View Full Version : GM is dangerous but how right are the Greens?
:scream: GM technology is dangerous :scream:
(if only coz you don't want Biotech's owning the earth ;). But potentially, there are a whole load more problems in store)
THIS REALLY NEEDS DEBATING
(in fact it is being debated, to an extent, in Britain right now. I could tell you many a thing if you're interested...but let's start with....)
The Economics...
The investigation into the economics of GM saw a bleak future for it. Mainly because most consumers don't want it in Britain (and add most of the EU and many many other lands to that trend, I suspect) This is a trend that i'm convinced MUST continue (you might have guessed i am very very anti Genetic Engineering ;))
Now for the science and its appliance:
The science review ("relevant to GM crops and food
based on the interests and concerns of the public"), published the other day, gave cause for jubilation and dismay to all sides. Here are some important asides...
quick summary:
-it found GM to have only a low risk to health/environment etc(but we need to talk about their sources;)) [and more importantly it condones GM's continued use in the general environment, despite noting the dangers of this practice]
-One scientist dropped out, for fear of losing his funding from a biotech company (so there must have been some real "independence" going on at least ;))
The Guardian newspaper says...
"The tenor of the report was far more cautious than expected and emphasised the need to protect the consumer and the countryside, and to promote more studies to avoid undesirable side-effects of GM technology.
Although the report said throughout that there were no known health effects from the introduction of GM foods, it was equally impossible to say they were completely safe. Allergies were a potential problem.
Perhaps the most damning conclusion from the government's point of view was that it would be impossible to grow some GM crops without cross-contamination of organic and conventional fields of the same species."
but also that...
"Sir David said the panel had reviewed 600 papers on GM crops and concluded that there was no case for ruling out genetic modification either in food or for growing in Britain, but nor should there be blanket approval.
The panel had identified four areas where further work was needed: food allergies; possible changes in soil ecology because of GM organisms; farmland biodiversity from the introduction of herbicide-tolerant crops; and consequences of gene flow between species.
"The public has correctly defined that there is currently no benefit, and potentially some unknown risks, in genetic modification, so proper labelling is vital so consumers can make informed choices," Sir David said."
What pisses me off....
There are some "known" risks (or at least physical actualities -it seems- and theorhetical risks acknoweldged in the above statement. You can find more on the damn fine scientists' website at the bottom of all my posts - www.i-sis.org.) Noteably the idea of "gene flow" between species. It's bad enough to start taking a gene from one organism and transferring it to another (without really understanding its full implications in its ORIGINAL environment! Let alone how it will react over time in another organism entirely! This is something traditional genetic-change via breeding could never acheive. And thank God! Pitbulls with crabs claws? A crab that pisses fur more likely - but they're both frightening exaggerations of what could happen. The second is far more likely to my mind - i.e. unexpected problems/unintended effects).
When you consider that these modern "grafts" are not only known to move amongst similar organisms, they can also "detach" and then re"attach" as they were designed to orignally, you should start to get a bit worried really, i reckon. You can get some very very "unnatural" ,and more importantly unintended, uncontrollable and untested combinations. (NB the possibility that SARS was formed in this way - NB also that GE is v.v.v.v. popular in China ;) EDIT: actually they've changed their tune now and have gone for labelling and GM free zones etc. In 2000 they and South Africe had 75% of the world's GM crops tho. Good on 'em for getting cautious at least)
Glad as i am to hear of this cautious approach, with things like genetic engineering (GE) we actually need to be super-humanly cautious and patient about how we develop and release them (and if i had my way - that would be a good 20 odd years of completely isolated tests, where those that believe GM is safe can put their mouth where their money is (in many cases), and live off/surrounded by that damn stuff)
Basically, accidental arrogance in scientific thought is one massive problem IMO. Especially when they try to fix a previous fix's flaw with an equally flawed quick-fix. This is a fundamental problem in "industrialised" societies, and we dump the downsides on our other-wordly neighbours on a regular basis too.
Greed amongst industries and market-players hypnotised by the "new" profits tucked up in new technologies (everything that's new is good, have'nt y'heard y'all ;)) is also a huge problem (and brings a whole set of advertising machines, lobbying groups and bullying tactics into play too - not a good thing when trying to objectively assess something's potential problems)
Here's how the review defines (for laymen like you and me) what scientific investigation is:
"No single peer-reviewed paper should be believed uncritically, and if a paper makes a surprising claim or a substantial advance, it becomes an obvious candidate for further scientific investigation. The aim of this whole system, which has grown up over more than three hundred
years, is that knowledge should continually be challenged, refined and improved, through a developmental process based on appropriate evidence, valid inference and the work of a large and
open scientific community."
So says Prof Sir David King, of the popularist Popperism that is good science as i see it (when balanced by a healthy amount of intuitive, respectful, and holistic approaches that is. Otherwise it can still go barmy, and potentially ballistic ;))
That's the theory. Now how about the practice....
-There has only been ONE (peer-reviewed, large enough) investigation into possible negative effects of GM food. It found "growth-like" factors (i believe they're called, no idea what they are ;)) in the stomachs of mice which had been fed on GM potato. It was independent. Why hasn't this "surprising claim" been followed up? Because it was rubbished by (demonstrably - for the most part) industry-funded/pro-GM scientists. It was however published in a very respected journal having been reviewed by six (hard-core) peers before these slights. And they are all of the typical bull****ting-about-methodological-mistakes style slurs. This is such a practical way of rubbishing unpopular investigations.
-The industries don't write up their failures. They compensate the farmer, but also slap a "gagging" order on him i.e. not discussing the failures etc. They certainly don't seem to be actively investigating possible side-effects [which is THE most deceptive, rhetoric-rimmed bit of slime-wine ever swilled out of a supposedly logical mouth. They aren't "SIDE" affects. They are all the other effects WE DON'T WANT and WE CAN'T CONTROL. But "DontwantCantcontrol" effects don't sound so snappy. Erm. "Dwacaco" effects maybe? Hmm, needs some work...Oh wait. "undesired" effects. That'll do for now ;)]
-There is evidence that "markers" used to show a crop is GM etc have been found in the human gut. Even the Food and Safety Authority (or whatever they're called - the FSA) argues industries side, and not caution, despite their supposed position as a regulator. They say it's only found at the top of the gut and so therefore has got absorbed/dealt with further down. The I-SIS scientists disagree, and also point out that NO ONE HAS CHECKED for absorption by the near-by blood-vessels and countless other near-un-noticable possibilites (and that's not even thinking about the absolutely un-perceivable ones of course. Yoda, if you read this, we need a "shudder" pacman thing)
-Current scientific practices til now amongst industry proponents of this outrageously un-understood meddling have been sooooo far from the ideals of good science that in no way should their assessments be considered as such until they improve.
-And as for their pseudo-scientific pronouncements and influence amongst legislaters....just look at "Substantial Equivalence" . THE most deceptive non-scientific term ever to apply for the job. (if it becomes legitamised it'd get close to "side-effects" for sure ;))
The science review says...
"For many years now, the concept of ‘substantial equivalence’ has been a prominent feature of established international approaches to the regulation of GM technologies (CEC, 2003). It is not a safety assessment in itself but a way of structuring the comparison of a novel food with its conventional counterpart to identify any differences that then become the focus of the safety assessment. It recognises the fact that for most conventional foods, acceptable safety is established by their history of consumption rather than by formal risk assessment."
What I say about "substantial equivalence" ;)....
That's about as nicely as it can be put. What it actually entails is....
Can we see any (problematic) differences between the new plant and the original. The answer = no. The reason = they don't LOOK very hard, and WE HAVEN'T ACHIEVED GODHEAD THRU SCIENCE just yet, so we can't in fact decide how important the changes are and what their likely repurcussions are. We can't even decide how "substantial" the change has to be to make a difference!
As far as i'm concerned ANY change like this is highly foolish - and even more so when aiming at pointless WISH-FULFILMENT We SHOULD NOT be doing this, especially not so recklessly. We aren't ready to be "bettering" the slow tried-and-tested realities of "nature". If you change something in an intensely compressed rush, the downsides are liable come on just as fast, and to pack a real punch. We may not even know it's hit us, but after we've reeled a bit, and made a fuss, I'm sure some new technology will arrive to make sure we survive it in style ;). "It" is the proverbial ****. The layman doesn't need probability theory to know how some things go down. We have to rein in these clowns!
This is the most pitiful excuse for a safety guideline ever! I happen to know that a plant (unintentionally) stripped of all its colour was passed for use in a test around 3 or 4 years ago in britain. Now there, you have a blatent, fundamental, "substantial" change. With who-knows how many unforeseen and unseen alterations and implications. They don't care. It contained the (stupidly contagious) resistance to a certain patented pesticide, so off it went, out into the world.
Okay. I say enough for now me thinks.
Let's finish with a lovely little equation (from the science's favourite pet project - probability. Mapping every future possible wave-form. Oh to be so all-knowing as they are ;))
Risk = f (hazard, exposure)
So, it's not really a risky hazard until we're all exposed to it?! Great! GM's safe! Or at least it is in europe! Ours hasn't been fully released yet ;)
www.i-sis.org - very scientific (set up to counter bad-science in industry)
www.soilassociation.org - very earthy (promoting "organic" since '46)
www.theecologist.co.uk - very ecological (total greenies, but i love 'em)
:scream: GM technology is dangerous :scream:
Some dangers of Genetically Modified Organisms:
-we know that altered genes can move "horizontally" i.e. between similar species - so once released there's no way to protect the pure tried-and-tested organisms which have developted over the millenia.
-the "fluid genome" theory suggests that these artificial "grafts" (my term) can seperate from their original "host" (again) and re-attach to totally different and unintended targets. Hence these techniques are highly unstable and not under our control.
There is a possibility that SARS was formed in this way!
-taking one gene from one organism and applying it to another is unlike anything we've tried during normal breeding selection (i.e. you shouldn't put squid genes into plants etc etc) The (vaguely) known benefits are almost certainly out-weighed by all the unforseen "undesired " effects.
These are three reasons why we need to test these things, in isolation, far more before releasing them into the food chain (where they already are, across the board in america and canada etc, and in the animal feed in europe as well [i.e. the crops not fit for human consumption etc ;)])
WHO THINKS THERE'S NO PROBLEM WITH GENETIC MODIFICATION? Come tell me why!
Golgot: you are incredible, you definatley have typing die in the rear. :laugh:
Golgot: you are incredible, you definatley have typing die in the rear. :laugh:
Heheheh. I'm definitely spraying. But keeping it colourful i hope ;)
RANT POINT: Some scientists can be so blinkered as to call un-understood DNA "Junk " DNA! Now we know it does stuff - isn't it time they admitted other stuff they manipulate almost certainly has further uses too? So shouldn't we cut back on the pointless manipulations until we know more???
r3port3r66
07-27-03, 01:56 PM
Here's the thing Golgot; I can't really debate you here. What you have written, if one can read between the lines, is wholly true. There are foods in our marketplace (US) right now that have been altered genetically. These items are consumed en masse because they are less expensive than the "name brands". For instance, a supermarket chain often carries their own brand of canned corn, and sells it for much less than the can next to it which costs 50 cents more. The store brand corn is cheaper because it is massed produced and genetically altered, Yet our government does not legally have to tell the public that what they are buying is genetically compromised. Just remember this dear reader, if you buy the store brand, and soon after eating it you experience cramping or queasyness, it's because your body has been introduced to a foriegn material one that is not natural. That's why organic foods have become so popular lately. Nobody's sure of what they're eating.
But, I have a question for you my friend Gg: why does the prospect of producing these cross-bred food items scare you so much?
Beale the Rippe
07-27-03, 02:37 PM
:scream:
The store brand corn is cheaper because it is massed produced and genetically altered, Yet our government does not legally have to tell the public that what they are buying is genetically compromised.
