8 ms·

To clarify the headline: the article doesn't suggest that this is a direct consequence of the GM crops themselves, but rather than the adoption of herbicide-res

To clarify the headline: the article doesn't suggest that this is a direct consequence of the GM crops themselves, but rather than the adoption of herbicide-resistant GM crops has led to much higher use of herbicides, killing non-GM plants such as milkweed that would previously have also lived in the fields and which are important to the Monarch's reproduction.

mercurial 12y ago
The increased use of chemicals is one of the strongest arguments against GMO, along with the power it grants to GMO suppliers.
- slavik81 12y ago
  There's plenty of GMOs that have nothing to do with herbicides. Drought tolerant crops, for instance. At best, it's an argument against some plants, but it's certainly not an argument against GMOs as a category.
  - hitchhiker999 12y ago
    No, it probably is. Until we have responsible people using the great work of scientists, it's like handing a kid a chain saw (useful tool) and expecting good things. Yes that bums a lot of people out, nobody wants to hear that - we're not grown up enough for our science.
    - saalweachter 12y ago
      GMO crops also lead to the reduced use of other types of chemicals. For instance, pest-resistant crops lead to less use of pesticides.
    - dkural 12y ago
      Actually it's the opposite - GM crops often build natural resistance in the plant (bt for instance), which reduces the use of pesticides (chain saw, many farmers overuse) often resulting in a healthier ecosystem. All the bugs that don't eat / harm the crop survive except the pest that eats it. Pesticides kill a lot more. Ultimately, each plant makes tens of thousands of proteins. PROTEIN! Each one of these is made from the exact same amino acids all life is made from. a GM crop is genetically modified to have proteins it didn't have before... so all it makes is extra protein, again, from the exact same amino acids that's your flesh and blood.
      - hitchhiker999 12y ago
        While I've got you here... My question: What makes you think the corporations (including the scientists) understand the complex systems they're interacting with well enough to warrant altering the path of many million years of natural development. What makes you think they even care? For the record I'm a software developer for 30+ years, even a mildly large/mature piece of software is undeniably complex - and must be treated with serious regard to the larger interactions - never mind nature. I wouldn't charge such a thing to private corporations, the hubris is undeniable. Please change my view here.
        Oletros 12y ago
        So, you're argument against GMO is not an scientific one, just that you don't trust companies. Do you have any scientific argument against genetic manipulation?
        hitchhiker999 12y ago
        Nope, I do not - because I'm not a scientist, I don't participate in large scale assessments of these products, and I'm not trained in the field. You are correct: My argument (as clearly stated) is based on lack of trust. Which begs the question: Are you a GMO scientist, or are you going on trust too?
        unclebucknasty 12y ago
        >Do you have any scientific argument against genetic manipulation? The line of thinking behind this type of question always strikes me as either incredibly naive or purposely misleading. There is a gaping hole in the way we sometimes wield our scientific approach to these things. On one hand, we say that a thing (such as ill-effects of GMO crops) must be observed, measured and quantified in order for us to accept that it exists. The fallacy enters when we then state categorically that in the absence of such evidence, the thing does not exist. The presumption is then that virtually anything is safe until proven otherwise. Human history is literally filled with applications of this logic that ultimately proved harmful and even disastrous. Yet, we go on repeating this process and scratching our heads over questions such as, "why is x health-problem on the rise? Why is y animal dying?" And, when we inject such flawed logic into something as complex and interconnected as nature, we are literally begging for unintended consequences--the ecosystem and all that. Someone else on this thread suggested that we solve this problem by engineering hardier milkweed. I think that pretty much says it all. I am not saying that GMOs are without benefit or even that its risks or too high for those benefits. It just strikes me as both arrogant and short-sighted that we presume to know that the risks are worth the benefits, simply because we haven't yet proved otherwise.
    - Houshalter 12y ago
      You can apply this argument to literally any technology. It's worthless. The world would not be better off without GMO crops than with, and it would be even better with alternatives like planting more milkweed.
      - hitchhiker999 12y ago
