|
CHARLES posted:el oh el. Ace level trolling here. It's objectively false that a greater proportion of the global population is dying or in poverty today than 60 years ago.
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 08:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:13 |
|
|
Rime posted:Population booms don't trickle off as the food supply does, and Borlaug dropped the biggest crop yield advancements since the industrial revolution on the world and then peace'd out. These crop yields dramatically increased population growth in undeveloped nations, because god forbid any government anywhere take steps to stop humans breeding like vermin (see reactions in this thread), population growth which continues to this day. it's called secure livelihoods combined with education and family planning it's working pretty well, birth rates are plummeting towards 2.1 across the third world except in war torn hell holes, and human population growth has already reached the point where  exponential growth has obviously become logarithmic growth
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 08:51
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
If the new farming methods first increase crop yields a lot and then a while later cause the land to become barren they are obviously bad and lead to increased suffering on the whole.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 13:19
|
|
|
doverhog posted:If the new farming methods first increase crop yields a lot and then a while later cause the land to become barren they are obviously bad and lead to increased suffering on the whole. hence let's deploy more targeted application of water and fertiliser along with more resource and water efficient GMOs to deal with the downsides of early "oh poo poo we gotta do something" type intensification
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 13:27
|
|
|
CHARLES posted:el oh el. Ace level trolling here. It's objectively false that a greater proportion of the global population is dying or in poverty today than 60 years ago. If you look back far enough it is pretty obvious that more food = more babies. In the year 10000 BC, the human population was about 4 million. During Malthus' times, it was 800 million. Two-hundred years later, it is 7.3 billion. I am no anthropologist but I'm willing to bet that more food was mostly responsible for this 2000x growth in population. Industrialized nations may be seeing fewer babies today probably because the standard of living is dropping for them. At the same time, developing nations continue to breed like rabbits as their standard of living is creeping up. Let's not forget that by 2050 we expect to see 9.5 billion humans. That is 30% more people than we have today. Also, check this out: Highly educated women no longer have fewer kids We are pretty much like minnows, dude. parcs fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Jan 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
parcs posted:If you look back far enough it is pretty obvious that more food = more babies. Mainly childhood mortality actually and a lot of that is disease rather than starvation. Also that 9.5 billion is due to a strong reduction in birth rate. Worldwide average went from >4 to2.5 per woman. You are dumb and wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
parcs posted:If you look back far enough it is pretty obvious that more food = more babies. One of the biggest reasons that we're seeing fewer children is because birth control exists now. Humans love to gently caress and want to do it even if there isn't enough food to feed all the babies. The other thing is that the reproductive strategy of humans has been changing. In the past it was "hump a lot, poo poo out a dozen babies, hope a few of them survive." Now the strategy is increasingly "have fewer babies, give them good medical care, invest in their future, set them up to succeed." Humans are also not morons and understand we're overpopulating ourselves. There's a lot to it but it isn't that the standard of living is declining. If you go purely on food Americans should be having the most children as our caloric availability is the highest in the world. But we aren't. Our birth rate is actually kind of low. In fact a lot of the Western world, despite being quite wealthy and prosperous, is actually below the rate of replacement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
I've always believed that by and large, the elite, influential, and high profile figures directing the climate change denial The focus of this post is going to be on how the elite at the top of the large and profitable climate change denial industry (which is really what it is at this point) are so effective at shaping public opinion. By convincing the media and the public that climate change is a political issue, they exploit the tendency of the media to confuse neutrality with objectivity. If CNN covered a debate between two scientists, one saying the earth orbits the sun, and the other arguing that the earth is the center of the universe and everything revolves around it- CNN would allow each to state their argument, and then hopefully (I might be giving them too much credit) state that a scientific consensus in fact exists and all available evidence supports one view and none supports the other. That’s actual objectivity, and actual journalism. For whatever reason (probably financial incentives mostly) the media have decided that one and only one branch of physics should be open to endless debate and is never to be treated as a settled issue as long as there’s a single ‘expert’ claiming that the sun revolves around the earth. The strongest