so basically markets in a nutshell.
Competitive, non-rational markets, yes.
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.
"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.
"self-above-others way."
That depends on what I use it for.
If I hoarded guns to keep them from the nazis it would be the same thing.
" It's really unfortunate, and I hope to see you shifting back to mature communication."
you are the one falsely calling me a hypocrite. Would I also be a hypocrite for killing nazis?
"I saw some use of logic, reasoning,"
That hasn't changed. I am still the one citing research and explaining how GMO's actually work instead of a childish fear.
"I'm not in the habit of playing chess with pigeons."
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.
"I'm not in the habit of playing chess with pigeons."
then why act as if you had an argument to begin with. I'm not going to bother with your damage control. If you say something make sure you mean it. Otherwise the only reason I can see you posting it is propaganda, in other words so that others think you have substance to your argument and thus believe you.
There was no argument at all until you jumped in simply to start one. This post was me answering questions that @pomperipossa asked based on my personal understandings & observations.. not propaganda, not a claim of any sort of authority. You stepped in and acted as though your personal understandings & observations somehow discredit mine.
"You stepped in and acted as though your personal understandings & observations somehow discredit mine."
thousands of studies > one random opinion on the internet
"(we can't draw direct causation because of all the other potentially hazardous technology being thrown around willy-nilly)"
"but that still makes it bad"
It means that they are one of a few variables that have been added, which together have led to many "bad" things. Since none of those variable are actually open to independent research and are protected by the violence of the state, there is no way to know which are causing harm and which aren't.
' Since none of those variable are actually open to independent research"
wrong
" protected by the violence of the state, there is no way to know which are causing harm and which aren't."
then why call out the one all logic shows literally has less of a chance to harm you than random viruses you encounter in your food everyday.
in fact there have literally been thousands of studies, which in total have been more than a trillion meals.
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/08/with-2000-global-studies-confirming-safety-gm-foods-among-most-analyzed-subject-in-science/
"GMOs as a theoretical science aren't necessarily bad" Nothing is. Its a useless statement. In the context that implies is that the only, or at least majority, of possible use in the future will be "bad".
It implies that the current uses are "bad", but that the science itself is not.
then attack the uses, not the technology with the ability to save millions of lives.
Electricity can kill too if used incorrectly.
"I feel like my response to number 8 covers this one. I would like to point out that food is not a scarce resource as soon as you remove corporations, GMOs, "
also GMOS help produce more food
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)