Yeah, we have several problems here. Both intensive farming and GM foods can have serious "undesired" effects on consumers health (not to mention farmers, concerning contact with Pesticides/Herbicides specifically etc). The ironic thing is, that GM receives preferential funding and treatment from governments like US and Britain, despite claiming to be a superior product which is better than "intensive" and organic alternatives.
Even more damning, they're having to use more and more herbi/pesticides again on certain GM crops that were supposed to reduce their use (NB - they also have to be used with some patented treatments/chemicals proven to be carcenogenic ). So they're as bad as "intensively" farmed crops on that level again, in most cases. [NB that organic farming has had the occasional hiccup on the health front, but nothing in comparison]
GM claims to be full of advances/advantages, more economical, safe, and superior. Non of these things seem to be true so far. And as their stock starts to drop, the US government (or rather the US tax-payer) has recently paid for a world-meeting designed to encourage investment/acceptance of the biotech products of the likes of Monsanto etc.
The government doesn't have to put labels on coz of the WTO (and other) rulings concerning scientific safety (which are ridiculous) i.e. even in the case of "novel" products, until they have been PROVEN to have a problem, there is no problem - yet it is also accepted that the only way to prove this is to eat the product for generations. Tricky eh? We get used as guinea pigs, while the industry gets the benefits which (apparently!) accompany GM (and frequently not the farmer, or so it seems in the majority of test cases which have been disclosed - which is amazing considering the industry tries to muzzle failures etc)
Just remember this dear reader, if you buy the store brand, and soon after eating it you experience cramping or queasyness, it's because your body has been introduced to a foriegn material one that is not [I]natural.
We can't tell what the full range of effects might be of "novel" products. Everything from allergies (which have risen dramatically in the last decade in america i understand - and i don't think that's just increased-awareness/over-reporting. Check it out r3, there are some alarming stats about i believe)
...to new super-viruses/bacteria (SARS??) are possible....Which leads me on to...
But, I have a question for you my friend Gg: why does the prospect of producing these cross-bred food items scare you so much?
I'll quote the final "What we don;t know section" of a very balanced New Scientist article: "Whether gene transfer will produce superweeds and superbugs that devestate the environment. This depends so much on individual genes that case-by-case studies will have to be done"
Now i don't believe "DNA" is the fundamental be-all-and-end-all blueprint for "life" - but i do believe it is very involved in the process. It is also a lot more complex than some of the scientists currently playing with it care to admit (which is why i'd like the techniques/processes involved in transgenics to be evaluated too - i.e. whether it's wise to move genes between very different, or even similar, organisms) They run away when they say "oh well we can't predict the bad outcomes, but we can predict this good outcome" - and they frequently get THAT wrong too. So i'm afraid of human error, scientific arrogance, and industry trying to paint in the blueskies.
Here are some things that are becoming apparent:
1 ) The fact that "junk" DNA ("Introns", or something similar, i believe) have now been shown to have active "transposons", that may aid the creation of other proteins etc from the DNA, other than the expected/known ones etc. Previously they were thought to be, well, junk.
2 ) The "jumping" gene theory (and "fluid" gene theory - i think they're the same ;)) put forward reasons to believe viruses that have become absorbed/vital to our gene-system can transfer/modulate the gene set up more rapidly than we first realised (at least, that's how i currently understand it ;))
3 ) "Horizontal" transfer means tried and tested natural plants will combine easily with the altered varieties .i.e. we cannot protect the natural plants from this alteration, and we cannot control, contain or even accurately predict these activities.
4 ) transgenically altered gene-grafts can detach and then re-attach to new un-expected genes etc (hence the scariness of the semi-familiar DNA of the corona-virus connected with the SARS outbreak)
There are so many processes waiting to be understood and discovered that i can't believe what we're doing now isn't ham-fisted and liable to be incredibly naive. Add to that that changes we make are probably irreversible, and this all looks very suspect, potentially dangerous, and very unnescessary.
I'll stop now, but there are more reasons, and more many more details. I'm off to check out the allergy stats again ;)
Caitlyn
07-27-03, 03:09 PM
:scream:
Ditto.... :laugh:
r3port3r66
07-27-03, 03:18 PM
Wait, wait. Are you guys confusing the scream smilie ( :scream: ) with the yawn ( :yawn: ) smilie ? ;)
Sexy Celebrity
07-27-03, 03:26 PM
Pitbulls with crabs claws? A crab that pisses fur more likely
A crab that pisses fur?! Where can I buy that? I'll make it drink a lot until I've made everyone some coats.
Wait, wait. Are you guys confusing the scream smilie ( :scream: ) with the yawn ( :yawn: ) smilie ? ;)
:furiousdevil:
Oh, wait, i wanted the nonchalently-pretend-not-to-notice smilie
;)
Altho Beale will get struck down by the industry's voodoo spells (not mine, honest) for voting "don't care". Don't go in to Taco Bell oh doubting-Beale! They had animal-feed in their Tacos that was designated not fit for human consumption (which is in itself a stupid concept, as we eat the animals, but heigh ho)
A crab that pisses fur?! Where can I buy that? I'll make it drink a lot until I've made everyone some coats.
:laugh: nice to see someone's thinking about other people at least ;)
r3port3r66
07-27-03, 03:35 PM
Gg, have you read the book Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlooser?
You really should if you haven't already! Great stuff in there, including stats and biblography. Apparantly, the government allows a certain amount of rat hairs, feces and human meat--yes human meat!--inside hamburger patties! :sick: :sick: :sick:
Gg, have you read the book Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlooser?
You really should if you haven't already! Great stuff in there, including stats and biblography. Apparantly, the government allows a certain amount of rat hairs, feces and human meat--yes human meat!--inside hamburger patties! :sick: :sick: :sick:
Wow. Yeah, never read it, heard of it. I'm told i should read "My year of Meat" too (or something like that - it's a novel but based around facts about the hormonised-meat industry). Cool. I'll check it out.
There's a slightly hysterical connection between cannabalism and BSE/Mad-cows-disease. i.e. cannibals are aparently known to develop a related "spongyness" of the brain. This is one possible cause of BSE - i.e. unnatural use of waste animal products in animal feed. Hence, i've always wandered if that could be one of the contributing factors to CJD (the human variety) - but i never really thought there was actually human meat in our food! Christ! That is truly outrageous and potentially dangerous.
Well, guess i get to feel all smug coz i'm a "fishatarian" then :D (i stopped eating meat for "consumer-power" reasons i.e. i didn't like the intensive farming practices being used. But every year that goes by i hear more health reasons to stay this way. Mind you, crops are treated even worse if anything. Basically, make sure your food is getting fed and living right or it won't feed you. It's that simple, but it seems to be true ;))
Incidently, how the hell does the human flesh get there in the first place???
Sexy Celebrity
07-27-03, 03:56 PM
Oh, Golgot, they've done it! They have mastered cloning these DNA mixups in animals like you've predicted! Look at these pictures that I uncovered somewhere. The first one shows a half pitbull/half crab that was found in a cooler, the other shows a crab in the water after it took a bathroom break and pissed out a darling spotted fur coat (retail value $4 million dollars) -- you can see it in the background.
:rotfl:
Oh, that deserved a good roll on the floor. Nice one Sexy!
Do you know if they've finished the Eleph-Ants with bacterial-pants yet, to hunt down the crab/dogs? It's the only logical thing to do - their uretha-streetwear is driving Super-Silkworm stock thru the roof!
r3port3r66
07-27-03, 04:08 PM
Incidently, how the hell does the human flesh get there in the first place???
Well say a worker in the meat factory happens to slice the tip of his finger off, or worse the entire digit! Under government policy there is no need to shut the factory down because a certain amount of "debris" is allowed inside the meat! EEWWWWW!
Here's a link to Amazon.com. It has some excerpts from the book as well as the front and back cover. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060938455/ref=lib_dp_TFCV/103-6886347-3970212?v=glance&s=books&vi=reader#reader-link
Right! Straight in the shopping basket! Everything from dangling digits to movie-manipulation. Hmm, interesting. Cheers man.
Caitlyn
07-27-03, 05:31 PM
Wait, wait. Are you guys confusing the scream smilie ( :scream: ) with the yawn ( :yawn: ) smilie ? ;)
No… I was screaming because I don’t know enough about this to debate anyone on it… and Golgot’s post are very interesting but soooooooooooooooo looooooooooooooooooooooong… ;D Sorry Golgot…. You have sparked my interest though so I am going to start reading about it… :)
No… I was screaming because I don’t know enough about this to debate anyone on it… and Golgot’s post are very interesting but soooooooooooooooo looooooooooooooooooooooong… ;D Sorry Golgot…. You have sparked my interest though so I am going to start reading about it… :)
Hehehe. I'll go on a word-diet soon. Slimline sentences only. Glad i've got your interest tho ;)
Caitlyn
07-27-03, 07:01 PM
Hehehe. I'll go on a word-diet soon. Slimline sentences only. Glad i've got your interest tho ;)
You know I’m only teasing you… ;) ... I really haven’t read a lot about this although I have been hearing a little about all the antibiotics they've given to cows, pigs, and chickens being linked to humans becoming increasingly resistant to antibiotics…
No no, i really must cut down ;)
Check out the website in my sig to see some really wordy, but much more sturdy, reasons to doubt GMs applications.
I think the idea that antibiotics tolerance is building up to our detriment via our over-use is a pretty robust idea in the science world (excluding most of the food industry, who live in their own little science world sometimes ;))
There are still some issues to be cleared up with hormone treatment too (hence the ban going on since 88 between Europe and USA/Canada, and the corresponding "trade fines").
There was a great expose over here recently, funded by the guardian newspaper, which showed how "cheaper" beef and pork proteins are injected into chicken (so watch out if your religion forbids them). This was only from some Dutch and German factories [mainly selling to britain, the swine! ;)] but the techniques could be going on elsewhere. They also pumped (far more than declared) amounts of water in to the chicken too. And one company had learned how to "cap" the DNA of their product in some way so that the standard detection technique for the added proteins didn't work [with god knows what side-effects!] Not that the FSA were checking anyway. This program really embarrassed them :D
Some handy sites to start with:
www.soilassociation.org - very earthy (promoting "organic" since '46)
www.theecologist.co.uk - very ecological (total greenies, but i love 'em)
www.i-sis.org - very scientific (set up to counter bad-science in industry)
All of these have links to multiple interesting sources, investigations, publications etc, and provide they're own natty summaries and investigations for the most part. Dig in. There's so much more ;)
Thought i'd just clarify too that i'm not against gentic detection techniques etc for investigation and increasing our knowledge. I am against all "Genetic Engineering" at the moment tho. I'm really trying not to spout more reasons why! Someone challenge all this so i've got a reason to! ;)
Vote, (and read! ;)) or be damned!
(or at least get called a damn fool by an angry voodoo-mystic ;)) Does NO-ONE else have an opinion over the foreign-"food"-matter combining with your guts as i bleat?
Here's one of many recent things from the Institute of Science in Society: i.e......
-Another "we can stop hunger" claim shown to be rubbish...
'According to the BBC, Dr. Manju Sharma, Head of the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) , said that the GM potato will "reduce the problem of malnutrition in the country", and she plans to incorporate it into the government’s free midday meal programme in schools.
But, inserting protein genes from amaranth into potatoes and promoting potato as a staple for school-children’s mid-day meals is also a decision not to promote amaranth and pulses, the most important source of protein in the Indian diet. Amaranth contains 14.7 gm protein per 100 gm of dried grain, compared to 6.8 gm/100gm milled rice, 11 gm/100gm wheat flour and a mere 1.6 gm/100 gm potato.'
Table 1. Nutritional content of Amaranth compared with GM potato
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Content (per 100gm)
Nutrient Amaranth Potato Deficit
Protein 14.7gm 2.1gm* - 12.6gm
Iron+ 11.0mg 0.7mg - 10.3mg
Calcium+ 510.0mg 10.0mg -500.0mg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Assuming an increase of 33% protein content in GM potato, as reported.