        Yes, I suppose you could. I stand by my point though. I used to agree with you, I thought the opposition was 'anti-science'. Now I think I was being a touch naive. The corporations you are believing (I assume you're not a scientist) are not to be trusted, that's been made fairly clear. So yeah, I loved the idea of GMO when I heard about it all those years ago, I immediately thought about how careful we'd need to be when introducing that to the wider system. Then I realised it was being forwarded by people who couldn't care less what happens to nature, me or my kids, or my friends, or anyone else around me. So no.
        Houshalter 12y ago
        Cars cause accidents. Ban all cars. Car manufacturers can't be trusted obviously.
- icambron 12y ago
  The increased use of chemicals is the strongest argument against the increased use of those chemicals. If you want to regulate something, regulate that thing instead of killing off the technology that enabled it. GMOs in particular have the potential to dramatically help humanity, and it would be a huge mistake to cripple them as an alternative to banning the pesticides directly. The internet enables the propagation of child porn. I don't think that's a compelling argument against the internet.
  - tormeh 12y ago
    I think you're right, but just to play Devil's advocate: Isn't it sometimes more practically and politically feasible to kill off the technology that enables the thing rather than to regulate the thing?
    - icambron 12y ago
      I suppose sometimes it might be, but then the question is whether it was worth it. On GMOs particularly, there are a ton of malnutrition problems we could potentially solve with this technology, and sacrificing that for political expediency does not seem reasonable. Edit: And we've only begun to scratch the surface of what GMO is capable of; even if banning it were worth it now, what future applications are we preventing? It would be like deciding the internet wasn't worth the child porn it facilitated, but in 1996 (certainly banning the internet then would be simpler and more expedient that trying to figure out how to monitor it for that kind of thing). So more generally: killing technology because of it can be misused destroys not just its current utility but all sorts of unimaginable future potential. So the bar for being worth it should be set very high.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - mercurial 12y ago
        I think there is a difference between "let's experiment with it" and "let's make plenty of Roundup-resistant GMOs so that we can put even more junk in the groundwater on a large scale".
- DenisM 12y ago
  GMO plants require fewer, not more pesticides. For one thing, insecticides become less important as plants can fend for themselves. But even herbicides - a typical non-GMO plant is sprayed by half-dozen herbicides at different stages of growth cycle, whereas a GMO plant would be sprayed with roundup exactly twice. If you want to avoid pesticides altogether, you'd have to weed out pests manually, which is way more expensive, so is only used for boutique foods. You can argue it's worth the price, but it's not a GMO fight.
  - SoftwareMaven 12y ago
    It varies by the plant. Many GMO plants are engineered to tolerate RoundUp, allowing farmers to use greater amounts for the control of noxious plants around their farms. Those noxious plants have also started developing some resistance to RoundUp, causing even greater quantities to be used.
    - stinos 12y ago
      Not exactly good news, seeing that glyphosate (the RoundUp ingredient) traces have been found in food and have been 'possibly' linked to various diseases like cancer and Alzheimer's. ('possibly' because more studies are needed, especially to whatever long-term effetcs there might or might not be). On the other hand, it's maybe the lesser of evils as the other pesticides used are probably no better.
allworknoplay 12y ago
The article may not say it directly, but both the article and the headline absolutely suggest it. To phrase your comment a bit more accurately: the article is absurd linkbait that asserts that genetic modification has anything whatsoever to do with the issue, and fails entirely to mention the actual problems, which are relentless expansion of farmland, monoculture, and (directly and indirectly) herbicides/pesticides, which are all strong corrolates of genetically modified crops but, unlike them, pose an ACTUAL problem, as opposed to a scientifically dismissed FUD problem. It's grossly irresponsible, if you ask me. Monoculture, a lack of regard for preservation, and indiscriminate chemical usage are a problem. Business methods surrounding GMOs are also a problem. But GMOs are not. But hey, more people click and comment with this headline, I'm sure.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
ams6110 12y ago
... and urban sprawl in the U.S. and illegal logging in the butterflies' Mexican wintering ground. The headline is definitely editorializing.

