[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

What's going to be fun is when--in the very near future--biohackers are doing gene-editing in their own garages to see what they can come up with. Actually it's already happening, but I imagine it'll scale up as the price comes down.

What will be fun is when the biohackers start enhancing themselves.

That's when this gets interesting.

[herbie]

Supreme Court rules Monsanto allowed uncontrollable spread of GMO wheat, thereby making it public domain and patents unenforceable....

[Strutz]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

martin14 martin14:

Interesting, I thought one of the GMO changes was to make the seed sterile.

Then the farmer has to buy seeds from Monsanto every year.

I've always written: Nature always wins. Life always finds a way to thrive.

It's interesting isn't it? Another example of how humans are far from being in control over this planet and how nature conducts it's natural course.

[Sunnyways]

The long-term ecological effects of GMO crops are necessarily unknown at this point but we do know that GMO products are not labelled as such in Canada. I don't care if they are considered to be harmless (so far) to humans; I still want to know what I am eating. How the industry manages to strong-arm both Liberals and Conservatives on this issue is truly impressive.

[ScottMayers]

We'd have an improvement if the population growth of all living things themselves were not exponential and are optimized to those beings that populate MORE in environments that suffer more. GMOs help feed the increased population. If you favor evolution without our manipulation upon it, your genes should pass on to your children who will hopefully adapt to manipulate the environment differently. GMOs are as much 'evolutionary' as are non-GMOs THROUGH our evolved intellect.

Nature doesn't require humanity to persist either. All behaviors are similarly 'natural'. So the arguments against GMO should focus on HOW they are managed or you have to deal with the problem of eliminating the populations to compensate for your preferred ideals of 'organic foods.'

[BeaverFever]

ScottMayers ScottMayers:

We'd have an improvement if the population growth of all living things themselves were not exponential and are optimized to those beings that populate MORE in environments that suffer more. GMOs help feed the increased population. If you favor evolution without our manipulation upon it, your genes should pass on to your children who will hopefully adapt to manipulate the environment differently. GMOs are as much 'evolutionary' as are non-GMOs THROUGH our evolved intellect.

Nature doesn't require humanity to persist either. All behaviors are similarly 'natural'. So the arguments against GMO should focus on HOW they are managed or you have to deal with the problem of eliminating the populations to compensate for your preferred ideals of 'organic foods.'

So far the whole “GMOs feed the world” claim is just a marketing line it’s not really true. The GMOs approved for human food chain are not being used to feed impoverished people, they’re being used in first world countries, mostly in processed foods or livestock feed, and they’re replacing rather than adding to the commercial crop.

[herbie]

I guess not. They weren't designed to improve shit, they were designed to make an enforceable patent and gouge a slice out of food production. The 3rd world can't afford more companies with their hands in the cookie jar.

[Tricks]

Claiming GMOs are dangerous is just as anti-science as claiming climate change isn't real.

[BartSimpson]

Tricks Tricks:

Claiming GMOs are dangerous is just as anti-science as claiming climate change isn't real.

Whoa.

I disagree in both cases.

I disagree because the science in both issues has been so heavily tainted by money and politics that the truth is indiscernible.

I don't KNOW that GMO foods are dangerous and all I've heard so far are a bunch of specious claims that are often loaded with terms like 'frankenfood' which betray bias on the part of the people making the claims.

Likewise with climate studies there's religious alarmists, die-hard deniers, and a milieu of serious skeptics and serious scientists in the middle who are struggling to separate the science from the propaganda...and their voices are a mere squeak in a stadium full of screaming people from opposing teams.

But I hate to say the ship has sailed on reason here. These issues are all now become purely emotional and for some people their fervor invested into these issues has moved past science to become a form of a religion substitute.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Tricks Tricks:

Claiming GMOs are dangerous is just as anti-science as claiming climate change isn't real.

Whoa.

I disagree in both cases.

I disagree because the science in both issues has been so heavily tainted by money and politics that the truth is indiscernible.

