7 ms·
Woah there. There are legitimate reasons for being anti-nuclear and anti-GMO. Ridiculous that you just lumped those in with anti-vaxxers.
by yhoneycomb 7y ago
Woah there. There are legitimate reasons for being anti-nuclear and anti-GMO. Ridiculous that you just lumped those in with anti-vaxxers.
- jimmaswell 7y agoAll arguments I've seen against them have been really weak or intentionally misleading.
- SomeOldThrow 7y agoI just swap out “gmo” for “monoculture” and it makes much more sense for resistance to the food. Among other things, industrial produce is noticeably lower quality than farmers market produce, cf tomatoes. The whole ecosystem benefits enormously from variety in produce. How do you interpret peoples’ fear of the food?
- jimmaswell 7y agoIf non-gmo produce tastes so much better then people will buy it and farmers will still grow it, but cheaply available produce is a clear win for everyone. And as I said in the other comment, you can have GMO without monocultures if the need arises. The fear of eating it is all baseless fearmongering by the likes of homeopaths and crystal healers.
- SomeOldThrow 7y agoI largely agree. On specific crops this is a particularly worrying concern—see eg foreign crops. These are largely monoculture and are particularly vulnerable to eg disease. However, I see this as a lost battle.
- jimmaswell 7y agoThey'll learn the lesson to introduce more variance after the first big incident, if it happens.
- SomeOldThrow 7y agoWhat makes you think the industry will survive the first?
- souprock 7y agoThere are indirect arguments that are pretty strong. Patented organisms let their owners extract economic rent. This covers nearly all GMO and many hybrids. Monoculture, which you'll get when the whole industry comes to rely on a particular GMO, invites disaster. The first pest organism to defeat the GMO wipes out the entire industry. Despite the above, I'd love to see a food company brazenly advertise products that are 100% GMO. It would be funny and might even sell really well.
- jimmaswell 7y ago-You can still grow your own non-gmo crops. It is ridiculous you're on the hook for IP infringement for gmo seeds blowing into your field, but that's a legal issue, not inherent to the concept of GMOs. -There's no reason genetic variety can't be introduced on purpose, and pest resistance is part of what GMOs select for.
- knodi123 7y ago> It is ridiculous you're on the hook for IP infringement for gmo seeds blowing into your field Incidentally, this isn't something that has ever been a real issue. One farmer claimed it was, but it was pretty conclusively proven that he lied.
- sgift 7y ago> but that's a legal issue, not inherent to the concept of GMOs. So, not an issue in theory, but in practice.
- deogeo 7y ago> You can still grow your own non-gmo crops. And go bankrupt, because you're competing against GMO crops. Just like there are damn few transport companies these days using horse-drawn carriages.
- jimmaswell 7y agoI was thinking more along the lines of a home garden. Someone else in the thread claims GMO tastes worse, in which case non-GMO brands would stick around as more expensive options anyway.
- option 7y agoanti-GMO means more pesticides, antibiotics, etc. GMOs are much safer and environmentally friendly solution to pesticides, herbicides, etc. Don’t even get me started on anti-nuclear (and it is off-topic here)
- devoply 7y agoGMOs is a large category. Some GMOs, like those that derive their genes from other edible plants are pretty safe. Yet other GMOs might not be. You can't be in favor of all GMOs as some sort of panacea. Instead you should be in favor of them on a case-by-case basis where what gene is added from where to produce what. Adding genes to plants so that they are resistant to greater amounts of herbicide to me sounds like a bad idea as does adding proteins that kill a broad range of insects. Also ownership is a rather large issue... in that plants should not be owned by large corporations that then control the livelihoods of farmers and the food supply. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_maize#Controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_maize#Con...
- option 7y agoof course. And both 3 need regulations, oversight and control. But what we often see is silly anti-x propaganda
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- whatshisface 7y agoLike nuclear, and also like all consumer products, there have been accidents with vaccines. Unfortunately we live in an imperfect world where there is a tinge of validity to every consumer fear. https://www.nature.com/articles/nm0409-349a https://www.nature.com/articles/nm0409-349a https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/contaminated-vaccines-put-indias-polio-free-status-at-risk/articleshow/66021197.cms https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/contaminated-vacci...