indicator to me that the top tier deniers (in terms of wealth, political power, media exposure, and influence over the masses) don’t believe their own arguments is simply the fact that by and large these are REALLY smart people. When you look at the major players in this group it's easy to find people who are clearly wrong in the sense that they advocate untenable positions based on the available evidence and make statements that are demonstrably false. You can call them liars (and you would be right), unethical scientists (they’re certainly that), corporate shills, and professional merchants of deception. While people who are clearly and provably wrong are a dime a dozen in this ‘industry’, it’s hard to point to more than a small handful of folks in the upper echelons of the denial machine who come across as straight up dumb. I can’t even think of any off the top of my head but I’m sure they’re out there. The high profile media-savvy climate change deniers use time tested strategies like citing long-since discredited studies or using a carefully selected tiny subset of a researcher’s quotation (usually either out of context, or with a carefully constructed false context). These people are masters of presenting statistics in the most misleading way possible. Tricks of the trade include graphs and charts with misleading scales (or no scales at all), confusion between percentage change and percentage POINTS, selectively removing outliers, or reporting outliers as if they were common data points depending on what the situation calls for. They extrapolate long-term trends from tiny data sets, or neglect to do so when it would be justified or necessary. They report on studies from questionable journals that were done without proper controls and that cannot be replicated. They exploit the hell out of the fact that people don’t understand levels of statistical significance and what constitutes a reasonable sample size or confidence level, not to mention the confusion between statistical significance and PRACTICAL significance. If you try explaining the difference between an ordinal, interval, and ratio scale of measurement and why you can’t draw certain conclusions from data measured on particular scales, John Q. Public is bored and thinking back to how much he hated Ms. Gribble’s statistics class in 9th Grade. John is one of the more educated folks out there due to the fact that he at least HAD a statistics class to think back to how confusing it all was. The propagandists know that situations where the common colloquial usage or meaning of a term differs from the usage in a scientific context are better than gold if properly exploited and presented in the proper context or lack thereof. These merchants of deception are well aware that most people are confused about the scientific method and how research is funded and conducted. The low quality of math, science, and especially statistical education creates a population ripe for exploitation and manipulation by the climate change denial industry, not to mention a ‘docile’ population of good consumers of everything except knowledge. Against this onslaught the common viewer or reader can’t be blamed for throwing up his or her hands and letting the ‘expert’ interpret the data and draw the conclusions for them. This is how a propagandist becomes a trusted source of information. Ideally at this point the viewer is thinking, “Why can’t we have more scientists like this guy working in government and setting policy on carbon emissions rather than those dumb environmentalists and politicians who are trying to tell me I can’t drive my SUV!” Ideally at this point the show’s host will deliver a well-timed (and scripted) jab aimed at “people trying to politicize the climate change debate” rather than simply being a neutral observer of the science like our guest on the show this morning. At this point the viewer will ideally think the science indicates that climate change isn’t happening and even if it is, the climate has changed over the history of the earth. The viewer will be reminded that sometimes it’s even gotten colder over a long span of time and we’re at as much risk of another ice age as we are of suffering negative effects from rising temperatures. This entire presentation is peppered with subtle, or not-so-subtle insinuations that the other side has ulterior motives and are simply trying to impose their left wing views on normal hard working Americans. They want to tell you what kind of car you can drive (I hear they want to take away SUVs and trucks!) They’re using climate change to take away our steak and force us all to eat “rabbit food”! They want to tell us where we can live, the implication of course being that rural and suburban people will be somehow forced to live in densely packed urban ghettos. At this point they bring out every dog whistle to remind you that ‘other’ kinds of people live in the big cities. And I think you know what we mean by ‘other’ kinds of people, dear viewer, and you can be assured that their culture and values are inferior and that some of them are *gasp* on public assistance and food stamps. At this point perhaps a large graphic of a ‘bad’ neighborhood with people standing in front of a decrepit housing project, broken glass littering the streets, and the central element of the picture will of course be some people dressed in stereotypical ‘scary’ urban style. In this case a picture is worth a thousand words because it can say what the show’s host can’t get away with- “They’re trying to force you (conservative, white, SUV-driving, steak eating suburbanite) to live near black people!” Now that we’ve planted the seed of doubt about the