GMOs Don't Hurt Anyone, But Opposing Them Does

[Timshel]

I know this will seem out of character for me because I have a very deep respect for science. But it is not science of which I speak. Science can be like God - man interprets it. Which men is the issue. And so one of my favorite quotes ever is from The Russia House. I had to go dig it up, years ago it was my signature. But I did find it, John le Carre


"Experts are addicts. They solve nothing! They are servants of whatever system hires them. They perpetuate it. When we are tortured, we shall be tortured by experts. When we are hanged, experts will hang us. Did you not read what I wrote? When the world is destroyed, it will be destroyed not by its madmen but by the sanity of its experts and the superior ignorance of its bureaucrats."

Try taking the genes from a snail and putting that into wheat using traditional techniques. To my mind, the issues of bio-diversity, patents and corporate control of seeds and crops are central to this debate. People in the US have essentially been guinea pigs for the last twenty years and I am surprised with all your talk of being free and protected by the Constitution that you have all been so docile.

That can and does happen through mutation, but in a highly uncontrolled way.

From Dawkins open letter to Prince Charles, a man whose family knows something about mutations.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2000/may/21/gm.food1

Wheat, be it ever so wholemeal and stoneground, is not a natural food for Homo sapiens. Nor is milk, except for children. Almost every morsel of our food is genetically modified - admittedly by artificial selection not artificial mutation, but the end result is the same. A wheat grain is a genetically modified grass seed, just as a pekinese is a genetically modified wolf. Playing God? We've been playing God for centuries!

The large, anonymous crowds in which we now teem began with the agricultural revolution, and without agriculture we could survive in only a tiny fraction of our current numbers. Our high population is an agricultural (and technological and medical) artifact. It is far more unnatural than the population-limiting methods condemned as unnatural by the Pope. Like it or not, we are stuck with agriculture, and agriculture - all agriculture - is unnatural. We sold that pass 10,000 years ago.

Does that mean there's nothing to choose between different kinds of agriculture when it comes to sustainable planetary welfare? Certainly not. Some are much more damaging than others, but it's no use appealing to 'nature', or to 'instinct' in order to decide which ones. You have to study the evidence, soberly and reasonably - scientifically. Slashing and burning (incidentally, no agricultural system is closer to being 'traditional') destroys our ancient forests. Overgrazing (again, widely practised by 'traditional' cultures) causes soil erosion and turns fertile pasture into desert. Moving to our own modern tribe, monoculture, fed by powdered fertilisers and poisons, is bad for the future; indiscriminate use of antibiotics to promote livestock growth is worse.

Incidentally, one worrying aspect of the hysterical opposition to the possible risks from GM crops is that it diverts attention from definite dangers which are already well understood but largely ignored. The evolution of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria is something that a Darwinian might have foreseen from the day antibiotics were discovered. Unfortunately the warning voices have been rather quiet, and now they are drowned by the baying cacophony: 'GM GM GM GM GM GM!'

Moreover if, as I expect, the dire prophecies of GM doom fail to materialise, the feeling of let-down may spill over into complacency about real risks. Has it occurred to you that our present GM brouhaha may be a terrible case of crying wolf?

 

[CIA TOTALITARIANISM]

4 out of 5 douchebags agree....

 

[Timshel]

Baxter is globalist anti-human elitist stooge. Trying to reach his dark heart or disturbed mind will probably yield little fruit.

And you are a Nazi conspiratard, racist, misogynist and all around anti human Luddite asshole.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

If there is no danger at all, why won't they label them?

I have labels on almost everything I buy that gives me more info than I want. But the prodcers of GMO products fight tooth & nail against being required to tell me that the food I consume has been genetically modified.

And the vitamin A thing is a sweet innocent idea. But there are some GMOs that have built-in pesticides, are immune to RoundUp, ect ect. Those are not quite so sweet & innocent.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

That can and does happen through mutation, but in a highly uncontrolled way.

From Dawkins open letter to Prince Charles, a man whose family knows something about mutations.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2000/may/21/gm.food1

The large, anonymous crowds in which we now teem began with the agricultural revolution, and without agriculture we could survive in only a tiny fraction of our current numbers. Our high population is an agricultural (and technological and medical) artifact. It is far more unnatural than the population-limiting methods condemned as unnatural by the Pope. Like it or not, we are stuck with agriculture, and agriculture - all agriculture - is unnatural. We sold that pass 10,000 years ago.

