Something relevant The Psychology of Distrusting GMOs
Bigotry is abound, apprently, within these boards. There is a level of supposed tolerance I will have no part of. Obviously, it seems to be well-embraced here. I have finally found something more fucked up than what I'm used to. Congrats. - Ruby
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Show posts MenuQuote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 31, 2013, 10:24:16 PMQuote from: Kai on October 31, 2013, 10:22:54 PMQuote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 31, 2013, 09:57:45 PMQuote from: Demolition Squid on October 31, 2013, 09:56:20 PM
Whoa. What happened?
Back then? Coyotes. Certainly wasn't me.
Ian caved the driver's side door in.
Keelin more or less wrecked the front axle.
The huge dent in the roof is still there, but that wasn't my fault.
Like Father, like children. Blood of your blood, for sure.
They are careless and they are bad people. I had accidents. THEY are willfully reckless.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 31, 2013, 09:57:45 PMQuote from: Demolition Squid on October 31, 2013, 09:56:20 PM
Whoa. What happened?
Back then? Coyotes. Certainly wasn't me.
Ian caved the driver's side door in.
Keelin more or less wrecked the front axle.
The huge dent in the roof is still there, but that wasn't my fault.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 31, 2013, 02:49:12 AMQuote from: Kai on October 31, 2013, 12:49:39 AM
Thought: maybe what we need is some old fashioned free market. Monsanto has a virtual monopoly right now. But what happens when these first gen lines go out of style and other companies step in to compete? On one hand we'll have even more GMOs on the market. On the other hand, Monsanto won't be able to hold court anymore.
What's stopping others from entering the market?
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 31, 2013, 02:52:29 AMQuote from: Kai on October 31, 2013, 02:12:08 AMQuote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 31, 2013, 12:56:00 AM
The history of cultivars is one of those "dull until you spend three days researching it on wikipedia and suddenly best thing ever" things. I was always confused why the wax fruit in my grandparents' basement had these weird looking bananas until I found out that cultivar ("Big Mikes") got wiped out in the 50s and has been replaced with the ones you see now (Cavendishes). Also, oranges. The whole thing.
I, personally, am fascinated by potatoes. There are hundreds of cultivars in South America, all suited for different conditions. What do we get up here? Pretty much just Russett Burbank. THANKS MCDONALD'S!
Over four THOUSAND registered edible cultivars at the International Potato Center in Lima!
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 31, 2013, 12:56:00 AM
The history of cultivars is one of those "dull until you spend three days researching it on wikipedia and suddenly best thing ever" things. I was always confused why the wax fruit in my grandparents' basement had these weird looking bananas until I found out that cultivar ("Big Mikes") got wiped out in the 50s and has been replaced with the ones you see now (Cavendishes). Also, oranges. The whole thing.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 31, 2013, 12:43:40 AMQuote from: Kai on October 31, 2013, 12:41:37 AM
Well, you can try to sell it, but if people won't eat it, the idea is kind of moot.
Another entirely separate issue to food security that I would love to talk about is the rapid loss of cultivars in pretty much every kind of crop.
That is incredibly distressing, and oddly we just don't seem to learn from the various blights and famines that it's a bad idea to lose diversity.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 31, 2013, 12:30:06 AMQuote from: Kai on October 31, 2013, 12:11:17 AMQuote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 31, 2013, 12:08:48 AMQuote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 31, 2013, 12:06:13 AM
I'm not saying it's not potentially useful, just that it will be of dubious benefit on its own.
My problem with a lot of GMO food is that it puts more of the control over food into the hands of the people who are largely to blame for much of the situation.
My other problem is with single-generation seeds. There's a horror story in there. We've had 3 dark ages, and we have never lost the knowledge gained from the agricultural revolution. Making seeds that don't make more seeds makes that hideous possibility more likely in the next dark ages. And there will be a next dark ages, sooner or later.
That has nothing to do with GMOs though. Pretty much every crop plant is a sterile hybrid now.
Do you have a citation for this? Because my understanding is that while some are sterile hybrids, most are fertile hybrids that will revert.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 31, 2013, 12:11:51 AMQuote from: Kai on October 31, 2013, 12:08:40 AM
Let's put it this way. Pests: The heart of the problem is that pests are eating the plants. You can kill the pests with broad spectrum insecticides, which is a hugely harmful process. Or you can insert a gene which kills a much more limited number, which is still not the best solution. The best solution is to make it so the insects don't even recognize the plants as tasty, so they get left alone.
We already know pesticides are a losing strategy. We should be, as you say, taking an entirely different approach, like sacrificial plants that attract insects away from the plants we want. Making that plant LESS resistant to pests and MORE attractive. That way you don't lose the crop and you don't lose the bugs.
Or something. When you approach A doesn't work, you don't do it MORE, you walk around to the other side of the problem and attempt approach B.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 31, 2013, 12:08:48 AMQuote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 31, 2013, 12:06:13 AM
I'm not saying it's not potentially useful, just that it will be of dubious benefit on its own.
My problem with a lot of GMO food is that it puts more of the control over food into the hands of the people who are largely to blame for much of the situation.
My other problem is with single-generation seeds. There's a horror story in there. We've had 3 dark ages, and we have never lost the knowledge gained from the agricultural revolution. Making seeds that don't make more seeds makes that hideous possibility more likely in the next dark ages. And there will be a next dark ages, sooner or later.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 30, 2013, 11:48:58 PMQuote from: Kai on October 30, 2013, 11:46:03 PMQuote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 30, 2013, 11:42:12 PMQuote from: Kai on October 30, 2013, 11:37:09 PMQuote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 30, 2013, 11:33:35 PMQuote from: Kai on October 30, 2013, 11:26:06 PM
And since the patent holders are going to give it out freely, it's like the Polio vaccine all over again.
False equivalence.
You're going to have to elaborate.
Polio vaccination does not spread from the person vaccinated. Plants introduced into an environment can.
While I am reluctantly on board with golden rice, that is because the situation calling for it is DIRE, and the regular plant life in the target regions (ie, equatorial Africa, etc) is already more or less gone.
But just deciding that there can't be unintended consequences in the biological sciences because you WANT a particular result is no fucking different than the Luddites denying any science that disagrees with their values and/or religious beliefs. IT ISN'T SCIENCE.
Did I fucking say that? NO, I DIDN'T FUCKING SAY THAT. In fact, I admitted that Bt crops and Roundup Ready crops were a shitty solution.
But you are comparing plant and insect life with things that do not reproduce. Like computers and vaccines.
This situation's risks have more in common with jackrabbits in Australia. Once you let 'em into the wild, the situation is more or less out of your control. You can live with the results, or you can go find a spider to swallow to catch the fly.