Mrit posted:

Do you avoid using cellphones for the same reasons?

AugmentedVision posted:

No, thinking that 20 years of safety is not proof enough isn't reasonable, it's anti-progress BS and I guarantee that if you take a step back examine your entire set of views, you are much more lax about the safety of other things that have been around for much shorter times.

BIG-DICK-BUTT-gently caress posted:

Each gmo is unique, just bc one or more have been shown to be safe doesn't mean each and every gmo created will be safe.

AugmentedVision posted:

Actually, they are known to be safe beyond any reasonable doubt. It's just that people who are emotionally or otherwise invested in being anti-science continue to move the "reasonable doubt" goalposts as it suits them.

psychokitty posted:

OK for one thing fuel corn and the corn we eat in summer are not the same plant. I almost can't take you seriously anymore.

We're spending millions of dollars and releasing millions of tons of carbon each year not to mention the fertilizers and other chemicals leaching into our water and food supply on creating fuel and animal feed as well as high fructose corn syrup.

It's big money and big polotics. If I were at work right now I'd find you some sources but it's the loving weekend.

Keg posted:

I wonder how many thousand peer reviewed papers are out there that are unable to find mysterious safety hazards from using GMOs because I think so far there are like 3000, which is obviously not enough

ArbitraryC posted:

Fuel corn arose as an answer to a government mandate that x percent of our energy come from renewable sources by a certain year. As someone who works in biofuels I could link you 100 articles on why corn is a lovely way to get liquid fuels from plants but the issue itself goes far outside a big corn lobby, it's simply where the money available for research was and that's where the labs went. It's the same kinda dumb reasons that everyone was investigating hydrogen as a transportation fuel source for several years and steam reforming was all the rage until the gov money dried up and everyone was already aware it was never a good idea. You can take the stupic mic you dropped and shove it up your rear end.

again my point has nothing to do with the politics of the situation, where scientific research and government money goes is a complete aside to the typical resistance to gmos and those are entirely health based. You absolutely do not see your facebook aunt ranting about uncle sam subsidies pushing out viable crop alternatives to corn so stop trying to shoehorn it into the thread, instead you see anti-intellectual hysteria over the potential danger of gmos like anti-vaxxers.

I just personally found the phenomena weird because even though the anti-vaxxer movement has erroneously been ascribed to the left several social studies have shown it's mostly a right wing thing, the kind of people who homeschool their kids are afraid of vaccinating them. anti-gmos tho are a largely left movement much like antinuclear and I think they're a blight on social progress. Bernie sanders gunning hard for gmo labeling is imo a problem.

satanic splash-back posted:

i wish i had genetically modified orgasms, that would be incredible. instead, i have to settle for jacking it, huffing gas, and slightly hanging myself with a belt and a specially mounted hook in my bedroom.

hemophilia posted:

If you're smart, here's the correct policy list. Some things are easy for LIBERALS to fall into, sort of like liberal intellectual traps if you will, but if you're smart and crafty you end up believing these thigns

1. GMOs are good but biotech patents are bad
2. Communism is an ideal worth working towards
3. New Retro Wave is good music.
4. The 2nd amendment is absolutely not worth fighting or changing, no matter how you feel about weapons ownership, you can just shut the gently caress up or kill yourself about it if you can't deal.
5. Nuclear power is good and the people against it are usually loving dumb as poo poo.
6. The west coast has done nothing good for the left wing in the united states.

ArbitraryC posted:

Corn and corn stover are a huge source of our bioethanol

quote:

which is a huge part of our fuel market in our quest for cleaner energy and energy independence

im gaye posted:

im going to murder your dumb bitch rear end over one of these

AugmentedVision posted:

is intellectually dishonest. Bioethanol is, at best, temporarily taking a small dent out of fossil fuel consumption. We need a real replacement for fossil fuels, and once it is found, it will replace bioethanol as well. That research money (which you for some reason think is decoupled from lobbyists) should have been spent on something other than a lovely temporary band-aid.

