|
| Thread: GMOs / Dark Act / Monsanto makes huge mistake again |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · NEXT» |
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
posted August 21, 2016 09:17 AM |
|
Edited by Celfious at 10:23, 21 Aug 2016.
|
GMOs / Dark Act / Monsanto makes huge mistake again
I just want to ask what you all think about GMOs.
What do you think about Americas Dark act?
Monsanto made another mistake and it is known that more than 42,000 acres of crops are affected.
I do want to say first and formost that any advanced utopic society in my imagination would have scientific control over food, thoroughly (assuming they have the same biological rules we do and need food). But A: We are not that advanced and B: our corporations are not interested in health and enhancing humanity over other agendas. Example would be profit and shelf life. Appearance, resistance to bruising etc (thats a big ETC)
GMOs can be patented, by the way.. I won't expound upon how serious that is.
Here is a helpful map. I don't claim it to be 100% accurate or up to date though. It links to a seemingly decent FAQ site about GMOs
____________
What are you up to
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted August 21, 2016 03:18 PM |
|
|
I'm certain many individual states will continue to have you require to state whether GM crops were used or not. It's another anti-democratic decision that's clearly top-down, seeing how they can't export their GM products elsewhere (it's illegal to even sell it here lol) they gotta feed that crap to their own people like guinea pigs.
I'm all for tampering with a plant's genetic structure to bring about a positive outcome, but when one change may cause thousands of UNKNOWN side effects then we got. The technology is just not advanced enough, definately not enough for human experimentation so why should it be fed to the public?
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 21, 2016 03:29 PM |
|
|
It's corporate Murica, what do you expect.
With regards to GMOs, I am convinced that there's no better genetic altering mechanism than natural selection itself and that human manipulation is by comparison invasive and way more destructive.
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted August 21, 2016 04:14 PM |
|
|
I just can't understand how they can embrace it so quickly, for me genetics is still in it's earliest phases, sure we know how to manipulate to a desired outcome, but we don't know if what we took something crucial out.
For instance look at the difference between sodium (they call it 'table-salt' here) and sea salt, the latter costing about 10x more than the former but the taste and what you get out of it is so much more, yet those monkeys just don't understand that, the former is cheaper so that's what they use in most products?!
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
yogi
Promising
Famous Hero
of picnics
|
|
posted August 21, 2016 04:18 PM |
|
|
Stevie said:
With regards to GMOs, I am convinced that there's no better genetic altering mechanism than natural selection itself and that human manipulation is by comparison invasive and way more destructive.
well put.
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted August 21, 2016 04:27 PM |
|
|
Why then?
Natural selection are processes that either fits to the environment or the species will be no more, everything alive we see is the result of the success of evolution and everything we do not is its failure. The environment is everything that affects the given species, even other species, and it's overall a slow process that optimizes for the survivability of the particular species, even if it means destroying other species in the process. If we really wanted to let everything be done by natural selection our best bet would be to be as altruistic as we could and on the same time cross our fingers, cause in that case we'd be beneficial to other species' survivability, and even then these species could develop poison that would set them back, but still allow them to survive and outcompete those that do not.
Natural selection does not care about any individual, it's not our friend in that sense, it's a process that helps balancing the entire ecosystem, but on the other side of the coin it could even potentially doom the world we live in.
|
|
EnergyZ
Legendary Hero
President of MM Wiki
|
|
posted August 21, 2016 04:57 PM |
|
|
I've been told that GMO is simply required because in the future, there'll be too many people and too little resources, including food. It's a shame, but it is an alternative, if the number of world population doesn't go down.
____________
Come and visit the Might and Magic Wikia!
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 21, 2016 05:30 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 17:38, 21 Aug 2016.
|
yogi said:
Stevie said:
With regards to GMOs, I am convinced that there's no better genetic altering mechanism than natural selection itself and that human manipulation is by comparison invasive and way more destructive.
well put.
You guys realize that, almost all the traditional fruit and vegetables we eat, although not genetically engineered in the lab, are also result of ARTIFICIAL selection by cultivators, and they are biologically different from their wild ancestors, don't you? The potato in nature is something much more closer to what is today known as sweet potato. From wild cabbage comes the species of broccoli, cauliflower, sprout and many more we eat and label especially healthy.
Wild tomato:
Artificial selection:
And it's not just the plants, a wild chicken is pretty different from today's market chicken, and even domestic chicken in itself keeps changing:
Then of course, there are dogs. Some dog breeds are as young as a few centuries old. Do you think they are Dr. Frankenstein's monster because they are man-made?
