4 ms·

I understand the idea of selective breeding but GMO is more than that. It's very possible to move genes from very different organisms that would never be possib

I understand the idea of selective breeding but GMO is more than that. It's very possible to move genes from very different organisms that would never be possible via selective breeding. The ones that come to mind are the glow in the dark organisms that used genes from 2 different types of animals that could never breed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCPtDVnaQ1w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCPtDVnaQ1w So no GMO does not equal selective breeding.

jedberg 7y ago
They're not exactly the same, no, but there is nothing that says that eventually those organisms would have a mutation that gave them the ability to glow in the dark. We just make it happen quicker with science. If they can survive with those genes from other species, than they could in theory mutate them too.
roywiggins 7y ago
One alternative to GMO is to irradiate your organism until it randomly develops a mutation you like. It's not "GMO" and isn't labeled as such, because it doesn't involve the same technical steps as inserting a fish gene into a tomato, or whatever, but you end up with an organism with de novo mutations that do... well, something, probably many things, and if you're lucky, something you want, that you can then use selective breeding to amplify. Voila, you've introduced a brand new, never-before-seen mutation, without any GMO. Except it's stupid. It's an incredible amount of work, just to be able to produce something that isn't technically GMO, when you could reach in with CRISPR or whatever the new hot genetic tools are and do it much more close to exactly.
- wallace_f 7y ago
  I think one thing people are worried about is simply unintended consequences. Humans have always had confidence of mastery over nature and more often than not we screw it up.
  - pfdietz 7y ago
    I think people are using irrational thought processes to come to nonsensical conclusions. The anti-GMO business is feeling over reason.
    - krageon 7y ago
      Saying that you don't trust a scientist with only a tenuous grasp (because that is all we have) of what nutrition is or should be (and what things might be harmful over 10-30 years) to make grand and sweeping changes to how an organism works is not feeling over reason. It is a different form of risk-management, one that you might not agree with (and that's fine).
      - wallace_f 7y ago
        I think part of the problem is with what people are assuming. There is in fact a large, obvious population of people who are emotionally scared of GMOs. Unfortunately, that group has given anybody who question GMOs a bad name. This kind of thing is unfortunately true for many things in life. And ironically, if what I am saying is true, it is the grandparent who, while accusing of irrational reasoning, has not reasoned this out.
        pfdietz 7y ago
        Whenever I see anyone attempt to defend their anti-GMO positions, they inevitably devolve into vague "well, it might be bad". Since this is literally true of ANYTHING new, the focus on GMOs is being driven by some irrational subtext.
        krageon 7y ago
        The point I outlined in my post is one that I have seen people who are not vocal advocates of GMO utter. It's a perfectly regular piece of reasoning and not "irrational subtext". I'd go so far as to say the irrational subtext here might be the fact that it is seen as some sort of personal failing to question something which would be very convenient if it was entirely safe (and was known to be safe). Just because it is convenient and it works well in the areas that we can measure well does not mean it is actually safe or that we should embrace it uncritically.

jedberg 7y ago

They're not exactly the same, no, but there is nothing that says that eventually those organisms would have a mutation that gave them the ability to glow in the dark. We just make it happen quicker with science. If they can survive with those genes from other species, than they could in theory mutate them too.

roywiggins 7y ago

One alternative to GMO is to irradiate your organism until it randomly develops a mutation you like. It's not "GMO" and isn't labeled as such, because it doesn't involve the same technical steps as inserting a fish gene into a tomato, or whatever, but you end up with an organism with de novo mutations that do... well, something, probably many things, and if you're lucky, something you want, that you can then use selective breeding to amplify. Voila, you've introduced a brand new, never-before-seen mutation, without any GMO. Except it's stupid. It's an incredible amount of work, just to be able to produce something that isn't technically GMO, when you could reach in with CRISPR or whatever the new hot genetic tools are and do it much more close to exactly.

wallace_f 7y ago
I think one thing people are worried about is simply unintended consequences. Humans have always had confidence of mastery over nature and more often than not we screw it up.
- pfdietz 7y ago
  I think people are using irrational thought processes to come to nonsensical conclusions. The anti-GMO business is feeling over reason.
  - krageon 7y ago
    Saying that you don't trust a scientist with only a tenuous grasp (because that is all we have) of what nutrition is or should be (and what things might be harmful over 10-30 years) to make grand and sweeping changes to how an organism works is not feeling over reason. It is a different form of risk-management, one that you might not agree with (and that's fine).
    - wallace_f 7y ago
      I think part of the problem is with what people are assuming. There is in fact a large, obvious population of people who are emotionally scared of GMOs. Unfortunately, that group has given anybody who question GMOs a bad name. This kind of thing is unfortunately true for many things in life. And ironically, if what I am saying is true, it is the grandparent who, while accusing of irrational reasoning, has not reasoned this out.
      - pfdietz 7y ago
        Whenever I see anyone attempt to defend their anti-GMO positions, they inevitably devolve into vague "well, it might be bad". Since this is literally true of ANYTHING new, the focus on GMOs is being driven by some irrational subtext.
        krageon 7y ago
        The point I outlined in my post is one that I have seen people who are not vocal advocates of GMO utter. It's a perfectly regular piece of reasoning and not "irrational subtext". I'd go so far as to say the irrational subtext here might be the fact that it is seen as some sort of personal failing to question something which would be very convenient if it was entirely safe (and was known to be safe). Just because it is convenient and it works well in the areas that we can measure well does not mean it is actually safe or that we should embrace it uncritically.