Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

Losing is fun, eh?

[Servant Corps]

Another odd LCS design choice. Liberals seem to be against genetic research. But isn't stem cell research, a form of genetic research, something Liberals love?

[mainiac]

Hm... is stem cell research really genetic in nature?  While I could imagine a dna swap might be useful, I don't think there's a strong genetic engineering component.

[Jonathan S. Fox]

I believe Liberal opposition to genetic research refers primarily to the fear of genetically engineered foodcrops.

[Yanlin]

What's wrong with Genetically engineered food? If done properly, it's perfectly Ok. It just needs some more work done on it.

[mainiac]

I am an evil tool of corporations who wishes to make people sick for a quick buck.  Therefore I will use "science" to convince you it is safe.

Liberal'd!

[Yanlin]

I am an evil tool of corporations who wishes to make people sick for a quick buck.  Therefore I will use "science" to convince you it is safe.

Ruin'd!

Liberal'd!

[E. Albright]

It's not just a matter of health effects of people consuming the crops. It's also corporations patenting seeds, contractually stipulating that farmers can't collect grain for re-seeding, doing fun things like developing "terminator" genes that can ensure that last bit, gengineering crops to take obscene amounts of pesticides... oh, and reducing genetic diversity and thus putting the world's food supply at risk (from both disaster and malice) in the name of a quick buck. Etc. etc. etc.

Well, those are some of the more pointed objections to GM crops you do of course also get random fear of "frankenfood", which tends to be a bit less substantive.

Some of the objections above have parallels in more general genetic engineering as well, particularly IP-related stuff. Though in fairness, it's quite possible that I'm too used to viewing this stuff from a progressive leftist perspective and liberals may generally have less objections to such corporatism (or just find it too wonkish to care about).

[mainiac]

If I might succumb to wisdom for a second, I'd like to say that many of the problems you list with frankenfoods predate them.  E.g. terminator genes, overuse of pesticides and declining genetic diversity.  Those are just problems with the overall mass farming industry employed in the first world.  And I don't think GMO make any of these worse, in fact they promise to reduce overuse of pesticides and fertilizers and they lessen the risk of crop loss.  While one should always be wary about corporations deciding between public health and profit, we should realize that GMO have already done a lot of good.

That being said, the LCS should be completely opposed to GMO.  It's a game about dogmatic pursuit of liberalism, made funny because the LCS rejects the rationalism and open mindedness that lead to so many liberal positions.  So we should be glad that we have a case where the liberal position is so blatantly wrong.  We seem to have fewer of these every day.

[Jonathan S. Fox]

I succumb to wisdom on this issue as well. I have been exposed to most of the varied arguments on this issue that are put forward by environmentalists and other opponents to it; not only was the badness of GMOs part of my highschool curriculum (I even played a butterfly in a school play, dying on stage after being poisoned by GM corn), but I volunteered with a sustainability organization that also opposed GMOs. I was never really sold, however -- it appeared to me that genetically modified crops provide many benefits, from longer growing cycles and greater environmental tolerance, to more robust harvests, to inherent resistance to destructive insects without the need for aggressive pesticide use, and these outweigh the objections raised.

In truth we've been tweaking the genetics of plants and animals to cause them to exist in a more close and efficient symbiotic relationship with humans for hundreds, even thousands of years; pets, including dogs and cats, almost all farm animals and virtually every food crop, are all literally genetically altered to serve human needs. The difference is that it's been in the hands of breeders to craft the plants and animals we want through selective breeding, and now the technology exists to use genetic engineering -- a much more precise tool than just picking two parents and crossing them -- to further the exact same goals with greater refinement and efficacy.

I find it interesting that this is one of the few areas in which Liberals tend to be opposed to change; opposition to genetically modified crops makes sense from the environmentalist, back-to-nature point of view, but this sort of steadfast adherence to traditional farming techniques seems a remarkably Conservative approach to solving problems with world hunger. Despite the varied arguments against GMOs, I personally suspect that, like gay rights, the opposition would be a minority position if it didn't just sound icky underneath everything else.

[Servant Corps]

Actually, in this case, I give into my Heart. GMOs are good, but I do believe in regulations, just in case we do encounter 'superbugdom'. I am also a fan of the 'precautionary principle', if we do not know if something is good or bad, it's better not to do it. Of course, this shouldn't restrict GMO production entirely, but let at least have some regulation.

Then again, this would be like stating that supporting the existence of the FDA is an Elite Liberal position.

[E. Albright]

...

Whaaaaa? Erm, maniac, terminator genes cannot predate GM crops. They're, uh, genetic modifications to crops to make their seeds infertile. And they're pure evil. They serve no purpose but enforcing corporate ownership of certain plants, regardless of quite real environmental hazards.

As to your claim of GMOs reducing the overuse of chemicals in agriculture... heh. How... quaint. Are you familiar with the logic behind, e.g., Roundup Ready® crops? It's not to reduce the amount of chemicals dumped on the crops, it's to make it easier to indiscriminately dump more on the fields w/o killing off the crop in question. Your general point is not wholly without merit, as there are crops that are made to be simply pest-resistant, but your claim is far too broad.

