GMOs Don't Hurt Anyone, But Opposing Them Does

AssHatZombie said:
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.
Click to expand...

Again, dumbass, the need to buy new seeds is part of hybrid crops which many farmers already use. Meanwhile, the terminator genes are not being used.

There is a value in preventing gene flow, to farmers, society and the environment.

You are armed with nothing but half truths and useless propaganda. You are a tool.
 
Professor Baxter said:
Again, dumbass, the need to buy new seeds is part of hybrid crops which many farmers already use. Meanwhile, the terminator genes are not being used.

There is a value in preventing gene flow, to farmers, society and the environment.

You are armed with nothing but half truths and useless propaganda. You are a tool.
Click to expand...

And again, fetalbrain, Monsanto's current deathgrip on agriculture doesn't justify it, or mean it should be expanded with gmo poison.


http://www.twincities.com/columnists/ci_13981664?source=rss
Monsanto's strong-arm seed tactics put squeeze on smaller companies
Probe details how chemical giant quashes competition
By Christopher Leonard
Associated Press
POSTED: 12/12/2009 12:01:00 AM CST | UPDATED: 4 YEARS AGO

ST. LOUIS — Confidential contracts detailing Monsanto Co.'s business practices reveal how the world's biggest seed developer is squeezing competitors, controlling smaller seed companies and protecting its dominance over the multibillion-dollar market for genetically altered crops, an Associated Press investigation has found.

With Monsanto's patented genes being inserted into roughly 95 percent of all soybeans and 80 percent of all corn grown in the United States, the company also is using its wide reach to control the ability of new biotech firms to get wide distribution for their products, according to a review of several Monsanto licensing agreements and dozens of interviews with seed industry participants, agriculture and legal experts.
 
Boy, Professor Baxter sure sure is a thought-mangling dishonest douchebag, eh, Professor Baxter?

He believes that somehow Monsanto's evil grip on agriculture is self-justifying. What a toolbag.
 
AssHatZombie said:
And again, fetalbrain, Monsanto's current deathgrip on agriculture doesn't justify it, or mean it should be expanded with gmo poison.


http://www.twincities.com/columnists/ci_13981664?source=rss
Monsanto's strong-arm seed tactics put squeeze on smaller companies
Probe details how chemical giant quashes competition
By Christopher Leonard
Associated Press
POSTED: 12/12/2009 12:01:00 AM CST | UPDATED: 4 YEARS AGO

ST. LOUIS — Confidential contracts detailing Monsanto Co.'s business practices reveal how the world's biggest seed developer is squeezing competitors, controlling smaller seed companies and protecting its dominance over the multibillion-dollar market for genetically altered crops, an Associated Press investigation has found.

With Monsanto's patented genes being inserted into roughly 95 percent of all soybeans and 80 percent of all corn grown in the United States, the company also is using its wide reach to control the ability of new biotech firms to get wide distribution for their products, according to a review of several Monsanto licensing agreements and dozens of interviews with seed industry participants, agriculture and legal experts.
Click to expand...

None of this relevant to your points about gene flow and terminator genes or the actual topic Golden Rice. You are getting your ass kicked and you are throwing out red herrings.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Boy, Professor Baxter sure sure is a thought-mangling dishonest douchebag, eh, Professor Baxter?

He believes that somehow Monsanto's evil grip on agriculture is self-justifying. What a toolbag.
Click to expand...

Strawman and a red herring. Do you want to talk about the actual topic you raised or are you conceding defeat?
 
AssHatZombie said:
Nope. Im exactly on topic and busting your ass open live on the internet. Who else wants a shot?
Click to expand...

You have nothing. Please explain to us why technology that is not being used and may have some value, but could create more incentives to buy new seed (something that is already common practice due to hybrids) is a reason for opposing GM foods or Golden Rice? Your argument is bullshit designed to convince the easily alarmed, which is why you buy it.
 