+Assuming these remain unchanged.
[erm, it's a bit squashed, but i guess you can read it. I colour-coded it just for yous.]
'In Britain, amaranth has already entered the specialty market as a high protein and nutritious breakfast cereal, thus fully exposing the short-sightedness if not downright hypocrisy and wickedness of those who are intent on promoting monoculture grains at the expense of far superior indigenous varieties.'
Ok, so you could claim people are still free to eat amarath, but the point is that biotech companies set themselves up against these natural and efficient alternatives. They actively try to dominate markets. This rampant greed and short-sightedness must be blocked. [and yes, the I-SIS are a bit full-on for scientists, but i like 'em that way ;) - "Objective" and subjective - scientific AND spiritual. That's how we should all be, IMO]
If you're american/canadian, or in any country where GM is accepted and/or unlabelled, i recommend you investigate ways of slowing this process right down. The biotech's haven't produced on hardly any of their claims. They lie, decieve, and distort scientific good-practice.
If you resist them they will die the death they deserve to. If your governments claim to believe in free-trade, don't let them prop up these ailing companies with your tax dollars
DO SOMETHING!
(and this is b4 i even mention the potential health risks! [I]Risk assessment of unknown and unmeasurable-in-process but emergantly-predictable problems anyone? Pointless and arrogant! We should be feeding GM food to its proponents and seeing if they mutate ;) - not allowing ourselves to be guinea pigs in this extraordinary way)
Your peaching to the converted, maybe that is why people are not answering you. Also you can't help yourself, keep it short. :laugh:
But what about the yankee-doodles? They need to sort themselves out! And some of them might think i mean General Motors ;)
And notice that even cautious assessments, like in Britain, still allow for continued usage, and in fact, it's looking possible that america will win the battle to force us to accept GM products in Europe. Not good trends
EDIT: And have you voted young lady? You can't expect me to represent you in the european court of tennis unless you do ;)
EDIT: And have you voted young lady? You can't expect me to represent you in the european court of tennis unless you do ;)
Yes SIR, I have, Can, May I go to the toilet now, Please Sir, Please Sir. :D
Yes SIR, I have, Can, May I go to the toilet now, Please Sir, Please Sir. :D
Certainly not! Go and sit on the geraniums and water them while you work!
Certainly not! Go and sit on the geraniums and water them while you work!
:eek:
ooo, i love being strict :rolleyes:
ooo, i love being strict :rolleyes:
I bet, sadist. :D
Oh dear-oh-dear. The World Health Organisation endorses "substantial equivalence". They're all mad. they're thinking is entirely dubious - it's impossible to establish "absolute safety" - therefore this "science-based" (non) measurement (highly shoddy i assure you) is acceptable. THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT FREAKING CHANGES THEY'VE INTRODUCED!!! HOW CAN THEY KNOW WHAT OTHER DIFFERENCES THERE ARE??? THEY DON'T! THEY DON'T EVEN FREAKING LOOK!!! (the biotechs that is - or anybody else for that matter outside of a few concerned independants)
HERE'S THE MOST IMPORTANT FACT LADIES AND GENTELMEN: THE ONLY WAY TO TEST THIS **** IS FOR US TO EAT IT AND SEE IF ANYTHING GOES WRONG - that's the established risk-assessment fact in the food world - so they are NEVER gonna test this stuff properly. You dig? WE ARE THE GUINEA PIGS. AND WE DON'T EVEN NEED THIS STUFF. Why risk the risk?
And how, someone tell me, will we trace responsability back to the biotechs if/when problems do occur? How will we prove it was the GM food? By the time we have (and the potential form it might take is new genetic-bonding i.e brand new "artificial" and uncontrolled mutations - so this could/should be measurable)...it'll be too late. These changes will be irreversible even when detected.
It's about time we stopped looking for more quick-fixes and started looking at the old quick-fixes which are causing the problems.
It's prophet of doom time from me...
-This stuff is ****.
-We don't need it.
-It doesn't do what they say it does (in fact in the main, it's acheived the opposite: lower yields, more weed problems, damage to local environment etc)
-It's messing with things we really don't understand. And it's irreversible.
-Scientific thinking suggests it will have unforeseen problems.
-Why risk it?
-Where's the benefit? There's potential proft for biotechs and no-one else. Farmers lose out, consumers lose out, so what's the point?
-Do we really need to increase the potential for superbugs and superweeds? (we already have enough problems with pencillin allergies and antibiotics-tolerance)
-There are reasons to believe SARS may have connections to Genetic Engineering.
-This is just the beginning unless these guys fail as they deserve to. But again and again they receive government help (OUR FREAKIN TAX)
WHO IS GOING TO STOP THESE ARSEHOLES PLAYING GOD??? (and releasing one devil of an irreversible problem into our midst)
sunfrog
08-18-03, 04:16 PM
Here's some arguments for you.
We've been eating genitcally altered food since the 1800's when George Washington Carver first cross pollinated two peanut plants, so who cares? Whether nature takes care of the splicing or scientists do it's all the same.
When you eat a pineapple it goes down your intestinal tract and gets digested. It doesn't combine with you DNA and make you have spikey hair.
DNA is made up of four nucleotides, G,C,A, and T They are the same in crabs and pit bulls. When you say they are putting crab dna in pit bulls there's no diference in the Dna. It's not like they're sewing crab arms on a dog. It's the same nucleotides arranged in different order.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves genetically modified foods the same way it gives approval to any other food or drug. The FDA recognizes any additive as safe if it already exists in the natural food supply–even if it is inserted into unrelated plants through genetic modification.
Sixty experts from 19 countries found that new varieties of whole foods coming to market don’t undergo extensive toxicological testing, and yet whole foods often contain natural toxins and non-nutritional substances. Based on their long-term use, however, whole foods are considered safe. So, the experts asked, why hold “novel” foods to a higher standard?
Why fear science? The stupid outlawing of human cloning is a classic example of man's fear of the unknown. Trial and error must happen in order to someday succeed. How many people died trying to fly before the Wright Bros. figured it out? If you want plankton that purifies sea water and corn that grows in the Gobi Desert you can't be afraid to try.
sunfrog
08-18-03, 05:18 PM
Where are you Golgot? Are you still typing? Now I can't stop saying Crabdog. :skeptical: Crabdog to Golgot. Crabdog to Golot. Come in Golgot. deet deet deet!
http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg
sunfrog
08-18-03, 05:28 PM
Pigsheep! Boink! Boink!
http://www.ivu.org/evu/english/news/news981/genetic.jpg
Here's some arguments for you.
We've been eating genitcally altered food since the 1800's when George Washington Carver first cross pollinated two peanut plants, so who cares? Whether nature takes care of the splicing or scientists do it's all the same.
Your vaunted Carver was by no means the first to start "unnatural selection" it's been going on for far longer. And I have no real problem with that at all (except for inbred dogs - and ridiculous creations like pitbulls etc, and other minor points)
"unnatural selection" like that is totally different from Genetic Engineering. GE not only takes genes from one species and moves them to another in many cases (squid to tomato being my favourite example) - it also introduces the problem of ONE specific gene being moved - not the whole gene with its entire context. So even inter-species we're creating new variations which you COULD NOT acheive through the more benign method you mentioned. Add to that the problem that these gene "grafts" are inserted randomly, and can detach and then re-attach even more randomly to other parts of the host organism, and you're looking at a whole "host" of trouble (ho-ho-ho)
That's like me deciding i want a faculty from your brain (which i'm not sure i do), leading me to cut it out from your head, and then randomly shove it into someone else's via the ear, then shake their head around, hoping it'll combine to something in the right sort of area. Add to that the idea that this transposed brain-piece could then combine with other areas of the host brain and leave you smelling the colour blue, and we're getting closer to the problem. Now imagine that brain-connection could become viral, and spread to everyone you sniffed. Getting the picture?
When you eat a pineapple it goes down your intestinal tract and gets digested. It doesn't combine with you DNA and make you have spikey hair.
Well "claro". However, GM potatos have been shown to combine with the stomach-tract on a physical level never observed with pineapple or any other food. We don't know what this means - which is exactly why we should stop and re-assess what we've created here. Don't be so ****ing flippant.
DNA is made up of four nucleotides, G,C,A, and T They are the same in crabs and pit bulls. When you say they are putting crab dna in pit bulls there's no diference in the Dna. It's not like they're sewing crab arms on a dog. It's the same nucleotides arranged in different order.
Oh well, with such solid science, how can i argue? :rolleyes: Listen, yes, the DNA components are the same in all creatures etc. So why aren't they exactly the same doink-for-brains? Coz it's the arrangement (and, as we're learning, loads of other processes beyond DNA, and newly discovered ones within it) that's important. We know very close to f-all about all this. Despite 50 years of poking. Don't you find it ASTOUNDING that they called whole swathes of un-understood DNA "junk" DNA until recently - JUST COZ THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT IT DID? I'm sure you don't, but you bleedin well should. What it means is we can't just think of one gene as the muscle-gene or what have you. Everything is inter-linked - we can't just lift what we want and ignore the "side-effects" (i.e. the "undesired" effects, which almost always outnumber the desired-effect)
This is scientific arrogance gone mad. Why don't you god-bothers have a problem with this? This is totally playing god and saying how thing's should be. Not our job. Oh wait, you probably believe our job is to "subdue" nature etc. I can't be doing with that bit of arrogance either.
What's more, we have so little control over the actual result, we're basically re-introducing randomness of a sort, or malignant discordance if you will, into a balanced and delicate system. It's a robust system within its own terms, but not when people start doing the equivilant of replacing a neck with an elbow-joint to see what happens. Then it becomes a headless-chicken system. But imagine it's a very big chicken ;) - i don't want it running around out of control, alright?)
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves genetically modified foods the same way it gives approval to any other food or drug. The FDA recognizes any additive as safe if it already exists in the natural food supply–even if it is inserted into unrelated plants through genetic modification.
Yes. That's coz they're idiots with profit on the brain. The point is:
(a) novel products are considered "innocent" until proven "guilty" - it should totally be the other way around.
(b) there are soooooo many drugs still on the market with negative effects and inappropriate applications. It's INCREDIBLY HARD TO PROVE PROBLEMS WITH THESE THINGS - hence they're continued application long after negative results have been identified. This fixation with "drugs wil save us" is just sooooooooo naive. Yeah, sure, a pill for every ill. I'm sure that's what god would have wanted. Not us addressing the cause, but making up a quick-fix and running away from our problems. Marvellous. :rolleyes:
Sixty experts from 19 countries found that new varieties of whole foods coming to market don’t undergo extensive toxicological testing, and yet whole foods often contain natural toxins and non-nutritional substances. Based on their long-term use, however, whole foods are considered safe. So, the experts asked, why hold “novel” foods to a higher standard?
What "new" varieties are you talking about? These must be things people have been eating for centuries and we're alright thanks jack [tho i agree care should be taken in eating something that you are not genetically used to - i.e. that your ancestors didn't eat] But i agree, ALL food production needs to have higher standards. [at least the organic movement imposes some on itself - unlike the others] However, the religion-of-the-new has surrounded us with all kinds of "novel" foods
and products. Any surprise that allergies are massively on the rise across the western world? Any surprise that cancers amongst younger-people are also becoming more prevelant? Probably not.
The point about novel food is just that: they're untried and untested. There are enough potential problems with nutrition as it is, as you rightly point out. Why introduce more??
Why fear science? The stupid outlawing of human cloning is a classic example of man's fear of the unknown. Trial and error must happen in order to someday succeed. How many people died trying to fly before the Wright Bros. figured it out? If you want plankton that purifies sea water and corn that grows in the Gobi Desert you can't be afraid to try.
