Page 49 of 60 FirstFirst ...
39
47
48
49
50
51
59
... LastLast
  1. #961
    Quote Originally Posted by Fojos View Post
    Or you look at where GMOs instead have reduced or removed the need of pesticides. Do you know anything about GMO outside of the little you've heard about monsanto?
    Well gee I'm not sure, I used to work at a lab that grew genetically modified algae to be used for biofuel. So I feel like I know a thing or two.

    But if you're going to ignore the literally best example of a GMO, round-up ready soybeans and corn, then what are we really talking about? You're talking about some futuristic, they could make the best plants in the world nonsense. That isn't what they're actually doing, though. Maybe that stuff will come later, if there is enough profit in it - but I'd imagine it would be expensive, since they're cutting off their own sales for round-up. That's the kind of stuff you get with monopolies; progress becomes limited when conflicts of interest arise.

    But that is not what we have here in the US. We're using round-up, and a metric fuckton of it.

  2. #962
    Herald of the Titans Berengil's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Tn, near Memphis
    Posts
    2,967
    The objections to GMO food are un-scientific. Those who perpetuate them should be ridiculed in the same way we look down upon climate change deniers and anti-vaxxers. Luddites, all of them.

  3. #963
    Legendary! TirielWoW's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    6,616
    Quote Originally Posted by Daerio View Post
    Well gee I'm not sure, I used to work at a lab that grew genetically modified algae to be used for biofuel. So I feel like I know a thing or two.

    But if you're going to ignore the literally best example of a GMO, round-up ready soybeans and corn, then what are we really talking about? You're talking about some futuristic, they could make the best plants in the world nonsense. That isn't what they're actually doing, though. Maybe that stuff will come later, if there is enough profit in it - but I'd imagine it would be expensive, since they're cutting off their own sales for round-up. That's the kind of stuff you get with monopolies; progress becomes limited when conflicts of interest arise.

    But that is not what we have here in the US. We're using round-up, and a metric fuckton of it.
    But wouldn't you agree that the issue with roundup-ready isn't necessarily that the plants have been altered to resist the stuff, but rather, that we're spraying metric tons of roundup all over the place and creating (through, heh, genetic alteration via natural selection) roundup-resistant weeds?
    Tiriél US-Stormrage

    Signature by Shyama

  4. #964
    Quote Originally Posted by Pangean View Post
    Well that is unfortunate. So far I am not seeing the GMO's being unsafe as food. I see no issue however labeling food products as containing GMO's though either. I am probably more worried about the business practices of companies producing GMO's than anything at this point.
    I'd say that there's justification in your concerns.

    The TTP is a load of crap that wants to circumvent laws for the sake of businesses bottom line.

  5. #965
    Quote Originally Posted by HeatherRae View Post
    But wouldn't you agree that the issue with roundup-ready isn't necessarily that the plants have been altered to resist the stuff, but rather, that we're spraying metric tons of roundup all over the place and creating (through, heh, genetic alteration via natural selection) roundup-resistant weeds?
    What difference does that make? Practically? That countries shouldn't make laws regarding the destructive things they're doing - because it's not inherently part of the technology?

    But in actuality it is. Changing the way we grow food is going to consequentially change the environment. The key is to actually examine the results, and change our behavior accordingly - this is the part that isn't profitable, so it doesn't happen without regulation.

    The kind of regulation in place right now is consumer protection. They're not stopping them from ruining the land with their herbicide; they're not even informing consumers here in the US so they don't get a choice.

  6. #966
    Legendary! TirielWoW's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    6,616
    Quote Originally Posted by Daerio View Post
    What difference does that make? Practically? That countries shouldn't make laws regarding the destructive things they're doing - because it's not inherently part of the technology?

    But in actuality it is. Changing the way we grow food is going to consequentially change the environment. The key is to actually examine the results, and change our behavior accordingly - this is the part that isn't profitable, so it doesn't happen without regulation.

