4 ms·

Soylent: Proudly Made with GMOs

46 points by johncoogan 10y ago

dkersten 10y ago
"As a society, we struggle to satisfy the global demand for food." My vegan friends claim that this is only true because we waste so much food/water to feed livestock for meat. Even if thats not true, humans waste a lot of food. Hell, my local supermarket throws out enough food each day to feed me for a month. (Ok ok not really true because it wouldn't last a month, but quantity-wise...)
- adamkruszewski 10y ago
  And there is the whole 'bio-fuel' movement where basically people grow 'bio-fuel' in places where there was food growing earlier cause they get subsidies for doing so. How to account for such 'lost' food sources?
  - nibs 10y ago
    We should produce halophytes on saline and dessert land and use it for biofuel, feedstock and food. Ex.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salicornia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salicornia
  - atemerev 10y ago
    Biofuel is crazy. It produced massive ecological and economical damage, ruining supply chains for generations ahead. Who and why ever thought it was a good idea?
- rasmusei 10y ago
  Your vegan friend has a good point. Production of animal-based foods typically use 2-10 times more feed (and consequently more land etc) than what would be needed to feed humans directly. The article cites the often-cited FAO claim [1] that 70% more food production is needed by year 2050. But researchers are now also increasingly agreeing that dietary choices should be considered -- FAO's "70% increase" claim builds on their projections of future human diets. For a recent example of this alternative view, see Tilman and Clark (2014) [2]. In summary: Current western diets are harmful for the planet and for human health, so let's also consider changing our diets. [1] http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/35571/ http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/35571/ [2] www.nature.com/articles/nature13959 behind paywall, but also on SciHub http://sci-hub.cc/10.1038/nature13959 http://sci-hub.cc/10.1038/nature13959
- gnaritas 10y ago
  >> As a society, we struggle to satisfy the global demand for food. > My vegan friends claim that this is only true because we waste so much food/water to feed livestock for meat. It's not true at all. There's plenty of food in the world, there's plenty of hungry people in the world, unfortunately, they don't tend to be in the same places, and food is perishable, and people don't work for free. It's a transportation and economic problem, not a food shortage problem. It'll probably be solved by better ways to produce locally because shipping food to the starving people isn't going to suddenly start working.
- atemerev 10y ago
  There is enough food in the world, with capacity to produce much more. What isn't enough is money in some places to pay for it. Giving food for free works, but this is a short-term solution. A long-term solution is making all people productive, but this is a hard problem.
macandcheese 10y ago
Many people simply don’t believe the use of GMOs is morally acceptable - whether or not they they are safe to grow or ingest is besides the point.
- 83457 10y ago
  On what grounds?
- atemerev 10y ago
  Why? Being able to produce more food cheaper looks quite moral and desirable to me.
dahart 10y ago
I think my main objection to GMO right now is that it's as much or more about control as it is about either increased production or safety. Private companies are patenting existing living things with minor modifications. They are actively preventing seeding plants from being able to reproduce. Call me skeptical, but I doubt that having the food supply under private control is going to solve the world's hunger problems. I'm also entirely unconvinced by the argument that cross-breeding and genetic engineering are the same and thus pose the same level of safety risk. If that were true, we wouldn't need genetic engineering, we could stick to grafting.
- khattam 10y ago
  >I doubt that having the food supply under private control Food supply is already under private control. If GMO takes off, it will actually be under government control... which is what you should fear.
  - dahart 10y ago
    Yes, food supply is largely under private control in the sense that I buy food from private companies, but I was making a different point than that. I should have elaborated. Patent protection of GMO products is eliminating competition, and making it illegal to grow similar foods. Furthermore, use of their product over time might eliminate non-GMO varieties. This kind of control can lead to private companies monopolizing the food supply, and being the only legal source of some foods. These companies are actively seeing that future. Regarding the government, I'm not sure I follow - why should I fear the government, and how is the food supply going to end up under government control? Currently, it's largely private companies that are patenting GMO products, is it not? It is definitely private companies, and not the government, that are developing and selling GMO seeds that produce non-seeding plants. The government is not currently attempting to monopolize markets of GMO products, or food in general.
    - Kalium 10y ago
      So, your concerns would be alleviated entirely by a compulsory licensing scheme? Incidentally, are you aware that 100% completely non-GMO plants are subject to an IP regimen called plant breeder's rights and have been for decades?
rasmusei 10y ago
The article does make a few good points, but I also think it uses a couple of unforgivable rhetorical devices. Most obvious are the out-of-context mentions of various "huge numbers", e.g. as follows: "By reducing the need to till farmland, GR soy and corn have prevented 41 billion pounds of carbon dioxide from being released in the atmosphere between 1996 and 2013." This amount of CO2 savings sounds great without comparison, but it amounts to about 0.003% of the total GHG emissions in the same period. (Assuming emissions of ~40 Gt CO2e/year 1993-2013 [1].) [1] http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/figure-spm-1.html http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/figure-s... Edit: typo
stcredzero 10y ago
Alan Watts: Prickles and Goo. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXi_ldNRNtM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXi_ldNRNtM It's true that the "Prickles" have caused problems. However, a tremendous amount of good has come of science and technology. Skepticism is necessary to counteract humanity's collective hubris. Morality and philosophy have their uses for this as well. However, it's high time that we asked for some epistemic rigor from the "Gooey" side. Otherwise, our society is going to drown in unarguable nonsense.

