Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You seem to be the one trying to force GMO's onto everyone whether they want 'em or not… what kinda "libertarian" or "conservative" is that (must be a "RINO"…lol)?!
Several people in here are fighting hard for GMOs, yet there is no logical reason for it; unless they are being paid to flood forums with their nonsense. The only other excuse would be that stupid loves company, much like drug addicts.
Take it from a card carrying dues paying Libertarian... WE ALL HATE GMOs
That is not evidence of anything. It's anecdotal at best, and completely fabricated at worst. It's obviously a marketing decision, with most people that are ignorant about science making baseless assumptions about products that don't have the fancy "No GMO" label on it. It's the next "USDA Certified Organic" BS marketing campaign, and people are falling hook, line, and sinker for it.
As I've stated before, actually reviewing the science and critical thinking would lead most educated people to conclude the excitement about the GMO boogeyman has no basis in science.
Either your review of science isn't comprehensive, or your grasp of the pertinent details weak.
The matter is far more reaching than most of you seem to understand. The fundamental issue of safety of GMO is only one element of the broader implications. Whether or not GMO is safe isn't the only issue here ... and given the short history of genetically modified organisms, long term safety isn't even possible to declare.
Contrary to claims and insinuations and misperceptions, today's science has an infantile understanding of genetics. Tinkering with the genetics of organic life as is currently being done is akin to children playing with automatic weapons. Many assume that the decoding of the human gnome was complete and answered all the pertinent questions, but for those who are not operating on false assumptions, we understand that scienceknows less about genetics than it has thus far discovered. The fact that only about 7% of the genetic code of humans has been purpose defined, with the other 93% labeled "junk DNA", for the sole reason that genetic science cannot identify a purpose. This type of reasoning couldn't be more flawed, and is anything but scientific. "We can't figure out what that 93% does, so it's not important". This is like the DYI'er claiming that those extra parts of the bicycle left over after assembly aren't needed.
With regard to GMO, the main problem is the inability to contain it, and prevent cross contamination of the genes with non GMO plants, along with no means of reversing that contamination. The complexity of our biosphere and the interconnectedness and symbiotic relationships between the billions of life forms on this planet, and the impossibility of predicting the unintended consequences of introducing an imbalance via neverbefore seen life forms created synthetically in a laboratory is not a marketing decision ... it's not even a decision legitimately held by one country, let alone be trusted to a corporation with a disastrous record of producing harmful products now banned globally.
Few realize the psychopathic nature of modern science and it's arrogant disregard for the consequences of it's actions. This from an industry not long ago urging the world to switch to margarine and avoid butter, only to say oops, 35 years later, and admit that perhaps they got it wrong, and maybe margarine isn't so healthy after all. And we're just talking about freaking butter!!!! These are the same buffoons you all trust to fiddle with the genetic code of all biological life on this planet which geneticists have dismissed 93% of it as inconsequencial and purposeless?
Now if this is just too big for some of you to get your small intellects around, fine. Leave the debate and the thinking to those who can grasp the implications. Yet, it doesn't require a sophisticated mind to grasp the personal consequences of allowing a corporation to patent your food, create terminator crops that eliminate seed which in turn will require you to purchase those seeds from the corporation which now has full monopoly control over food production the very point at which their GMO has infiltrated and taken over completely, which by the way, is the plan, and was the plan from the outset. Why else do you think terminators were developed?
The primary concern, even for the mouth breathers out there should be the ability to grow natural food, and continue to grow natural food from natural seeds produced naturally from plants that haven't had their ability to produce seeds disabled by a evil corporate empire wishing to seize total control of food production, worldwide. Even the dim bulbs out there should recognize the negative implications of that scenario.
Given that our legislators are owned by corporate interests, and we cannot expect rational laws governing the conduct of the likes of Monsanto, all that is left is the power of the pocket book. This is where mandatory labeling comes in, so that consumers can vote with their wallets. Boycotting GMO is the only way we can stop this insanity, and that is why Monsanto is fighting so hard against it.
Hopefully, we still have enough thinking people left in this world of idiots to save the dolts from themselves, and us along with them.
Either your review of science isn't comprehensive, or your grasp of the pertinent details weak.
The matter is far more reaching than most of you seem to understand. The fundamental issue of safety of GMO is only one element of the broader implications. Whether or not GMO is safe isn't the only issue here ... and given the short history of genetically modified organisms, long term safety isn't even possible to declare.