- option 7y agothis is why we should listen to science and statistics to chose our options, not fear mongering and political agendas
- ekianjo 7y agoYup, but science and clinical trials show that there is x % of people who will get side effects from vaccines, while the political propaganda gives a perception that it's all 100% safe and dandy. I'm for vaccines but there needs to be a lot more transparency and education to the public in terms of benefits/risks for each vaccine out there, because such ratio is very different from one vaccine to another (and what they are supposed to protect from). Plus, we also have to admit that all clinical trials for vaccines are done independently of each other's, and we don't really know the impact of doing 20 vaccines on the same individual versus doing only 1 in a controlled trial.
- Dylan16807 7y agoThere are legitimate reasons to have oversight and proceed carefully for all three.
- ekianjo 7y agoReasons for anti-nuclear and anti-GMO? You must be kidding. GMOs enable crops to grow in areas with much less water and reduce the use of pesticides and insecticides. Nuclear (even more so the newer form of it) is the safest form of energy production despite the complete paranoia about it in the public. And if you care about climate change, nuclear is certain a strong option to consider to reduce CO2 emissions drastically.
- PopeDotNinja 7y agoI'm anti-nuclear waste. Get politicians on board with owning the disposal and I'd have no issues with it.
- godzillabrennus 7y agohttp://deepisolation.com http://deepisolation.com has a solution for the waste.
- knodi123 7y agoThere's no shortage of acceptable solutions. The challenge is getting politicians on board.
- skrebbel 7y agoCare to explain the solution? I tried to read the website but they don't say. (!)
- anonymous5133 7y agoThat's not really a solution. The problem with nuclear is the risk of a meltdown and risk of radioactive release. Both risks must absolutely be reduced to 0% chance of occurring. In other words, reactors need to be created such that it is virtually impossible for a meltdown to occur. Likewise, the reactor needs to eliminate all radioactive waste from even being created or to confine it permanently at the site of creation. If we are using existing reactor technology then basically these nuclear plants would basically have to built thousands of feet below ground in some sort of solid rock area and then waste areas would need to be created such that it can contain the waste for hundreds of thousands of years. If an absolute disaster were to occur then the entire underground facility would need to basically be completely sealed off permanently before radioactive dust or materials are leaked. The facility would also need to be designed such that even if a disaster occurs that an underground nuclear explosion does not occur and if it does occur that it is not so massive that it somehow bursts out to the surface or creates fissures. Currently I am anti-nuclear based on the existing way things are run but if nuclear is implemented correctly, with safety as the most important priority, then I would support it. If I recall correctly, there is a company funded by Bill Gates that is creating micro reactors. That might have potential in the underground nuclear facility I have.
- pfdietz 7y agoThere are no legitimate reasons for being anti-GMO.
- amluto 7y agoThere are legitimate reasons for opposing the widespread use of herbicides in agriculture. This practice is enabled by GMOs.
- pfdietz 7y agoI don't buy that argument. GMOs enable the use of low toxicity herbicides, like glyphosate (demonizing propaganda notwithstanding). And herbicides allow low impact farming practices like no-till, or substitute for terrible practices like slash-and-burn in the tropics.
- wolco 7y agoMost GM crops fall into one of two categories: either engineered to resist chemical herbicides, or engineered to produce insecticides themselves. When herbicides are used on resistant crops, over time the weeds develop resistance, leading to the use of even more chemicals. Crops engineered to produce insecticides on the other hand produce toxins that are not only harmful to pests but other insects such as butterflies, moths and insect pollinators.
- pfdietz 7y agoThat would be a reason to be against specific uses of GMO technology. It is not a reason to be categorically anti-GMO. The general arguments against GMO are entirely without merit, in my opinion. Moreover, their consequences are monstrous, imposing costs on the third world just so first worlders can practice a deplorable philosophical fetish (or, more banally, inflame anti-GMO passions as a kind of agricultural protectionism.)
- brer 7y agoHow much do you know about GMO crops? Do you know what Bt corn is and how it works? Do you know what strains of Bt have been incorporated into the various corn cultivars? Are you familiar with the Aizawa strain of Bt? Did you know that Aizawa Bt is extremely toxic to honeybees? Do you think the widespread adoption and cultivation of Bt-engineeered corn crops, which of course are prolipherated through pollination to neighboring fields and into the wider ecosystem could possibly have any negative consequences whatsoever? Do you think the near-extintion of critically important pollinating species is a legitimate reason to question incorporating highly damaging toxin-producing genes from bacteria into corn?