Forum menu
oh, poor effort there Junky - backtracking by editing your post, but a little too late...
It will happen we just dont know how bad it will be
How many things have we heard that about?
Influenza pandemic's for example.
Quick, cease all development, we're all going to die from the flu. The sky is falling, the sky is falling!
Nuclear power
Quick, cease all development, we're all going to die from the radiationz. The sky is falling, the sky is falling!
HIV
Quick, cease all development, we're all going to die from Aids. The sky is falling, the sky is falling!
Global Warming
Quick, cease all development, we're all going to die from the heat. The sky is falling, the sky is falling!
the problem is that the anti gm position comes from a dislike of 'meddling with nature'
genes being. swapped by crossbreeding is considered fine but swapping genes in a lab is bad -
so what if the genes come from a different species, our genomes are remarkably conserved from bacteria all the way up
and horizontal gene transfer is already seen in nature
the argument about big agri business is a completely different debate but wheeled out by the antigmers regardless
Quick, cease all development, we're all going to die from Aids. The sky is falling, the sky is falling!
I'm with JY on the futility of arguing with someone who spouts such inane bollocks here, but that one deserves highlighting for just how bullshit it is. Well done Zulu.
the argument about big agri business is a completely different debate but wheeled out by the antigmers regardless
If big agri business showed itself to be half trustworthy, I'd be happy to give it a chance. But time and time again, it's shown itself not to be.
genes being swapped by crossbreeding is considered fine but swapping genes in a lab is bad
This may well be the crux of it all.
Where does a line get drawn? Is crossbreeding OK? Should people be allowed to own a labradoodle (or actually any dog if you think about it. They're all a result of cross breeding.)
Is "speeding up" the process by going to the root (gene) acceptable? As that's all it is, really.
the problem is that the anti gm position comes from a dislike of 'meddling with nature'
not from me. I'm not anti gm per sae but currently i dont think any of the things i've seen have benefits that outweigh the risks.
not backtracking hence why I then commented= again logic is your friend tonight- but just recalling the futility of reasoning with the unreasonable as you so amply demonstrate again,
How many things have we heard that about?
well not from me on this thread or from anyone else except you so perhaps you could just address what i am saying rather than doing some stupid ranty shit instead?
If we alter the evolutionary balance there will be a response and this environmental response is a definite. We cannot predict what it will be but we do kno wit will happen.
This is some way short of hysteria. Of course you cannot engage with that fact directly because it is true hence the utter utter BS you spout in order to misrepresent my view because you are incapable of attacking the actual argument.
Tiresome , you are better than this and occasionally brighter than this
tazzymtb - Memberon the other hand GM crop may actually be one of the only developments that will enable the feeding of the continually expanding human population? or we can just let people starve, or look at the next series of wars as resources become so scarce we have massive population migration.
It's not a fix for that- all we'll do is outgrow that resource too. It's understandable that we're looking for hotfixes to let us carry on regardless but it's not a solution, any more than improved fuel efficiency and improved extraction fixes oil shortages. But these things are more palatable than admitting we need less people, or we need the people we have to consume less.
this environmental response is a definite. We cannot predict what it will be but we do kno wit will happen.
So, you don't know what it is, but you do [i]know[/i] it will definitely happen?
How do you know? How can you be so "definite" about this?
Oh, and do you eat apples? They're almost all made from some sort of cross breeding. Again, does speeding up the process make it "bad", and if so, how?
If we alter the evolutionary balance there will be a response and this environmental response is a definite. We cannot predict what it will be but we do kno wit will happen.
But this is no more a reason or justification to suppress the development of GM crops, than it is a reason to prevent the development of antibiotics or any other new science with potential unknown and unpredictable side-effects (hence the examples!)
How do i know ?
I have heard of evolution, natural selection and how advantageous genes thrive in [response to] an environment 🙄
Its like you have not read the thread or something
red queen hypothesis - or evolution is running to stand still
It is never in stasis bit we should not start altering it for our own ends. If we change the balance then nature will adapt. We can see this in the onset of antibiotic resistance that may lead to us being back to where we were before anti biotics
when you add those to the law of unintended consequences what we have is us adjusting the balance of nature, knowing their will be an environmental "back lash or reaction to it whilst some multi national tell us how safe it and we are all Luddites if we objectReality is no one knows what will happen beyond the fact that their will be an environmental /genetic response to the change in the environment as that is what nature does. Once we let the genie [ see what i did there] out the bottle we are not putting it back there
Shall i use words like allele and phenotype next post?