46 points by johncoogan 10y ago

"As a society, we struggle to satisfy the global demand for food." My vegan friends claim that this is only true because we waste so much food/water to feed livestock for meat. Even if thats not true, humans waste a lot of food. Hell, my local supermarket throws out enough food each day to feed me for a month. (Ok ok not really true because it wouldn't last a month, but quantity-wise...)

adamkruszewski 10y ago
And there is the whole 'bio-fuel' movement where basically people grow 'bio-fuel' in places where there was food growing earlier cause they get subsidies for doing so. How to account for such 'lost' food sources?
- nibs 10y ago
  We should produce halophytes on saline and dessert land and use it for biofuel, feedstock and food. Ex.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salicornia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salicornia
- atemerev 10y ago
  Biofuel is crazy. It produced massive ecological and economical damage, ruining supply chains for generations ahead. Who and why ever thought it was a good idea?
rasmusei 10y ago
Your vegan friend has a good point. Production of animal-based foods typically use 2-10 times more feed (and consequently more land etc) than what would be needed to feed humans directly. The article cites the often-cited FAO claim [1] that 70% more food production is needed by year 2050. But researchers are now also increasingly agreeing that dietary choices should be considered -- FAO's "70% increase" claim builds on their projections of future human diets. For a recent example of this alternative view, see Tilman and Clark (2014) [2]. In summary: Current western diets are harmful for the planet and for human health, so let's also consider changing our diets. [1] http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/35571/ http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/35571/ [2] www.nature.com/articles/nature13959 behind paywall, but also on SciHub http://sci-hub.cc/10.1038/nature13959 http://sci-hub.cc/10.1038/nature13959
gnaritas 10y ago
>> As a society, we struggle to satisfy the global demand for food. > My vegan friends claim that this is only true because we waste so much food/water to feed livestock for meat. It's not true at all. There's plenty of food in the world, there's plenty of hungry people in the world, unfortunately, they don't tend to be in the same places, and food is perishable, and people don't work for free. It's a transportation and economic problem, not a food shortage problem. It'll probably be solved by better ways to produce locally because shipping food to the starving people isn't going to suddenly start working.
atemerev 10y ago
There is enough food in the world, with capacity to produce much more. What isn't enough is money in some places to pay for it. Giving food for free works, but this is a short-term solution. A long-term solution is making all people productive, but this is a hard problem.

macandcheese 10y ago

Many people simply don’t believe the use of GMOs is morally acceptable - whether or not they they are safe to grow or ingest is besides the point.

83457 10y ago
On what grounds?
atemerev 10y ago
Why? Being able to produce more food cheaper looks quite moral and desirable to me.

dahart 10y ago

I think my main objection to GMO right now is that it's as much or more about control as it is about either increased production or safety. Private companies are patenting existing living things with minor modifications. They are actively preventing seeding plants from being able to reproduce. Call me skeptical, but I doubt that having the food supply under private control is going to solve the world's hunger problems. I'm also entirely unconvinced by the argument that cross-breeding and genetic engineering are the same and thus pose the same level of safety risk. If that were true, we wouldn't need genetic engineering, we could stick to grafting.

khattam 10y ago
>I doubt that having the food supply under private control Food supply is already under private control. If GMO takes off, it will actually be under government control... which is what you should fear.
- dahart 10y ago
  Yes, food supply is largely under private control in the sense that I buy food from private companies, but I was making a different point than that. I should have elaborated. Patent protection of GMO products is eliminating competition, and making it illegal to grow similar foods. Furthermore, use of their product over time might eliminate non-GMO varieties. This kind of control can lead to private companies monopolizing the food supply, and being the only legal source of some foods. These companies are actively seeing that future. Regarding the government, I'm not sure I follow - why should I fear the government, and how is the food supply going to end up under government control? Currently, it's largely private companies that are patenting GMO products, is it not? It is definitely private companies, and not the government, that are developing and selling GMO seeds that produce non-seeding plants. The government is not currently attempting to monopolize markets of GMO products, or food in general.
  - Kalium 10y ago
    So, your concerns would be alleviated entirely by a compulsory licensing scheme? Incidentally, are you aware that 100% completely non-GMO plants are subject to an IP regimen called plant breeder's rights and have been for decades?

rasmusei 10y ago

The article does make a few good points, but I also think it uses a couple of unforgivable rhetorical devices. Most obvious are the out-of-context mentions of various "huge numbers", e.g. as follows: "By reducing the need to till farmland, GR soy and corn have prevented 41 billion pounds of carbon dioxide from being released in the atmosphere between 1996 and 2013." This amount of CO2 savings sounds great without comparison, but it amounts to about 0.003% of the total GHG emissions in the same period. (Assuming emissions of ~40 Gt CO2e/year 1993-2013 [1].) [1] http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/figure-spm-1.html http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/figure-s... Edit: typo

stcredzero 10y ago

Alan Watts: Prickles and Goo. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXi_ldNRNtM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXi_ldNRNtM It's true that the "Prickles" have caused problems. However, a tremendous amount of good has come of science and technology. Skepticism is necessary to counteract humanity's collective hubris. Morality and philosophy have their uses for this as well. However, it's high time that we asked for some epistemic rigor from the "Gooey" side. Otherwise, our society is going to drown in unarguable nonsense.