GMOs as a theoretical science aren't necessarily bad, but when you combine that technology with a profit-based system, and no sense of personal accountability by business owners/executives, you end up with huge amounts of soil destruction, "food" that is mass-produced without any evidence that it doesn't have long-term negative effects, and an acceleration in the degradation of the Earth's ecosystem.
"GMOs as a theoretical science aren't necessarily bad, but when you combine that technology with a profit-based system, and no sense of personal accountability by business owners/executives, you end up with huge amounts of soil destruction,"
so basically markets in a nutshell.
""food" that is mass-produced without any evidence that it doesn't have long-term negative effects, and an acceleration in the degradation of the Earth's ecosystem."
We have been mixing species for thousands of years. The only difference is we are able to do it directly with GMO's. Now we can actually make sure that only one specific gene is within the new crops and not just a mix of the two. I have read many research papers. I see zero evidence that any hard could come from it.
Oh wait do you want me to do a 300 year long study on how having plants in my house could have a negative effect on me? I'm all for it, but I have had plants for a long time and until you show me evidence I really don't care what you have to say on the matter.
We have been mixing species for thousands of years. The only difference is we are able to do it directly with GMO's. Now we can actually make sure that only one specific gene is within the new crops and not just a mix of the two. I have read many research papers. I see zero evidence that any harm could come from it.
The argument that because humans have been practicing selective breeding (picking the "best" phenotypes and crossing plants that are already closely related is the same as GMOs is either being completely intellectually dishonest, or not understanding what the GMOs being created in the current world are. If I pick my two favorite hemp plants, and use one to pollinate the other (even though they're not the same), this is in no way a parallel to taking genes out of a salmon to put in a tomato, or taking genes out of E.Coli to put in corn, soy, etc. to make it "Roundup Ready"
Oh wait do you want me to do a 300 year long study on how having plants in my house could have a negative effect on me? I'm all for it, but I have had plants for a long time and until you show me evidence I really don't care what you have to say on the matter.
You're using logical fallacies to try to ignore the fact that current GMOs are created, tested for less than a decade (on the small scale, with huge biases), and then mass-produced and sold to consumers without their knowledge or consent.
the goal of the market leaders is to make a profit. It doesn't matter how "rational" somebody thinks you are when you sell enough oil to escape from any effects of climate change yourself.
"The argument that because humans have been practicing selective breeding (picking the "best" phenotypes and crossing plants that are already closely related is the same as GMOs is either being completely intellectually dishonest, or not understanding what the GMOs being created in the current world are."
Gmo is simply taking a single gene and putting into a plant. Smashing the genes of plants together on the other hand is way more likely to have side-effects. I would say selective breeding is worse. A large portion of your dna is already made out of viruses, do you really think a single gene in something you eat after being researched for 12-16 months will have any major side effects after the fact? Remember, either way you break down its dna when it enters your body. You are the one with no understanding of GMOs
the goal of the market leaders is to make a profit. It doesn't matter how "rational" somebody thinks you are when you sell enough oil to escape from any effects of climate change yourself.
This is also really funny to hear from someone who is upvoted each of his own comments for more than $.50, without upvoting the rest of the comments, or even the original posts themselves. Hypocrite much?
Gmo is simply taking a single gene and putting into a plant. Smashing the genes of plants together on the other hand is way more likely to have side-effects. I would say selective breeding is worse. A large portion of your dna is already made out of viruses, do you really think a single gene in something you eat after being researched for 12-16 months will have any major side effects after the fact? Remember, either way you break down its dna when it enters your body. You are the one with no understanding of GMOs
Considering 1000s of years of selective breeding without any major side-effects, vs 3 decades of GMOs with huge increases in autism, digestive issues, cancer, and more (we can't draw direct causation because of all the other potentially hazardous technology being thrown around willy-nilly), as well as soil destruction (clear & direct causation from the pesticides & herbicides these GMOs are created to withstand)... I'll definitely take my chances with nature's process over Monsanto's or DuPont's.
"This is also really funny to hear from someone who is upvoted each of his own comments for more than $.50, without upvoting the rest of the comments, or even the original posts themselves. Hypocrite much?"
half of my power is delegated to steemstem. I also follow my upvotes with my main account. I have decided to upvote myself because I believe I can put it to better use, stupid much?
half of my power is delegated to steemstem. I also follow my upvotes with my main account. I have decided to upvote myself because I believe I can put it to better use, stupid much?
My point is simply that you're arguing against profit-motives and competitive markets, while using your SteemPower (capital) to upvote yourself (profit), and not others, in a competitive & self-above-others way.
