4 ms·

Tomatoes are practically weeds. They grow like crazy, and you can eat heirlooms as sweet or as savory as you like. Sometimes I think I didn't know wealth until

Tomatoes are practically weeds. They grow like crazy, and you can eat heirlooms as sweet or as savory as you like. Sometimes I think I didn't know wealth until I had a cherokee purple straight off the vine. You can practically make sashimi with it. Now I'm just gonna come out and say it: fucking with genes worries me. It only takes one unforeseen toxic externality for the whole thing to turn out very poorly. (dangers of monocropping; turning plants into intellectual property, whatever the hell happened to pugs, etc.) Just know how surprisingly easy it is to grow your own--and do! That's all I'm saying.

tstactplsignore 10y ago
>dangers of monocropping Nothing to do with biotechnology or genome editing. In fact both technologies can and will be used to make crops more diverse. >turning plants into intellectual property There are specific plant breeds that are already closely guarded IP. Not to mention, this is like being against software because software patents exist. >whatever the hell happened to pugs Selective breeding? That's what is responsible for every vegetable you have ever eaten, ever, without exception. >Now I'm just gonna come out and say it: fucking with genes worries me. It only takes one unforeseen toxic externality for the whole thing to turn out very poorly "Fucking with genes" is what enabled the agricultural revolution, the green revolution, and is responsible for all of the food we eat today. Now we have the biotechnology and understanding to edit genes in ways that are inherently safer, more targeted, and less random. Are you not concerned that your conclusion (biotechnology is too scary to ever use) is not held by the overwhelminh majority of plant scientists and geneticists? Is there anything you and I can talk about that would convince you of not being anti-biotechnology?
- samirillian 10y ago
  > Is there anything you and I can talk about that would convince you of not being anti-biotechnology. Sure. I'm not strongly anti-biotechnology. On reflection, the two points that really bother me. a) genetic modifications are usually for stuff like "keeping potatoes from bruising because people don't like the look of bruised potatoes." Or "keeping tomatoes flavorful so people can keep mindlessly buying them out of season." They're always fixes that allow the consumer to remain as passive as possible. b) I've never hear a single scientist make a good argument against GMOs. What, like you can't come up with a single possible downside? I think what finally convinced me to vote for Hillary was seeing the best arguments against her, by people who really hated her guts (like, really, the worst you have are dark insinuations?) I want to hear someone creative/knowledgeable come up with their best argument against GMOs. Like, they got hired to find the worst case scenarios. I just feel like I've never heard that argument articulated well. Anyway, there are two possibilities: a) this issue is so amazingly stupid that no informed person would ever be bothered by these practices. b) there are real--if unlikely--toxic externalities to genetic modification, but no informed person wants to share them because they don't want to feed the fire of ignorance. And, yeah, the dismissive tone of scientists I've talked to, coupled with their apparent ignorance, has not reassured me that this conversation is being had in good faith.
  - tstactplsignore 10y ago
