4 ms·

It's great research like this that makes me wonder why some people are against genetically modified foods. I'm sure some modifications are bad, but how could on

by antipax 17y ago

It's great research like this that makes me wonder why some people are against genetically modified foods. I'm sure some modifications are bad, but how could ones like these do anything but help people survive that otherwise wouldn't?

humbledrone 17y ago
The thing I always like to point out to people who are against genetically modified foods is that breeding is genetic modification. Mankind has been genetically modifying plants for 10,000 years, to great effect, by performing artificial selection.
- tome 17y ago
  This is very disingenuous because people who campaign against GM are not against GM per se, they're against GM being introduced in an abrupt way with massive changes made to the genome in a short amount of time. The modifying of plants over 10,000 years has happened over 10,000 years, not 10 or 20 years as in the case of Monsanto!
  - humbledrone 17y ago
    Actually, most of the people I've met who campaign against GM are against it because they're scared of the concept of some mad scientist in a laboratory making abominable lettuce with "toxins" in it. Those are the people my "10,000" years argument is for. All I'm arguing for is the idea that GM is not bad per se. I fully agree that e.g. in the case of Monsanto that GM can be used for nefarious purposes.
- ars 17y ago
  This is not true. Breeding and genetic engineering are not that same. With breeding you can never add a new gene that was not there before, you can only pick the ones you want from the existing set. That existing set has been "vetted" by thousands of years of the plant living, and people eating it. You have no such knowledge with genetic engineering. You can only do a study and hope that any bad effects are not so subtle that you have a hard time finding them (i.e. subtle things can take decades before they are discovered).
locopati 17y ago
Monsanto is a company that would probably love to have seeds that only are good for one generation and need to be purchased every planting season (they already do have these for some of their innovations, but I bet they'd love to have total control over the crop). Now, that's neither something that should spread into the wild nor something one company should have control over (closed-source, single-point-of-failure and all that).
- smokinn 17y ago
  I'm not sure they'd actually love that. One of their big cash cows in poor countries where they have a lot of influence is using their seeds to basically steal land. The seeds from one field that paid for them will blow into another and grow there next season. A Monsanto lawyer will then serve papers to the farmer next door who, through no fault of his own, has some Monsanto plants growing within his normal crop. Of course they sue him for some ridiculous amount he can't possibly pay and he ends up losing his land. Profitable business model.
- humbledrone 17y ago
  What do they call that? Genetic Rights Management? GRM? I've gotta say that the idea of GRM makes me more angry than DRM ever could...
  - patio11 17y ago
    Genetic Use Restriction Technology. (Called the "terminator gene" by detractors.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technol...
rjurney 17y ago
Being anti-Monsanto is one thing... but being anti-GM is being pro-starvation. The green revolution increased agricultural output dramatically last century, and we need it to continue if we're going to feed everyone. Its first-world boutique convenience versus third world life and death.
- tome 17y ago
  Well not really, there are other solutions such as "have less people in the world" but I'm not sure how practical they are.
  - rjurney 17y ago
    Have less people? So that means what - poor people can't have kids? Lots of people starve? Yes, not exactly practical.
    - otto 17y ago
      Have less kids? Adopt? Not that I'm advocating this. I think people should be responsible enough to choose how much to reproduce.
      - rjurney 17y ago
        Thats a first world solution. Thats only an option if you have enough money not to have to have enough children to support you in your old age. In much of the world, large families ensure the well-being of parents into old-age. You should be so lucky as to marry, have a ton of kids, mostly males, have them all live. Social security bling bling! This is why poverty and high rates of reproduction go together.
    - 3dFlatLander 17y ago
      Stewart Brand gave a TED talk recently ( http://www.ted.com/talks/stewart_brand_proclaims_4_environmental_heresies.html http://www.ted.com/talks/stewart_brand_proclaims_4_environme... ) in which he said that people moving into urban areas have less children, and much of the world was moving into urban areas these days. Hopefully the population will start to decline due to lower birth rates... I hope at least. :)
asdlfj2sd33 17y ago
Not against GM food in general, but against some specific examples of who's doing it today: More here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=706752 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=706752

by antipax 17y ago

humbledrone 17y ago

The thing I always like to point out to people who are against genetically modified foods is that breeding is genetic modification. Mankind has been genetically modifying plants for 10,000 years, to great effect, by performing artificial selection.

