition and starvation that are caused by environmental damage and unequal resource allocation. You want to use magical science to cover up for the failures of capitalism rather than getting at actual issues. Your post is like a caricature of the rest of the thread. I really sincerely doubt that some tiny groups of "hippies" have anywhere near the massively destructive effect that multinational corporations, including Monsanto, have on this planet, and I'd gladly side with people who are burning GMO crops against people like you regardless of the science behind anything, if it came to that. You people whining about "hippies" and "Luddites" make me want to go out and torch some labs just out of spite.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 10:08
|
|
|
acephalousuniverse posted:I'd gladly side with people who are burning GMO crops against people like you regardless of the science behind anything, if it came to that. You people whining about "hippies" and "Luddites" make me want to go out and torch some labs just out of spite. So you're arguing out of spite and stating that nothing scientific would ever convince you? How exactly are you different from anti-vaccine nutjobs?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 10:22
|
|
shrike82 posted:So you're arguing out of spite and stating that nothing scientific would ever convince you? I'm not arguing anything about facts at all. I'm saying: regardless of the truth of whether GMOs are harmful in particular, which I have no position on and don't care about particularly, I'm going to take the side of people who are anti-corporation and anti-capitalist and not people who are scientifically in the right on one issue but use that "victory" to prop up and excuse the crimes of massively destructive, inhuman organizations. Saying you hope Monsanto gets more powerful so they can silence "Luddite hippies" because all you care about is being right about GMOs is indefensible, and if that's the side of people who are "right" I'll gladly be wrong until the end of time. Regardless of the truth about GMOs, Monsanto is still evil for countless other reasons. This thread has basically become what everyone insisted it wouldn't at the beginning, which is a bunch of people actively defending Monsanto and claiming it's a good humanitarian company saving people from "starvation and malnutrition" but for the stupid mean hippie Luddites who want to ruin everything. "Oh we're not defending Monsanto, they're bad, but we just want to get the facts straight . . . " over and over again for pages, until someone finally does come out and tell the truth like Count Chocula did. acephalousuniverse fucked around with this message at 10:40 on Jul 3, 2013 |
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 10:37
|
|
|
acephalousuniverse posted:I'm not arguing anything about facts at all. If you're unwilling to listen to reason/evidence, how exactly are you advocating anything beyond mindless violence? You literally said that you'd rather be out burning GMO fields because hippies are called "luddites".
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 10:45
|
|
acephalousuniverse posted:No amount of genetic engineering is going to solve problems of malnutrition and starvation that are caused by environmental damage and unequal resource allocation. You want to use magical science to cover up for the failures of capitalism rather than getting at actual issues. Your post is like a caricature of the rest of the thread. I really sincerely doubt that some tiny groups of "hippies" have anywhere near the massively destructive effect that multinational corporations, including Monsanto, have on this planet, and I'd gladly side with people who are burning GMO crops against people like you regardless of the science behind anything, if it came to that. You people whining about "hippies" and "Luddites" make me want to go out and torch some labs just out of spite. I live in a country, Australia, that has ruled out nuclear power due to decades of fearmongering and has seen vaccination rates fall. We already have anti-GMO activists who have destroyed research in at least two countries. I've seen half my friends gripped by anti-GMO hysteria. We need to preserve science and reason so we can keep advancing as a species and continue to improve on nature, not go back to some imagined pastoral Eden which is in truth a dark age. We need to use generic engineering to improve our foods and directly improve ourselves. What can be done to stop people destroying research, though? Charging them under anti-domestic terrorism laws seems excessive but we need to do something to stop them from holding back human development.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 10:54
|
|
shrike82 posted:If you're unwilling to listen to reason/evidence, how exactly are you advocating anything beyond mindless violence? This thread isn't about the facts about GMOs. It's explicitly laid out in the OP that that isn't what he's asking about; he's asking about how to get through to people who won't listen to evidence or reason and a bunch of insults about the drat hippie luddites who disagree with him. The only thing that can be said to this is "there is no reason to bother arguing with people who are so far gone that they won't listen to evidence, almost by definition, what on earth is the point of that activity or this thread." On a personal level I find a lot more value in someone who understands this and is willing to commit property violence in pursuit of their beliefs than some pathetic science fanboy who sits around wondering how best to defend a mega-corporation because he's super mad that people have misconceptions about GMOs instead of being mad that the company doing GMO work is also doing a bunch of heinous poo poo that's considered normal for companies to do. Once again I am arguing that this whole thread is based in stupidity, I have no position on GMOs and I have stated that several times, which is irrelevant anyway because the OP specifically says that this thread is not for debating the merits of GMOs, it's for figuring out ways to glorify Monsanto against the scary hippies. Count Chocula posted:I live in a country, Australia, that has ruled out nuclear power due to decades of fearmongering and has seen vaccination rates fall. We already have anti-GMO activists who have destroyed research in at least two countries. I've seen half my friends gripped by anti-GMO hysteria. We need to preserve science and reason so we can keep advancing as a species and continue to improve on nature, not go back to some imagined pastoral Eden which is in truth a dark age. "Hippies" aren't the ones holding back human development. Science and industry have already done enough poo poo to wreck and ruin this planet that in the face of it vaccine rates falling and nuclear power being unpopular does not really faze me in comparison. "Science and reason" alone, without political revolution, aren't going to do poo poo to fix any of our problems. Monsanto is worse for the planet than any anti-GMO or vaccine activist. acephalousuniverse fucked around with this message at 11:00 on Jul 3, 2013 |
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 10:56
|
|
|
