|
Post by austkyzor on Dec 6, 2010 10:55:35 GMT -5
oh, everybody trademarks on stupid SHIRT
somebody trademarked hello - facebook is trying to trademark the word face
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Dec 6, 2010 12:28:40 GMT -5
oh, everybody trademarks on stupid SHIRT somebody trademarked hello - facebook is trying to trademark the word face or was it the word book?
|
|
|
Post by austkyzor on Dec 6, 2010 12:30:33 GMT -5
nope, it was face - somebody already trademark'd book
|
|
|
Post by qooqǝɯɐƃ on Dec 6, 2010 15:21:34 GMT -5
I realize it would be tough to cap the population growth but it's what should be done, that's why I said it. I never said I would be the one to do it.
Anyways I haven't looked at anything from greenpeace, what you said doesn't apply. What I've looked at is Jeffrey Smith's work. His book and his presentations. He's cited everything he's said. He's interviewed tons of experts, far more knowledgeable than anyone here. Yet all too often people take your stance, not seeing that the gov'ts first and foremost are protecting the corporations not the people.
I really just wanted to hear your guys' opinions and it seems unanimous... =/
|
|
|
Post by austkyzor on Dec 6, 2010 15:43:31 GMT -5
In THEORY the government's (at least OUR government's) first and foremost thoughts are protecting us.
I've never actually agreed with that sentiment - primarily because my Dad works for the Government Ethics Committee - he knows it's not true.
I've already stated that I agree with you to a certain extent - I agree that there are potentially better options then GMOs - but organic likely isn't one of them - and GMOs are more likely to be improved & cleaned up (so to speak) then one of the better options being developed.
Keep in mind that the worst food-related incidents weren't caused by GMOs
|
|
|
Post by low on Dec 10, 2010 11:11:37 GMT -5
Let's just follow Wikipedia's definition to avoid further confusion I'm not "confused" as to what you mean by genetic engineering, I'm simply making the point that directly manipulating genetic material is merely the newest phase of genetic modification. We've been manipulating genes of various organisms through artificial selection indirectly for a bare minimum of 13,000 years which, too, can have detrimental effects. It just doesn't trigger as much moral outrage. However, despite this definition, there seem to be some varying accounts from that of wikipedia. I googled with domain restriction to assure that my information was coming from university sources (though this particular site is from the National Academy of Sciences, which isn't exactly an actual University) rather than anyone with a website and the first non-PDF to show up says very plainly "Genetic engineering, the targeted manipulation of genetic material, and nontargeted, nontransgenic methods—including chemical mutagenesis and breeding—are components of the entire range of genetic modification methods used to alter the genetic composition of plants, animals, and microorganisms." Also, this isn't the only example of "conflicting accounts." They have scientific proof! You're not even mentioning feeding trials. If you look at them they all show (when done independently of biotech industry) that there are inherent problems with the results of genetic engineering/modification. It is, therefore, reckless for these multinational corporations, anyone for that matter, to suddenly send these completely unnatural foods into the food system before they have been shown to be unsafe. There are a few issues to raise here: "They have scientific proof" of what? First off, they're not all conclusive when done independently of the biotech industry, second, if you're excluding those done by the biotech industry, you should also exclude those done specifically by anti-genetic-engineering NPOs. But the issue as pertains to this debate is where are they? I'm looking for the peer reviewed papers of these feeding trials and they're rather tough to find on university websites and academic journals. Furthermore, what exactly would the conclusions draw from them? If mice get sick from eating genetically engineered soybeans, then the trial would conclude that mice get sick from eating genetically modified soybeans. That trial would have to be repeated to see if the same results occur, then mice would have to eat non-genetically engineered soybeans to see if they get sick and also have that trial repeated (a number of products have a safety risk associated regardless of the method of agriculture). Even when you were done and had affirmative results, your conclusion would be that "mice get sick from genetically engineered soybeans," and still only that particular variety of genetically engineered soybeans. The genes being used is crucially important. Then, there's the date of the information: Have the methods changed? You can't just make a blanket statement that manipulating any gene is unsafe (or that it's safe, either). That's why these products are thoroughly regulated. It seems though that the problem here is really overpopulation. If we need to play Mother Nature and create our own plants then something must be wrong. We're encroaching on the ecosystems of the rest of the species on this planet. If we keep growing in number we will be destroying these habitats and drive many species to endangered numbers or even extinction. If we cap the population and attempt to reduce our numbers we can, like every organism did since life began billions of years ago, live on sustainably-grown and unpolluting foods -- organic food. Well, first there's the naturalistic fallacy, then there's the fact that overpopulation is actually a myth (Population growth is actually declining rapidly, even while population is still increasing. Also, high yield agriculture, whether genetic engineering or not, can produce enough food for the world. The problem of starvation has to do with the markets in which food exists, not with the food supply.) which you could again easily find out by doing a domain-restrictive google search, and, finally, organic food isn't exactly the greatest thing. As I've said before, its yields are only around 40% of non-organic methods. Furthermore, despite not using synthetic pesticides, it uses its own share of pesticides. Also, organic food is often more likely to carry bacteria, viruses, and fungi that can affect people. Furthermore, the label of "organic" by the USDA is not particularly meaningful. If there is to be a new green revolution, I don't imagine it being organic unless by default (vertical/urban farming seems plausible for major cities and could save loads of money--and cut emissions--on transportation).
|
|
|
Post by austkyzor on Dec 10, 2010 12:06:02 GMT -5
If there's any problem with low's citations, I can, very easily, get more peer-reviewed, neutral scientific articles then YOUR BODY HAS ROOM FOR to help his case.
|
|
|
Post by qooqǝɯɐƃ on Dec 27, 2010 3:04:02 GMT -5
Well I've found an excellent source for the case against GM crops. An evaluation of the data on GMOs was published in 2003 by a group of scientists called the Independent Science Panel. Their report is titled The Case For A GM-Free Sustainable World. It's quite long, so here's a summary of their conclusions. I hope you take this source seriously.
|
|
Quinn
Star
[AWD:191c07]
The eye of compromise.
Posts: 580
|
Post by Quinn on Dec 30, 2010 18:31:17 GMT -5
I think this is totally acceptable... As long as the product goes under a strict safety test before consumption.
|
|
|
Post by qooqǝɯɐƃ on Dec 30, 2010 20:02:37 GMT -5
Well maybe, although all the GMOs to date have had real and sometimes quite serious health risks, yet have been OKed by the FDA because of poor regulation... So it's just not so simple. And that doesn't include the potential unpredictable health risks and the fact that some are undetectable in short term testing...
|
|
|
Post by austkyzor on Jan 8, 2011 0:55:49 GMT -5
Unpredictable health risks have no place in this argument. They're called unpredictable for a reason. Organic is just as risky as GMOs in this regard.
|
|
ryan
Moon
Posts: 110
|
Post by ryan on Feb 15, 2011 16:50:18 GMT -5
overpopulation?.........go search overpopulation is a myth.org.....
|
|