    >genetic modifications are usually for stuff like "keeping potatoes from bruising because people don't like the look of bruised potatoes." Or "keeping tomatoes flavorful so people can keep mindlessly buying them out of season." They're always fixes that allow the consumer to remain as passive as possible. I think this is because biotechnology is in its infancy, and these sort of things tend to be pretty low hanging fruit that increase sales. I'm not a big fan either- I'm certainly not a big fan of corporate profits and corporate motives. The GMO world is corporate right now because it still requires substantial monetary investment- in the future technology will become so simplified that nonprofits and university scientists will be able to bring non-corporate GMOs to market in the way we have open source software today. Here are some more positive gmo projects on the horizon: C4 rice: http://c4rice.irri.org/index.php/component/content/article/19-about/55-why-c4-rice http://c4rice.irri.org/index.php/component/content/article/1... More efficient photosynthesis:https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/science/gmo-foods-photosynthesis.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/science/gmo-foods-phot... Disease resistant Cassava:http://staskawiczlab.berkeley.edu/michael-gomez-wins-prize-help-feed-world http://staskawiczlab.berkeley.edu/michael-gomez-wins-prize-h... Disease resistant tomatoes: http://staskawiczlab.berkeley.edu/bacterial-spot-tomatoes http://staskawiczlab.berkeley.edu/bacterial-spot-tomatoes Drought resistant plants in particular will be extremely important for fighting climate change: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/science-sushi/2015/03/31/gmos-of-the-future-two-recent-studies-reveal-potential-of-genetic-technologies/#.WJDsJnqIbqA http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/science-sushi/2015/03/31/g... >b) I've never hear a single scientist make a good argument against GMOs. What, like you can't come up with a single possible downside? It is difficult to come up with an argument "against GMOs", because most definitions of the term have no ingerent biological meaning. If I edit a single base pair of a plant using crispr-cas9, is that a GMO? How is that different than breeding this plant until I get that base pair change by chance? If I edit an entire gene of a plant with crispr-cas9 to match the gene of another organism, how is that different from inserting the gene from that organism into this plant in the right spot? I personally can't contemplate a general purpose argument against GMOs that doesn't apply to traditional mutagenesis and hybridization experiments: those are really like randomly messing with genes with no idea what you're doing- biotechnology targets systems we understand. However, the best arguments against GMOs are those concerned with corporate influence. Yes, we do not want big corporations completely controlling our agricultural system (as they do now), especially when their interests do not align with society's. We want a biotechnology more like the open source world and startup world to keep agriculture innovative and open.
Obi_Juan_Kenobi 10y ago
Plant patents are just as onerous as utility patents. Creating exclusive new breeds is the entire intended purpose of this type of patent, one of only six (or seven?) in the US. https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/patent-basics/types-patent-applications/general-information-about-35-usc-161 https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/patent-basics/... Toxic externalities, as you say, occur readily in traditional breeding when creating hybrids. I find it very difficult to believe you have any experience or background in breeding or agriculture if you're not aware of this. Targeted modifications are much easier to understand and predict; it's a matter of changing a single locus vs. thousands. Certain modifications could be foolish, but for reasons we understand. Extant transgenics focus on e.g. the Shikimic acid pathway (roundup ready) precisely because it is absent outside of plants, and therefore unlikely to cause complications prima facie.