tome 17y ago
This is very disingenuous because people who campaign against GM are not against GM per se, they're against GM being introduced in an abrupt way with massive changes made to the genome in a short amount of time. The modifying of plants over 10,000 years has happened over 10,000 years, not 10 or 20 years as in the case of Monsanto!
- humbledrone 17y ago
  Actually, most of the people I've met who campaign against GM are against it because they're scared of the concept of some mad scientist in a laboratory making abominable lettuce with "toxins" in it. Those are the people my "10,000" years argument is for. All I'm arguing for is the idea that GM is not bad per se. I fully agree that e.g. in the case of Monsanto that GM can be used for nefarious purposes.
ars 17y ago
This is not true. Breeding and genetic engineering are not that same. With breeding you can never add a new gene that was not there before, you can only pick the ones you want from the existing set. That existing set has been "vetted" by thousands of years of the plant living, and people eating it. You have no such knowledge with genetic engineering. You can only do a study and hope that any bad effects are not so subtle that you have a hard time finding them (i.e. subtle things can take decades before they are discovered).

locopati 17y ago

Monsanto is a company that would probably love to have seeds that only are good for one generation and need to be purchased every planting season (they already do have these for some of their innovations, but I bet they'd love to have total control over the crop). Now, that's neither something that should spread into the wild nor something one company should have control over (closed-source, single-point-of-failure and all that).

smokinn 17y ago
I'm not sure they'd actually love that. One of their big cash cows in poor countries where they have a lot of influence is using their seeds to basically steal land. The seeds from one field that paid for them will blow into another and grow there next season. A Monsanto lawyer will then serve papers to the farmer next door who, through no fault of his own, has some Monsanto plants growing within his normal crop. Of course they sue him for some ridiculous amount he can't possibly pay and he ends up losing his land. Profitable business model.
humbledrone 17y ago
What do they call that? Genetic Rights Management? GRM? I've gotta say that the idea of GRM makes me more angry than DRM ever could...
- patio11 17y ago
  Genetic Use Restriction Technology. (Called the "terminator gene" by detractors.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technol...

rjurney 17y ago

Being anti-Monsanto is one thing... but being anti-GM is being pro-starvation. The green revolution increased agricultural output dramatically last century, and we need it to continue if we're going to feed everyone. Its first-world boutique convenience versus third world life and death.

tome 17y ago
Well not really, there are other solutions such as "have less people in the world" but I'm not sure how practical they are.
- rjurney 17y ago
  Have less people? So that means what - poor people can't have kids? Lots of people starve? Yes, not exactly practical.
  - otto 17y ago
    Have less kids? Adopt? Not that I'm advocating this. I think people should be responsible enough to choose how much to reproduce.
    - rjurney 17y ago
      Thats a first world solution. Thats only an option if you have enough money not to have to have enough children to support you in your old age. In much of the world, large families ensure the well-being of parents into old-age. You should be so lucky as to marry, have a ton of kids, mostly males, have them all live. Social security bling bling! This is why poverty and high rates of reproduction go together.
  - 3dFlatLander 17y ago
    Stewart Brand gave a TED talk recently ( http://www.ted.com/talks/stewart_brand_proclaims_4_environmental_heresies.html http://www.ted.com/talks/stewart_brand_proclaims_4_environme... ) in which he said that people moving into urban areas have less children, and much of the world was moving into urban areas these days. Hopefully the population will start to decline due to lower birth rates... I hope at least. :)

asdlfj2sd33 17y ago

Not against GM food in general, but against some specific examples of who's doing it today: More here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=706752 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=706752