WOW you mentioned something else - is it because you cannot challenge the argument ?
Junky, what have you eaten of late? Anything that was a result of cross-fertilisation?
Of course you have.
This is the problem - Where did it start and where does it stop?
- Do you drink milk? That's from cows bred for more milk production. AKA - For "our own ends"we should not start altering it for our own ends
Oh, and do you eat apples? They're almost all made from some sort of cross breeding. Again, does speeding up the process make it "bad", and if so, how?
because in an evolutionary context its like going to a knife fight with a few dozen cruise misiles and a couple of tanks.
So, Junky, your point is (as i said) that we should never try or do [b]anything[/b], because we cannot predict the outcome or put the genie back in the bottle?
I hope you're happy eating your purple carrots!
Zulu are you able to read?
because in an evolutionary context its like going to a knife fight with a few dozen cruise misiles and a couple of tanks.
Fight won, then?
Depends if the wrong people get their hands on the weapons. Genes get into pernicious weeds like couch and its not going to end well.
your point is (as i said) that we should never try or do anything, because we cannot predict the outcome or put the genie back in the bottle?I hope you're happy eating your purple carrots!
I know what you said was my point was and it is only slightly weakened by the fact I did not say it.
That's a pity, but not entirely unexpected. It was a good thread when I went to bed, with some knowledgable people on it (I know A_A did his PhD in agricultural ecology, for example). Now it seems to be the usual STW borefest....
. But these things are more palatable than admitting we need less people, or we need the people we have to consume less.
totally agree on this.
we need the people we have to consume less.
this x 240 000 million
Some GM can be fun I like the glow in the dark onions someone grew but their are massive trust issues in its development and it is a genie that won't do back into the bottle.
A couple of years ago Friend's of the Earth bought a random selection of rice from a number of UK supermarkets only one bag did not contain GM rice (officially you can't buy GM rice in the UK)
At a time when we can more than adequately feed the worlds population from current resources fairly distributed we should be focusing on doing that and stabilising population growth. On a planet with finite resources we should not be seeking to support continuous population expansion with genetic wizardry.
Indeed.
However it's worth remembering that the scientists / companies involved in GM are not in the business of controlling population expansion.
If we are agreed that population expansion is the problem, than focusing protests against GM doesn't appear to be part of the solution.
At a time when we can more than adequately feed the worlds population from current resources fairly distributed we should be focusing on doing that and stabilising population growth. On a planet with finite resources we should not be seeking to support continuous population expansion with genetic wizardry.
but people- daily mail readers, guradianistas, greenpeace only care when its gm crops
eco-warriors are ripping up these experiments but dont bother when crossbred strains or crazy new fertilizers are tested
this protest is just a knee-jerk response to the technology
The problem with all of these things is the people who make the most noise are those ill qualified to pass judgement and simply whip up the general public into a poorly qualified froth.
At a time when we can more than adequately feed the worlds population from current resources fairly distributed we should be focusing on doing that and stabilising population growth. On a planet with finite resources we should not be seeking to support continuous population expansion with genetic wizardry.
I'd agree, though you will find that many of the alterations to plants have been to make them more produce-dense, meaning more can be grown in smaller spaces. Considering we're likely to have to move to biomass/renewable power generation at some point which takes up more room we're at least hitting two birds with one stone.
No-one wants to think we might need to do population control, it's a dirty word/phrase.
Some GM can be fun I like the glow in the dark onions someone grew but their are massive trust issues in its development and it is a genie that won't do back into the bottle.
the glow in the dark type genes are used as markers. Put in two genes together and then select the ones that glow in the dark, makes it easier to spot if its worked.
1) Modern (even pre-modern) agriculture is meddling with nature on a massively destructive scale. The European natural environment has been all but completely destroyed.
2) GM is not the same as cross-breeding
3) We might have enough food in total to feed the world now, but is it possible or feasible to actually transport it?