tstactplsignore 10y ago

>dangers of monocropping Nothing to do with biotechnology or genome editing. In fact both technologies can and will be used to make crops more diverse. >turning plants into intellectual property There are specific plant breeds that are already closely guarded IP. Not to mention, this is like being against software because software patents exist. >whatever the hell happened to pugs Selective breeding? That's what is responsible for every vegetable you have ever eaten, ever, without exception. >Now I'm just gonna come out and say it: fucking with genes worries me. It only takes one unforeseen toxic externality for the whole thing to turn out very poorly "Fucking with genes" is what enabled the agricultural revolution, the green revolution, and is responsible for all of the food we eat today. Now we have the biotechnology and understanding to edit genes in ways that are inherently safer, more targeted, and less random. Are you not concerned that your conclusion (biotechnology is too scary to ever use) is not held by the overwhelminh majority of plant scientists and geneticists? Is there anything you and I can talk about that would convince you of not being anti-biotechnology?

samirillian 10y ago
> Is there anything you and I can talk about that would convince you of not being anti-biotechnology. Sure. I'm not strongly anti-biotechnology. On reflection, the two points that really bother me. a) genetic modifications are usually for stuff like "keeping potatoes from bruising because people don't like the look of bruised potatoes." Or "keeping tomatoes flavorful so people can keep mindlessly buying them out of season." They're always fixes that allow the consumer to remain as passive as possible. b) I've never hear a single scientist make a good argument against GMOs. What, like you can't come up with a single possible downside? I think what finally convinced me to vote for Hillary was seeing the best arguments against her, by people who really hated her guts (like, really, the worst you have are dark insinuations?) I want to hear someone creative/knowledgeable come up with their best argument against GMOs. Like, they got hired to find the worst case scenarios. I just feel like I've never heard that argument articulated well. Anyway, there are two possibilities: a) this issue is so amazingly stupid that no informed person would ever be bothered by these practices. b) there are real--if unlikely--toxic externalities to genetic modification, but no informed person wants to share them because they don't want to feed the fire of ignorance. And, yeah, the dismissive tone of scientists I've talked to, coupled with their apparent ignorance, has not reassured me that this conversation is being had in good faith.
- tstactplsignore 10y ago
  >genetic modifications are usually for stuff like "keeping potatoes from bruising because people don't like the look of bruised potatoes." Or "keeping tomatoes flavorful so people can keep mindlessly buying them out of season." They're always fixes that allow the consumer to remain as passive as possible. I think this is because biotechnology is in its infancy, and these sort of things tend to be pretty low hanging fruit that increase sales. I'm not a big fan either- I'm certainly not a big fan of corporate profits and corporate motives. The GMO world is corporate right now because it still requires substantial monetary investment- in the future technology will become so simplified that nonprofits and university scientists will be able to bring non-corporate GMOs to market in the way we have open source software today. Here are some more positive gmo projects on the horizon: C4 rice: http://c4rice.irri.org/index.php/component/content/article/19-about/55-why-c4-rice http://c4rice.irri.org/index.php/component/content/article/1... More efficient photosynthesis:https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/science/gmo-foods-photosynthesis.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/science/gmo-foods-phot... Disease resistant Cassava:http://staskawiczlab.berkeley.edu/michael-gomez-wins-prize-help-feed-world http://staskawiczlab.berkeley.edu/michael-gomez-wins-prize-h... Disease resistant tomatoes: http://staskawiczlab.berkeley.edu/bacterial-spot-tomatoes http://staskawiczlab.berkeley.edu/bacterial-spot-tomatoes Drought resistant plants in particular will be extremely important for fighting climate change: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/science-sushi/2015/03/31/gmos-of-the-future-two-recent-studies-reveal-potential-of-genetic-technologies/#.WJDsJnqIbqA http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/science-sushi/2015/03/31/g... >b) I've never hear a single scientist make a good argument against GMOs. What, like you can't come up with a single possible downside? It is difficult to come up with an argument "against GMOs", because most definitions of the term have no ingerent biological meaning. If I edit a single base pair of a plant using crispr-cas9, is that a GMO? How is that different than breeding this plant until I get that base pair change by chance? If I edit an entire gene of a plant with crispr-cas9 to match the gene of another organism, how is that different from inserting the gene from that organism into this plant in the right spot? I personally can't contemplate a general purpose argument against GMOs that doesn't apply to traditional mutagenesis and hybridization experiments: those are really like randomly messing with genes with no idea what you're doing- biotechnology targets systems we understand. However, the best arguments against GMOs are those concerned with corporate influence. Yes, we do not want big corporations completely controlling our agricultural system (as they do now), especially when their interests do not align with society's. We want a biotechnology more like the open source world and startup world to keep agriculture innovative and open.

Obi_Juan_Kenobi 10y ago

Plant patents are just as onerous as utility patents. Creating exclusive new breeds is the entire intended purpose of this type of patent, one of only six (or seven?) in the US. https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/patent-basics/types-patent-applications/general-information-about-35-usc-161 https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/patent-basics/... Toxic externalities, as you say, occur readily in traditional breeding when creating hybrids. I find it very difficult to believe you have any experience or background in breeding or agriculture if you're not aware of this. Targeted modifications are much easier to understand and predict; it's a matter of changing a single locus vs. thousands. Certain modifications could be foolish, but for reasons we understand. Extant transgenics focus on e.g. the Shikimic acid pathway (roundup ready) precisely because it is absent outside of plants, and therefore unlikely to cause complications prima facie.