Contrary to claims and insinuations and misperceptions, today's science has an infantile understanding of genetics. Tinkering with the genetics of organic life as is currently being done is akin to children playing with automatic weapons. Many assume that the decoding of the human gnome was complete and answered all the pertinent questions, but for those who are not operating on false assumptions, we understand that scienceknows less about genetics than it has thus far discovered. The fact that only about 7% of the genetic code of humans has been purpose defined, with the other 93% labeled "junk DNA", for the sole reason that genetic science cannot identify a purpose. This type of reasoning couldn't be more flawed, and is anything but scientific. "We can't figure out what that 93% does, so it's not important". This is like the DYI'er claiming that those extra parts of the bicycle left over after assembly aren't needed.
With regard to GMO, the main problem is the inability to contain it, and prevent cross contamination of the genes with non GMO plants, along with no means of reversing that contamination. The complexity of our biosphere and the interconnectedness and symbiotic relationships between the billions of life forms on this planet, and the impossibility of predicting the unintended consequences of introducing an imbalance via neverbefore seen life forms created synthetically in a laboratory is not a marketing decision ... it's not even a decision legitimately held by one country, let alone be trusted to a corporation with a disastrous record of producing harmful products now banned globally.
Few realize the psychopathic nature of modern science and it's arrogant disregard for the consequences of it's actions. This from an industry not long ago urging the world to switch to margarine and avoid butter, only to say oops, 35 years later, and admit that perhaps they got it wrong, and maybe margarine isn't so healthy after all. And we're just talking about freaking butter!!!! These are the same buffoons you all trust to fiddle with the genetic code of all biological life on this planet which geneticists have dismissed 93% of it as inconsequencial and purposeless?
Now if this is just too big for some of you to get your small intellects around, fine. Leave the debate and the thinking to those who can grasp the implications. Yet, it doesn't require a sophisticated mind to grasp the personal consequences of allowing a corporation to patent your food, create terminator crops that eliminate seed which in turn will require you to purchase those seeds from the corporation which now has full monopoly control over food production the very point at which their GMO has infiltrated and taken over completely, which by the way, is the plan, and was the plan from the outset. Why else do you think terminators were developed?
The primary concern, even for the mouth breathers out there should be the ability to grow natural food, and continue to grow natural food from natural seeds produced naturally from plants that haven't had their ability to produce seeds disabled by a evil corporate empire wishing to seize total control of food production, worldwide. Even the dim bulbs out there should recognize the negative implications of that scenario.
Given that our legislators are owned by corporate interests, and we cannot expect rational laws governing the conduct of the likes of Monsanto, all that is left is the power of the pocket book. This is where mandatory labeling comes in, so that consumers can vote with their wallets. Boycotting GMO is the only way we can stop this insanity, and that is why Monsanto is fighting so hard against it.
Hopefully, we still have enough thinking people left in this world of idiots to save the dolts from themselves, and us along with them.
Excellent post! I'd also ask these GMO cheer leaders if they feel it's moral for farmers to be sued by the companies who are causing the very contamination that GM crops spread to their fields.
Why does MOnsanto, DuPont, and the rest of big AGRA need to be protected by the FDA and Congress, from legal prosecution, if their sh|t is so safe?
It's insanity on display, and we can only hope the cronies that shill for big AGRA will eventually get their comeuppance!
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,456,964 times
Reputation: 6670
Yup, great points, and BTW, isn't what they used to call "junk DNA", now considered the actual underlying "operating system" of the genome "computer"?!
Yup, great points, and BTW, isn't what they used to call "junk DNA", now considered the actual underlying "operating system" of the genome "computer"?!
The ENTIRE PREMISE for GMO crops is output. Since output has degraded over the last 20 years, and organic methods of farming produce more yield per acre!
So, I ask; "what's the point now?"
Wanna bet they can't control it?
I think we're going to find they have unleashed a monster they can't control and it's well on the way to contaminating the worlds crop production. One day we may be buying wheat from Russia, who have made GMO crops illegal for man and beast.
You seem to be the one trying to force GMO's onto everyone whether they want 'em or not… what kinda "libertarian" or "conservative" is that (must be a "RINO"…lol)?!
I'm not forcing GMOs on anyone, merely tormenting the scientifically illiterate. you are free to eat whatever you like
Just to be clear, this thread is about GMOs, not about glyphosate weed killers. That's a different topic completely, and a lot of the GMO projects, both food and non-food, have nothing to do with glyphosates, so don't conflate the two.
Yeah its just that we have to trust the same company that sells glyphosate. I would not trust them with hybrids, or even open pollinated heirloom plants. GMOs are an extremely powerful biological technology in the hands of maniacs that would carry plutonium in their lunch boxes.
The economic incentives are perverse and in no way could I ever support the idea creating conditions where most of the food comes from patent protected sources. If you use GMOs then da guberment is involved; my favorite, da guberment.