Count Chocula posted:I live in a country, Australia, that has ruled out nuclear power due to decades of fearmongering and has seen vaccination rates fall. We already have anti-GMO activists who have destroyed research in at least two countries. I've seen half my friends gripped by anti-GMO hysteria. We need to preserve science and reason so we can keep advancing as a species and continue to improve on nature, not go back to some imagined pastoral Eden which is in truth a dark age. Yup, NIMBY environmentalists have done an untold amount of harm by shutting down nuke projects.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 10:58
|
|
|
acephalousuniverse posted:
I don't think that you can blame science-- though you certainly can blame industry. How do you think you improve anything in the world by burning down a lab? What is the best possible result?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 11:01
|
|
Obdicut posted:I don't think that you can blame science-- though you certainly can blame industry. The best possible result is the world gets worse and something changes,I guess, I don't know. I don't believe in burning down labs or anti-GMO activism or anything. I just think that those people are moving in a better direction than anyone sitting around wondering how to debate their pro-Monsanto position more effectively, and if those are the two sides I know which one I'm on.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 11:03
|
|
|
acephalousuniverse posted:The best possible result is the world gets worse and something changes,I guess, I don't know. I don't believe in burning down labs or anti-GMO activism or anything. I just think that those people are moving in a better direction than anyone sitting around wondering how to debate their pro-Monsanto position more effectively, and if those are the two sides I know which one I'm on. You start off saying you don't know, and wind up saying you do know. I really don't know what to make of this. I'm incredibly anti-Monsanto. I'm anti-trust in general, anti corporations getting that big. I would love to see Monsanto broken up. I do not get how, in the least bit, burning down a lab will help. Do you think the world would be better off if Borlaug's lab had been burned?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 11:15
|
|
|
acephalousuniverse posted:I'd gladly side with people who are burning GMO crops against people like you regardless of the science behind anything, if it came to that. You people whining about "hippies" and "Luddites" make me want to go out and torch some labs just out of spite. So that totally justifies the destruction of publicly funded research which helps to counter the poo poo Monsano is doing. Brilliant! Not to mention the fact it would endanger innocent lives, but who cares when people on the internet say, right? It's not like I actually know people who have to take security measures because they perform research that a bunch of lazy, ignorant shits don't value because they can't bother to open up a loving science book. Do you think comments like that are funny? acephalousuniverse posted:The best possible result is the world gets worse and something changes,I guess, I don't know. I don't believe in burning down labs or anti-GMO activism or anything. I just think that those people are moving in a better direction than anyone sitting around wondering how to debate their pro-Monsanto position more effectively, and if those are the two sides I know which one I'm on. No one here is defending Monsanto, only telling the difference between the actual evil poo poo they do from the made up evil poo poo stupid people think they do. That's not defending Monsanto, that's being factually correct.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 12:58
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:No one here is defending Monsanto, only telling the difference between the actual evil poo poo they do from the made up evil poo poo stupid people think they do. That's not defending Monsanto, that's being factually correct. No but see being factually correct doesn't matter because capitalism still exists!  Only after a glorious communist revolution can we pay heed to such frivolities!
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 13:46
|
|
|
Ah, the nipple effect. In the centre is some paid (or worse, un-paid) shill and the fanboys surround him (or her) like flies on poo poo. I may have mixed my metaphors there. Still, there's no real interest in debate or discussion, just grabbing imaginary e-cred points. I'm hesitant about GMO's because (from what I've seen), the corporate  research seems aimed at increasing their presence on the market, rather than looking at long term consequences. The governmental research is sporadic, reactionary and underfunded. And the other research is done by special interest groups who may or may not select their areas of research to fit with their pre-conceived notions. But, even leaving aside the fact that regardless of your  pesticide resistant GM crops "life..er..will...er...find a way", I can't imagine some Monsanto CEO saying: "This unrelated species is breeding slightly more/less which could have unforeseen irreversible effects on the eco-system. Halt all sales until we do a proper environmental assessment for our precious and respected customers. No no don't worry, I'll take this hit with the board and the shareholders".Still idiots ITT are acting like anybody who disagrees with GM is part of the flat Earth society because it's all understood. But it's a new science. http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/...ekPage=x&ZyPURL Here's what the EPA say they need to research (or you can read the whole thing. It's only 54 pages) EPA posted:
Lastly, "acceptable risks" aren't really published that well. If statistically, 20 people more in 500'000 die from increased x in y will the product come off the shelves? , I didn't think so.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 14:01
|
|
|
spikenigma posted:Ah, the nipple effect. In the centre is some paid (or worse, un-paid) shill and the fanboys surround him (or her) like flies on poo poo. I may have mixed my metaphors there. Who are the paid/unpaid fanboys who are acting as shills? Why won't you quote them directly? Why do you complain about a lack of "debate or discussion", yet refuse to recognize it when it's going on here on this very page, and yet refuse to engage in it yourself? This is D&D, if you disagree with someone, you quote what they've written and directly engage with it, not spew random ad homs at no one in particular. EDIT: Am I being a shill for my concern over cases of laboratory arson? Solkanar512 fucked around with this message at 14:24 on Jul 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 14:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 05:33 |
|
|
spikenigma posted:
See, you post some  poo poo, which for the most part I can agree with outside the fact that you approached it from the perspective of a pedantic rear end, but then you post what I quoted above, and reveal that you honestly just don't know what you are talking about. 'Pesticide Resistant'? The gently caress is that even supposed to mean? Bt GMOs are not 'pesticide resistant' crops. Do you even know what Bt is? How it works? What it is intended to do? Do you know how it is used outside the GMO realm? How is this article, in any way, an indictment of Bt crops?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 15:50
|
|
