Genetically Modified Foods

[Frisivisia]

Just nuke the sight from orbit.

Thank's to Mr "I don't want an orbiting Death Machine" Kennedy we sadly don't really have that as a practical option.

Star Wars was a completely do-able and useful program.

[Wikkiwallana]

Farms are not natural ecosystems.

Did i say they were? no.

Farms cannot regulate themselves, they do not have an equilibrium. The only way a farm can survive prosperously is if there's a farmer constantly tending to his crop. In reality, if there were no farmer to tend to the farm, then nature will overrun the farm and reassert its dominance over the land.

Then why are you worried that GMOs are going to disrupt them?

[Wikkiwallana]

I see the racist cannibals

What?

are still peddling that stupid argument and i will have to add another to my list of ignore but seeing as i saw it and remembered something from quite awhile ago.

A boy with a nut allergy had a near fatal allergic reaction to a GMO wheat taco wrap because that wheat taco wrap had some of the ingredients genetically modified to include genes from nuts but that information was not placed on the wheat taco wrap plastic nor was it labeled GMO so there was no way to guess that there was any chance of that happening.

Source?

When the term GMO is used it is talking about methods of crossing genes between plants and animals that are normally blocked by natural breeding barriers, GMO is not the crossbreeding your parents did.

Source?

[Wikkiwallana]

Yes, a potato and a shark would never mate in the wild, but giving a potato a gene from a shark is not going to make said potato a blood-thirsty predator. Genes don't work like that.

I just got an idea for a SyFy original movie!

Edit: further replies:

the problem is with the real reason they are being genetically modified and introduced. it comes down to making people in poor countries starve so that rich agrachem giants can get richer.
and if that wasn't bad enough, it is the natural diversity of natural food seedstocks are being threatened, meaning more famine for the poor so the very few that are already fatter then they need to be can get fatter.
it is the patenting of food genetics and the legal insanity that we are seeing as a result.

all of these problems need to be solved equitably before genetically modified food stocks are introduced, and the problem is, in a world controlled by corporate economic interests, they're not even being addressed.
they're not even being allowed to be addressed.
when universities were first developing the concept it was a fine romantic notion, to increase food supplies to keep pace with population growth.
if only that had been what it has turned out to be.
that's still a fine notion. the problem again is with the corporatization and trying to make it all be about little green pieces of paper, instead of people and other living things being able to eat regular.

No, that's stupid. We are using GMOs to feed people who would otherwise be starving, because GMOs can grow more nutritious crops, with greater yields, in harsher conditions. In other words, literally exactly what a bunch of famine racked third world countries with shitty soil quality and/or constant drought need.

its natural selection, meaning its suppose to happen that way.

Nature isn't supposed to do anything. Assuming X species is supposed to survive, Y species is supposed to go extinct, or that Z event is good, just because Man didn't have a hand in any of them, is utterly ridiculous. You are assuming intelligence, planning, and purpose where none exist, or are even possible. It's called the appeal to nature fallacy, and it is the biggest driving force behind opposition to numerous scientific achievements, including GMOs.

[Farnhamia]

Yes, a potato and a shark would never mate in the wild, but giving a potato a gene from a shark is not going to make said potato a blood-thirsty predator. Genes don't work like that.

I just got an idea for a SyFy original movie!

And now we can have Spud Week!

[Alekera]

Did i say they were? no.

Farms cannot regulate themselves, they do not have an equilibrium. The only way a farm can survive prosperously is if there's a farmer constantly tending to his crop. In reality, if there were no farmer to tend to the farm, then nature will overrun the farm and reassert its dominance over the land.

Then why are you worried that GMOs are going to disrupt them?

Because it might possibly be killing/ weakening the pollinators? http://www.sfgate.com/homeandgarden/article/Could-genetically-modified-crops-be-killing-bees-2611496.php

Or stuff like this, where insects and weeds are building up resistance against Round-Up (which is suppose to kill the weeds and insects, but not the GMO crop). Like a bacteria or viruses resistant to penicillin. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/02/us-usa-study-pesticides-idUSBRE89100X20121002

Edit: so after the weeds and insects are immune to Round-Up, the companies and farmers are going to have to resort to even stronger stuff.

[Frisivisia]

I just got an idea for a SyFy original movie!

And now we can have Spud Week!

Summer of the Spud. Loan Spuds.

[Farnhamia]

And now we can have Spud Week!

Summer of the Spud. Loan Spuds.

The Spud Tank!

The San Jose Spuds!

Jumping the spud!

[Wikkiwallana]

Then why are you worried that GMOs are going to disrupt them?