mercurial 12y ago

The increased use of chemicals is one of the strongest arguments against GMO, along with the power it grants to GMO suppliers.

slavik81 12y ago
There's plenty of GMOs that have nothing to do with herbicides. Drought tolerant crops, for instance. At best, it's an argument against some plants, but it's certainly not an argument against GMOs as a category.
- hitchhiker999 12y ago
  No, it probably is. Until we have responsible people using the great work of scientists, it's like handing a kid a chain saw (useful tool) and expecting good things. Yes that bums a lot of people out, nobody wants to hear that - we're not grown up enough for our science.
  - saalweachter 12y ago
    GMO crops also lead to the reduced use of other types of chemicals. For instance, pest-resistant crops lead to less use of pesticides.
  - dkural 12y ago
    Actually it's the opposite - GM crops often build natural resistance in the plant (bt for instance), which reduces the use of pesticides (chain saw, many farmers overuse) often resulting in a healthier ecosystem. All the bugs that don't eat / harm the crop survive except the pest that eats it. Pesticides kill a lot more. Ultimately, each plant makes tens of thousands of proteins. PROTEIN! Each one of these is made from the exact same amino acids all life is made from. a GM crop is genetically modified to have proteins it didn't have before... so all it makes is extra protein, again, from the exact same amino acids that's your flesh and blood.
    - hitchhiker999 12y ago
      While I've got you here... My question: What makes you think the corporations (including the scientists) understand the complex systems they're interacting with well enough to warrant altering the path of many million years of natural development. What makes you think they even care? For the record I'm a software developer for 30+ years, even a mildly large/mature piece of software is undeniably complex - and must be treated with serious regard to the larger interactions - never mind nature. I wouldn't charge such a thing to private corporations, the hubris is undeniable. Please change my view here.
      - Oletros 12y ago
        So, you're argument against GMO is not an scientific one, just that you don't trust companies. Do you have any scientific argument against genetic manipulation?
        hitchhiker999 12y ago
        Nope, I do not - because I'm not a scientist, I don't participate in large scale assessments of these products, and I'm not trained in the field. You are correct: My argument (as clearly stated) is based on lack of trust. Which begs the question: Are you a GMO scientist, or are you going on trust too?
        unclebucknasty 12y ago
        >Do you have any scientific argument against genetic manipulation? The line of thinking behind this type of question always strikes me as either incredibly naive or purposely misleading. There is a gaping hole in the way we sometimes wield our scientific approach to these things. On one hand, we say that a thing (such as ill-effects of GMO crops) must be observed, measured and quantified in order for us to accept that it exists. The fallacy enters when we then state categorically that in the absence of such evidence, the thing does not exist. The presumption is then that virtually anything is safe until proven otherwise. Human history is literally filled with applications of this logic that ultimately proved harmful and even disastrous. Yet, we go on repeating this process and scratching our heads over questions such as, "why is x health-problem on the rise? Why is y animal dying?" And, when we inject such flawed logic into something as complex and interconnected as nature, we are literally begging for unintended consequences--the ecosystem and all that. Someone else on this thread suggested that we solve this problem by engineering hardier milkweed. I think that pretty much says it all. I am not saying that GMOs are without benefit or even that its risks or too high for those benefits. It just strikes me as both arrogant and short-sighted that we presume to know that the risks are worth the benefits, simply because we haven't yet proved otherwise.
  - Houshalter 12y ago
    You can apply this argument to literally any technology. It's worthless. The world would not be better off without GMO crops than with, and it would be even better with alternatives like planting more milkweed.
    - hitchhiker999 12y ago