I don't "fear" science you ning-nong. I fear IDIOTIC HUMANS ASKING IT TO DO THE IMPOSSIBLE OR THE UNNECESSARY. Why stop at corn that grows in the desert? Why not corn that can grow on the moon? Why not a self-growing armchair that can pat you on the back and burp you after your tv dinner? All you see is the dream-world potential, not the real-world downsides to all these things. They are AS if not MORE important, and just coz we have trouble measuring them (and lets face it, the biotechs etc DON'T EVEN TRY TO MEASURE THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE, so fixated are they on the dream of a quick buck and a trapped market) DOESN'T MEAN THEY'RE NOT THERE.
It's this idiotic wish-fulfillment that's the problem. I don't have a problem with genetic detection for disease control, or if used properly in legal circumstances, for example. There are plenty of amazing uses for our new sciences. I love many of the wonderful potentials. What i hate is this idea that science can ultimately fix all our ills. It can't. Accept responsabilities for your actions, and for certain balances in this world. My firm belief is that things like messing with our genetic make-up, while we have NEXT-TO-NO-IDEA-WHAT-WE-ARE-DOING is just asking for so much trouble. When the risks are: superweeds, superviruses (note the potential SARS connection), freeform mutation, irreversible and uncontrollable "side"-effects...i say....there are some risks that aren't worth the supposed profit.
And please note that GM crops are FAILING MISERABLY TO FUFILL ALMOST ANY OF THEIR PROMISES. And it's OUR ****ing tax that pays to keep the useless, greedy, unrealistic wankers playing with their magic-wands (i hope they go blind ;))
Love your no-fear attitude mate. Now go surf off the edge of the world ;)
sunfrog
08-18-03, 05:35 PM
Glowfish! Cool!
http://www.wired.com/news/images/full/reuters_fishglow_399x450.jpg
Very nice. Now go and irradiate your lice.
sunfrog
08-18-03, 06:08 PM
Gosh, you're so passionate!
Why do you keep bringing up God? I thought you were a spiritualist or mystic or something. Btw, do you think God wants you to die of natural causes? Cuz if He did He wouldn't have made humans intelligent.
What is a "claro"?
Despite 50 years of poking. Don't you find it ASTOUNDING that they called whole swathes of un-understood DNA "junk" DNA until recently
Yes, I do. I never agreed with that. That's like saying humans only use 1/3 of their brain.
What is god-bothers?
This is totally playing god and saying how thing's should be. Not our job.
Why not? I thought it WAS our job. I thought that was the whole point of being here. Love your neighbor as you would yourself, Ten Commandments, etc... etc... The object of the game is to become as God-like as possible. How's that for flippant? :D
This fixation with "drugs wil save us" is just sooooooooo naive. <SNIP> I'm sure that's what god would have wanted.
Is God against medication? What's all this God stuff? You don't care what God thinks about gays. Are you afraid gene splicing will offend Him?
Accept responsabilities for your actions, and for certain balances in this world.
What are you saying? It's ok if people are dying in drought stricken countries, that's the way it is?
Gosh, you're so passionate!
Why do you keep bringing up God? I thought you were a spiritualist or mystic or something. Btw, do you think God wants you to die of natural causes? Cuz if He did He wouldn't have made humans intelligent.
What is a "claro"?
Oh my......
Just trying to see if He's part of your rational. I don't believe in Him so it's all the same to me (it's the people i have to share the world with who do that i worry about ;))
Erm, so do you think science can cure old-age then? If you'd said diseases that would have been alright (tho i would ask why He hadn't made us so intelligent as to have discovered cures etc from the year "dot" if that was His aim)
Let's look at some of the miracles of prolonged old age then shall we...i've worked with old people - and there's nothing more distressing than watching an old woman begging to be allowed to die, while we pump her full of the medicine that keeps her in a tortured state, when previously she would have died "naturally". I know which one all of those old people would have preferred. Death. A happy, "natural" death, rather than being trapped in a rotting shell. We don't prolong life most of the time - we stretch it out over a skeleton.
And He didn't make us intelligent. It just came about as a survivalist adaption IMO (at least, it's the best theory we've got). Lucky us. It doesn't logically follow that intelligence will prevent us from dying for example. It doesn't in fact follow, that "intelligence" is Godly, and to think so can lead to serious delusions of grandeur (again, IM-humble-O)
Claro means "clearly"
Yes, I do. I never agreed with that. That's like saying humans only use 1/3 of their brain.
I'm so glad. But that's an exact example of scientists thinking they're God. Thinking coz they've named soemthing they know what's what. Thinking the gaps in their knowledge are acceptable. That is the dogiest side of science.
What is god-bothers?
God-botherers? Those of a relgious persuasion (sorry, i come from a heathen island ;))
Why not? I thought it WAS our job. I thought that was the whole point of being here. Love your neighbor as you would yourself, Ten Commandments, etc... etc... The object of the game is to become as God-like as possible. How's that for flippant? :D
Very good ;) - do you REALLY believe that science is the path to Godliness? I see it as rather a potential path to both Godly and Devilish ends (to use convenient terminology) - it all depends which part of our characters we apply to it. You do accept that we have both good and bad potentials inside us don't you? Or do you just polarise: the bad = emotion/instinct; the good = conscious thought. If you do think like that, again, i'd say your on perilous mental ground.
Is God against medication? What's all this God stuff? You don't care what God thinks about gays. Are you afraid gene splicing will offend Him?
What i'm suggesting is that no theorhetical "creator" would want to see his creation destroying itself in slow increments as we may well be doing - through arrogance. If you agree that science can be misguided (i.e. Junk DNA etc) then surely you must recognise the negative impact of some "chemical" applications i.e. drugs, weapons, carcinogenic-pesticides, all the Persistant Organic Pollutants (DDT and friends) etc etc etc. PLUS don't you agree then, that seeing as we are nowhere near "godhead" just yet (and indeed that end must be impossible during life, under your rational) - doesn't that mean that even if we summon up God-like powers thru science, we are liable to apply them in a devilish way? ;)
What are you saying? It's ok if people are dying in drought stricken countries, that's the way it is?
Not at all. But there's enough food to go around already. The problem is things like Free Trade and the nature of humans in general, that have cause huge imbalances in third world countries. I'd like to see a mixture of sensible science and progressive/synergistic-cooperation somehow sorting out these power and resource imbalances. Big issue. Long journey. Lots to say. Later/other thread.
And, incidently, GM's claims to be able to "nourish" the world and solve "hunger" are complete bull**** and have been proven to be so.
Suck on that ;)
sunfrog
08-18-03, 08:27 PM
Erm, so do you think science can cure old-age then?
Yes. There's a little counter thing built into every cell that tells it how many times it can divide. It's found in the homeo-something-or-other. I forget the name
We don't prolong life most of the time - we stretch it out over a skeleton.
That's beautiful!
Or do you just polarise: the bad = emotion/instinct; the good = conscious thought.
WOw! I have to think about that. That would make dogs evil tho. :( Nevermind
Not at all. But there's enough food to go around already. The problem is things like Free Trade and the nature of humans in general, that have cause huge imbalances in third world countries. I'd like to see a mixture of sensible science and progressive/synergistic-cooperation somehow sorting out these power and resource imbalances. Big issue. Long journey. Lots to say. Later/other thread.
In a communism thread? ;)
Back to genes
So did you eat any of that stuff that mutated the mouse stomach? If they discovered it that means someone is testing these things no?
Yes. There's a little counter thing built into every cell that tells it how many times it can divide. It's found in the homeo-something-or-other. I forget the name
Yes silly-billy, but it's almost certainly a necessity else it wouldn't be there, or at the very least it'll be imbedded in a load of inter-dependant processes about which we have no idea.
Here's the problem with bad-science. When they find a cause-n-effect process they can influence, they never investigate the context fully. They just meddle as soon as possible. That's a very unwise strategy with something as complex as biology. The factors involved in this are immense. I'll go into some details when you make your next boo-boo ;)
But over-all, if you think that tiny smidgen of knowledge will lead to "immortality" any time soon - think again. But i look forward to hearing about some idiot millionaire getting eaten by his own rampant-immortal-cells or what have you [please note - i don't want anyone to die in distressing ways, i just think these science-is-the-cure dreams will lead to some pretty horrible nightmares. I only hope when the **** hits the fan we'll learn to stop ****ting into the wind. Some chance tho :rolleyes: )
That's beautiful!
Why thank you ;) - seriously tho, you should see the horrible result of the application of some of these miracle drugs. It was those experiences that convinced me that, at the very least, "euthanasia" by NOT prescribing life-prolonging drugs is entirely moral and valid. The other type is trickier. But i believe if someone's life has become a perpetual living hell, and there is no hope for a return to bearable-life, then even suicide is a personal choice that no government or religion should stand in the way of. If they do it's tantamount to torture.
WOw! I have to think about that. That would make dogs evil tho. :( Nevermind
Heheheh. Potentially ;) Is that how you break it down? Have a think. Some people do put far too much emphasis on the capacities of our conscious or even "logical" selves (when opposed to what is perceived as our "base" self in comparison. These divisions are ludicrously over-polarised to me, and ignore certain neurological facts/faculty-crossovers[intermingling] to boot. And please, no jokes about cross-dressing teachers now :p ;))
In a communism thread? ;)
Um, more the spirtuality-clash thread i'm having with Yods, but i dare say it'll re-emerge. Got a thing against cooperation have you? It's also got us where we are today, along with competition.
Back to genes
So did you eat any of that stuff that mutated the mouse stomach? If they discovered it that means someone is testing these things no?
I don't eat it, i leave that to you guys. You're eating it now. That test is the ONLY valid investigation into the negative potentials of GM (there have been others, but their samples were too small - no budget you see). And guess who did it...go on....guess. The biotechs? Astoundingly...no. It was an independent team, who published in the top journal for their area (which means getting peer reviewed by six top professors etc - very tough).
Quite unsurprisingly the industry set their scientists on it - who rubbished it on methodological grounds (standard practice for anything which crosses established norms or, indeed, industrial desires)
So you see froggy, the industries realy don't care about us "consumers". They haven't checked safety issues (and, seeing as received wisdom concerning risk-assessment says we can NEVER know all the risks, we could extend things Yoda style and say - there will always be unknowns so why bother looking? The industries seem to ;) - if the industries ever do investigate it'll be part of a propoganda war to persuade us i'm sure. Deception has been their standard practice so far. They've got enough scientists in their pockets anyway, but at the moment they're content to rubbish any criticisms)
If I were you i'd write to my local representative and ask for labelling at the very least and a stop to any further governmental aid for these supposedly superior products.
Pigsheep! Boink! Boink!
http://www.ivu.org/evu/english/news/news981/genetic.jpg
Where can I get one of those, very cute. :eek:
sunfrog
08-24-03, 01:24 AM
My internet was out for two days!
More mouse questions
Were these mice fed an exclusive diet of weird tomatos(?)
Do you eat an exclusive diet of weird tomatos? I don't.
There are some things people eat everyday tho, like eggs. Eggs are little sacks of unformed DNA aren't they? Little DNA that is still in weird stages. In the middle of mutating into something, uncoiling, releasing little bits and pieces of itself. You eat half formed unknown chicken DNA everyday. Maybe that's why you like corn on the cob. ;D
i just think these science-is-the-cure dreams will lead to some pretty horrible nightmares.
You seem to be anti-science and pro co-operation. Maybe we should kill all the intellectuals and live happily as simple poor villagers. :idea:
My internet was out for two days!
More mouse questions
Were these mice fed an exclusive diet of weird tomatos(?)
Do you eat an exclusive diet of weird tomatos? I don't.
There are some things people eat everyday tho, like eggs. Eggs are little sacks of unformed DNA aren't they? Little DNA that is still in weird stages. In the middle of mutating into something, uncoiling, releasing little bits and pieces of itself. You eat half formed unknown chicken DNA everyday. Maybe that's why you like corn on the cob. ;D
You seem to be anti-science and pro co-operation. Maybe we should kill all the intellectuals and live happily as simple poor villagers. :idea:
-They were fed on GM potatoes.