Because it might possibly be killing/ weakening the pollinators? http://www.sfgate.com/homeandgarden/article/Could-genetically-modified-crops-be-killing-bees-2611496.php

No offense, but that article is 6 years old. It's also speaking in pure speculation. Since then, we've investigated it:

However, there are no data in the scientific literature supporting direct or indirect damage to bees caused by currently approved GE crops engineered to make Bt proteins. For example, in 2008 a meta-analysis[141] of 25 independent studies assessing effects of Bt Cry proteins on honeybee survival (mortality) showed that Bt proteins used in commercialized GE crops to control lepidopteran and coleopteran pests do not negatively impact the survival of honeybee larvae or adults. Additionally, larvae consume only a small percent of their protein from pollen, and there is also a lack of geographic correlation between GE crop locations and regions where CCD occurs.[140]

Or stuff like this, where insects and weeds are building up resistance against Round-Up (which is suppose to kill the weeds and insects, but not the GMO crop). Like a bacteria or viruses resistant to penicillin. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/02/us-usa-study-pesticides-idUSBRE89100X20121002

Edit: so after the weeds and insects are immune to Round-Up, the companies and farmers are going to have to resort to even stronger stuff.

That's a problem. However, the solution is the same as the penicillin solution: Stop treating it like a fucking magic bullet. Genetic Modification isn't the problem, it's a palliative to ease the real problem, over-reliance on a single substance.

[Alekera]

Because it might possibly be killing/ weakening the pollinators? http://www.sfgate.com/homeandgarden/article/Could-genetically-modified-crops-be-killing-bees-2611496.php

No offense, but that article is 6 years old. It's also speaking in pure speculation. Since then, we've investigated it:

However, there are no data in the scientific literature supporting direct or indirect damage to bees caused by currently approved GE crops engineered to make Bt proteins. For example, in 2008 a meta-analysis[141] of 25 independent studies assessing effects of Bt Cry proteins on honeybee survival (mortality) showed that Bt proteins used in commercialized GE crops to control lepidopteran and coleopteran pests do not negatively impact the survival of honeybee larvae or adults. Additionally, larvae consume only a small percent of their protein from pollen, and there is also a lack of geographic correlation between GE crop locations and regions where CCD occurs.[140]

Or stuff like this, where insects and weeds are building up resistance against Round-Up (which is suppose to kill the weeds and insects, but not the GMO crop). Like a bacteria or viruses resistant to penicillin. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/02/us-usa-study-pesticides-idUSBRE89100X20121002

Edit: so after the weeds and insects are immune to Round-Up, the companies and farmers are going to have to resort to even stronger stuff.

That's a problem. However, the solution is the same as the penicillin solution: Stop treating it like a fucking magic bullet. Genetic Modification isn't the problem, it's a palliative to ease the real problem, over-reliance on a single substance.

1. Speculation is just another name for a hypothesis, which can then be tested in an experiment. Hopefully soon.

2. So how do we solve this problem that we created?

[Frisivisia]

Summer of the Spud. Loan Spuds.

The Spud Tank!

The San Jose Spuds!

Jumping the spud!

Everything shark is now potato. We really need to stop the over-processing of spud-fin soup.

[Alekera]

The Spud Tank!

The San Jose Spuds!

Jumping the spud!

Everything shark is now potato. We really need to stop the over-processing of spud-fin soup.

Don't you worry about going in the ocean, you're more likely to be bitten by a deer than a spud.

[Nua Corda]

Thank's to Mr "I don't want an orbiting Death Machine" Kennedy we sadly don't really have that as a practical option.

Star Wars was a completely do-able and useful program.

I believe he's referring to Orion.

[The Corparation]

Thank's to Mr "I don't want an orbiting Death Machine" Kennedy we sadly don't really have that as a practical option.

Star Wars was a completely do-able and useful program.

Most of it was. Some of it was a bit out there. Of course if Kennedy hadn't been a pussy it wouldn't of ever have been needed to be made because giant Orbiting Death Machines.

[Avenio]

Yes it is. Let me put it like this: Through years of natural selection and co-evolution organisms in an environment know how to sustain their environment.

Most animals don't 'know' anything. They're de facto automatons.

You know, for someone who's lecturing about how little everyone knows about biology, you're certainly using an awful lot of imprecise and anthropomorphizing language.

Ex: The grass eat up the nutrients from the soil it is on, the grasshopper eats the grass, the rabbit eats the grasshopper, the fox eats the rabbit, the fox excrements the remains of the rabbit, the excrements enrich the soil, and then the cycle repeats....

