GMO's, why not?

[mrpopenfresh]

Why stop genetically modified organisms? I see nothin wrong to come out of it. Humans have been breeding selectively their food for centuries. Hell, ever taste or see what a "real" tomatoe or potato looks like? No fucking way you could eat it.
But to get back on track, GMO's are crops wich have been modified genetically to include new genes to help fight insects or bad growing conditions. I don't see anything negative about this. With GMO's, we would make a HUGE step forward in the eradication f world hunger. See, the modified crops would have a way better chance of surviving the harsh and unforgiving terrain of places like Africa.
Funny how the people who are against modifiying their food are also the ones who feel the most about World Hunger (i.e., liberals, hippies)

These are just a few arguments, I have a bag full of 'em, but right now I gotta go to school.

[ZeroAsALimit]

I'm supportive of it, it could help solve famines and I generally like teh idea.

[antiklaus]

I'm all for a better tomato.

But when that tomato is modified to only grow for one generation, and create infertile seeds, I have a real issue with that.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that if these suicide genes make it into the gene pool, we stand a really serious chance of 'better tomato'-ing ourselves into a famine.

[bumcheekcity]

At 9/2/04 08:51 AM, mrpopenfresh wrote: Funny how the people who are against modifiying their food are also the ones who feel the most about World Hunger (i.e., liberals, hippies)

I dont have a problem with GM Crops. I'm still aware that a lot of poeple have reservations as to their safety, and I'm one of them. Not a doom-mongerer, I'm a realist, but we should just be careful. We dont know the long-term effects yet...

Either way, I'm a supporter of more research. Also, I think all GM crops should be marked when you buy them, and come in a bag labelled 'GM'. Just so people can pick and choose how they like it.

That said, I'm going to go completely back on everything I just said and tell you I prefer organic stuff. It's a whole lot nicer. Looks like shit, but it tasted just better, if you know what I mean. They eat properly on the continent. Food tastes great, without all our junk that we put onto it, and it's primarily organic(ish).

However, if you want to eat GM food, I'm not gunna stop you.

[mrpopenfresh]

At 9/2/04 09:28 AM, antiklaus wrote:
But when that tomato is modified to only grow for one generation, and create infertile seeds, I have a real issue with that.

Explain.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that if these suicide genes make it into the gene pool, we stand a really serious chance of 'better tomato'-ing ourselves into a famine.

Explain. The loss of one vegetable is not going to kill us. Besides, the chances of this happening is very slim.

And just to point this out, Humans have never eaten perfectly healthy food. Do you think the people from the rennaissance ate the same kind of bread we do? They ate like shit and now we can even further evolve our food by the means of science. GMO's is the next step in human nutrition. It'll be alot less hassle and alot more efficient.

[Proteas]

At 9/2/04 10:45 AM, mrpopenfresh wrote:

At 9/2/04 09:28 AM, antiklaus wrote:
But when that tomato is modified to only grow for one generation, and create infertile seeds, I have a real issue with that.

Explain.

I believe that antiklaus is pointing out that there is going to be some unforseen side effect on the plants themselves. Ergo; "infertile seeds." And he has a point to be quite honest; how are these plants going to behave two or three generations down the road? Will they be plentifull, or are we going to have a tomato shortage in the next few years?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that if these suicide genes make it into the gene pool, we stand a really serious chance of 'better tomato'-ing ourselves into a famine.

Explain. The loss of one vegetable is not going to kill us. Besides, the chances of this happening is very slim.

Considering all the tomato based products in the world at the moment, I think we would definitly be hurting if the tomato just up and disappeared.

GMO's is the next step in human nutrition. It'll be alot less hassle and alot more efficient.

But what will be the long term effects? Your messing nature itself, and mark my words; Mother nature will bite back sooner or later.

[Camarohusky]

At 9/2/04 10:45 AM, mrpopenfresh wrote: Explain. The loss of one vegetable is not going to kill us. Besides, the chances of this happening is very slim.

I have two words that the Irish are very familiar with... Potato Famine.

If we grow super crops and send them to antions, and these nations get reliant on these crops to live, yet the crops die out, what do we have to send them? Nothing.

Well there was that nasty "terminator gene" a few years that Monsanto tried to release, it basically caused crops to die every season so farmers would have to go back and buy more seed from them.

Also, there was a lawsuit involving this same company and a farmer that had GMO crops all on one side of his field even though he grew organic crops. Basically crops from his neighbor's field were spread over to his field by the wind. Monsation claimed that he stole those seeds.

But nonetheless: seeds that self-destruct after a year + ecosystem = self-destructive ecosystem.

Until the government properly regulates this and independent studies are done on the long term effects of GMOs, they can fuck right off.

[antiklaus]

But nonetheless: seeds that self-destruct after a year + ecosystem = self-destructive ecosystem.

That is exactly the point I was trying to make.

Until the government properly regulates this and independent studies are done on the long term effects of GMOs, they can fuck right off.

Agreed.

You may not realize this - but once when I was working at a chemical lab (EFEH and Associates) I was shown a chemical that cured most forms of dandruff.

The chemical company spent thousands of dollars researching a way to limit the dose of the chemical so that it merely temporarily relieved the symptoms, instead of providing a permanent cure.

This is an important point because it shows that the bottom line of corporations is MONEY. Not the betterment of man.

FYI - the son of the Owner of the Company (the crook that he is) now works for the company that makes voting machines - as the lead technical assistant.

You have to wonder what extra 'features' he installed in these blackbox voting machines... for the betterment of his clientelle.

[PoptartKing]

At 9/2/04 02:50 PM, antiklaus wrote: This is an important point because it shows that the bottom line of corporations is MONEY. Not the betterment of man.

Let's just let the government do it. It's not like they compete on the same level that companies do, and they don't really need a huge profit either.

At 9/2/04 02:50 PM, antiklaus wrote: You may not realize this - but once when I was working at a chemical lab (EFEH and Associates) I was shown a chemical that cured most forms of dandruff.

The chemical company spent thousands of dollars researching a way to limit the dose of the chemical so that it merely temporarily relieved the symptoms, instead of providing a permanent cure.

This is an important point because it shows that the bottom line of corporations is MONEY. Not the betterment of man.

FYI - the son of the Owner of the Company (the crook that he is) now works for the company that makes voting machines - as the lead technical assistant.

You have to wonder what extra 'features' he installed in these blackbox voting machines... for the betterment of his clientelle.

More importantly, one has to wonder what they'd do if they came across a way to cure cancer or aids, would they limit it so it would only temporarily cure the syptoms and not the disease?

[The-Last-Cynic]

Isn't there already a drug that temperarily cures the symptoms of AIDS.