-yes, you probably eat weird GM corn, soya and wheat products everyday - and you eat the meat of animals fed on them too.
-No, eggs are perfectly formed DNA for what an egg is, silly. If it were a fertilised egg indeed a huge transition takes place as you know. As it is the fluid genome theory suggest that ALL DNA is constantly in a state of alteration - via multiple processes/interactions with its ENVIRONMENT/CONTEXT which we are just beginning to understand (hence shifting DNA strands to other "environments" is exceptionally idiotic and liable to cause all sorts of ripple-out unwanted-effects)
-i don't like corn on the cob, i just like using the little forks for prodding people.
-I'm not anti-science. I'm anti bad/arrogant science that:
Finds a cause-and-effect connection it can manipulate, but ignores the processes involved in the middle that are too complex for it to understand. (or just removes something from its context and assumes it's still the same thing. It's often not. It's just our brains/rationalised-theories/word-definitions that would prefer to see it that way)
Add to this the way some "causes" are actually artificial constructs/reductions i.e. we take something OUT OF CONTEXT - coz it's what we want to focus on, and apply it so that we get our, often unnecessary/quick-fix, result. (really far from always tho - look at GM's multiple failures to even vaguely achieve their claims)
So, i love lots of aspects of science. I just don't worship bad science as a God that can fix all ills. To me a "God" should realistically contain both "good" and "bad". We can't fix all the problems of the world with these mind-sets and technologies. Some people seem to think we can.
You may be facetious all you like you hornied Bush persecutor you (good on ya ;)) - but i hope you're busy translating the 92% objection to GM in the US, recently reported, into legislation. You need to object to these bastards b4 more tax dollars are thrown at them to help them out.
People power. You see? No need to live in a village ;)
-B])
-i don't like corn on the cob, i just like using the little forks for prodding people.
Actually I Like both. :D
Actually I Like both. :D
Hehehe, so do i [not sure which is MORE fun tho - hmmm, more debate needed ;)].
sunfrog
08-24-03, 02:06 PM
-They were fed on GM potatoes.
~You like potato and I like potahto, You like tomato and I like tomahto; Potato, potahto, tomato, tomahto! Let's call the whole thing off! But oh! If we call the whole thing off, then we must part. And oh! If we ever part, then that might break my heart!
So, if you like pajamas and I like pajahmas, I'll wear pajamas and give up pajahmas. For we know we need each other, So we better call the calling off off. Let's call the whole thing off! ~ :babbling:
-yes, you probably eat weird GM corn, soya and wheat products everyday - and you eat the meat of animals fed on them too.
I hardly ever eat corn. Corn is a treat and I love it! Speaking of corn, today's corn has been genetically manipulated for centuries. How do you even know healthy corn is healthy? I've never eaten Soya. I like cornflakes tho. I rarely eat meat.
ALL DNA is constantly in a state of alteration
Well there you go, nothing is safe to eat.
I'm not anti-science. I'm anti bad/arrogant science that:
There's no such thing as bad science, only bad application. Thank you very much ::bows at the waist:: Btw, if those potatos grew a bit of stomach lining they could someday lead to a topical salve that grows skin on burn victims, or new limbs on amputees. Lots of great discoveries were made by accident you know.
Finds a cause-and-effect connection it can manipulate, but ignores the processes involved in the middle that are too complex for it to understand.
Sciene is all about trail and error
look at GM's multiple failures to even vaguely achieve their claims) <SNIP> We can't fix all the problems of the world with these mind-sets and technologies. Some people seem to think we can.
Why not? :confused:
People power. You see?
There's no such thing. ::sniff:: Take a look at the anti-war movement when the voice of reason was shouted down and threatened by ***holes in America and completely ignored in the U.K. The people have never changed a gol-danged thing. Ok, maybe M.A.D.D. and some abducted children things.
~You like potato and I like potahto, You like tomato and I like tomahto; Potato, potahto, tomato, tomahto! Let's call the whole thing off! But oh! If we call the whole thing off, then we must part. And oh! If we ever part, then that might break my heart!
So, if you like pajamas and I like pajahmas, I'll wear pajamas and give up pajahmas. For we know we need each other, So we better call the calling off off. Let's call the whole thing off! ~ :babbling:
Yes, very nice. Now do Dick van Dyke's "accent" from Mary Poppins.
Seeing as i like explaining my layman's take on the facts i know of, i'll continuing humouring you here (tho i suspect you might believe one or two of the things you're saying - i hope not tho - they are very foolish, you jester you ;))
I hardly ever eat corn. Corn is a treat and I love it! Speaking of corn, today's corn has been genetically manipulated for centuries. How do you even know healthy corn is healthy? I've never eaten Soya. I like cornflakes tho. I rarely eat meat.
You eat cornflakes. You eat corn. If you eat in Tacobell you may have eaten the Starlink crop only meant for animal consumption (they've withdrawn it - but you can't trust humans to treat this dangerous stuff right at the moment - especially when not enough people see it as dangerous.)
Well there you go, nothing is safe to eat.
Many things are unsafe, but we're used to it. Our bodies are designed to deal with most of the problematic sides of everything form normal potatoes, to wheat, to what have you. We're not designed to deal with the freakish collection of, potentially cascading/mass-mutating, "novel" foods etc (notice how the "Pharm" that made Dolly etc has collapsed coz all their creations literally degenerate.)
There's no such thing as bad science, only bad application. Thank you very much ::bows at the waist:: Btw, if those potatos grew a bit of stomach lining they could someday lead to a topical salve that grows skin on burn victims, or new limbs on amputees. Lots of great discoveries were made by accident you know.
BS on the first thing (Gg karate-kicks opponent who has taken his eye off the game - only a naughty self-serving human out to be number-1 after all ;)). There are bad theories - bad application of Popperism (dogmatic and religious application of science too - especially those that want to "subdue" "nature" - suggesting that we and our egos know best). See your own AI thread for reasons why even well-intentioned science can have uncontrolled effects, and the more our "power" increases, the more damage we can accidently do. Playing with fundamental building blocks of life is the height of arrogance. the Matrix is already here my boy.
Sciene is all about trail and error
See above. As time goes by the errors get bigger and more serious. You can't piss about with our genome until you know what you're doing (and we demonstrably don't - as ever our knowledge increases every day, but equally our unchanging human ingenius-stupidity applies this knowledge in dumber and more dangerous ways)
Why not? :confused:
Simple. There is no such thing as "good alone". The good and the bad are inextricably linked. Try and make the world all "good" and a whole load of bad will track you down. This may sound like a weird reverse-karma, but there's SO much info to back it up.
Let me give you an easy example: DDT
-tried originally for quick-fix/let's-get-rid-of-the-bugs, simplistic "technology-will-make-everything-better" nonsense.
-it's found out to destroy local ecosystems (which could have been used to get rid of the pests in the first place i.e. hedgerows or equivilants, and the predators they contain. But oh no, "science can do it so much better" :rolleyes: )
-it only got fully, comprehensively banned 2 years ago, along with loads of other Persistant Organic Pollutants.
-it's still being used illegally in Eastern Europe etc to this day.
i.e. the things we invent don't go away. The good and bad in science/technology, and the good and bad in humans - these are THE most important things about modern "extelligence" (i.e. human appreciation of the world). Unfortunately, too many people are knocked into apathy (like you - see below) - or don't see the problem.
There's no such thing. ::sniff:: Take a look at the anti-war movement when the voice of reason was shouted down and threatened by ***holes in America and completely ignored in the U.K. The people have never changed a gol-danged thing. Ok, maybe M.A.D.D. and some abducted children things.
That's where you're wrong my bouncy buddy. The first and most fundamental power we have is as consumers. What you buy or don't buy gives "us" huge power over industries, when we're informed and can agree/decide to act on this knowledge. I make the small sacrifice of not eating meat/chicken, coz i don't agree with how the meat industry treats our food. There's a total absence of respect and health-safety. So i act.
We can affect legislation through similar proceedures. Notice how Mcdonalds and friends are all racing to introduce healthy options to their menus and better farming practices, all coz they're petrified of getting sued (mainly by guys like that lawyer who was one of the ones who took on the tobacco companies). Legislation will surely follow - most government decision making is guided by industry.
On the war then: reason for hope my little cherub:
Now i have more reason to be annoyed than you - as 70% of this country didn't want to go to war. Loads of us marched too (though remember that marching never acheives anything other than to bond those of us who care, and we all need that sense of community in this modern world) We had zero chance tho coz our country was following your country's desires.
So Sunfrog, i require you to buck up and recognise the positives now emerging - coz it's through you guys jumping on the Bush admin's ****-ups that we can actually use the incredible negative that is this war to produce positives. And don't worry, we're doing the same over here
The law-power-base comes into play again in the Hutton Report now unearthing new evidence of manipulation daily. I can almost guarantee that there'll be no parliamentary support from Britain for any more Bush-n-Blair skips into greed/industry-placating land, IF they don't launch another invasion before it all comes out. But anyway, that's the first step.
You've got to keep hitting Bush with the flaws of this war. There are good people in government too you know - ones who are beginning to see the downside of all this greed. And the potential for more TERROR which this action has provoked. Support THEM in every way you can, regardless of party-affiliation. Complain to your representative. Tell anyone who doubts the oil-reason about the petro-dollars system that keeps america rich at the world's expense (and even when your industries are producing pap - the very antithesis of "free-trade" - is that trend you want? To be producers of ****e who live off debt and a system enforced through threat? Why else do you think other countries are only slowly, subtly, trying to slip out of it? It's only Saddam and Venezuela that jumped straight out - and even Bush and friends wouldn't DARE try and attack Venezuela. No falls guys. No related hate. No chance. People DO count. If ENOUGH of you were using due process to complain, there'd be changes) ....point out to people how this multiplies the chances of more TERROR to the power of a thousand (to exaggerrate - with cause ;))
You have a lot of tools in your hands. Don't just march. Share the knowledge - keep pushing - and you will succeed. The greed of these people will be their own un-doing. Tell anyone who doesn't believe in the terror-argument that an english-teacher you know who works with thousands of students from all over the world (but noteably ex-iraqis, "kurds", turks, Kuwaitis, israelis etc etc) tells you this is ABSOLUTELY WITHOUT DOUBT THE CONSENSUS VIEW i.e. that more terror-risk is being produced daily by the US's actions. Tell them that - and ask them what their source of information is for thinking otherwise.
Tell them the one type of terror they CAN punch on the nose, is the one being emitted by their own administration.
There is people power Sunfrog. And i feel it's time may be ripening again.
But don't just sit and wait and see. Make it so ;)
sunfrog
08-24-03, 04:15 PM
If you eat in Tacobell you may have eaten the Starlink crop only meant for animal consumption (they've withdrawn it - but you can't trust humans to treat this dangerous stuff right at the moment - especially when not enough people see it as dangerous.)
I ate at Taco Bell two weeks ago! What did I eat?
BS on the first thing
Haha! BS on your BS lol. Name one. Germ Warfare is bad science I guess, except that's an application of technology.
- bad application of Popperism
What did he say?
Simple. There is no such thing as "good alone".
So what you're saying is we should all stand still and hope nothing ever happens? You can't stop the future. Should we ban everything that scares us?
The first and most fundamental power we have is as consumers. What you buy or don't buy gives "us" huge power over industries,
The only boycott that I can think of that ever worked was the boycott of porn being sold at conveniece stores. In this country the media has all the power and the media is easily manipulated. If you can get the media behind your cause you've got it made.
I ate at Taco Bell two weeks ago! What did I eat?
Well, for now - just the normal hydrated additives and rubbish. They realised they'd used GM-animal-feed and stopped. But this will happen again and again (especially when GM cross-breeds with normal plants and destroy variety - as it's doing currently all over the US and Canada)
Haha! BS on your BS lol. Name one. Germ Warfare is bad science I guess, except that's an application of technology.
