5 ms·

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 th

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.
      - hitchhiker999 12y ago
        It's so refreshing to know that there are other people applying (what I previously assumed was ubiquitous) common sense rationale to these issues. What's frightening is how far and wide you need to search to find comments like yours. Most are simply mindlessly perpetuating one side or another of the artificial polarity: "You 'hate' GMO, so you hate science" vs "GMO is evil, without any merit" Childish, tiring. It has also begun to fracture society into more factions, more extremes. It's time for us to grow up. My opinion is: GMOs are most likely a very useful tool, however the people in-charge of the direction appear to lack the emotional maturity to handle the greater responsibility. Until better people are in the driver's seat, we should proceed with extreme caution (which we are not doing).
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.

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.
    - hitchhiker999 12y ago
      It's so refreshing to know that there are other people applying (what I previously assumed was ubiquitous) common sense rationale to these issues. What's frightening is how far and wide you need to search to find comments like yours. Most are simply mindlessly perpetuating one side or another of the artificial polarity: "You 'hate' GMO, so you hate science" vs "GMO is evil, without any merit" Childish, tiring. It has also begun to fracture society into more factions, more extremes. It's time for us to grow up. My opinion is: GMOs are most likely a very useful tool, however the people in-charge of the direction appear to lack the emotional maturity to handle the greater responsibility. Until better people are in the driver's seat, we should proceed with extreme caution (which we are not doing).

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.