What is potentially dangerous about GMO's is not that they are artificial but with a puritan capitalist mind set that is focused only on fast and cheaper production, some companies may produce less nutritious or even harmful products. A few years ago, a company here was caught making fake honey by engineering corn germ and amylum. The honey was suspiciously cheap (hence, it was investigated) and it wasn't nutritious at all, it was actually bad for you like candy. But a GMO product doesn't automatically mean cancer.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 21, 2016 05:40 PM |
|
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted August 21, 2016 05:41 PM |
|
|
|
The last time I ate a tomato which tasted tomato-like was when I was 5 and spending holidays in my aunt's farm.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 21, 2016 05:49 PM |
|
|
Stevie said:
That almost sounded like a refutation.
But this doesn't sound like you have a point at all. Artficial selection is not categorically dangerous or evil. We've been at it since the beginning of agriculture.
Salamandre said:
The last time I ate a tomato which tasted tomato-like was when I was 5 and spending holidays in my aunt's farm.
I can assure you they are still better than the tomato you'll find in the wilderness 5000 years ago. Because farmers pick and cultivate the seeds of more juicy, more colored, bigger ones for centuries. If you can achieve that through genetics faster, fine by me.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted August 21, 2016 05:49 PM |
|
|
That begs the question Sal, what does a tomatoe really taste like? Here they spray em for that red ripe hue and that iconic taste, but how do we really know that's what tomatoes taste/smell like? (I grow em organic and it doesn't taste like anything special, it's not full flavour or anythin)
Things like strawberries are ****ing amazing though when grown yourself, the natural sugar just seeps through like honey.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 21, 2016 06:17 PM |
|
|
The scientific consensus is that GMOs are safe. Since they are, requiring them to be labeled is not an issue of safety but pandering to people who have a bias in favor of the natural. GMOs should not be labeled for the same reason that food shouldn't say if it was picked by black or white people.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted August 21, 2016 07:12 PM |
|
|
Wrong, GMOs so far have shown no hallmark signs that they are harmful in the short-term, thus it's not conclusive that they are safe, but simply a limitation of modern science in the field of genetic manipulation.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
frostysh
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
WHY?
|
|
posted August 21, 2016 07:13 PM |
|
Edited by frostysh at 19:17, 21 Aug 2016.
|
IMHO.
The fear of GMO, and such things is a common for a peoples (like a love to the fantasy TV-series with the naked girls and the bloody medieval-style battles. . .). But regardless of the any anti-GMO movements, and the other related nonsense the GMO is a reality of the modern Agricultural Science, and Economics.
Scientists is not a stupid peoples, they know how to check the danger of a particular product to the human organism, if they say - it is safe, usually it is safe, indeed.
The pretty poor thing that an all of this Advanced Technologies used only in the way of satisfying the tastes of a well food supplied masses of peoples, but a very many peoples at the Earth is suffering for starvation. . .
Will be a very good when the Scientists can create a plant, or something like that, which is can grows in the desert-like climate. 
So artu, mvassilev +1
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 21, 2016 07:24 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 19:42, 21 Aug 2016.
|
mvassilev said:
The scientific consensus is that GMOs are safe. Since they are, requiring them to be labeled is not an issue of safety but pandering to people who have a bias in favor of the natural. GMOs should not be labeled for the same reason that food shouldn't say if it was picked by black or white people.
You mean the scientific consensus patronized by corporate interests? Besides, the scientific consensus has been wrong before.
artu said:
Stevie said:
That almost sounded like a refutation.
But this doesn't sound like you have a point at all. Artficial selection is not categorically dangerous or evil. We've been at it since the beginning of agriculture.
You've gone on a trail of your own and ignored what I was actually addressing which was GMOs, genetically modified organisms, the kind where a scientist uses a gene gun on corn in a lab, not the kind of artificial selection that's been happening in agriculture for millennia which still goes through the filter of natural selection mind you. Gene altering bypasses any kind of filter except for the most extreme which is death, so you might grow really meaty chicken but they'll be pale white, with a worse nutritional quality, that can't even reproduce because they're advanced mutants, let alone survive on their own because sometimes they can't even move. So the difference between natural selection and humans doing the gene job is that one seeks a quality and fit organism able to survive while the other wants quantity that sells for cheap.
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted August 21, 2016 07:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Will be a very good when the Scientists can create a plant, or something like that, which is can grows in the desert-like climate.
