Print

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

[Askot Bokbondeler]

can't be arsed to fully follow the thread of this discussion about the DM and GM foods, so I'll put this in:

IMO, GM foods are fine, up until the point some scientist makes them sentient and they go out for revenge due to our eating of their bretheren.

so you have no interest in this thread and just felt like shitposting?

[Grakelin]

Hey, don't downplay him. If plants somehow do gain sentience and rise up against us (or worse, were used as tools by terrorists!), there is nothing we could do to stop them. Plants are notoriously hard to destroy with anything short of fire.

If this is considered a valid argument against genetic modification in animals and humans, it stands to reason that it must be a valid argument against genetic modification in plants.

[Truean]

There are some problems with genetically modified organisms. Namely a major change should not be made until thoroughly tested, the means of implementation are practical, and the change is proven superior to the established method. Here, absent hybridization with wild species which cannot be accurately modeled, we have tested many GMs and found few risks, though a couple have been substantial enough to warrant caution (environmental rather than health related). Certain superiority to natural established food strains are demonstrable  through disease resistance and other attributes. However, the means of implementation is often entirely inequitable.

"Terminator crops" are bad. Terminator crops are crops which do not produce seeds, thus terminating their line and ability to reproduce. A crop that cannot produce seed next year naturally presents a major problem for farmers, because they are then forced to repurchase new seed in order to plant next year. Ordinarily, they would merely keep a small portion of their crop for next year's seed. This can be prohibitively expensive and easily regarded as a weakness in genetically modified crops, specifically those of the "terminator crop" variety.

At the same point in time, I love those damn seedless grapes and watermelons....

[Africa]

Above post is truth. To the first paragraph, add that obviously, there needs to be a better way of testing them than selling them to broke Indian farmers for ten times the price of normal seeds and then leave them holding the ball if the crops fail.

Second paragraph falls into the same category of the technology being used to bring poor farmers a way to self-generate wealth vs. it being used by first-world companies to run a racket on those farmers.

Also, there's the fact that if plants all have the same genome, they may be hyper-resistant to all known diseases and bugs, but when some disease comes along that does kill them, then an entire country's crop could easily be wiped out. This WILL happen from time to time at best so there needs to be some kind of a backup plan to make sure the people that lose out on that aren't the dirt-poor farmers.

[G-Flex]

There are some problems with genetically modified organisms. Namely a major change should not be made until thoroughly tested, the means of implementation are practical, and the change is proven superior to the established method. Here, absent hybridization with wild species which cannot be accurately modeled, we have tested many GMs and found few risks, though a couple have been substantial enough to warrant caution (environmental rather than health related). Certain superiority to natural established food strains are demonstrable  through disease resistance and other attributes. However, the means of implementation is often entirely inequitable.

You're kind of neglecting some of the ethical and legal questions here. What standards do we have for patenting genetics, for example? I do feel that being able to patent an organism or a genetic sequence makes sense on principle, but I have no idea how well the process is handled; one company at least temporarily got away with patenting naturally-occurring human genes linked to breast cancer. That's an extreme case, obviously, and they eventually got told "no" in court, but the fact that this wasn't a cut-and-dry issue to begin with is bad. Also, how much power should multinational corporations have over the use of their crops, or over the entire agricultural systems of nations? And what about natural hybridization between patented GM crops and the crops of other farmers?

Hey, don't downplay him. If plants somehow do gain sentience and rise up against us (or worse, were used as tools by terrorists!), there is nothing we could do to stop them. Plants are notoriously hard to destroy with anything short of fire.

If this is considered a valid argument against genetic modification in animals and humans, it stands to reason that it must be a valid argument against genetic modification in plants.

This entire post is completely ridiculous. I hope I don't have to explain why.

... But to point out one thing in particular, why would "gaining sentience" be an issue where humans are concerned?

[freeformschooler]

Hey, don't downplay him. If plants somehow do gain sentience and rise up against us (or worse, were used as tools by terrorists!), there is nothing we could do to stop them. Plants are notoriously hard to destroy with anything short of fire.

