4 ms·

>The foods you eat have been genetically modified for centuries via breeding techniques This is my go-to whenever people start talking about organic products.

>The foods you eat have been genetically modified for centuries via breeding techniques This is my go-to whenever people start talking about organic products. This article does a good job showing what crops used to look like: http://www.businessinsider.com/what-foods-looked-like-before-genetic-modification-2016-1/#wild-watermelon-1 http://www.businessinsider.com/what-foods-looked-like-before...

eecc 9y ago
That’s disingenuous and straw-man’y. Selective breeding consists of favoring individuals with desirable naturally occurring variations in characteristics. Outright genetic engineering consists of cobbling together genes of totally unrelated species - if not kingdoms - to make something invulnerable to otherwise toxic amounts of poisons to increase production yield. I’ll keep my breeding any time thank you..
- euyyn 9y ago
  Artificial selection has already made plenty sure that our surviving crops are invulnerable to what otherwise used to be toxic amounts of poisons. Our own DNA has genes of ancient virus cobbled together, and those aren't even a kingdom. "Naturally occurring variations" can also be phrased as "random genetic mutations we have no control over and aren't sure if they're safe".
- colemannugent 9y ago
  >...favoring individuals with desirable naturally occurring variations in characteristics... >...cobbling together genes of totally unrelated species... Both of these statements describe genetic engineering. But you're right, there is a big difference between them: one is basically just throwing things at the wall to see what sticks and the other is a scientific process backed by hundreds of years of research. The reason why people assign a lower risk to selective breeding is that the amount of physiological change present in one or a few generations is small. You don't worry that the rice you eat had a trascription error and may be genetically altered because it is invisible to you. But when you look at genetic engineering you see the big changes in a short amount of time and you feel it is more unsafe even though those alterations are being performed by some of the most intelligent minds of our generation. You talk of scientists "cobbling together genes of totally unrelated species" as if they were nice modular pieces that you can rearrange in any order. Just the mechanism by which genes are edited is a choreographed sequence of tools that make the steady hands of the worlds best surgeon look bad. I am not nessesarily 100% pro-GMO though, I just dislike the FUD that people use to demonize it as something radically different that what humans have been doing for millenia. The only thing different is that now we have a clue what we are doing. Will some people abuse it to benefit themselves? Yes, of course, but that is independent of the methods by which they screw people over.

eecc 9y ago

That’s disingenuous and straw-man’y. Selective breeding consists of favoring individuals with desirable naturally occurring variations in characteristics. Outright genetic engineering consists of cobbling together genes of totally unrelated species - if not kingdoms - to make something invulnerable to otherwise toxic amounts of poisons to increase production yield. I’ll keep my breeding any time thank you..

euyyn 9y ago
Artificial selection has already made plenty sure that our surviving crops are invulnerable to what otherwise used to be toxic amounts of poisons. Our own DNA has genes of ancient virus cobbled together, and those aren't even a kingdom. "Naturally occurring variations" can also be phrased as "random genetic mutations we have no control over and aren't sure if they're safe".
colemannugent 9y ago
>...favoring individuals with desirable naturally occurring variations in characteristics... >...cobbling together genes of totally unrelated species... Both of these statements describe genetic engineering. But you're right, there is a big difference between them: one is basically just throwing things at the wall to see what sticks and the other is a scientific process backed by hundreds of years of research. The reason why people assign a lower risk to selective breeding is that the amount of physiological change present in one or a few generations is small. You don't worry that the rice you eat had a trascription error and may be genetically altered because it is invisible to you. But when you look at genetic engineering you see the big changes in a short amount of time and you feel it is more unsafe even though those alterations are being performed by some of the most intelligent minds of our generation. You talk of scientists "cobbling together genes of totally unrelated species" as if they were nice modular pieces that you can rearrange in any order. Just the mechanism by which genes are edited is a choreographed sequence of tools that make the steady hands of the worlds best surgeon look bad. I am not nessesarily 100% pro-GMO though, I just dislike the FUD that people use to demonize it as something radically different that what humans have been doing for millenia. The only thing different is that now we have a clue what we are doing. Will some people abuse it to benefit themselves? Yes, of course, but that is independent of the methods by which they screw people over.