They're already doing this 
It's not genetically modfied as such but engineered to restore the ecosystem manually.
Lin
Link
I know of UN programs where they plant self sustaining capsules in deserts hoping that with enough quantity the plants will jumpstart a climate change from arid to moist.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
|
posted August 21, 2016 08:02 PM |
|
|
I'm on a neutral stance honestly.
So far GMOs have been safe, so that's fine by me, if we can increase yields of harvests it's better in my book.
However... It's also true that I don't want the local economy of my land being overrun by foreign foods, and since GMOs will inevitably lead to a rise in exports I'm kind of opposed.
But that's more due to my general stance on import-export of food, as, for some reason, local products aren't given the priority in our local markets...
And honestly, I'm fond of our secular breeds of crops.
____________
Noli offendere Patriam Agathae quia ultrix iniuriarum est.
ANTUDO
|
|
frostysh
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
WHY?
|
|
posted August 21, 2016 08:06 PM |
|
Edited by frostysh at 20:20, 21 Aug 2016.
|
Stevie -
You mean the i.e. a frigging Uncle Sam government will feed the whole ~350 millions of peoples with something that the Egg-heads did not checked for dangerous thing yet?
Or do you think that the one of the most advanced Genetic Laboratories on the Earth knows a less than mr/mrs Stevie about the GMO?
And more important, is this Scientific laboratories, government control stuff, and the corporation will ask your opinion about GMO in their work? 
Technically GMO and non-GMO has no difference, I mean there are both of an organic stuff. But of course, the Nature Evolution stuff, through a million of years have a time to correct the all mistakes, this is a different from a few months of an experimental stuff in a Laboratories.
But how to check is the GMO-potato is dangerous or not? - The easiest way, it is first to compare the non-GMO potato and the GMO-potato.
Chemical analysis, biostructural analysis of whatever it's called. and so on, in general you will obtain a very preciously comparison of the product, if something going is too far from an "organic fella", you can always make another changes in GMO stuff.
The problem is that, the mainstream of the peoples, usually have a hell no idea about such things like a Genetics, and those pity facts can play a very evil role, i.e. some peoples can use the fear of GMO nonsense to gather peoples around and to control them. . .
The Illuminaty' total control, Robot's Greed, GMO, whhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaah, like a hollywood movie for an auditory . What is next?
Tsar-Ivor -
This Pacific Standard looks suspicious for myself. I have mentioned about the plant that can be used like a food for a poor countries. Anyway interesting stuff about the model of the result of making a deserts into a rain-forest ecosystems. The Scientists is a masters of predictions, indeed.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 21, 2016 08:08 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 20:13, 21 Aug 2016.
|
Stevie, your sentence is quite clear in detail, isn't it:
"With regards to GMOs, I am convinced that there's no better genetic altering mechanism than natural selection itself and that human manipulation is by comparison invasive and way more destructive."
ANY kind of artificial selection or altering is DNA manipulation and by definition, it's "invasive." And you don't specify organic farming as an alternative but natural selection. (And no, artificially bred plants or animals still don't go through natural selection, they are preserved by and controlled in human-built environments. Swiss cows or lap dogs wouldn't last a second in the wilderness.)
Once again, manipulating the gene pool by accumulative, artificial selection or genetic engineering are not categorically so different on principle, if you consider human intervention as "unnatural."
And the thing is, genetic engineering itself is not considered unsafe by any scientific consensus. Btw, Tsar, saying we can't know the long term effects is not a very valid argument, unless there are studies that indicate such a probability. You could have said the same thing about waves from a radio transmitter in the beginning of 20th century. Why should we suspect such a thing? The only reason I can think of is some sort of Frankenstein syndrome and people not liking the idea based on a falsely constructed bias that nature is more pure when you don't intervene, whatever pure means in this regard. Basically, they don't like the idea of a fruit being engineered because the idea sounds irritating and alien to them. It's not much different than being afraid of planes on the premise that we are "not meant to fly" even though it's one of the safest ways to travel.
GMO's should be regulated and inspected carefully but not restricted. I can understand people who may have doubts about company greed, therefore circulation of products that may be designed to look "fresh" longer on shelves even when they're not or faking certain qualities. So, if they want labels on such products, why not simply give it to them? It's not like that would cause a racial discrimination among tomatoes! This is de facto happening in a reverse way anyhow, if you want organic food specifically, you can always find products labeled as organic.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
| |
|
|
