4 ms·

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 farme

by 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).
      - Oletros 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. I'm still trying to find common sense in his or your comments. You don't want GMO because you don't trust big companies even if you don't know what GMOS is used for. That argument is not common sense, is just ignorance and bias. Can both of you just provide ONE scientific reason against GMO, and no, GMOS are not just crops.
  - coldtea 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? Yes. You cannot do proper science if you're motivated by profit to rush it to market, to hide bad results, and to not give a fuck about properly investigating long term consequences. That it's based on technology (the technical ability to do something) and not deep scientific understanding of it. >Do you have any scientific argument against genetic manipulation? Did they have many scientific arguments against thalidomide?
    - unclebucknasty 12y ago
      Funny that you mentioned thalidomide. It's one of the first that popped to my mind as well; perhaps because it was not only touted as safe, but it was also specifically promoted to the population in which it would cause the most harm. History is, of course, replete with such examples. Thalidomide was actually a "fortunate" case to some extent, because the degree and the immediacy of the harm done enabled relatively swift acknowledgment of the causative agent. But, your parent seems unable or unwilling to understand how his line of reasoning produces such short-sighted outcomes. Instead, he continues to exemplify the very problem by repeatedly demanding evidence for harm, and assuming safety until such evidence is provided. It's pefectly circular reasoning and is especially dangerous in cases wherein a causative agent is not readily identified or works within a complex, multi-variable system such as nature.
      - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
        At some point is crying 'the sky is falling' to assume everything is dangerous, or that you know where the danger is coming from. I know GMO has a bad rap; but it seems like a reach to blame everything from butterflies to cancer on it.
        unclebucknasty 12y ago
        At some point our hubris in assuming that everything is safe (or believing the claims of those who have a vested interested in stating as much) will come back to haunt us. Again.
- jerven 12y ago
  GMO often changes one thing at a time (i.e. modifies one gene). While the classical approach of breeding plants for desired traits modifies 100s if not 1000s of genes at the same time. GMO is simpler to understand and test for that reason alone. I.e. one change with unit testing or random mutation leading to 100s of changes and only testing in production (where patching happens by spraying lots of chemicals on the plant after...) The second reason is that those large private corporations like to make profits so disable a second gene to make sure the plant can't reproduce by itself. In other words the biggest ecological disaster is rampant spreading of the plant which is a commercial disaster for the corporation as well. Don't assume that the food you eat today is at all natural. It has been transformed in ways you don't expect, e.g. wheat is a 3 genome plant. Those transformations at time had humongous ecological impact.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  One small argument in favor of GMOs is that they actually manage to produce viable organisms. That is, the extra genes already fit into one very complicated system, the plant itself. (I don't think this point settles anything, but a seed that manages to mature has passed a pretty stringent test)

by dkural 12y ago

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).
    - Oletros 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. I'm still trying to find common sense in his or your comments. You don't want GMO because you don't trust big companies even if you don't know what GMOS is used for. That argument is not common sense, is just ignorance and bias. Can both of you just provide ONE scientific reason against GMO, and no, GMOS are not just crops.
- coldtea 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? Yes. You cannot do proper science if you're motivated by profit to rush it to market, to hide bad results, and to not give a fuck about properly investigating long term consequences. That it's based on technology (the technical ability to do something) and not deep scientific understanding of it. >Do you have any scientific argument against genetic manipulation? Did they have many scientific arguments against thalidomide?
  - unclebucknasty 12y ago
    Funny that you mentioned thalidomide. It's one of the first that popped to my mind as well; perhaps because it was not only touted as safe, but it was also specifically promoted to the population in which it would cause the most harm. History is, of course, replete with such examples. Thalidomide was actually a "fortunate" case to some extent, because the degree and the immediacy of the harm done enabled relatively swift acknowledgment of the causative agent. But, your parent seems unable or unwilling to understand how his line of reasoning produces such short-sighted outcomes. Instead, he continues to exemplify the very problem by repeatedly demanding evidence for harm, and assuming safety until such evidence is provided. It's pefectly circular reasoning and is especially dangerous in cases wherein a causative agent is not readily identified or works within a complex, multi-variable system such as nature.
    - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
      At some point is crying 'the sky is falling' to assume everything is dangerous, or that you know where the danger is coming from. I know GMO has a bad rap; but it seems like a reach to blame everything from butterflies to cancer on it.
      - unclebucknasty 12y ago
        At some point our hubris in assuming that everything is safe (or believing the claims of those who have a vested interested in stating as much) will come back to haunt us. Again.
jerven 12y ago
GMO often changes one thing at a time (i.e. modifies one gene). While the classical approach of breeding plants for desired traits modifies 100s if not 1000s of genes at the same time. GMO is simpler to understand and test for that reason alone. I.e. one change with unit testing or random mutation leading to 100s of changes and only testing in production (where patching happens by spraying lots of chemicals on the plant after...) The second reason is that those large private corporations like to make profits so disable a second gene to make sure the plant can't reproduce by itself. In other words the biggest ecological disaster is rampant spreading of the plant which is a commercial disaster for the corporation as well. Don't assume that the food you eat today is at all natural. It has been transformed in ways you don't expect, e.g. wheat is a 3 genome plant. Those transformations at time had humongous ecological impact.
maxerickson 12y ago
One small argument in favor of GMOs is that they actually manage to produce viable organisms. That is, the extra genes already fit into one very complicated system, the plant itself. (I don't think this point settles anything, but a seed that manages to mature has passed a pretty stringent test)