It's not a cycle because its not a self-contained system - there is 'loss' of energy at every step in the trophic web. To put it into perspective, this is the trophic web for a single bay that was modeled (which was in and of itself a marvel of modelling)

Every dotted line you see demonstrates a 'loss' of a component at some point during the trophic web's functioning.

The circle of life if you will.

Biology does not base theories off of The Lion King.

There's a reason why the folks at the Galapagos islands are so stringent about non-native turtles getting on the islands.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5284150.stm

What does that have to do with anything? We're talking about genetically-modified crops here, not invasive populations of rats on the Galapagos.

[Wikkiwallana]

No offense, but that article is 6 years old. It's also speaking in pure speculation. Since then, we've investigated it:




That's a problem. However, the solution is the same as the penicillin solution: Stop treating it like a fucking magic bullet. Genetic Modification isn't the problem, it's a palliative to ease the real problem, over-reliance on a single substance.

1. Speculation is just another name for a hypothesis, which can then be tested in an experiment. Hopefully soon.

2. So how do we solve this problem that we created?

Are you only capable of reading half of my responses? I addressed both of those points.

[Chinese Regions]

You said 'supposed to be'. Which implies direction, which implies orthogenesis. The Irish elk would, again,



Since Brazilian beekeepers helped breed the defensive behaviour out of the hybrids.



Nature is not an equation.

Yes it is. Let me put it like this: Through years of natural selection and co-evolution organisms in an environment know how to sustain their environment. Ex: The grass eat up the nutrients from the soil it is on, the grasshopper eats the grass, the rabbit eats the grasshopper, the fox eats the rabbit, the fox excrements the remains of the rabbit, the excrements enrich the soil, and then the cycle repeats.... The circle of life if you will. There's a reason why the folks at the Galapagos islands are so stringent about non-native turtles getting on the islands.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5284150.stm

Oh wow? Nature does good, well FYI Nature also does bad; pathogens, illness, birth maybe even humans ourselves which is why we humans have the ability to not only evolve but innovate. To do what nature can't do or do what it can at a faster rate, we built our own flying machines rather than wait for nature to evolve wings for us. We have invented prosthetic body parts instead of waiting for the ability to regrow them to evolve. Genetic Engineering is one of those innovations.

[Distruzio]

In favor.

[The Cosmos]

Genetically modified foods are just when humans speed up evolution. Nature does it by itself, and nobody tests those.

[Fintanland]

Too bad that wasn't grounded in science or logic, unlike mine, which is.

No, it's based in "common sense", that well-loved subsitute for information. I, however, Can Believe It's Not Science.

[Frisivisia]

Star Wars was a completely do-able and useful program.

Most of it was. Some of it was a bit out there. Of course if Kennedy hadn't been a pussy it wouldn't of ever have been needed to be made because giant Orbiting Death Machines.

Who doesn't want orbiting death machines?

[Voken]

what i find shocking is that no one here is marveling at the fact that you can take a gene from a shark and place it in a freaking potato! do we all take it for granted that all life on earth uses a universal code? Life is but the rearrangement of this universal code. How can we say that it is unnatural for a gene to placed in a collection of other genes that more or less happened by accident. what would be unnatural is if various formed of life used different genes or even some other forms of base pairs and then trying to mix and match those. you dont cry when someone takes the letter "t" from "cat" and sticks it in "hat" to form the word "that". its not a perfect metaphor but my point one cant cry how unnatural it is for them to form up how ever they do whether through mutation or engineering.

needless to say im all for GMO and of course we as humans should do this wisely and careful. dont want to almost end the world again http://www.cracked.com/article_18503_how-biotech-company-almost-killed-world-with-booze.html

[Alekera]

Yes it is. Let me put it like this: Through years of natural selection and co-evolution organisms in an environment know how to sustain their environment. Ex: The grass eat up the nutrients from the soil it is on, the grasshopper eats the grass, the rabbit eats the grasshopper, the fox eats the rabbit, the fox excrements the remains of the rabbit, the excrements enrich the soil, and then the cycle repeats.... The circle of life if you will. There's a reason why the folks at the Galapagos islands are so stringent about non-native turtles getting on the islands.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5284150.stm

Oh wow? Nature does good, well FYI Nature also does bad; pathogens, illness, birth maybe even humans ourselves which is why we humans have the ability to not only evolve but innovate. To do what nature can't do or do what it can at a faster rate, we built our own flying machines rather than wait for nature to evolve wings for us. We have invented prosthetic body parts instead of waiting for the ability to regrow them to evolve. Genetic Engineering is one of those innovations.