scientific soundness of the climate change ‘alarmists’, brought their motives into question, exploited every possible social and cultural tension to make you fear the unknown, it’s time for the icing on the cake. If you believe what this obviously intelligent and well informed gentleman on our show is saying then the solution to all of this becomes clear. You need to do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! You don’t need to spend an extra penny or change your habits in any way to limit carbon emissions. There are no scary unknowns to deal with- just stop thinking about climate change and go about your business. You’re not some lazy uninformed slob- You just listened to this informative presentation from a guy who had charts, and quoted studies and everything! It turns out that your pre-existing views and habits are 100% correct and have now been confirmed by an expert. Man, I can’t believe I ever listened to those tree huggers always trying to politicize things and tell me how to live! I hate when some dirty hippy scientist getting paid by those fat cats at the Sierra Club challenges my views. But what a relief- I find the guy saying that I’m already doing everything right to have the more sound scientific argument! Don’t get me wrong. These people are very good at what they do, and they’re scarily successful in terms of advancing their agenda and shaping public opinion. Despite this they’re not in any way admirable people. You can watch Triumph of the Will and admire the beautiful direction and cinematography without being an admirer of the Nazis, and you can still think Leni Riefenstahl was a terrible person despite being a great filmmaker. Personally I find it ‘worse’ from a moral and ethical standpoint to dedicate one’s career to convincing people that something is true when you’re extremely well-informed about the issue and know that it isn’t true. I would argue that you just can’t get to the level that these professional deniers are at without having at least a moderate level of intelligence, or at least education. To be able to lie convincingly using statistics about a highly technical scientific issue, you have to have a good understanding of both statistics and the subject matter itself. To truly rise to the top tier of the industry and become head of a fossil fuel industry funded “research institute” or a high profile lobbyist, or an oil company “government relations” or “public relations” executive you need to have both at the minimum a decent level of natural talent and a decent level of education. Even if your end goal in studying an issue is to figure out the best way to lie and mislead people about it, you have to know the issue well enough that it would be hard not to accidentally stumble across the truth even if you aren’t looking for it. Given the obvious intelligence and knowledge of a lot of the top tier climate change deniers, I believe there’s only one possible conclusion- They don’t believe what they’re saying, and on some level they know they’re professional propagandists. Whether they admit it to themselves or they only grasp it at an intuitive or subconscious level they know that they’re lying every time they go on TV or write an article. At some point they’ve made the calculation that it’s in their own economic/political self-interest to say and do everything in their power to convince people that climate change either isn’t happening, or it isn’t manmade, and above all else we need to preserve the status quo at all costs and not do anything that might cost the elites money. They’ve made the completely reasonable assumption that they'll be dead before things get REALLY bad. REALLY bad here means that first world countries are suffering such severe consequences that no amount of wealth and privilege can insulate even the elite within these countries. So there you have it. Tl; dr I know. This is a lot of words (probably too many even for D&D) to say that climate change deniers are in it for the *SPOILER ALERT* money and power. I simply don't believe that someone can be smart and informed enough to craft a convincing "scientific sounding" argument that includes enough bits of truth to be convincing to a reasonably intelligent person, without actually grasping the truth somewhere along the way even if one is actively trying to avoid it. I’ve been struggling to articulate this off and on for a long time now and finally got motivated to look at it in more depth and write this up. Smilin Joe Fission fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Jan 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:One of the biggest reasons that we're seeing fewer children is because birth control exists now. Humans love to gently caress and want to do it even if there isn't enough food to feed all the babies. The other thing is that the reproductive strategy of humans has been changing. In the past it was "hump a lot, poo poo out a dozen babies, hope a few of them survive." Now the strategy is increasingly "have fewer babies, give them good medical care, invest in their future, set them up to succeed." Humans are also not morons and understand we're overpopulating ourselves. There's actually a reason why Malthus never considered that - He was a cleric. At the time, Protestants rejected Birth Control about as fiercely as Catholics did. It's one example of how your ideology can blind you to a simple solution.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