If this is considered a valid argument against genetic modification in animals and humans, it stands to reason that it must be a valid argument against genetic modification in plants.

This entire post is completely ridiculous. I hope I don't have to explain why.

I believe that post was something called a "joke". Or "funny", or it was supposed to be. If you didn't pick up on that, and interpreted it as genuine, it's moderately disconcerting.

[G-Flex]

Reading it again, I think you're right. I missed the part about terrorists, and being on the Internet too long has screwed up my sarcasm filter.

[Truean]

There are some problems with genetically modified organisms. Namely a major change should not be made until thoroughly tested, the means of implementation are practical, and the change is proven superior to the established method. Here, absent hybridization with wild species which cannot be accurately modeled, we have tested many GMs and found few risks, though a couple have been substantial enough to warrant caution (environmental rather than health related). Certain superiority to natural established food strains are demonstrable  through disease resistance and other attributes. However, the means of implementation is often entirely inequitable.

You're kind of neglecting some of the ethical and legal questions here. What standards do we have for patenting genetics, for example? I do feel that being able to patent an organism or a genetic sequence makes sense on principle, but I have no idea how well the process is handled; one company at least temporarily got away with patenting naturally-occurring human genes linked to breast cancer. That's an extreme case, obviously, and they eventually got told "no" in court, but the fact that this wasn't a cut-and-dry issue to begin with is bad. Also, how much power should multinational corporations have over the use of their crops, or over the entire agricultural systems of nations? And what about natural hybridization between patented GM crops and the crops of other farmers?

The post was purposefully oversimplified. I neither want nor need to write a definitive text. If I did, what would anyone else talk about on topic?

However, I talked about hybridization and said we couldn't accurately model it. That's a concern.

Patenting genes is a tricky issue with its own subcatagories. 'Tis a deep issue I'm not sure I can adequately broach here with my limited time.

I also talked about power imbalance between large corporations under "terminator crops." The problem is that the consumer, typically poor individuals, would have to buy from the corporation each year instead of using seed crop. This is an issue.

[Bauglir]

The other thing is that terminator crops are an effective (but imperfect) tool against hybridization and spread of modified lines, which is a definite problem. Still, I think their problems as an economic stranglehold outweigh that, given modern economic practices. In a hypothetical fantasy land where businesses actually tried to be ethical, they'd be a useful part of a strategy to minimize contamination.

[Phmcw]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_gM58cci6I

Huuuuuu? What? The stop it America, when I called you USSA it was a joke, promise.

[Grimshot]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_gM58cci6I

Huuuuuu? What? The stop it America, when I called you USSA it was a joke, promise.

 Wow, I'm surprised there wasn't more outrage from the crowd. I know I would have been seriously pissed off if I was there. People need to grow a damn spine and stand against this kind of behavior.

[Andir]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_gM58cci6I

Huuuuuu? What? The stop it America, when I called you USSA it was a joke, promise.

 Wow, I'm surprised there wasn't more outrage from the crowd. I know I would have been seriously pissed off if I was there. People need to grow a damn spine and stand against this kind of behavior.

People are under the impression that government is there to help them and can do no wrong.  People don't understand their rights.  They are conditioned to believe that speaking up can have them arrested and jailed.  (This is why I don't understand Phmcw's stand on how government can be responsible for ethics restrictions [eg: hate speech.])

[Truean]

http://news.yahoo.com/gay-marriage-opponents-sue-overturn-ny-law-163544386.html

Damn it....

"You gays have the same rights as everyone else, you can marry the opposite sex...."

....

Yeah, that'll work.... How many times has that been tried. It always ends in misery, divorce and needless suffering....

[Africa]

Do you think it'll go anywhere?

[Leafsnail]

Financial filings with the state Board of Elections July 15 showed Cuomo and the four Republican senators who voted for gay marriage received large campaign donations from groups and individuals who pushed for the legalization of gay marriage.

If this were enough to kill a bill then I'm pretty sure you could go back and strike down the vast majority of recent laws...