Either your review of science isn't comprehensive, or your grasp of the pertinent details weak.
The matter is far more reaching than most of you seem to understand. The fundamental issue of safety of GMO is only one element of the broader implications. Whether or not GMO is safe isn't the only issue here ... and given the short history of genetically modified organisms, long term safety isn't even possible to declare.
Contrary to claims and insinuations and misperceptions, today's science has an infantile understanding of genetics. Tinkering with the genetics of organic life as is currently being done is akin to children playing with automatic weapons. Many assume that the decoding of the human gnome was complete and answered all the pertinent questions, but for those who are not operating on false assumptions, we understand that scienceknows less about genetics than it has thus far discovered. The fact that only about 7% of the genetic code of humans has been purpose defined, with the other 93% labeled "junk DNA", for the sole reason that genetic science cannot identify a purpose. This type of reasoning couldn't be more flawed, and is anything but scientific. "We can't figure out what that 93% does, so it's not important". This is like the DYI'er claiming that those extra parts of the bicycle left over after assembly aren't needed.
With regard to GMO, the main problem is the inability to contain it, and prevent cross contamination of the genes with non GMO plants, along with no means of reversing that contamination. The complexity of our biosphere and the interconnectedness and symbiotic relationships between the billions of life forms on this planet, and the impossibility of predicting the unintended consequences of introducing an imbalance via neverbefore seen life forms created synthetically in a laboratory is not a marketing decision ... it's not even a decision legitimately held by one country, let alone be trusted to a corporation with a disastrous record of producing harmful products now banned globally.
Few realize the psychopathic nature of modern science and it's arrogant disregard for the consequences of it's actions. This from an industry not long ago urging the world to switch to margarine and avoid butter, only to say oops, 35 years later, and admit that perhaps they got it wrong, and maybe margarine isn't so healthy after all. And we're just talking about freaking butter!!!! These are the same buffoons you all trust to fiddle with the genetic code of all biological life on this planet which geneticists have dismissed 93% of it as inconsequencial and purposeless?
Now if this is just too big for some of you to get your small intellects around, fine. Leave the debate and the thinking to those who can grasp the implications. Yet, it doesn't require a sophisticated mind to grasp the personal consequences of allowing a corporation to patent your food, create terminator crops that eliminate seed which in turn will require you to purchase those seeds from the corporation which now has full monopoly control over food production the very point at which their GMO has infiltrated and taken over completely, which by the way, is the plan, and was the plan from the outset. Why else do you think terminators were developed?
The primary concern, even for the mouth breathers out there should be the ability to grow natural food, and continue to grow natural food from natural seeds produced naturally from plants that haven't had their ability to produce seeds disabled by a evil corporate empire wishing to seize total control of food production, worldwide. Even the dim bulbs out there should recognize the negative implications of that scenario.
Given that our legislators are owned by corporate interests, and we cannot expect rational laws governing the conduct of the likes of Monsanto, all that is left is the power of the pocket book. This is where mandatory labeling comes in, so that consumers can vote with their wallets. Boycotting GMO is the only way we can stop this insanity, and that is why Monsanto is fighting so hard against it.
Hopefully, we still have enough thinking people left in this world of idiots to save the dolts from themselves, and us along with them.
I'm actually a biological scientist, but a critical-thinking educated person could easily determine this long-winded tirade is lacking of one iota of evidence to support your claims that GMO products are unsafe.
It does include the common logical fallacies of: (1) Conspiracy arguments (2) Argument by ignorance (3) Strawman.
omigod11!!1!11 we're all gonna die of GMO poisoning11!!1!1!!
I see you do not know the difference between yield per acre and total production. If you add enough acres, of course production will increase. But, don;t take my word for it, take the PEER REVIEWED IJAS study:
Monsanto makes the same case on its website, saying, “Since the advent of biotechnology, there have been a number of claims from anti-biotechnology activists that genetically modified (GM) crops don’t increase yields. Some have claimed that GM crops actually have lower yields than non-GM crops… GM crops generally have higher yields due to both breeding and biotechnology.”
But that’s not actually the case. A new peer-reviewed study published in the International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability examined those claims and found that conventional plant breeding, not genetic engineering, is responsible for yield increases in major U.S. crops.
Go figure, I used a source you might actually accept!
You can find the FREE DL of the "Sustainability and innovation in staple crop production in the US Midwest" in the link within my C&P
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_loper
I'm actually a biological scientist.
See above. Just because you are a biological scientist doesn't mean your expertise is in agriculture, or even genetic modification of plants. I could say I'm an engineer, but of what? That's a pretty broad statement.
C'mon man!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