Marijuana Nihilist posted:humans are a blight on this planet hth Note that Rime did not actually suggest humanity could have avoided hunger today or in the future through some alternative to the Green Revolution. Rather he argued that if we had kept the poor in a perpetual famine by limiting the food supply, we could have controlled aggregate suffering. In this formula, famine is the solution to future famines. Now if we want to limit the future suffering of poor populations, why stop at restricting the food supply? Mass immunization has made billions suffer the agony of life, better to die quick of smallpox than slowly and agonizingly from hunger and malnutrition. Of course there's one major difference between death by hunger and death by disease: Only the poor starve, but disease is not so discriminate. Yet why stop at half measures? Even in a perfect world millions will continue to suffer depression and misery, the best way to prevent future suffering is to fire the missiles and embrace the nuclear holocaust, think of the billions we could save from existence! doverhog posted:If the new farming methods first increase crop yields a lot and then a while later cause the land to become barren they are obviously bad and lead to increased suffering on the whole. The Green Revolution didn't start this process. Pre-modern people frequently lowered their water tables, built up surface salts, and clear-cut forests whose transpiration was necessary to maintain precipitation. Today many people who practice traditional swidden gardening will tell you straight up they're ruining the soil. However without modern fertilizers they have no choice. Rime would rather let them die than give them the tools to survive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
Smilin Joe Fission posted:So there you have it. Tl; dr I know. This is a lot of words (probably too many even for D&D) to say that climate change deniers are in it for the *SPOILER ALERT* money and power. I simply don't believe that someone can be smart and informed enough to craft a convincing "scientific sounding" argument that includes enough bits of truth to be convincing to a reasonably intelligent person, without actually grasping the truth somewhere along the way even if one is actively trying to avoid it. I’ve been struggling to articulate this off and on for a long time now and finally got motivated to look at it in more depth and write this up. I think that many elite deniers know that climate change is real. However, I would say there are probably a good number who genuinely believe it's fake. There are several psychological phenomena that support this. 1. People tend to only look for flaws in evidence or arguments they don't believe. This means every time someone posts something about how climate change is real, they'll go seek out any source that tells them this is wrong. There's plenty of blogs and denier sites that will do this. As soon as they've read the thing that reassures them they're right, they stop. 2. People tend to seek out opinions they agree with. Deniers aren't going to hang out on skeptical science or forums that genuinely promote scientific debate, they're going to hang out at lovely forums or comments sections that all reinforce what they believe. Or, the people they hang out with mostly have the same general ideology. This will also lead to them simply not being exposed to information and facts that would refute their beliefs. 3. The various backfire effects can cause people to misremember facts, data, and refutations, or refuse to believe things because they contradict a strongly held ideology or worldview. 4. The manufactured "debate" in the media has certainly led to people using the availability heuristic to decide that climate change is fake; they can recall enough instances of climate change being challenged, denied, or "refuted" that they think that it must be a controversial issue, meaning they can safely take the side of the deniers. Or, they've encountered enough articles saying climate change isn't all that bad to think its safe to ignore. The "contradicts worldview" problem is an especially potent one, I think. People build their very identity around their ideology, and they believe strongly that they are a good person. Their schemas on how the world works are built on this foundation, and so anything that contradicts what they believe isn't just attacking information, it's attacking their very self. This is certainly the case for the non-elite climate deniers, but I don't think it's any less true for many elites. I'm sure most journalists think they're trying to be good, objective journalists when they report, that plenty of business people might be clever enough that they could know better, but don't. Another problem with "intelligent" people is that people (including themselves) tend to assume that because they are skilled or know a lot in one area, they must be skilled and know a lot about other areas. It's why people give a poo poo at all about how celebrities feel about, say, vaccines. Climate change is no exception. People who may be very skilled at finance or business no doubt believe this transfers to science, and hold erroneous beliefs because of it. This is probably especially potent for rich elites who only need to interact with people they choose, and can completely isolate themselves from anyone who holds views that contradict them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Could you please provide specific examples of GMOs currently being used for bad that don't boil down to "I hate intensive farming" in cases where said intensive farming doesn't actually require GMOs. It sounds like you've already made up your mind. There's nothing to debate if you will never accept what monsanto has done.