Well, you don't even know who Popper was, and you claim to know about the varying attitudes in science! I'm an english-teacher with a philosophy/lit/classics degree, and i seem to be better informed....let's proceed.....
I gave you the DDT example for starters (stupid intent - that's bad science in the first place - i.e. trying to "fix" the world. There's nothing wrong with the world as such - there's just plenty wrong with certain prevalant, human attitudes i.e. - the desire to control everything [not possible or desirable. Guiding our own actions and their repurcussions - yes. Taking responsability for our actions - yes. But controlling things to try and make our dreams come true - Noooooo. "You can't always get what you want...." - But if we try real hard, we might get even more than the slap-in-the-face we need]
Other stupid/destructive/unrealistic attitudes in science:
-religious scientists who want to "subdue" nature i.e. control (see above - and see GM ****-ups, DDT **** ups, the ****-ups below...)
-scientists who treat science as a religion (i.e. they ignore popperism and think that what they don't know doesn't exist. They act on their knowledge base like it's 100% true) Hence - calling "junk" DNA "junk" DNA etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.
-profit driven science: driven by idiots who think investing in new technologies is a guaranteed money-spinner: coz they imagine the new technology will always work AND provide a useful service AND not have any negative effects etc. Stupid. Look at the internet-bubble where they thought they could just plow money in and make money. Greedy, mindless, short-term, idiocy.
Other ****-ups:
-Current pesticides that cause thalidomide(sp)-like birth deformities in fram workers.And massively increased cancer rates in people living near farms using other problematic pesticides/herbicides. (notice how the up-dated "Organic" system uses far more effective natural alternative to pest and weed control where-ever possible. And it works :yup: - efficiently. If more people by it the price will eventually come down - as it become more regulated [yet remains flexible/suitable to each envirnoment, as this flexibility is one of its core tenets)
-All the Persistant Organic Pollutants building up in our and animals fats to this day. And similar things like Brominated (SP?) Flame Retardants, which can be found in everything from sofas to computers, are doing the same (they've somehow made it as far as Sweden, where they're destroying eagle's eggs on top of mountains. If they can do that - they can do a lot worse too. Everything's connected Sunny. Just coz the world's big doesn't mean our actions don't affect it. Or indeed that we should cow-tow to everything it tries to impose on us - but that's the harmony. That's the equilibrium we should be striving for Sunny.)
BFRs are a nice idea.....BUT.....they didn't think of the consequences of releasing these "novel" things into the world. THEY NEVER DO! THEY NEVER CHECK. THEY NEVER INCLUDE IT IN THE "PROFIT/GOOD-SIDE" EQUATIONS THEY DRAW UP. THE WORLD IS ALWAYS THE GUINEA PIG WHO PICKS UP THE TAB (strange image, but there you go ;))
Those'll do for now - do you see the problematic thinking behind them - and their negative outcomes???
What did he say?
He said you must never assume your conclusions are 100% true. They are an ongoing theory. Be open to the unknown. (Be flexible with the rod of science, lest it shatters in your hand or smashes something you love. - that's my take anyway ;)) He's respected as the source of modern (good/responsible/positive) scientific approaches.
So what you're saying is we should all stand still and hope nothing ever happens? You can't stop the future. Should we ban everything that scares us?
I am in no way saying that - but i AM saying that you SHOULD be scared of the negative ATTITUDES AND APPLICATIONS of bad-science. Some of the lists above should start your little brain a-whirring perhaps. The risks and dangers increase with every year that goes by and every badly-applied or stupidly-attempted increase of power - wielded by arrogant and human/consciousness/ego-worshipping fools.
Look at the Matrix - it's had good messages so far: You can be the good sides of human and technologies' potentials (Neo) - or the bad/destructive side (Agent Smith). Wrapped up in superhero trappings for easy digestion - very nice :yup:
Y'understand? The symbiotic relationship between humans and technology is inescapable, - and entirely beneficial IN THEORY. Unfortunately in practice, too many bad sides of both are dominating.
It's beyond time to re-dress the balance. Equilibrium baby - not librium.
The only boycott that I can think of that ever worked was the boycott of porn being sold at conveniece stores. In this country the media has all the power and the media is easily manipulated. If you can get the media behind your cause you've got it made.
Erm, look at GM in Europe. It's not here at the moment coz people don't want it. We want our food to be food - i.e. healthy/good for us. And we recognise that there's only profit for biotechs in GMO (and not even that at the moment - coz they don't work and only about four countries in the world want them - tho yet again YOUR government and industries are working hand in hand to try and force it on everyone. Dispicable). Also, many/most people recognise the potential (and actual) negatives for farmers and consumers. Farmers have even been getting sued by the profit-desperate biotechs over the last few years when the GMO's spread and cross-breed with non-GM plants!! It's ****ing outrageous!!
So get on at the media. Become a journalist for crying out loud. Represent people'v views. Make films or tv shows or art that reaches people and reflects their ideas. (or try the most challenging of all - trying to reach/change those who don't agree with you ;))
Only you, sitting right there, can do anything about this. You do it by not doing nothing. Get moving my endearing bit of star-dust :yup:
sunfrog
08-25-03, 09:49 PM
Well, you don't even know who Popper was, and you claim to know about the varying attitudes in science! I'm an english-teacher with a philosophy/lit/classics degree, and i seem to be better informed
You sound like Twt there. :) You said "There are bad theories - bad application of Popperism" and I said "What did he say?" As in, please elaborate. Karl Popper scientist/philosopher. Why do people say I said things I didn't? Do you all continue imaginary debates with me in your heads? If you don't believe me that there's no such thing as bad science ask one of your colleagues. As a philosophy major you should already know that knowledge is not evil
"Organic" system uses far more effective natural alternative to pest and weed control where-ever possible. And it works - efficiently.
Organics is bad science too you know. How about good bugs that eat bad bugs out of control and desimating the normal ecology? If you're from Oz how about the ol' Cane Toad?
Erm, look at GM in Europe. It's not here at the moment coz people don't want it.
Please. Y'all have cows that eat other cows, cows that give twice the milk cows are supposed to give, cows that are 4 feet tall, bulls with no horns. Y'all are making the entire world afraid to eat beef!
Farmers have even been getting sued by the profit-desperate biotechs over the last few years when the GMO's spread and cross-breed with non-GM plants!! It's ****ing outrageous!!
Why? If you wrote a book and I copied part of it to my book and made money from it that would be plagiarism and against the law. If I took a DNA string that you created and stuck it in my plant and made money off it, it should also be illegal.
scientists who treat science as a religion
This is why science has all the cures for our problems
A) Because there is no God who's going to fix our problems
or
B) Because there is a God but if he gave you all the answers it wouldn't be a test now would it?
and
C) Because things can't stay the same forever and problems don't go away by magic
The symbiotic relationship between humans and technology is inescapable, - and entirely beneficial IN THEORY. Unfortunately in practice, too many bad sides of both are dominating.
So
Organics is bad science too you know. How about good bugs that eat bad bugs out of control and desimating the normal ecology? If you're from Oz how about the ol' Cane Toad?
I will 2nd that, Cane Toads have been a disaster. :bawling:
You sound like Twt there. :) You said "There are bad theories - bad application of Popperism" and I said "What did he say?" As in, please elaborate. Karl Popper scientist/philosopher. Why do people say I said things I didn't? Do you all continue imaginary debates with me in your heads? If you don't believe me that there's no such thing as bad science ask one of your colleagues. As a philosophy major you should already know that knowledge is not evil
You said in previously: "There's no such thing as bad science, only bad application. Thank you very much ::bows at the waist::"
That suggests you think you know what you're talking about.
And I explianed that Popperism is never believing in your results 100% but realising more knowledge will come so you CANNOT act on it AS IF IT WERE GOSPEL (like GM does)
Organics is bad science too you know. How about good bugs that eat bad bugs out of control and desimating the normal ecology? If you're from Oz how about the ol' Cane Toad?
That is NOT Organics you eejut. That's idiotic, old-school usage. One of the CENTRAL TENETS of Organics is that you use flora and fauna SUITABLE TO THE LOCAL ECOSYSTEM. Eejut.
Please. Y'all have cows that eat other cows, cows that give twice the milk cows are supposed to give, cows that are 4 feet tall, bulls with no horns. Y'all are making the entire world afraid to eat beef!
You are so uninformed it's frightening. Those practices have been phased out (the animals eating unnatural things thing) -WHERE AS IN THE U.S., FOR EXAMPLE, IT CONTINUES TO THIS DAY. You are the guys with BSE now, not us. If you look at the world market, i think you'll notice that it's THE EU AND OTHERS THAT HAVE A BAN ON YOUR MEAT, NOT VICE VERSA.
Why? If you wrote a book and I copied part of it to my book and made money from it that would be plagiarism and against the law. If I took a DNA string that you created and stuck it in my plant and made money off it, it should also be illegal.
Quite so - but it is no way comparable and this type of simplicity of thinking is the problem here. They DIDN'T steal it anyway - it migrates "naturally" and as such people living up to 50 miles away from a soya plantation can have their crops INVADED by this UNWANTED and almost certainly HEALTH-THREATENING artificial product.
This is why science has all the cures for our problems
A) Because there is no God who's going to fix our problems
or
B) Because there is a God but if he gave you all the answers it wouldn't be a test now would it?
and
C) Because things can't stay the same forever and problems don't go away by magic
Sunny, this is the type of religion-in-science that america specialises in and the rest of the world, on the whole, just doesn't want coz it's so naive and potentially damaging.
WE CANNOT MOVE TOWARDS PERFECTION. It is an impossible and deluded dream. We can only make things better, but never remove the BAD from this world. It is integral. Equilibrium, harmony. These are the beautiful things we are capable of. Your little dream has so much potential to be a nightmare (look where it led in the examples i gave you - and THINK about this - don't just BELIEVE in some ludicrous heaven-on-earth/this-is-all-a-test-the-human-mind-can solve idea. We are flawed - we cannot perceive all - and this power to control is turning into power to destroy. Trust me on this.
So
Don't be daft sunny ;) :furious:
sunfrog
08-27-03, 02:37 PM
You said in previously: "There's no such thing as bad science, only bad application. Thank you very much ::bows at the waist::"
That suggests you think you know what you're talking about.
And I explianed that Popperism is never believing in your results 100% but realising more knowledge will come so you CANNOT act on it AS IF IT WERE GOSPEL (like GM does)
No, that suggests YOU don't know what I'M talking about. Those two things have nothing to do with each other. On the first thing you're wrong, flat out. Let me give you a simple example. The middle toe on my right foot hurts. How is that evil? You could send me flowers or stomp on my foot, but just knowing my toe hurts is not good or evil.
On the second thing if I'm not 100% right then why are you? If I can't be then you can't be either. Btw, here's another example. All prime numbers cannot be divided by 2 and the result be a whole number. That's 100% true isn't it?
If GM did why do they try to invent new things everyday? IF they thought that was all GM could do they wouldn't keep trying would they? They put out things without researching the consequences because they can and because there's money in it. It has nothing to do with believing this or that.
One of the CENTRAL TENETS of Organics is that you use flora and fauna SUITABLE TO THE LOCAL ECOSYSTEM. Eejut.
Hahaha! Embarassed you did I? The other central tenet is that you don't use pesticides. :p
Those practices have been phased out
If selling GM potatos without warning labels were phased out and they did have warning labels, would you then consider that good science?
http://cellar.org/pictures/burningmadcows.jpg
They DIDN'T steal it anyway
Then they won their court case and all is right in the world. What's so outrageous about that?
WE CANNOT MOVE TOWARDS PERFECTION. It is an impossible and deluded dream.
Sure we can, if we get rid of all the republicans. :D
No, that suggests YOU don't know what I'M talking about. Those two things have nothing to do with each other. On the first thing you're wrong, flat out. Let me give you a simple example. The middle toe on my right foot hurts. How is that evil? You could send me flowers or stomp on my foot, but just knowing my toe hurts is not good or evil.