You know, when I first saw you pop on the scene last year, I followed you and was up-voting you because I saw some use of logic, reasoning, and actual dialogue. Somewhere along the way you switched to ad hominems, personal attacks, and childish communication. It's really unfortunate, and I hope to see you shifting back to mature communication.
"Considering 1000s of years of selective breeding without any major side-effects, vs 3 decades of GMOs with huge increases in autism'
great evidence, but its fucking stupid. Autism hasn't increased, we have better tools to detect and understand it. What was called apsergers syndrome, for example, was only detected in half the people because the most common symptoms of it noticed actually only come out when paired with another mental syndrome that happens in about half of them.
So, wrong and delusional.
"huge increases in autism, digestive issues, cancer, and more"
correlation does not equal causation. The amount of technology in school increased during that time, it must be the source of my cancer.
"Considering 1000s of years of selective breeding without any major side-effects,"
Guess what? You can talk about it after the fact but what would you have said to the first person doing cross-breeding? It saved millions of lives, but you would still be against it wouldn't you.
"as well as soil destruction (clear & direct causation from the pesticides & herbicides these GMOs are created to withstand).."
that's a use of GMO, not the technology itself. Nuclear power could save us from climate change. But it was used in bombs, looks like africa gets to die, oh well.
"'ll definitely take my chances with nature's process over Monsanto's or DuPont's."
GMOs as a theoretical science aren't necessarily bad
You:
correlation does not equal causation.
Me (in the comment you're responding to):
(we can't draw direct causation because of all the other potentially hazardous technology being thrown around willy-nilly)
You're simply being argumentative & combative for the sake of it, and while I'm grateful for all the activity you've given my post, which will most likely get more people to read it, I'm not in the habit of playing chess with pigeons.
The thing is, the majority of genes do a specific single thing. More research on that gene can confirm that yes, it does create that specific protein chain. Then we research the effect of the protein chain either through direct observation or through measuring the effects on the life.
In fact every single plant we grow is attacked by viruses. Many of these virsus inject the wrong dna, sometimes the dna of other lifeforms. You are a million times more likely to die from this than anything a single researched gene will do.
It doesn't matter where it came from if we know what it does. Being scared of it is like being scared of dihydrogen monixide (That's water if you didn't know)
the thing is, we specifically choose which genes to put into the plants. We study exactly what it does, and what any possible affects are in the plant. When you eat something you break up the dna so as long as it doesn't create toxins it really doesn't matter what it does.
about 8% of human dna is from viruses, many of that is from random plants, animals, or bacteria.
GMOs as a theoretical science aren't necessarily bad, but when you combine that technology with a profit-based system, and no sense of personal accountability by business owners/executives, you end up with huge amounts of soil destruction, "food" that is mass-produced without any evidence that it doesn't have long-term negative effects, and an acceleration in the degradation of the Earth's ecosystem.
"GMOs as a theoretical science aren't necessarily bad, but when you combine that technology with a profit-based system, and no sense of personal accountability by business owners/executives, you end up with huge amounts of soil destruction,"
so basically markets in a nutshell.
""food" that is mass-produced without any evidence that it doesn't have long-term negative effects, and an acceleration in the degradation of the Earth's ecosystem."
We have been mixing species for thousands of years. The only difference is we are able to do it directly with GMO's. Now we can actually make sure that only one specific gene is within the new crops and not just a mix of the two. I have read many research papers. I see zero evidence that any hard could come from it.
Oh wait do you want me to do a 300 year long study on how having plants in my house could have a negative effect on me? I'm all for it, but I have had plants for a long time and until you show me evidence I really don't care what you have to say on the matter.
Competitive, non-rational markets, yes.
The argument that because humans have been practicing selective breeding (picking the "best" phenotypes and crossing plants that are already closely related is the same as GMOs is either being completely intellectually dishonest, or not understanding what the GMOs being created in the current world are. If I pick my two favorite hemp plants, and use one to pollinate the other (even though they're not the same), this is in no way a parallel to taking genes out of a salmon to put in a tomato, or taking genes out of E.Coli to put in corn, soy, etc. to make it "Roundup Ready"
You're using logical fallacies to try to ignore the fact that current GMOs are created, tested for less than a decade (on the small scale, with huge biases), and then mass-produced and sold to consumers without their knowledge or consent.
"Competitive, non-rational markets, yes."
the goal of the market leaders is to make a profit. It doesn't matter how "rational" somebody thinks you are when you sell enough oil to escape from any effects of climate change yourself.