I don't KNOW that GMO foods are dangerous and all I've heard so far are a bunch of specious claims that are often loaded with terms like 'frankenfood' which betray bias on the part of the people making the claims.

Likewise with climate studies there's religious alarmists, die-hard deniers, and a milieu of serious skeptics and serious scientists in the middle who are struggling to separate the science from the propaganda...and their voices are a mere squeak in a stadium full of screaming people from opposing teams.

But I hate to say the ship has sailed on reason here. These issues are all now become purely emotional and for some people their fervor invested into these issues has moved past science to become a form of a religion substitute.

I'm not surprised you disagree.

A elementary knowledge (my level) of the digestive process tells me that anything we eat is broken down into simple bits that our body uses and re-organizes to meet our needs. Any RNA or DNA expressed as 'genes' that a GMO might have don't make it past the stomach.

Therefore, nothing but hype.

As for environmental costs, that is a different argument.

[Tricks]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Tricks Tricks:

Claiming GMOs are dangerous is just as anti-science as claiming climate change isn't real.

Whoa.

I disagree in both cases.

I disagree because the science in both issues has been so heavily tainted by money and politics that the truth is indiscernible.

I don't KNOW that GMO foods are dangerous and all I've heard so far are a bunch of specious claims that are often loaded with terms like 'frankenfood' which betray bias on the part of the people making the claims.

Likewise with climate studies there's religious alarmists, die-hard deniers, and a milieu of serious skeptics and serious scientists in the middle who are struggling to separate the science from the propaganda...and their voices are a mere squeak in a stadium full of screaming people from opposing teams.

But I hate to say the ship has sailed on reason here. These issues are all now become purely emotional and for some people their fervor invested into these issues has moved past science to become a form of a religion substitute.

You can disagree all you want, at the end of the day, the vast majority of scientists in both fields support GMOs and support Climate change.

[BeaverFever]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Tricks Tricks:

Claiming GMOs are dangerous is just as anti-science as claiming climate change isn't real.

Whoa.

I disagree in both cases.

I disagree because the science in both issues has been so heavily tainted by money and politics that the truth is indiscernible.

I don't KNOW that GMO foods are dangerous and all I've heard so far are a bunch of specious claims that are often loaded with terms like 'frankenfood' which betray bias on the part of the people making the claims.

Likewise with climate studies there's religious alarmists, die-hard deniers, and a milieu of serious skeptics and serious scientists in the middle who are struggling to separate the science from the propaganda...and their voices are a mere squeak in a stadium full of screaming people from opposing teams.

But I hate to say the ship has sailed on reason here. These issues are all now become purely emotional and for some people their fervor invested into these issues has moved past science to become a form of a religion substitute.

I'm not surprised you disagree.

A elementary knowledge (my level) of the digestive process tells me that anything we eat is broken down into simple bits that our body uses and re-organizes to meet our needs. Any RNA or DNA expressed as 'genes' that a GMO might have don't make it past the stomach.

Therefore, nothing but hype.

As for environmental costs, that is a different argument.

Also social costs of the food supply becoming the parented property of multinational corporations

[DrCaleb]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I'm not surprised you disagree.

A elementary knowledge (my level) of the digestive process tells me that anything we eat is broken down into simple bits that our body uses and re-organizes to meet our needs. Any RNA or DNA expressed as 'genes' that a GMO might have don't make it past the stomach.

Therefore, nothing but hype.

As for environmental costs, that is a different argument.

Also social costs of the food supply becoming the parented property of multinational corporations

That's more of a political argument. Never forget Percy Schmeiser!

[Tricks]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

That's more of a political argument. Never forget Percy Schmeiser!

Agree with the law or not, he did violate it.

[martin14]

Tricks Tricks:

You can disagree all you want, at the end of the day, the vast majority of scientists in both fields support GMOs and support Climate change.

And yet the EU goes all gaga for global tax theft,
and bans everything that might have sniffed a GMO 50 miles away.