How is your toe hurting "science"???? That's not "science" - "science" would be the THEORY about WHY your toes hurts and what you can do about it. Then you apply it. By your original example - what's the "application" then of this toe-hurt??
What you said doesn't match up with your original post in any way.
I'm deliberately misunderstanding you btw coz you've made no sense.
On the second thing if I'm not 100% right then why are you? If I can't be then you can't be either. Btw, here's another example. All prime numbers cannot be divided by 2 and the result be a whole number. That's 100% true isn't it?
I'm not claiming to be 100% right. That's the whole point numb-nut. I'm claiming you're not. That's different.
Assuming maths theory, or any other is 100% right presumes you know the future. The point about the system of reasonable doubt is that:
(A) You leave yourself open to change
(B) you avoid adapting life-data entirely to the mind's preferred patterns and hence distorting it completely.
Both the above demonstrate why the above point about time-perception is important. Anything else is standard human-arrogance and has no place in advancing our knowledge. :p
Prime numbers are a system that drive mathmeticians etc wild by having no logical consistancy/pattern (or useful application as far as i know ;)) I've ordered the latest book on it - i'll let you know.
If GM did why do they try to invent new things everyday? IF they thought that was all GM could do they wouldn't keep trying would they? They put out things without researching the consequences because they can and because there's money in it. It has nothing to do with believing this or that.
Sometimes it's dumb by trying to fix dumb problem with even dumber problems. The problem is that the people who invent/abuse GM are people who think like you (and can't see the problem - conceptual arrogance - and the more our power increases the more damaging it becomes - demonstrably [tho often too late to stop it :furious: ])
In the case of GM we even have clear health risks that these geniuses refuse to even investigate - they'd prefer to use the same technology to try and fix its inherent problems (at least - they would if they ever got round to addressing its fundamental flaws - instead they try to address its superficial flaws)
IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH BELIEF STRUCTURE (and money to persuade the bits of you screaming at you that there's a problem - and that checking up on down-sides/dangers is a mistake ;))
Hahaha! Embarassed you did I? The other central tenet is that you don't use pesticides. :p
In what way did you embarress me by being totally mistaken? And what's wrong wit husing the minimum pesticides/herbicides possible, considering they all have known health-risks. Not a good thing in food production.
If selling GM potatos without warning labels were phased out and they did have warning labels, would you then consider that good science?
No - coz that doesn't make the problem go away - or remove these things from our environment (i advocate very long-term, entirely isolated testing - and those who believe in it/invest in it eating it to be the guinea pigs that are the ultimate test. As it is you're doing it for free for them right now. Any allergies? Gut problems? Don't bother going to a doctor - he can't help you ;))
The potential for: human mutation, "novel" health-problems, super-bugs [like SARS potentially, and worse] and super weeds, loss of diversity and destruction of ecosystems, etc etc etc etc are not something labelling makes go away.
http://cellar.org/pictures/burningmadcows.jpg
Erm, and how is this, slightly over-the-top, piece of health-risk prevention a bad thing - considering you guys haven't done it and almost certainly have BSE now. You do all the things we did.
Then they won their court case and all is right in the world. What's so outrageous about that?
No, they lose their court cases [tho one guy is running a prolonged one to this day -and he's the test case - and he would have won a long time ago if the set up wasn't so outrageously slanted, and ignorant of the science, like you ;)] - and the law is entirely slanted so that they can't sue back!!! Why is that not outrageous?
Sure we can, if we get rid of all the republicans. :D
What, the elected government? ;) :p
sunfrog
08-28-03, 07:56 PM
How is your toe hurting "science"???? That's not "science"
There are two theories on how my toe was injured.
1) I dropped something heavy on it
2) I hit it against the door when I was leaving the w.c
Which one of them is evil? If someone examined my toe in an attempt to figure out what happened how would that be evil? If there was a Discovery Channel special on my toe would it be evil?
sci·ence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sns)
n.
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
I'm not claiming to be 100% right. That's the whole point numb-nut. I'm claiming you're not. That's different.
Then I'm 99.99% right and you're .01% right. lol :D In what way does GM think it's the truth the way and the light and 100% right?
Prime numbers are a system that drive mathmeticians etc wild by having no logical consistancy/pattern (or useful application as far as i know )
Prime numbers are used to encrypt your credit card information when you buy something online and they are also used to create top secret launch codes for weapons of mass destruction.
No - coz that doesn't make the problem go away etc..etc..
Ugh! You win on those two paragraphs. I agree, that's a good idea. :(
and the law is entirely slanted so that they can't sue back!!!
Really? That is outrageous. You win another one :(
There are two theories on how my toe was injured.
1) I dropped something heavy on it
2) I hit it against the door when I was leaving the w.c
Which one of them is evil? If someone examined my toe in an attempt to figure out what happened how would that be evil? If there was a Discovery Channel special on my toe would it be evil?
Your two examples are happen-stance and so in no way comparable to human-controlled decision :p
sci·ence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sns)
n.
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
All of the above can be flawed. Considering the fact that we build each on the other - that's a lot of potential flaw-growth. Quite flooring amounts on some occasions ;)
It's worth bearing in mind the ways in which our biologies/brains frequently deceive us i.e. manipulate/limit/filter and re-work the information which we receive biologically (which is in itself limited - you know for example that dogs can hear more than us. So we don't immerse them in the holistic/all-connecting/referencing parts of our brain, but analyse them throught the above fallible-if-very-useful processes.)
I know al this through evidence from scientific evaluations - but these are ever-changing (especially in this field). The actual facts themselves (the objective NATURE of reality doesn't change - but our understanding of it does. It's ever-growing, but it will forever be flawed, if only by the limits of our perceptual/CONCEPTUAL abilities)
Notice how the limits of our perceptions/conceptions are used by hypnotists/advertisers/con-men etc across the ages. We all "advertise" in many ways. We're just not always consciously aware we've been sold a line ;)
Then I'm 99.99% right and you're .01% right. lol :D In what way does GM think it's the truth the way and the light and 100% right?
So you say. What was your methodology for arriving at those stats? ;) :p
Prime numbers are used to encrypt your credit card information when you buy something online and they are also used to create top secret launch codes for weapons of mass destruction.
Ah, well, you win this part of our discussion then :) I'm really looking forward to reading this book (it's supposed to have loads of case-studies too to help laymen like me - but it's by a cutting edge guy)
However even in such areas of apparent consistancy there are the potential flaws of:
-new knowledge/discoveries emerging over time (and potential foolish mis-application in the present - depending on the nature of the application etc)
-consistancy leading to over-application (thus any unnoticed bugs being widely spread and possibly integral to further systems built on top of them)
-lack of holistic reference - i.e. apllication without understanding fully the inter-relation of this knowledge with other knowledge areas (similar/related to above points) - notice how even the certainties of physics are relative in their own way i.e. both Neutonian and Relativity (love that man Einstein - a real conceptual-cross-over king) theories are indisputable in many ways, yet contradict eachother and only work in their respective fields of application (which are ironically opposite to the spheres of knowledge they originally set out to tackle - i understand)
So even with consistant systems we have to be careful of APPLICATION (i.e. there's almost alwatys good-n-bad applications for our new knowledge it seems to me - but the greater the influence they have the more careful we should be. But we never are - coz we use the logic - we haven't destroyed ourselves yet ([in a quick and obvious-to-us way] so what's the prob? ;)
To what extent are the new WMDs a good thing? i.e. are the new near-nuclear capacity [but deliberately not trying to scale quite those heights] weapons the New Scientist talks about slipping past the sensible post WW2/cold-war limits we set on ourselves?
Ugh! You win on those two paragraphs. I agree, that's a good idea. :(
Really? That is outrageous. You win another one :(
Wish it weren't the case so you could win. I'd love it to be how you'd like it to be :yup:
Here's the "Institute"'s take on the recent GM "debate" in britland (and it's highly unsatisfactory and slanted proceedings)
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMNDF.php
Benefits are...................
Crops.............
Enhanced taste and quality.............Reduced maturation time...........Increased nutrients, yields,
and stress tolerance........Improved resistance to disease, pests, and herbicides
Animals.........
Increased resistance, productivity, hardiness, and feed efficiency.............Better yields of meat, eggs, and milk...........Improved animal health and diagnostic methods
Environment...........
"Friendly" bioherbicides and bioinsecticides......Conservation of soil, water, and energy.............Bioprocessing for forestry products........Better natural waste management..........More efficient processing
Society..................
Increased food security for growing populations
Controversies are..................
Safety.........
Potential human health impact......allergens.......transfer of antibiotic resistance markers....unintended transfer of transgenes through cross-pollination..... unknown effects on other organisms.......and loss of flora and fauna biodiversity
Access and Intellectual Property............
Domination of world food production by a few companies..............Increasing dependence on Industralized nations by developing countries...........Biopiracy—foreign exploitation of natural resources
Ethics............
Violation of natural organisms' intrinsic values..........Tampering with nature by mixing genes among species ........Objections to consuming animal genes in plants and vice versa......Stress for animal
Labeling .......
Not mandatory in some countries (e.g., USA)...........
Mixing GM crops with non-GM confounds labeling attempts...........
Society
New advances may be skewed to interests of rich countries
Erm, i'm afraid you've been had on about half of these Nikster.
Benefits are...................
Crops.............
Enhanced taste and quality.............Reduced maturation time...........Increased nutrients, yields,
and stress tolerance........Improved resistance to disease, pests, and herbicides
Tastes i don't know about (but considering GMOs are an extention of the intensive-farming philosophy, which has pretty much put the buying-inducing categories of regularity of shape and colour consistancy above taste, i have my doubts. Intensively farmed food tastes like ****e frequently, or nothing at all. Or pesticides even! Wash those brocolli heads well!!)
As for quality!!!! That is a fact that's far from in. In fact, across the board, GM crops are underperforming pretty substantially compared to other farming methods. This includes yields and robustness/"stress-tolerence". And that's not even including plantations that never even get off the ground (and we don't have hard stats on coz the biotechs gag all information about such failures)
Increased nutrients, yes, but application is important here. The amaryth example in a previous post shows how application of these crops in favour of local staples can even reduce nutrients reaching populaces. (not to mention enforcing inappropriate crops on an environment and all the corresponding ecosystem problems).
What's more, the facts now showing that vitamin pills can cause health problems when over-consumed shows that increasing the quantity/intensity of an apparent nutrient isn't always the best idea. These things are absorbed in various ways/contexts (biological, social-habit etc), and they're not taking it into account it seems to me
the increase in insect tolerance definitely seems to have happened, but dominant or or incompletely recessive mutations in the crops could cause easy-insect adaption and/or weed-tolerance. In other words, what advantages we're now seeing in these areas (the only ones incidently) may be short-term, and cause greater problems by creating "superbugs" and "superweeds". And that's before we even get to useful pest-predators in local ecosystems killed by the plants/pesticides used too.
On a side note, the biotech-patented carcinogenic (multiple) herbicide Roundup used on all "Bt" crops (which is, to be fair, far superior to most other ones in that it requires smaller doses than most) may be encouraging the growth of a hated fungus that attacks wheat (i believe - can't be bothered to check ;)). This would be another big knock.
Animals.........