      Yes, I suppose you could. I stand by my point though. I used to agree with you, I thought the opposition was 'anti-science'. Now I think I was being a touch naive. The corporations you are believing (I assume you're not a scientist) are not to be trusted, that's been made fairly clear. So yeah, I loved the idea of GMO when I heard about it all those years ago, I immediately thought about how careful we'd need to be when introducing that to the wider system. Then I realised it was being forwarded by people who couldn't care less what happens to nature, me or my kids, or my friends, or anyone else around me. So no.
      - Houshalter 12y ago
        Cars cause accidents. Ban all cars. Car manufacturers can't be trusted obviously.
icambron 12y ago
The increased use of chemicals is the strongest argument against the increased use of those chemicals. If you want to regulate something, regulate that thing instead of killing off the technology that enabled it. GMOs in particular have the potential to dramatically help humanity, and it would be a huge mistake to cripple them as an alternative to banning the pesticides directly. The internet enables the propagation of child porn. I don't think that's a compelling argument against the internet.
- tormeh 12y ago
  I think you're right, but just to play Devil's advocate: Isn't it sometimes more practically and politically feasible to kill off the technology that enables the thing rather than to regulate the thing?
  - icambron 12y ago
    I suppose sometimes it might be, but then the question is whether it was worth it. On GMOs particularly, there are a ton of malnutrition problems we could potentially solve with this technology, and sacrificing that for political expediency does not seem reasonable. Edit: And we've only begun to scratch the surface of what GMO is capable of; even if banning it were worth it now, what future applications are we preventing? It would be like deciding the internet wasn't worth the child porn it facilitated, but in 1996 (certainly banning the internet then would be simpler and more expedient that trying to figure out how to monitor it for that kind of thing). So more generally: killing technology because of it can be misused destroys not just its current utility but all sorts of unimaginable future potential. So the bar for being worth it should be set very high.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - mercurial 12y ago
      I think there is a difference between "let's experiment with it" and "let's make plenty of Roundup-resistant GMOs so that we can put even more junk in the groundwater on a large scale".
DenisM 12y ago
GMO plants require fewer, not more pesticides. For one thing, insecticides become less important as plants can fend for themselves. But even herbicides - a typical non-GMO plant is sprayed by half-dozen herbicides at different stages of growth cycle, whereas a GMO plant would be sprayed with roundup exactly twice. If you want to avoid pesticides altogether, you'd have to weed out pests manually, which is way more expensive, so is only used for boutique foods. You can argue it's worth the price, but it's not a GMO fight.
- SoftwareMaven 12y ago
  It varies by the plant. Many GMO plants are engineered to tolerate RoundUp, allowing farmers to use greater amounts for the control of noxious plants around their farms. Those noxious plants have also started developing some resistance to RoundUp, causing even greater quantities to be used.
  - stinos 12y ago
    Not exactly good news, seeing that glyphosate (the RoundUp ingredient) traces have been found in food and have been 'possibly' linked to various diseases like cancer and Alzheimer's. ('possibly' because more studies are needed, especially to whatever long-term effetcs there might or might not be). On the other hand, it's maybe the lesser of evils as the other pesticides used are probably no better.

allworknoplay 12y ago

The article may not say it directly, but both the article and the headline absolutely suggest it. To phrase your comment a bit more accurately: the article is absurd linkbait that asserts that genetic modification has anything whatsoever to do with the issue, and fails entirely to mention the actual problems, which are relentless expansion of farmland, monoculture, and (directly and indirectly) herbicides/pesticides, which are all strong corrolates of genetically modified crops but, unlike them, pose an ACTUAL problem, as opposed to a scientifically dismissed FUD problem. It's grossly irresponsible, if you ask me. Monoculture, a lack of regard for preservation, and indiscriminate chemical usage are a problem. Business methods surrounding GMOs are also a problem. But GMOs are not. But hey, more people click and comment with this headline, I'm sure.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

ams6110 12y ago

... and urban sprawl in the U.S. and illegal logging in the butterflies' Mexican wintering ground. The headline is definitely editorializing.