Does that mean there's nothing to choose between different kinds of agriculture when it comes to sustainable planetary welfare? Certainly not. Some are much more damaging than others, but it's no use appealing to 'nature', or to 'instinct' in order to decide which ones. You have to study the evidence, soberly and reasonably - scientifically. Slashing and burning (incidentally, no agricultural system is closer to being 'traditional') destroys our ancient forests. Overgrazing (again, widely practised by 'traditional' cultures) causes soil erosion and turns fertile pasture into desert. Moving to our own modern tribe, monoculture, fed by powdered fertilisers and poisons, is bad for the future; indiscriminate use of antibiotics to promote livestock growth is worse.

Incidentally, one worrying aspect of the hysterical opposition to the possible risks from GM crops is that it diverts attention from definite dangers which are already well understood but largely ignored. The evolution of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria is something that a Darwinian might have foreseen from the day antibiotics were discovered. Unfortunately the warning voices have been rather quiet, and now they are drowned by the baying cacophony: 'GM GM GM GM GM GM!'

Moreover if, as I expect, the dire prophecies of GM doom fail to materialise, the feeling of let-down may spill over into complacency about real risks. Has it occurred to you that our present GM brouhaha may be a terrible case of crying wolf?

What I, and many others want, is independent research. Right now Monsanto will not allow that with their special seeds. I don't want to take Monsanto's word for it.

And I have been protesting the use of antibiotics and steroids in our food supply for decades. I have also been arguing against the blatant abuse of antibiotics and other medicines by our medical community. I'm not crying wolf. I am want to be shown that something is safe BEFORE we consume it.

What you want is for there to be numerous deaths or birth defects before we question Monsanto. Then its too late for too many.

 

[cancel2 2022]

There are many people in India that are against huge corporations trying to take over the agricultural sector. I doubt you have been to India but I can tell you there is huge bio-diversity there, so why the fuck should they hand that over to a company like Monsanto with its aggressive business tactics? As for most anywhere in Asia there is absolutely no reason why VAD should be rampant as fruit and leafy vegetables are abundant. People in S.E. Asia which I know very very well may be poor but there are not starving and they get all the vitamins they need from their food. In Africa that rice would have to come from somewhere and I can guarantee that it will not be given away, so how will it be funded and why is that better than providing vitamin A supplements?

I was just looking at a map from the golden rice website and they say the worst areas are Mongolia and India. There is absolutely no excuse for India as the place is overflowing with fruits and vegetables, Mongolia I can see being a problem but the Mongolian steppes and the Gobi desert are hardly a conducive environment for rice growing.

 

[CIA TOTALITARIANISM]

And you are a Nazi conspiratard, racist, misogynist and all around anti human Luddite asshole.

No. You're a black hearted elitist anti-human corporate dick sucking fascist-o-tard. Now. Lets get back to the debate.

Do you really believe its wise to remove natural fecundity and seed-production ability that naturally exists in plants just so corporations can profitize humanity's food in their own self-interest?

 

[Timshel]

If there is no danger at all, why won't they label them?

I have labels on almost everything I buy that gives me more info than I want. But the prodcers of GMO products fight tooth & nail against being required to tell me that the food I consume has been genetically modified.

This is non sequitur. How does it follow that because they are safe everyone should support labeling or opposition to labeling is proof that they are not safe? Labeling is a separate issue and just another red herring, like patent laws.

 

[CIA TOTALITARIANISM]

This is non sequitur. How does it follow that because they are safe everyone should support labeling or opposition to labeling is proof that they are not safe? Labeling is a separate issue and just another red herring, like patent laws.

Their safety is not a known fact. It's a spurious assertion made by anti-human elitists hoping to put one over on humanity.

the people reject your fascist poison.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

This is non sequitur. How does it follow that because they are safe everyone should support labeling or opposition to labeling is proof that they are not safe? Labeling is a separate issue and just another red herring, like patent laws.

It is not non sequiter. The refusal to label them shows Monsanto to be unconcerned about whether we get to decide to consume them or not. It shows that Monsanto would prefer to have us eat them unaware. Which speaks volumes about Monsanto's ethics.

 

[cancel2 2022]

If there is no danger at all, why won't they label them?