Increased resistance, productivity, hardiness, and feed efficiency.............Better yields of meat, eggs, and milk...........Improved animal health and diagnostic methods
Well, GM animals aren't exactly off the ground yet as far as i know, but the same flaws are liable to apply. i.e. we shouldn't expect more "hardy" or "productive" animals. Feed efficiency may already be comprimised by the NATURE of the feed, from inappropriate feed-choices (cow blood and all the other stupid stuff most countries, but not now-BSE-free britain ;), indulge in.) to the use of non-human-suitable GM feeds. This last practice seems to statistically increase the odds of genetic breakdown and/or mutation and/or horizontal-transfer: all things that explain why we've seen no advances in the areas the biotechs claim it spuriously. They may well succeed one day (tho the solid arguments squashed/blocked/constantly-belittled by their scientist-oppressing tactics suggest this to be most unlikely if current methods continued)
The yields thing is a debatable issue in itself - and hasn't happened yet to my knowledge. European science science suggests the increased yields acheived through hormone treatment may well have adverse health effects. (Please note the French, yes, the much-maligned French, have adopted the beautiful and socially/ecologically-responsible cautious-approach [i think it's called the "precautionary" approach officially] i.e. with respect to actions that might damage citizens/consumers/workers and the environment. They've got reasons to be arrogant occasionally ;) [and this from a Brit!!])
Environment...........
"Friendly" bioherbicides and bioinsecticides......Conservation of soil, water, and energy.............Bioprocessing for forestry products........Better natural waste management..........More efficient processing
OOHHHH MY GOD. I forgot they claimed some of this stuff. Non od these are a reality yet as far as i know. The soil one seems particularly doubtful - considering soil health seems to be very strongly linked to it's ecosystem. Change the system's components, and you might well change the soil negatively. This certainly happens with industrial farming.
And transgenic trees apparently spread mercury poisoning i've just read this minute - i'll get back to you on it ;)
Society..................
Increased food security for growing populations
Again, there's absolutely no success in this area so far - and demonstrable flaws in some of the reasoning (not to mention the fact that POVERTY-GAPS are the biggest cause of malnutrition. i.e. there is enough food for everyone right now, and most projections seem to say for at least the next 25 years that should remain the case, following current trends)
.....
As for the "cons" - i'll check later to see if you missed any ;) EDIT: [oh, you did - i'll write 'em up in a bit ;)]
You certainly know how to make your point..!!!!!.... :rolleyes:
But I will be back............to answer ya........... :D
But not just right now.............I'm painting my toenails.........and don't have time ..........
;D
sunfrog
09-20-03, 08:52 PM
Who is Nikki? I think I'm in love. :love:
Question to Golgot,
When you were but a wee sprout did your mum make you eat all your vegetables? Is that why you are rebellng now as an adult? ;)
Question to Golgot,
When you were but a wee sprout did your mum make you eat all your vegetables? Is that why you are rebellng now as an adult? ;)
It's coz i like 'em that i want to protect them young tadpole.
Wow, the Euro-forced debate we've had on the GM issue over here, despite being weighted in industry's favour, has had to conclude that the more people learn about GM, the less they like it.
Now, will the legislators listen? Only when the industry stops pushing methinks. US/Canadian(and Argentinian possibly? Not sure) bids to enforce GMO sale in Europe are still steamrolling through the WTO/EU frameworks etc. Enforced, if labelled, sale is on the way. And wide-scale cultivation too (as some countries want it i think - i.e. Switzerland? And the politicians of this little land seem to have their little hearts set on it too :rolleyes: )
here's the gwwwardian's little take on the latest report :)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1049110,00.html
http://www.theonion.com/images/291/image_article1683_418x445.jpg
:D
http://www.theonion.com/images/291/image_article1683_418x445.jpg
:D
Thanks for that Yods, I was wondering what my dog was doing in the Corn field, :eek: I am on my way to cut them down, chop, chop. ;D
Thanks for that Yods, I was wondering what my dog was doing in the Corn field, :eek: I am on my way to cut them down, chop, chop. ;D
Heheheh.
What i find funny about that piece of tripe is that it puts forward the idea that anti-GM people are all UFO-chasing guava-balming uninformed luddites. Whereas in my experience, most pro GM types are massively uninformed and even more guilty of the ritualistic and unquestioning thinking they assume riddles the minds of of those who oppose it.
It seems to me that pro people often fall into these categories:
-Those who just unquestioningly think everything novel/scientific must be an "advance"
-Those who investigate a little and are immediately happy with the words like "precise" and "safe" that are rife in the rhetoric ironically pushed as scientific fact by many pro-GM sources and even regulatory and science-related bodies. And they often seem to ignore the under-hand and science-suppressing tactics used by the biotechs
[please note Monsanto, for example, is in financial strife not only coz its products haven't fulfilled on their promises - but also in part coz of the huge amounts they've spent on promoting their products (and funding those who suppress publications that find against them etc it seems). No wonder they sue their own farmers/customers :rolleyes: - they've got nothing worth buying currently]
[Please also note that just coz they can precisely isolate a section of DNA doesn't mean they precisely place it in the host organism, or know precisely what it does now, or will do in the future - and as for "safe" - don't even get me started ;) - and there are many more abused terms]
[oh yes, and to over-load you a bit more....if you believe in free-trade - do you think the practices of buying up other companies to destroy their competitive non-GM seed-stocks, or getting the US tax payer to pay for promotional international meetings are justifiable actions by Monsanto?]
-Those in the scientific or regulatory communities who [almost always in the pay of the biotechs it seems at one point or another] insist that it's all safe, but refuse to investiate if that's the case concerning human consumption [and in fact, refuse to reconsider their assertions on safety of the processes - even when new discoveries invalidate the basis for old assertions]. In other words, they use bad science, and considering the context, even worse rhetoric [coz it's got no place in what they're involved in]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
My computer's just died a death, otherwise i'd cover you in details and examples. Expect some very soon tho - as a spanking new hardrive should mean my data will survive and my facts will be thriving again very soon.
In the mean time, why not chew on this:
Even biotech claims for BTMaize now basically discredited: [i.e. US farmers use the euro-banned chemical atrazine, alongside their more benign but still carcinogenic Roundup product. In other words, they are equally damaging as "intensive" alternatives, and more-so than Organic]
http://www.pan-uk.org/press/GMtrial.htm
Oh yes, and do you reaaaaaly wanna trust this company...?
"Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the F.D.A's [Food and Drug Administration] job."
Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications, in an
interview with the New York Times, October 25, 1998
When you consider that the proven carcinogenic growth hormone rBGH is accepted by the FDA (but nigh no-one else to my knowledge) for use in cows - thanks to the work of Margaret Miller - who worked as:
-Deputy Director of Human Safety and Consultative Services for the New Drug Evaluation Office, Centre for Vetinary Medicine"
AND
-as Chemical Laboratory Supervisor for Monsanto.
And there's more [more monsanto regulatory-body/legislation connections - more health problem facts - just more and more and more] - but i'm off to see Kill Bill. Ciao y'all - but don't chow-down on this **** if you can avoid it.
Here's a marvellous example of how Organic approaches can lead to food production that is safer, more economical and healthier than "intensive" or GM farming. And indeed, food production that takes away the need for the creation of such things as GM crops.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1043828,00.html
Adapting local ecosystems just makes sense on all levels. A sensible place for science and industry to be putting their attention is into this type of thing: discovering effective combinations of crops for all local environments. [the ones in this article worked out amazingly well - but there's reason to believe that similar results can be acheived most places]
Support Organic food now i tell you! :) It'll be cheaper eventually - and it doesn't give you cancer or your children birth defects, or any other of the wonderful "side-effects" of the techniques we prefer currently.
Yay. Wales has declared itself GM free. I'm so proud. (you do know where Wales is now don't you? ;) Well, erm, in case you don't, it's the place where they burn down English holdiay homes :rolleyes: - well, occasionally)
Yay. Wales has declared itself GM free. I'm so proud. (you do know where Wales is now don't you? ;) Well, erm, in case you don't, it's the place where they burn down English holdiay homes :rolleyes: - well, occasionally)
Isn't it where they have names that you can't pronounce, words starting with double L and F etc, Oh and they used to be able to play Rugby. :D
Isn't it where they have names that you can't pronounce, words starting with double L and F etc, Oh and they used to be able to play Rugby. :D
Damn, i wish i knew some good welsh swear words right now. Ah hell, i'll just make some up: flavwel hythallen Nebbit! (heheheh, i can say one or two real words, but i've no idea how to spell them :rolleyes: )
Damn, i wish i knew some good welsh swear words right now. Ah hell, i'll just make some up: flavwel hythallen Nebbit! (heheheh, i can say one or two real words, but i've no idea how to spell them :rolleyes: )
:laugh:
sunfrog
12-15-03, 12:27 PM
More things to scare Golgot with. :) Muahahaha!
Cow Gemone Project (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/14/1071336795095.html)
"This research yielded by the project will present a tremendous opportunity to farmers and industry to improve the control and treatment of animal diseases as well as to enhance food safety,"
Chimp genome too! (http://www.nhgri.nih.gov/11509418)
BETHESDA, Md., Dec. 10, 2003 - The National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), one of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), today announced the first draft version of the genome sequence of the chimpanzee and its alignment with the human genome. All of the data have been deposited into free public databases and are now available for use by scientists around the world.
I want one of these!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/guide/IMG/adult.gif
Yeah, that first one's maaaaaaaarveloous. Coz they're doing such a good job controlling (*cough* generating) health problems in animals and humans with current technology application. Reckon they'll be any more responsible with this new technology? Ah well, doesn't bother me. The EU and britain are following sensible "precautionary" approaches for the most part. It's you guys in the US who are guinea pigs for all this. Enjoy. (i wouldn't worry immediately tho - coz Dolly the sheep unravelled so nicely - don't expect any great "success" in this area for a long time to come. Mind you, don't expect that to stop them marketing it. If the FDA can ignore the mutagenic aspects of irradiation, and in fact build their case for its safety on reports that state them, they can probably ignore the health-risks implicit in genetically-collapsing cows too. :rolleyes: )
As for the chimp thing - guess that blows the old creationist -there's-no-way-i-come-from-a-monkey argument out the water eh? ;) :p
Ah well, the only valid application for gene-research could be sensible, limited, suffering-reduction application in medicine. Even if current versions of gene-therapy just seem to create leukemia in many of the "successful" cases. Heigh ho.
Finally, a sensible, non-flippant, non-self-agrandising use for genetic manipulation....(yeah right :rolleyes: ;))......
A cactus spliced with human DNA, causing it to grow hair.
That's the claim. It was reported in a reputable science magazine. Here's the pic.
http://prinfo.no/boland/transg/images3/06.jpg
Don't be sick. The artist wants to release it into the wild, as part of some fanciful belief that it represents freedom and unharnesed sexuality. (Personally i'm hoping she harnesses her sexuality to prevent her spreading her genes any further ;)).
Thankfully, and unsurprisingly, almost all of her experimental cactuses have "imploded". Compares kind of well to the mass failure rate during the generation of GM plants - and their continuing frailty afterwards.
Oh, and just as an update...
GM crops have still failed:
-To produce greater yields
-To prove more durable than organic techniques in harsh conditions
-To be better for the environment over time
And, well, just about every claim their makers make for them are still totally unjustified and unsubstantiated by results.
Guess that's why farmers are slowly but successfully suing them for previous claims (i.e. claims of GM-crops' superiority), despite the slanted laws in the US which prevent various forms of warrented litigation.
Oh, and incidently, i understand the Brit government has admitted that the 3-year-trial over here wasn't long enough, coz weeds with the pesticide-tolerant-gene only appeared after 4 years in Canada/the US. They've also acknowledged that we need to re-assess the one GM-crop that is to be given some licence to grow (eventually) because it was being compared to industrial farming using the now banned Atrazine (which, incidently, US farmers have been using on GM crops for a while, because the crops' one advantage, that of genetic protection against the patented herbicide "Roundup", disappears as weeds crosspollinate with them and gain the same advantage).
To summarise.
GM crops have no benefits compared to both industrial and organic farming.
They have plenty of downsides though.
(and the best summary of all: If the same money that was invested in GM was invested in Organic, we genuinely would have sturdier and more proficient crops which would be helping to revitalise the soil that has been loosing its potency for decades, and which are better prepared for weather extremes, and superior in promoting fertile growth environments in tricky areas etc etc etc etc etc)
Rant over. For now.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.