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:every time someone posts something about how climate change is real, they'll go seek out any source that tells them this is wrong. There's plenty of blogs and denier sites that will do this. As soon as they've read the thing that reassures them they're right, they stop. Uranium Phoenix posted:they're going to hang out at lovely forums or comments sections that all reinforce what they believe. Or, the people they hang out with mostly have the same general ideology. This will also lead to them simply not being exposed to information and facts that would refute their beliefs. I like Google News and use it a lot, but I really despise the 'feature' it has that when you're logged in via any Google account of showing specially 'curated' stories for you. This is an extremely powerful way of keeping people in their own bubbles of like-minded people and ensuring that they never have to deal with opposing views. Google's way of doing it is particularly insidious in that it's not like in a newspaper or magazine where you see an article by an columnist you generally disagree with. You might read the headline and flip past it to the next article when you see who wrote it, but AT LEAST you know that the article exists and that people out there have opinions that differ from yours. You might be curious if you see another article about it to read and at least see what the other side has to say even though you're sure you won't like it. People have always scanned print and online media for article headlines and summaries they expect that they'll like and avoid ones that don't sound appealing. Google automates that process and combines it with an incredibly detailed profile of the individual to create a carefully filtered and sanitized world in which the only news worth reporting is news related to topics you're interested in, and the only people allowed to report on it are those loyal to your specific "Party Line". Don't worry comrade, the commissar has carefully screened today's news to remove any subversive material! The news is always good news comrade! Anything the algorithm thinks you won't find interesting or agreeable, for all intents and purposes DOES NOT EXIST inside this world that people are getting increasing amounts of their news from. This increasing trend of filtered and 'curated' news is one of the most under-appreciated threats to journalism and an informed public IMO. I think it's a huge problem that nobody is aware of and we're going to be blindsided as a society information-wise because of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:It sounds like you've already made up your mind. There's nothing to debate if you will never accept what monsanto has done. What do you believe Monsanto has done?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:What do you believe Monsanto has done? I would like to know the same. Also "there's nothing to debate if you will never accept what monsanto has done" is pretty rich considering I was vaguely anti GMO and wary of Monsanto before actually thinking and reading about the issue. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Jan 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
Disregarding any consequences GMO-food has on humans (which to my understanding ranges from no signs of increased health risks to unsure whether there are long time-risks), what are the negative consequences it can have or already have had on the environment? I can't say I have a lot of knowledge of GMO-food and what effects it has on humans or nature so I'd love to stand corrected on what I currently know.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
Greggster posted:Disregarding any consequences GMO-food has on humans (which to my understanding ranges from no signs of increased health risks to unsure whether there are long time-risks), what are the negative consequences it can have or already have had on the environment? In reality or in the brains of crazy people? this is key.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
Greggster posted:Disregarding any consequences GMO-food has on humans (which to my understanding ranges from no signs of increased health risks to unsure whether there are long time-risks), what are the negative consequences it can have or already have had on the environment? In the context of health risk it's not useful to speak generally of GMOs because the only property GMOs have in common is the classification as GMOs. The health risks depends on the specific changes in the specific strain. We similarly don't speak generally about the health risks of "additives" because it's nonsensical if we don't narrow it down to a specific additive or group of additives. There are a number of different ways of changing a crop strain such as genetic modification, hybridization, mutagenesis and selective breeding. Each take different approaches to get to the same end goal: a more desirable strain. Genetic modification is different from the other methods in that it's more targeted. The other methods rely to some degree on random chance and in the case of mutagenesis on provoked mutations through radiation and chemical baths - random chance on steroids. We know that toxic strains can be inadvertently created through selective breeding and mutagenesis because we've done it and at least once, one made it to market. We can theorize that it can also happen with genetic modification but it has not actually happened. Basically you have to evaluate every strain on its own merits no matter how it was created. Arguments relating to Big Agro, intensive farming, glyphosate, costly farm practices and chemicals are very common when discussing GMOs but has either nothing to do with it or relate only to a specific type of GMO, not GMOs in general. To answer your question: there is so far no evidence that GMOs as a whole come with any health risks or that strains created through that particular method is more likely to be harmful, than strains created through other means.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
