Arguments about this always end up boiling down to the extreme viewpoints clashing, and the middle ground gets shoved out of the way. I don't think GMO corn is going to turn me into a toxic avenger, but I pay attention when doctors express concerns and avoid eating them when it's convenient to do so. Yay for the middle ground.
Quite.Jay wrote:
No, it's identical. The only difference is that the scientists in a lab have more control over the process and can more easily lead it in the direction they want. It's simply more efficient. There's nothing sinister at all.Spearhead wrote:
It depends on how you look at it -- breeding cows and horses and dogs over centuries/thousands of years is a little bit different than scientists fucking around with the genes of mice in a laboratory. The same in principle, perhaps, but still a very different beast.
There is very, very little evidence that GMOs are any more or less "dangerous" than organics.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
I hate that phrase "playing god". We're doing what humans do, advancing technology to improve the conditions we live in.Dilbert_X wrote:
So let it happen.Jay wrote:
Is it really? Mutations happen every day. Who's to say that you wouldn't end up with glow in the dark mice on a long enough timeline anyway?Dilbert_X wrote:
Selective breeding =/= Genetic modification
Chopping up genes and forcibly inserting genes from other species or even different genuses, such as putting bacteria genes into foodstuffs to grow antibiotics or using squid genes to make glow in the dark mice, is radically different from breeding your biggest bull with your best milk producing cow, for example.
Inserting alien genes, in some cases from pathogens, into animals and plants, is playing god in a very dangerous way.
Its cane toad theory on a grand scale.
occasionally though we 'advance' into a 'progress trap' and end up setting ourselves back decades/centuries/forever. technology doesn't imply a straightforward progress-forward towards a bright new future. it also implies ways of giving ourselves cancer, ways of shackling our psychology/habits to compulsive gadget use, and ways of polluting the planet beyond any hope of recovery.jord wrote:
I hate that phrase "playing god". We're doing what humans do, advancing technology to improve the conditions we live in.Dilbert_X wrote:
So let it happen.Jay wrote:
Is it really? Mutations happen every day. Who's to say that you wouldn't end up with glow in the dark mice on a long enough timeline anyway?
Inserting alien genes, in some cases from pathogens, into animals and plants, is playing god in a very dangerous way.
Its cane toad theory on a grand scale.
in that sense we are "playing god", in that we are disturbing the natural balance and equilibrium of things, as they are / as designed 'by' nature, with catastrophic potential. the natural process of evolution/survival, and the natural world ecology has only been achieved through millenia of fine-tuning and constant re-balancing. when we come in, with technology that has the means to perform huge unnatural changes - as dilbert gave an example with aussie cane toads from north america - then the consequences can be dire. in the case of the cane toads, a massive problem for indigenous aussie wildlife, as mass-breeding poisonous toads from another eco-system kill them all off. that wouldn't have happened if we hadn't intervened and introduced them to one another, using our superior 'technology' and ability, i.e. playing god. it's a deux ex machina.
There's a difference between advancing technology to make ourselves more comfortable in the world, and changing the world to suit us better.jord wrote:
I hate that phrase "playing god". We're doing what humans do, advancing technology to improve the conditions we live in.
Gaming natural selection is one thing, re-engineering nature is entirely another, more so when we barely have a child's understanding of what we're meddling with.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-06-01 05:51:35)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Now who's the Luddite?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I don't presume to mess with things we don't yet understand.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
erring on the side of caution with matters of biology/life&death is being a Luddite, now? funny that.Jay wrote:
Now who's the Luddite?
not sure you understand the history of ludditism, but oh well.
I bet if any of you lived in famine plagued Pakistan for instance, and relied on aid from a government you hated to feed your family if at all, you would have a seriously radical opinion in the opposite direction regarding GM food.
Real easy to sit here and say genetically modifying food is horrible/bad/unethical/foolish while on a full stomach.
Real easy to sit here and say genetically modifying food is horrible/bad/unethical/foolish while on a full stomach.