We also innovated the nuclear bomb, weaponized Ebola and smallpox... So your point is questionable when it comes to our innovations.

If we can genetically engineer anything we want to, should we? Should we not abide by a code of ethics when it comes to rewriting the genetic history of a species? Throughout the history of the Earth, most epidemics and ill fates have been caused by human interactions.

When the Spanish came to the Americas, the native population fell ill to smallpox. http://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/variables/smallpox.html

When the anacondas (which were imported by man and not native to Florida) broke out of their captivity into the everglades, they began overpopulating and killing off many of the animals in the ecosystem. http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-01-30/national/35440220_1_python-invasion-female-python-reptile-keepers

When the zebra mussels hitched a ride on the bottom of a Russian boat heading to the great lakes, what happened to the great lakes? They were soon overrun by the invasive zebra mussels. http://www.glsc.usgs.gov/main.php?content=research_invasive_zebramussel&title=Invasive%20Invertebrates0&menu=research_invasive_invertebrates

The list can go on and on....

To deny that foreign species can become invasive and disrupt an ecosystem, is to deny fact.

[Wikkiwallana]

Oh wow? Nature does good, well FYI Nature also does bad; pathogens, illness, birth maybe even humans ourselves which is why we humans have the ability to not only evolve but innovate. To do what nature can't do or do what it can at a faster rate, we built our own flying machines rather than wait for nature to evolve wings for us. We have invented prosthetic body parts instead of waiting for the ability to regrow them to evolve. Genetic Engineering is one of those innovations.

We also innovated the nuclear bomb, weaponized Ebola

Bullshit. It's possible to do, but so far no one has been crazy and/or desperate enough.

and smallpox... So your point is questionable when it comes to our innovations.

If we can genetically engineer anything we want to, should we? Should we not abide by a code of ethics when it comes to rewriting the genetic history of a species? Throughout the history of the Earth, most epidemics and ill fates have been caused by human interactions.

When the Spanish came to the Americas, the native population fell ill to smallpox. http://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/variables/smallpox.html

When the anacondas (which were imported by man and not native to Florida) broke out of their captivity into the everglades, they began overpopulating and killing off many of the animals in the ecosystem. http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-01-30/national/35440220_1_python-invasion-female-python-reptile-keepers

When the zebra mussels hitched a ride on the bottom of a Russian boat heading to the great lakes, what happened to the great lakes? They were soon overrun by the invasive zebra mussels. http://www.glsc.usgs.gov/main.php?content=research_invasive_zebramussel&title=Invasive%20Invertebrates0&menu=research_invasive_invertebrates

The list can go on and on....

To deny that foreign species can become invasive and disrupt an ecosystem, is to deny fact.

Ok, let's stop growing wheat outside Levant, maize and potatoes outside the Americas, and rice outside southeastern China. The unfathomable starvation will be worth it to make sure we don't disrupt any ecosystems. Because fuck human life, it's the nonsapients that really matter.

[Alekera]

We also innovated the nuclear bomb, weaponized Ebola

Bullshit. It's possible to do, but so far no one has been crazy and/or desperate enough.

and smallpox... So your point is questionable when it comes to our innovations.

If we can genetically engineer anything we want to, should we? Should we not abide by a code of ethics when it comes to rewriting the genetic history of a species? Throughout the history of the Earth, most epidemics and ill fates have been caused by human interactions.

When the Spanish came to the Americas, the native population fell ill to smallpox. http://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/variables/smallpox.html

When the anacondas (which were imported by man and not native to Florida) broke out of their captivity into the everglades, they began overpopulating and killing off many of the animals in the ecosystem. http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-01-30/national/35440220_1_python-invasion-female-python-reptile-keepers

When the zebra mussels hitched a ride on the bottom of a Russian boat heading to the great lakes, what happened to the great lakes? They were soon overrun by the invasive zebra mussels. http://www.glsc.usgs.gov/main.php?content=research_invasive_zebramussel&title=Invasive%20Invertebrates0&menu=research_invasive_invertebrates

The list can go on and on....

To deny that foreign species can become invasive and disrupt an ecosystem, is to deny fact.

Ok, let's stop growing wheat outside Levant, maize and potatoes outside the Americas, and rice outside southeastern China. The unfathomable starvation will be worth it to make sure we don't disrupt any ecosystems. Because fuck human life, it's the nonsapients that really matter.

Do we not occupy the same ecosystems? If we do, I hope we'd be able to protect them.

Edit: btw