You are absolutely correct that problems stemming from monoculture predate agricultural biotech, though I must say a strong case has been made that the GMO agribusiness model makes it substantially worse. Particularly nice is that studies have made very clear that GMO crops cannot be isolated from their unaltered neighbors, so they will spread; cross pollination will help reduce agricultural biodiversity. Even nicer is when you have biotech companies  bringing patent infringement lawsuits against farmers who they accuse of "stealing" their product from neighboring GMO-planted fields, or from prior years' GM plantings in the same field. Also, if farmers recover and replant seeds from year to year, that allows for more diversity than if they are contractually obligated to avoid doing so in favor of buying new stock from a central broker each year... to say nothing of the effect of turning loose a more-viable stock of a crop does to non-GM biodiversity in a region.

All of this leaves entirely aside how wrong it is to leave the very capability to produce food entirely in the hands of a very small number of very large corporations.

GM agriculture is hardly a case where the leftist concerns are "so blatantly wrong". Though since you've willingly donned the mantle of Sensible Liberal to disparagingly chide me into my place as a stereotypical Left-Wing Chicken Little, I'll not hesitate to say that your market-liberal reverence for technology is blinding you to the very possibility that there's problems with these "wonderful" innovations.

But as I said, narrowminded, exasperated, irrational dogmatism is pretty much what I'd expect from a liberal point of view on this topic. "Technology will solve all our problems" + "Corporatism's overall effect is generally good" => "GMO crops MUST be a net positive, and any evidence to the contrary is bogus irrational chicken-little-ism from the lunatic left".

[E. Albright]

I find it interesting that this is one of the few areas in which Liberals tend to be opposed to change; opposition to genetically modified crops makes sense from the environmentalist, back-to-nature point of view, but this sort of steadfast adherence to traditional farming techniques seems a remarkably Conservative approach to solving problems with world hunger. Despite the varied arguments against GMOs, I personally suspect that, like gay rights, the opposition would be a minority position if it didn't just sound icky underneath everything else.

I can't really agree with this, though I do respect where you're coming from. GM crops are not inherently bad, and humans have indeed been doing (unscientific) modifications pretty much forever, so in principle it's silly to object to that. However, there are solid concerns regarding the effect of using fewer and fewer strains of crops with regards to vulnerability to assorted blights. And furthermore, even if in principle GM crops can be a good thing, in practice right now they're... worrisome. In the extreme.

I'd also be reluctant to be too quick to argue that adherence to certain venerable agricultural techniques are necessarily benighted. New and high-tech is not always better than old and crude. See, e.g., baby formula vs. breastfeeding. Saccharine vs. sugar.  There are good points to the technical innovation, and bad points. The new should not be too hastily embraced strictly on the basis of the benefits proclaimed by its producers... and we do need to consider that we cannot know if there will be long-term environmental problems with it as of yet.

Finally... it's worth recalling that much world hunger is caused by pricing and distribution problems, not production. Turning over control of seed stock to for-profit multinational corporations is unlikely to do a blasted thing to reduce this.

[mainiac]

Terminator genes do predate GMO.  Ever heard of seedless fruit?  Seedless grapes are more then 100 years old.

And yes, there's big problems with the way GMO is done.  But those problems are pretty small fry compared to many of the broader problems with modern agriculture.  And you assume that GMO can only have a bad impact.  While some GMO seeds promote overuse of pesticides, that's because the company selling them doesn't give a crap, not inherent to GMO.  It shows lack of regulation to protect the environment, not a problem with the technology.

Technologies always have positive and negative uses.  This is a case where we can regulate the negative uses and keep the positive ones.  And the possible humanitarian and ecological benefits of GMO are enormous.

Corporations can use many products to exploit people and do harm.  Look at medicine, which HMO's use to manipulate people's judgement to push them into expensive and often unwise health decisions.  But we shouldn't try to ban medicine.

[E. Albright]

Terminator genes do predate GMO.  Ever heard of seedless fruit?  Seedless grapes are more then 100 years old.

Seedless fruit != genetic use restriction ("terminator") technology. Plants with terminator genes are genetically designed to produce sterile seeds upon application of a chemical agent to fertile seeds; they'll grow but will produce plants that produce sterile seeds. That's new. Seedless fruit are seedless because of actions taken by the grower. Plants with terminator genes produce sterile seeds due to the application of a chemical triggering agent by the seller of the seeds from which they sprouted.

The major, and indeed only, benefit from this outside of corporate bottom lines is a lack of cross-pollination with non-transgenetic crops. The drawbacks are primarily pointed aggravation of the problems associate with modern monoculture; it ensures that the mass produced and widely distributed strain remains much, much purer. There's also IP and grower's right's issues, but that can and will be argued back and forth. The biodiversity aspect cannot.

And you assume that GMO can only have a bad impact.

Actually, no, I conceded they're not without their benefits. Perhaps not as clearly as I should have, but still. I fear the prickly leftist in me took umbrage at something (real or perceived) in your tone, and for that I apologize. However, any reliance on them is going to aggravate the biodiversity problems associated with modern agriculture. That's pretty much inevitable given what GMO crops are is mass-produced designer crop strains. No amount of regulation to avoid the current sleaze associate with GMO-pushing multinationals can get around that. Designing and mass producing limited numbers of specific strains of plants is dangerous in terms of biodiversity. Even if all profit motive is removed, even if there's no centralized control of seed reserves by unaccountable private entities... it's promoting monoculture. And that's bad.