    The kind of regulation in place right now is consumer protection. They're not stopping them from ruining the land with their herbicide; they're not even informing consumers here in the US so they don't get a choice.
    It matters because it's the difference between saying something completely uneducated like, "If you eat this food it'll give you cancer" and saying, "There's nothing wrong with this food, but roundup is a really bad thing to be using so can we stop?"
    Tiriél US-Stormrage

    Signature by Shyama

  7. #967
    Quote Originally Posted by HeatherRae View Post
    But wouldn't you agree that the issue with roundup-ready isn't necessarily that the plants have been altered to resist the stuff, but rather, that we're spraying metric tons of roundup all over the place and creating (through, heh, genetic alteration via natural selection) roundup-resistant weeds?
    I've never understood this kind of objection. "We should stop using Roundup, because if we don't, we'll eventually have to stop using it."

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by HeatherRae View Post
    It matters because it's the difference between saying something completely uneducated like, "If you eat this food it'll give you cancer" and saying, "There's nothing wrong with this food, but roundup is a really bad thing to be using so can we stop?"
    The objection to Roundup is also really uneducated. It's not a nasty chemical, demonization efforts notwithstanding.
    "There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
    "The bit about hardcore players not always caring about the long term interests of the game is spot on." -- Ghostcrawler
    "Do you want a game with no casuals so about 500 players?"

  8. #968
    Quote Originally Posted by HeatherRae View Post
    It matters because it's the difference between saying something completely uneducated like, "If you eat this food it'll give you cancer" and saying, "There's nothing wrong with this food, but roundup is a really bad thing to be using so can we stop?"
    So bullshit semantics, nothing practical. Or really related to the discussion.
    Last edited by Daerio; 2016-05-09 at 02:46 AM.

  9. #969
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    I've never understood this kind of objection. "We should stop using Roundup, because if we don't, we'll eventually have to stop using it."
    It's for the same reason that we don't want human diseases to develop resistances to the antibiotics that we have available now; the stronger the resistance they develop for a given treatment, the more difficult it is to find an alternate way to deal with it. Analogues and derivatives are more likely to be resisted by a derivative if the initial resistance is more complete.

    The objection to Roundup is also really uneducated. It's not a nasty chemical, demonization efforts notwithstanding.
    In general, I agree with you. However, downplaying the consequences of disease resistance is a really bad idea.

  10. #970
    Quote Originally Posted by Delekii View Post
    It's for the same reason that we don't want human diseases to develop resistances to the antibiotics that we have available now; the stronger the resistance they develop for a given treatment, the more difficult it is to find an alternate way to deal with it. Analogues and derivatives are more likely to be resisted by a derivative if the initial resistance is more complete.

    In general, I agree with you. However, downplaying the consequences of disease resistance is a really bad idea.
    I don't think this is a good analogy at all, especially when you consider that without glyphosate resistant crops, some other herbicide would be used, that would also be subject to the same objection.
    "There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
    "The bit about hardcore players not always caring about the long term interests of the game is spot on." -- Ghostcrawler
    "Do you want a game with no casuals so about 500 players?"

  11. #971
    Legendary! TirielWoW's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    6,616
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    I don't think this is a good analogy at all, especially when you consider that without glyphosate resistant crops, some other herbicide would be used, that would also be subject to the same objection.
    Also, no matter how resistant to roundup weeds become, we can still physically tear them out of the ground, if necessary. Would it be easy or efficient? No. But it's still completely doable.
    Tiriél US-Stormrage

    Signature by Shyama

  12. #972
    Quote Originally Posted by Yirrah View Post
    *sigh* And if anyone wonders why I don't bother to actively participate in these discussions anymore, I point you to Machismo above. Chemical pesticides are BANNED in organic farming, you can ONLY use organic ones, such as predatory species and easily-biodegradable ones from natural sources. But that is the level of ignorance / lying (delete as appropriate) that these debates always end up with. So I just don't have the energy for that anymore.