Right now IMO the major 2 reasons that GMO food is bad: 1) biodiversity deceases because farmers are going to displace local varieties with higher-yield GM crops. This reduces the bredth of disease and stress resistance in the total population. The consequence is that eventually you can have an event that wipes out large amounts of the crop. 2) GMO crops are designed to be used with specific fertilizers and it makes it easy and convenient to over-apply them which causes damage to the surrounding environment. Salt Fish fucked around with this message at 02:04 on Jan 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:What do you believe Monsanto has done? The zealous lawsuits against farmers with bits of GMO in their crops, and their involvement with farmers in india being driven to debt.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Right now IMO the major 2 reasons that GMO food is bad: No, if anything the opposite is true here. A strain of (eg) wheat that requires less water would be optimized for desert environments, while another version would be used for wetter environments. That's increasing the number of varieties. quote:2) GMO crops are designed to be used with specific fertilizers and it makes it easy and convenient to over-apply them which causes damage to the surrounding environment. That's not inherently true of GMOs, and anyway lots of current plants are over-applied with fertilizers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Right now IMO the major 2 reasons that GMO food is bad: GMOs specifically are not the cause of this problem, the same issue occurs with the large scale dissemination of any commercially produced strain. It is just that GMOs are now the most popularly produced varieties.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
We already have a thread for Monsanto/GMOs, maybe the discussion about the impacts of Monsanto would be best had there?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
Squalid posted:GMOs specifically are not the cause of this problem, the same issue occurs with the large scale dissemination of any commercially produced strain. It is just that GMOs are now the most popularly produced varieties. Monoculture in general is the problem here. Unfortunately when you have vast swathes of a crop that all have similar genetics you end up having to use a lot more pesticides, fungicides and herbicides to keep them from having issues related to low diversity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
From some cursory reading of his works, the green revolution strategy seems to be to plant several different varieties of wheat that sprout at roughly the same time and grow to the same height to provide protection from fungi and other pests
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
Squalid posted:GMOs specifically are not the cause of this problem, the same issue occurs with the large scale dissemination of any commercially produced strain. It is just that GMOs are now the most popularly produced varieties. That's a little bit weird to say because although that can happen without GMOs the technology is specifically designed to propel a strain to dominance over all other strains. computer parts posted:No, if anything the opposite is true here. A strain of (eg) wheat that requires less water would be optimized for desert environments, while another version would be used for wetter environments. That's increasing the number of varieties. A region's local strains are already optimized for their specific environment (obviously). Think of the reduction in diversity like this: Monsanto can't make a strain for every one of the thousands of niches out there; they have to have a few flagship strains to sell. In addition, they are motivated to keep that library of strains small because it costs money to develop each strain. The only thing that can pressure them to do that is competition which they work hard to reduce. In effect; GMO strains end up harnessing the monopolizing power of capitalism and applying the reducing effect of competitiveness to the range of crops being planted.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:
Only if a local strain exists.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:. We know that toxic strains can be inadvertently created through selective breeding and mutagenesis because we've done it and at least once, one made it to market. Whoa, What was that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
katlington posted:Whoa, What was that? Edit: See also: Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects, Chapter 3: Unintended Effects of Conventional Plant Breeding Bates fucked around with this message at 05:02 on Jan 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 04:50