"The argument that because humans have been practicing selective breeding (picking the "best" phenotypes and crossing plants that are already closely related is the same as GMOs is either being completely intellectually dishonest, or not understanding what the GMOs being created in the current world are."
Gmo is simply taking a single gene and putting into a plant. Smashing the genes of plants together on the other hand is way more likely to have side-effects. I would say selective breeding is worse. A large portion of your dna is already made out of viruses, do you really think a single gene in something you eat after being researched for 12-16 months will have any major side effects after the fact? Remember, either way you break down its dna when it enters your body. You are the one with no understanding of GMOs
This is also really funny to hear from someone who is upvoted each of his own comments for more than $.50, without upvoting the rest of the comments, or even the original posts themselves. Hypocrite much?
Considering 1000s of years of selective breeding without any major side-effects, vs 3 decades of GMOs with huge increases in autism, digestive issues, cancer, and more (we can't draw direct causation because of all the other potentially hazardous technology being thrown around willy-nilly), as well as soil destruction (clear & direct causation from the pesticides & herbicides these GMOs are created to withstand)... I'll definitely take my chances with nature's process over Monsanto's or DuPont's.
"This is also really funny to hear from someone who is upvoted each of his own comments for more than $.50, without upvoting the rest of the comments, or even the original posts themselves. Hypocrite much?"
half of my power is delegated to steemstem. I also follow my upvotes with my main account. I have decided to upvote myself because I believe I can put it to better use, stupid much?
My point is simply that you're arguing against profit-motives and competitive markets, while using your SteemPower (capital) to upvote yourself (profit), and not others, in a competitive & self-above-others way.
You know, when I first saw you pop on the scene last year, I followed you and was up-voting you because I saw some use of logic, reasoning, and actual dialogue. Somewhere along the way you switched to ad hominems, personal attacks, and childish communication. It's really unfortunate, and I hope to see you shifting back to mature communication.
"Considering 1000s of years of selective breeding without any major side-effects, vs 3 decades of GMOs with huge increases in autism'
great evidence, but its fucking stupid. Autism hasn't increased, we have better tools to detect and understand it. What was called apsergers syndrome, for example, was only detected in half the people because the most common symptoms of it noticed actually only come out when paired with another mental syndrome that happens in about half of them.
So, wrong and delusional.
"huge increases in autism, digestive issues, cancer, and more"
correlation does not equal causation. The amount of technology in school increased during that time, it must be the source of my cancer.
"Considering 1000s of years of selective breeding without any major side-effects,"
Guess what? You can talk about it after the fact but what would you have said to the first person doing cross-breeding? It saved millions of lives, but you would still be against it wouldn't you.
"as well as soil destruction (clear & direct causation from the pesticides & herbicides these GMOs are created to withstand).."
that's a use of GMO, not the technology itself. Nuclear power could save us from climate change. But it was used in bombs, looks like africa gets to die, oh well.
"'ll definitely take my chances with nature's process over Monsanto's or DuPont's."
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2016/11/cdc-study-attempts-to-assess-outbreak-risk-from-organic-food/#.WaB043Xys8o
Looks like many types of organic food have been proven to be more dangerous to consume and look, unlike you, I have evidence to back up my statement.
You:
Me (many comments before):
You:
Me (in the comment you're responding to):
You're simply being argumentative & combative for the sake of it, and while I'm grateful for all the activity you've given my post, which will most likely get more people to read it, I'm not in the habit of playing chess with pigeons.
The thing is, the majority of genes do a specific single thing. More research on that gene can confirm that yes, it does create that specific protein chain. Then we research the effect of the protein chain either through direct observation or through measuring the effects on the life.
In fact every single plant we grow is attacked by viruses. Many of these virsus inject the wrong dna, sometimes the dna of other lifeforms. You are a million times more likely to die from this than anything a single researched gene will do.
It doesn't matter where it came from if we know what it does. Being scared of it is like being scared of dihydrogen monixide (That's water if you didn't know)
GMO's aren't bad? "We have been mixing species for thousands of years?"
I have no problem with hybrids (mixing within a species), but I have a huge problem mixing insect DNA with plant DNA as just one example.
You have no problem with genetic engineering of food?
the thing is, we specifically choose which genes to put into the plants. We study exactly what it does, and what any possible affects are in the plant. When you eat something you break up the dna so as long as it doesn't create toxins it really doesn't matter what it does.
about 8% of human dna is from viruses, many of that is from random plants, animals, or bacteria.