I have labels on almost everything I buy that gives me more info than I want. But the prodcers of GMO products fight tooth & nail against being required to tell me that the food I consume has been genetically modified.

And the vitamin A thing is a sweet innocent idea. But there are some GMOs that have built-in pesticides, are immune to RoundUp, ect ect. Those are not quite so sweet & innocent.

There wouldn't be much point these days as the staples like soya, wheat and maize are virtually all GMO. That ship has sailed whilst you were all sleeping.

 

[Timshel]

No. You're a black hearted elitist anti-human corporate dick sucking fascist-o-tard. Now. Lets get back to the debate.

Do you really believe its wise to remove natural fecundity and seed-production ability that naturally exists in plants just so corporations can profitize humanity's food in their own self-interest?

That's not the debate. That is an aside. But it's more interesting than your previous attempts to derail discussion.

The terminator genes or (GURT) may be a way to prevent gene flow, which is a concern and one of the primary ones that has been raised here. But it is not being used. Further most farmers in the US already buy seed because they are using hybrids.

 

[Timshel]

Their safety is not a known fact. It's a spurious assertion made by anti-human elitists hoping to put one over on humanity.

the people reject your fascist poison.

That their safety is a known fact, is not an assertion I was making, moron. Strawman.

 

[Timshel]

It is not non sequiter. The refusal to label them shows Monsanto to be unconcerned about whether we get to decide to consume them or not. It shows that Monsanto would prefer to have us eat them unaware. Which speaks volumes about Monsanto's ethics.

Monsanto is not the only company involved.

It has nothing to do with whether they are safe and neither are the points raised in your response above. It is a non sequitur and a red herring.

 

[CIA TOTALITARIANISM]

That's not the debate. That is an aside. But it's more interesting than your previous attempts to derail discussion.

The terminator genes or (GURT) are intended as a way to prevent gene flow, which is a concern and one of the primary ones that has been raised here. But it is not being used. Further most farmers in the US already buy seed because they are using hybrids.

Preventing gene flow is idiotic and anti-evolution and nature. And the degree that monsanto evil has already permeated the world is not really a justification for furthering it, or continuing it.

 

[Timshel]

Preventing gene flow is idiotic and anti-evolution and nature. And the degree that monsanto evil has already permeated the world is not really a justification for furthering it, or continuing it.

LOL. Gene flow is a reason to be against GMO until it is not and because they prevent it is then a reason to be against GMO. Prohibitions to gene flow are not necessarily anti evolution or "unnatural," though this method is artificial.

You are quickly showing that you are out of your depths. Go back to the kiddie pool and drink some more of the noBRAva, ila and racistx urine cocktail. You will all make a harmonious klan.

 

[CIA TOTALITARIANISM]

LOL. Gene flow is a reason to be against GMO until it is not and because they prevent it is then a reason to be against GMO. Prohibitions to gene flow are not necessarily anti evolution or "unnatural," though this method is artificial.

You are quickly showing that you are out of your depths. Go back to the kiddie pool and drink some more of the noBRAva, ila and racistx urine cocktail. You will all make a harmonious klan.

You are so defeated. You resort to reading things wrong.

 

[Timshel]

You are so defeated. You resort to reading things wrong.

What did I read wrong? You said...

Preventing gene flow is idiotic and anti-evolution and nature.

You are an idiot if you think so and desh is outclassing you.

I have been kicking ass, as usual. It's really more about my selection of topics though as it helps when you have all the science on your side and the Tom's are reduced to referencing homeopathic quacks. I mean, I can't polish turds that you and the katsung's try to get us all to think are roses.

Were you getting bored at prison planet or have you just changed screen names?

 

[CIA TOTALITARIANISM]

What did I read wrong? You said...

Preventing gene flow is idiotic and anti-evolution and nature.

You are an idiot if you think so and desh is outclassing you.

I have been kicking ass, as usual. It's really more about my selection of topics though as it helps when you have all the science on your side and the Tom's are reduced to referencing homeopathic quacks. I mean, I can't polish turds that you and the katsung's try to get us all to think are roses.

Were you getting bored at prison planet or have you just changed screen names?

There is no value to preventing gene flow. But that is not really the reason they made crops unable to produce seeds. They did it to keep customers returning year after year. They have destroyed the natural process of life to secure a customer base. It's obscene.

 

[CIA TOTALITARIANISM]

Oh. And you're not kicking ass, you're sucking balls.