Mercrom posted:

yeah maybe we should be cautious with GMOs and regulate them or test them or something im so loving stupid

PBRstreetgang posted:

Hi Im the average something awful forums poster.
I am such a contrarian douche bag that I actually believe GMOS are good. Sure they were made by a company that got its start producing chemical and biological weapons, but any method of food production that involves dumping so many toxic chemicals on the earth that it prevents any other plant from growing; and disregards long term impacts such as soil quality, farmers right to plant their own seed, or elevated amounts of toxic byproducts in my body and enviroment, sounds good to me. Because corporate lobbyists say its OK, and I believe them!

PBRstreetgang posted:

Hi Im the average something awful forums poster.
I am such a contrarian douche bag that I actually believe GMOS are good. Sure they were made by a company that got its start producing chemical and biological weapons, but any method of food production that involves dumping so many toxic chemicals on the earth that it prevents any other plant from growing; and disregards long term impacts such as soil quality, farmers right to plant their own seed, or elevated amounts of toxic byproducts in my body and enviroment, sounds good to me. Because corporate lobbyists say its OK, and I believe them!

PBRstreetgang posted:

Hi Im the average something awful forums poster.
I am such a contrarian douche bag that I actually believe GMOS are good. Sure they were made by a company that got its start producing chemical and biological weapons, but any method of food production that involves dumping so many toxic chemicals on the earth that it prevents any other plant from growing; and disregards long term impacts such as soil quality, farmers right to plant their own seed, or elevated amounts of toxic byproducts in my body and enviroment, sounds good to me. Because corporate lobbyists say its OK, and I believe them!

hemophilia posted:

Are you unaware of you dumb you are

ArbitraryC posted:

Bioethanol is often considered the most direct way to get legit gas and jet substitutes and you'll see the vast majority of bioenergy research is centered on this idea.

going straight to diesel works decently for what it does but the chemical makeup doesn't lend itself easy to further coupling and upgrading, you get stuck at a range in between gas and jet (aka diesel) and can't power aviation with it. As air travel is one of our biggest limeters in green energy (power density of electric engines make electric airplanes basically unfeasible for the foreseeable future) most modern biofuel research is designed to take crops and convert them to jet fuel, ethanol is largely considered the most straightforward building block for this (though obviously people are researching other routes).

e: you're right if you meant to imply that for cars we're looking for better green solutions, biofuels are largely considered a bridge in that area not the final answer but bioethanol is still absolutely huge for aviation and will continue to be so for a very long time.

PBRstreetgang posted:

signalnoise posted:

I dont really see why people are so against labeling GMO products, I mean almost everything in the grocery store will have the label but it's about as harmful as parental advisory stickers on albums

AugmentedVision posted:

Good to know and makes sense that powering airplane with corn is the greenest practical solution that's on the horizon. Still doesn't justify spending taxpayer money to grow so much corn that we shove it everywhere that's not needed

Rahu posted:

They are anti-science like the people who hate nuclear power.

Hope this helps, op

psychokitty posted:

Yeah I have no idea what you're ranting about anymore op

Jose Oquendo posted:

I'm not anti-nuclear power, but I get the NIMBY people on that issue. When nuclear power has problems, shits totally hosed. They should just turn the whole desert into nothing but nuclear power plants.

Mrit posted:

Roundup Ready crops use far less pesticide than organic crops.

psychokitty posted:

Yeah I have no idea what you're ranting about anymore op

ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:

That's because you're dumber than a box of rocks covered in your own poo poo. Every time you poo poo your IQ drops 40 points. I don't know how to emphasize that enough: your poop is more intelligent than you are.

The Archaic posted:

Most GMOs also till the soil far less, leading to less soil erosion.

ArbitraryC posted:

However it is intellectually dishonest to suggest that this is the primary source of grievances with gmos among the left and frankly tone deaf to what the thread is discussing. You do not see people posting facebook screeds about backdoor deals and corporate nepotism surrounding corn production, the chief complaints with gmos your layman makes is that they pose a health risk and are dangerous for nebulous reasons. People upset about gmo monopolies certainly exist but you're lying to yourself to think that's the core of the anti-gmo movement, the reality is most of the gmo labeling and such stems from misguided fears and ignorance over zombie plants.

General Dog posted:

Deep down, people who oppose GMO's believe that the best way to address over-population is a few good old fashioned famines in the third world.