Professor Baxter said:
Or greatly diminishing it anyway. It seems to me we can handle many of the problems of gene flow through artificial selection and farming practices we have been using for thousands of years. There are pitfalls, but nothing we can't handle. These visions of apocalyptic doom are ridiculous and seem to be artifacts of religion and naturalistic fallacies.
Click to expand...
Well that's only if we maintain our current form of agriculture that is resource intensive and overly relies on monocultures (a single strain of a specific plant).

What if there is a paradygm shift away from that form of agriculture to a more diversified organic form of agriculture? If that were to occurr than GMO's technology would become fairly obsolete, wouldn't it?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Well that's only if we maintain our current form of agriculture that is resource intensive and overly relies on monocultures (a single strain of a specific plant).

What if there is a paradygm shift away from that form of agriculture to a more diversified organic form of agriculture? If that were to occurr than GMO's technology would become fairly obsolete, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

Why would it become obsolete?
 
Professor Baxter said:
You have nothing. Please explain to us why technology that is not being used and may have some value, but could create more incentives to buy new seed (something that is already common practice due to hybrids) is a reason for opposing GM foods or Golden Rice? Your argument is bullshit designed to convince the easily alarmed, which is why you buy it.
Click to expand...

LOL. I don't speak Idiot. The fact that you wrote the above post, thinking it sounded intelligent and was a good argument just tickles the hell out of me.
 
Professor Baxter said:
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?
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree more. I see this often with environmental issues. People look at one aspect of the issue and they fail to see the issue holistically.
 
AssHatZombie said:
LOL. I don't speak Idiot. The fact that you wrote the above post, thinking it sounded intelligent and was a good argument just tickles the hell out of me.
Click to expand...

Then you have conceded defeat. I don't accept it. Since you are a liar and a moron I am sure you will continue to spread your unsubstantiated fears and continue pissing yourself.
 
Professor Baxter said:
Then you have conceded defeat. I don't accept it. Since you are a liar and a moron I am sure you will continue to spread your unsubstantiated fears and continue pissing yourself.
Click to expand...

No, I have not conceded defeat. I still maintain that A)Preventing gene flow is stupid, and is B) not the actual reason they have destroyed sexual reproduction in the major crop foods, and that c) the real reason they have done so is to capture a customer base, season after season, And that d) their influence on world agriculture is unhealthy and anti-human.
 
AssHatZombie said:
No, I have not conceded defeat. I still maintain that A)Preventing gene flow is stupid, and is B) not the actual reason they have destroyed sexual reproduction in the major crop foods, and that c) the real reason they have done so is to capture a customer base, season after season, And that d) their influence on world agriculture is unhealthy and anti-human.
Click to expand...

You still have not responded and until you do you signaling your concession.

The biggest problem with your silly argument is they have not done any of that. The terminator gene of GURT is not used.

Next, most American farmers already buy seed season after season because they are using hybrids. So the result you fear is already a reality and not that much of a problem.

Finally, GURT can help to prevent gene flow which protects biodiversity. For instance, if GURT in golden rice (there are none nor does it seem to have a need for such technology) were used to terminate the genes used to allow Vitamin A to accumulate in the grain then that would protect other types of rice from acquiring the genes and so protect the diversity of rice.
 
Professor Baxter said:
You still have not responded and until you do you signaling your concession.

The biggest problem with your silly argument is they have not done any of that. The terminator gene of GURT is not used.

Next, most American farmers already buy seed season after season because they are using hybrids. So the result you fear is already a reality and not that much of a problem.

Finally, GURT can help to prevent gene flow which protects biodiversity. For instance, if GURT in golden rice (there are none nor does it seem to have a need for such technology) were used to terminate the genes used to allow Vitamin A to accumulate in the grain then that would protect other types of rice from acquiring the genes and so protect the diversity of rice.
Click to expand...

And they are buying hybrids due to monsanto strongarming. They have done all of this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top