I am A-Okay with GMO. But the world already produces enough food for everyone. It just isn't distributed evenly enough. First world countries waste food like crazy while poor countries can't afford it or afford to ship it. In the U.S. we produce more corn than anywhere else. We use most of the corn to make corn syrup for candy and soda, feed the corns to our cows, and use the corn for our gas.
As quality of life improves birth rates go down. Populations would be in negative growth in the U.S. and Europe if it wasn't for immigration. We will continue to produce more food in the future and demand will eventually lighten up.
Everything is fine. Everything will be fine.
As quality of life improves birth rates go down. Populations would be in negative growth in the U.S. and Europe if it wasn't for immigration. We will continue to produce more food in the future and demand will eventually lighten up.
Everything is fine. Everything will be fine.
If everyone thought like that we would still be doing cave paintings.Dilbert_X wrote:
I don't presume to mess with things we don't yet understand.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
It's not really a deus ex machina. Anyways, what are examples of these 'progress traps'?Uzique The Lesser wrote:
occasionally though we 'advance' into a 'progress trap' and end up setting ourselves back decades/centuries/forever. technology doesn't imply a straightforward progress-forward towards a bright new future. it also implies ways of giving ourselves cancer, ways of shackling our psychology/habits to compulsive gadget use, and ways of polluting the planet beyond any hope of recovery.jord wrote:
I hate that phrase "playing god". We're doing what humans do, advancing technology to improve the conditions we live in.Dilbert_X wrote:
So let it happen.
Inserting alien genes, in some cases from pathogens, into animals and plants, is playing god in a very dangerous way.
Its cane toad theory on a grand scale.
in that sense we are "playing god", in that we are disturbing the natural balance and equilibrium of things, as they are / as designed 'by' nature, with catastrophic potential. the natural process of evolution/survival, and the natural world ecology has only been achieved through millenia of fine-tuning and constant re-balancing. when we come in, with technology that has the means to perform huge unnatural changes - as dilbert gave an example with aussie cane toads from north america - then the consequences can be dire. in the case of the cane toads, a massive problem for indigenous aussie wildlife, as mass-breeding poisonous toads from another eco-system kill them all off. that wouldn't have happened if we hadn't intervened and introduced them to one another, using our superior 'technology' and ability, i.e. playing god. it's a deux ex machina.
Alpha as fuck.
if you consider the 'natural' progress of things, then yes, us crossing genes between plants or animals is a 'deus ex machina', of sorts. obviously i'm referring to it in an analogical sense. it's just a figure to help explain my argument.
a classic example of a progress trap is increases in hunting technology/technique in the stone/bronze age (can't remember which), which actually led to the rapid over-hunting and extinction of several key food sources. but lots of things are considered progress traps, in a wide enough focus, not in the short-term like that. you could say that property, if the current global-economic system ever collapses, was a progress trap. owning plots of land rather than being nomadic could be considered a progress trap, in a long enough time-frame, if it leads to societal collapse. plenty of areas that have become dustbowls or deserts because of over-farming/irrigation are localized 'progress traps'. technology and advancement doesn't always lead to long-term better results.
i think some recent scholars use the term 'progress traps' in critiques of global warming, or over-population, too.
a classic example of a progress trap is increases in hunting technology/technique in the stone/bronze age (can't remember which), which actually led to the rapid over-hunting and extinction of several key food sources. but lots of things are considered progress traps, in a wide enough focus, not in the short-term like that. you could say that property, if the current global-economic system ever collapses, was a progress trap. owning plots of land rather than being nomadic could be considered a progress trap, in a long enough time-frame, if it leads to societal collapse. plenty of areas that have become dustbowls or deserts because of over-farming/irrigation are localized 'progress traps'. technology and advancement doesn't always lead to long-term better results.
i think some recent scholars use the term 'progress traps' in critiques of global warming, or over-population, too.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-06-01 11:04:51)
Hipsters complain about it because it makes them feel superior having an excuse to shop at overpriced organic food stores.Nyte wrote:
Are they bad? Are they good? Is it just Monsanto that is tainting their image?
Why are hipsters/vegans/jobless/99% and internet activists the only ones that complain about it?
Discuss.
roc sometimes i think you post stupid shit here on purpose as an excuse to feel less depressed about your stupid accountancy IRL.
the making fun of 'hipsters' thing has died just as hard as 'emo', 'goth' and all the other phases before it. nobody cares
If i was actually depressed about studying and working in accounting I don't think I would be spending my time posting stupid stuff on bf2s.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
roc sometimes i think you post stupid shit here on purpose as an excuse to feel less depressed about your stupid accountancy IRL.
That statement is pretty much 1000% wrong in multiple areas.Macbeth wrote:
As quality of life improves birth rates go down. Populations would be in negative growth in the U.S. and Europe if it wasn't for immigration. We will continue to produce more food in the future and demand will eventually lighten up.
Did you live in a country, like Pakistan for instance, with your family and rely on a government that hated you for food?Extra Medium wrote:
I bet if any of you lived in famine plagued Pakistan for instance, and relied on aid from a government you hated to feed your family if at all, you would have a seriously radical opinion in the opposite direction regarding GM food.
Real easy to sit here and say genetically modifying food is horrible/bad/unethical/foolish while on a full stomach.
Umm, no, everything he said was correct.Extra Medium wrote:
That statement is pretty much 1000% wrong in multiple areas.Macbeth wrote:
As quality of life improves birth rates go down. Populations would be in negative growth in the U.S. and Europe if it wasn't for immigration. We will continue to produce more food in the future and demand will eventually lighten up.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay wrote:
Umm, no, everything he said was correct.Extra Medium wrote:
That statement is pretty much 1000% wrong in multiple areas.Macbeth wrote:
As quality of life improves birth rates go down. Populations would be in negative growth in the U.S. and Europe if it wasn't for immigration. We will continue to produce more food in the future and demand will eventually lighten up.
Totally looks like it's about to level off.
Also, to think that population leveling off just in the U.S. and Europe will somehow suddenly provide enough food for everyone else is fucking stupid.
the world population will level off in a hypothetical future when all the (massive) developing countries reach western standards of comfort and luxury, sure. when all the billions of people in india and china have a reasonable expectation of working in a cushty office-services job, driving a bmw, and sending their prized-darling child to private schools... then the birth-rate will drop, and the world population will 'level'.Jay wrote:
Umm, no, everything he said was correct.Extra Medium wrote:
That statement is pretty much 1000% wrong in multiple areas.Macbeth wrote:
As quality of life improves birth rates go down. Populations would be in negative growth in the U.S. and Europe if it wasn't for immigration. We will continue to produce more food in the future and demand will eventually lighten up.
of course, though, before that will ever come about, the world's resources will be gutted. so population is probably going to remain a problem. the birth-rate only decreases and levels off when people are pretty much consuming at a level that is, from a shared-global perspective, unsustainable. so it's a bit of a paradox.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-06-02 05:09:51)
Then again, if the Pakistanis spent a bit less on the army and their nuclear weapons program, and a bit more on the agricultural system, I'm sure they'd be in a better position and not need GM foods to survive.Extra Medium wrote:
I bet if any of you lived in famine plagued Pakistan for instance, and relied on aid from a government you hated to feed your family if at all, you would have a seriously radical opinion in the opposite direction regarding GM food.
Real easy to sit here and say genetically modifying food is horrible/bad/unethical/foolish while on a full stomach.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Um no.Jay wrote:
If everyone thought like that we would still be doing cave paintings.Dilbert_X wrote:
I don't presume to mess with things we don't yet understand.
There's a big fat difference between making incremental technological changes to systems that we can control, and throwing radical and unnatural changes into a system completely outside our control, such as the ecosystem.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
you don't need food either when your belligerent neighbour is pointing their nuclear missiles at you.
was your PhD in geopolitics dilbert? even the UK maintains its superfluous nuclear missile programs. and we don't have a very loud france threatening to wipe us off the face of the earth.
was your PhD in geopolitics dilbert? even the UK maintains its superfluous nuclear missile programs. and we don't have a very loud france threatening to wipe us off the face of the earth.