His point has nothing at all to do with gmos being bad for your health.
1 Like
his point was he just knows all science and tech is just going to get deployed badly, and so let’s deploy fairy dust practices instead because the solution to hunger was inside us all along. letting the genie out isn’t even needed, and is dangerous, contrary to all other evidence.
So we need to change the politics.
That is the position of the majority of the people here, afaik.
imo
It’s bad.
1 Like
A friend of mine is considering a job importing some kind of anti-biotic amino acid slurry or some such from China that gets added to animal feed. He doesn’t want to, but he’s broke, the primary caregiver for his 2yo, and it’s an option that works with his schedule. Can I send him to your farm? His dad was born in Canada. He might qualify.
He grows hydroponically too!
1 Like
There could be a lot wrong with that tomato, if we are even assuming those traits are what is being engineered. Things such as worse nutritional value, dependence on chemical support to combat pests that become resistant and require more with collateral damage to both the environment and humans who are exposed. The encouragement to reduce sustainable farming practices based on economic efficiency. Then there is the fairytale that the motivation for any of this is to feed hungry people rather than economic scale.
you found mostly bad things about a hypothetical (or metaphorical) tomato.
Here is the article that had the 70% figure, unsourced. It talks about the concerns of this kind of farming and how gmo has a negative impact and potentially dangerous unintended consequences.
you went back and added the article. thanks for that. you read that 20 years ago? looks like a news aggregator site which states
As we move forward, we are united in opposing genetically engineered organisms in food production and believe that pressure to stop the proliferation of this contaminating technology must be focused on the White House and Congress. The entities responsible for this situation are the biotechnology companies whose GE technology causes genetic drift and environmental hazards that remain uncontained as the deregulation of genetically engineered alfalfa goes forward.
you follow through twice to an increased herbicide link feom 2011. and what does it say? nothing as drastic as that. GE caused farmers to liberally increase herbicide but decreased pesticide use. use of herbicide per acre decreased for corn. roundup overuse is bad, but not GMO corn itself.
for someone who thinks science is cool, this seems like a lot of shade.
i only use one account, this one.
Not sure what the alternative would be for GMO foods. We were always going to get a population explosion because healthcare improved worldwide. GMO crops allows us to feed these people more consistently using less farmland. I don’t think farmers would have decided to let their population starve so what they would have done without GMO food is burn down even more forests and convert them into farmland.
There are definitely negatives about GMO foods but the alternatives were worse. The argument that GMO food means more people and that is bad for the environment is a really bad one. Using that same logic a covid vaccine is bad for the environment and we should not make one.
He was asking about your 2+2 account(s) as I’m sure you are aware.
Ikes seems to be back to ikesing, which is disappointing
Eta: sorry Dutch, meant to reply to VFS
God this place is toxic lately.
4 Likes
I don’t get what not being against genetics research but saying gmo is benign means unless it’s a blank statement.
Not going to pretend i’m an expert, because my wife is. But everything i know on the subject contradict the notion that we have sufficient solutions. The philosophy behind the thought that gmo research is bad is just odd to me. I saw you mention guns a few times, i imagine this has to do with some prior discussions with the other dude, but your position here seems to be that gun control is useless and i feel like you are hinting to the opposite.
You aren’t challenging anyone perspective that gmo is purely used for good (the whole sentence is weird to me because “gmo” isn’t a thing on its own). It is agreed upon. I don’t think that idea is as radical as you make it sound.
i don’t read you fucking edits because you like to go back to correct yourself. organic farm that did better once twenty years ago. story checks out.
You are being way too aggressive. Chill. It’s a discussion not a death match.
1 Like
muting this thread now. i lurked and posted under same name on 2p2
I thought maybe ‘benign’ was maybe used incorrectly and what was meant was more like ‘neutral’ or neither good nor bad in and of itself/per se/or something like that.
1 Like
I’m saying it’s a cop out. Genetics research is a positive. Same as medical research is a positive, even if pharmaceutical companies are evil.
And gmo is “a-ok” even if everything you wrote in that post was true.
The idea that Monsanto are doing bad things, the meat industry is problematic and agriculture is a necessity not a positive aren’t really as contrarian as you portray them. I think people here are able to hold multiple ideas.
I don’t think i have the proper vocabulary to go into in depth science discussion.
Everyone needs to head to the marijuana thread and strap one up.
2 Likes
To the hydropond!
2 Likes