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:That's a little bit weird to say because although that can happen without GMOs the technology is specifically designed to propel a strain to dominance over all other strains. I'm not sure what you mean, aren't all commercial crops designed to be better than all others? What else are you designing for? Anyway by the sixties the majority of corn planted in the U.S. was mass produced hybrid strains designed for consistency. These pre-GMO hybrids were specifically designed to have very low genetic diversity, so that every plant would reliably have the same characteristics. GMOs are simply better versions of the same varieties.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I'm not sure what you mean, aren't all commercial crops designed to be better than all others? What else are you designing for? Anyway by the sixties the majority of corn planted in the U.S. was mass produced hybrid strains designed for consistency. These pre-GMO hybrids were specifically designed to have very low genetic diversity, so that every plant would reliably have the same characteristics. GMOs are simply better versions of the same varieties. That's like saying fracking isn't a problem for global warming because people could drill for oil before it was innovated. We're talking about a powerful tool that accelerates the issue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
I am categorically NOT against GMO technologies but people asked what the issues were with them and I think that the supporters of GMOs should just say "yes those are issues but they're worth it" instead of putting themselves in the insane position of arguing that GMOs don't reduce crop diversity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:I am categorically NOT against GMO technologies but people asked what the issues were with them and I think that the supporters of GMOs should just say "yes those are issues but they're worth it" instead of putting themselves in the insane position of arguing that GMOs don't reduce crop diversity. The thing I always like to point out is that genetic modification is just another tool in humanity's box. You can murder somebody with a hammer but that doesn't mean hammers are inherently bad and should never have been invented. There's bad applications of genetic modification and there are good ones.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 05:18
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The thing I always like to point out is that genetic modification is just another tool in humanity's box. You can murder somebody with a hammer but that doesn't mean hammers are inherently bad and should never have been invented. There's bad applications of genetic modification and there are good ones. Unfortunately we don't live in the alternate universe where GMO technology is used in a thoughtful perfect way. We live in *this* world where its used in imperfect ways. Just like a gun is not "just a tool" and has social and cultural connotations more significant than its literal form, so too do GMO foods.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 05:27
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Unfortunately we don't live in the alternate universe where GMO technology is used in a thoughtful perfect way. We live in *this* world where its used in imperfect ways. Just like a gun is not "just a tool" and has social and cultural connotations more significant than its literal form, so too do GMO foods. I think that's a fine stance to take. There are no perfect options and no choices without consequences and that obviously also applies to GE technology. Ultimately there's good reasons to use it in spite of the pitfalls we must avoid. Personally I have high hopes for the technology both in terms of food security and the potential to limit the human footprint on Earth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 05:42
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Unfortunately we don't live in the alternate universe where GMO technology is used in a thoughtful perfect way. We live in *this* world where its used in imperfect ways. Just like a gun is not "just a tool" and has social and cultural connotations more significant than its literal form, so too do GMO foods. The above example wasn't a gun though, it was a hammer. People kill people with hammers all the time, yet they're not banned because they're still useful. You have to prove that GMO foods are used negatively to the same rate as a gun, and that it wouldn't be possible for non-GMO foods to also be used in that manner.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 06:38
|
|
|
blowfish posted:That's kind of my point though: Environmentalists provide pressure that gets policy makers to realise we should actually do something to conserve nature and maintain natural resources, resulting in policy which in some cases is actually useful. The US never had greens in government or even any green congresscritters yet got the conservation policy Trabisnikof mentioned. In the EU it's similar with only a small number of elected greens outside of some specific countries like Germany. EU directives get imposed top-down on all countries to surprisingly strong effect and secondarily lead to more country-level larger scale conservation as a follow-up because of the directives' initial success. Wasn't your original claim that green-led governments cannot lead to effective environmental conservation? I don't see how this proves that it any way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 06:41
|
|
|
computer parts posted:No, if anything the opposite is true here. A strain of (eg) wheat that requires less water would be optimized for desert environments, while another version would be used for wetter environments. That's increasing the number of varieties. That's just pure insane bullshit and you know it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 06:46
|
|
|
El Perkele posted:That's just pure insane bullshit and you know it. No? I'm curious to hear how though .
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 06:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:13 |
|
|
I think you'll find the answer to your GMO arguments here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 07:14
|
|