    And Fojos, I have been through this debate more times than I care to remember, I've spent hours documenting Every. Damn. Point. I listed above, only to have it all dismissed with "well, my sources are better" or "your sources are biased because they don't match what mine says" or worse. So no, you want the evidence, search it out yourself, because I can't be bothered. You might learn something in the process if you're actually interested in doing so. Start by googling "failure to yield", you know, the title that I referenced? The rest isn't hard to find either, but I won't expend the energy on someone who might well dismiss it all out of hand.
    Hypocrisy thy name is yirrah.
    “Logic: The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding.”
    "Conservative, n: A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal who wishes to replace them with others."
    Ambrose Bierce
    The Bird of Hermes Is My Name, Eating My Wings To Make Me Tame.

  13. #973
    Quote Originally Posted by shimerra View Post
    Hypocrisy thy name is yirrah.
    If they linked to the same report they linked last time about comparing GMO crop yields to organic crop yields it's laughable. They chose conditions where the things the GMOs protect against aren't present and then hand weed the organic crops and use more nitrogen rich fertilizer which is the actual thing causing dead zones at river mouths. It's comparing completely unlike things in terms of pollution/work requirement and then says the more polluting, more work intensive process gets better yields in conditions where there is no benefit from being genetically modified. Yirrah is a complete joke on this topic.

  14. #974
    The Unstoppable Force THE Bigzoman's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Magnolia
    Posts
    20,767
    Quote Originally Posted by Cybran View Post
    Quality has a price. We don't want to eat your poison, period.
    If only you felt the same about well, everything else dealing with quality.

    But no, this is where you draw the line: with GMO bullshit paranoia.


    Whatever.

  15. #975
    Quote Originally Posted by HeatherRae View Post
    Also, no matter how resistant to roundup weeds become, we can still physically tear them out of the ground, if necessary. Would it be easy or efficient? No. But it's still completely doable.
    Yes, in the meantime we can drench the fields in the slowly obsolete stuff and act like nothing bad will happen.

  16. #976
    Quote Originally Posted by Taftvalue View Post
    GM food is not unhealthy. There is no scientific evidence at all to support this paranoia.

    There are valid reasons to be against this, but this isn't one of them.
    You do realize that your emperor, trump, is anti-GMO - right?

    here's a wonderful quote: ""Too much Monsanto in the Corn Creates Issues in the Brain"

    In fact, Monsanto went after him for it - and he backed off them like a chicken shit.

  17. #977
    You have to be crazy to trust Monsanto, the company that brought you Agent Orange.

    . Btw the TTIP will allow them to sue past ANY local laws put in to block GMO's


    oh and ps, Fuck Monsanto

    Agent Orange

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/12/us...rans.html?_r=0

    http://www.blogs.va.gov/VAntage/1774...-agent-orange/

    10 things every Veteran should know about Agent Orange







    - - - Updated - - -

    Fucking Monsanto should be eradicated from the world

  18. #978
    I am Murloc!
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Aarhus, Denmark, Europe
    Posts
    5,077
    Quote Originally Posted by Oktoberfest View Post
    You have to be crazy to trust Monsanto
    I am not certain it is ever wise to trust any company testing their own product for effects that would be long term. But the solution is probably more to test what they wish to push before allowing it on the market (as we do with pharma) rather than to put meaningless labels on them so only the rich get to make a choice.

    Also Agent Orange was a long time ago so i ignored that part

  19. #979
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Then you surely support the labeling of the race and nationality of those who touched the food. After all, in your words, it's not ignorance, it reduces ignorance.
    http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...ery-slope.html

  20. #980
    Quote Originally Posted by Kangodo View Post
    It's a useless tag.
    Do you think the "organic corn" you buy isn't a GMO?



    Maize cobs uncovered by archaeologists show the evolution of modern maize over thousands of years of selective breeding. Even the oldest archaeological samples bear an unmistakable resemblance to modern maize.
    That doesn't really mean much, growing food is a science. I grew 3 corn plants in a 5 gallon container and while I did get the 2 ears per plant of corn, they were like 1/3 the size of a normal corn cob. Fertilizer is also a major factor in addition to spacing.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •