|
Mofabio posted:I guess that's why they're on the endangered species list now, and have an 11 to 57% chance of extinction in 20 years. The Nature article assumes a 1.0 population growth factor over that time at best. That's a pretty huge assumption and enough to say that you can't just state the conclusions that follow from it as if they are true. Here are some statements that you can make that aren't wrong: Assuming current trends, monarch butterflies have an 11 to 57% chance of extinction in the next 20 years according to Semmens et al, 2016. According to Semmens et al, 2016, if the monarch butterfly population doesn't grow from what it currently is, they have a minimum of an 11% chance of extinction in the next 20 years. If we don't change our approach to monarch butterfly conservation, there are models that suggest monarch butterflies have an 11 to 57% chance to go extinct within the next 20 years. Mofabio posted:Crop protection research has shifted to HT GMOs, not targeted herbicides. Once again, the GMO does nothing on it's own. The issue you have is with our use of the herbicide. That's enabled by the GMO, but is not a property of the GMO, and is most certainly not a property of GMO in general.
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 12:14 |
|
|
fishmech posted:Yes that's why. Surely, the Obama administration singling out the two largest GMO crops as the primary stressor behind the Monarch decline is part of Michelle's evil plot to something organic something For those not around the first round, the reasoning is that during a specific stage in a Monarch's life, it must eat milkweed, and the midwestern milkweed population is in decline because of our more effective herbicide regime in GMO corn and soy fields. This has led to Monarch populations in turn declining so severely that they are now on the endangered species list. Contra this emerging scientific consensus, recently backed by US regulatory bodies, this thread instead wants to live in a world where GMOs have "no unintended side-effects". One person in this thread believes that even talking about possible GMO side effects is "disingenuous and risks vilifying a useful technology". It's not because they're dumb (but if you call them dumb for it they get really mad, because they're mostly students and STEM professionals). It's just motivated reasoning. Oh well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 03:52
|
|
|
Mofabio shut the gently caress up
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
Christ, Mofabio its like you heard GMO and just poo poo yourself in excitement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:Surely, the Obama administration singling out the two largest GMO crops as the primary stressor behind the Monarch decline is part of Michelle's evil plot to something organic something You are talking about https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/Pollinator%20Health%20Strategy%202015.pdf, correct? White House posted:Primary stressors of concern for the Eastern population include loss of milkweed breeding habitat in corn and soybean production, loss of breeding habitat due to land conversion, illegal logging and deforestation at overwintering sites, and extreme weather conditions. Natural enemies such as diseases, predators, and parasites, and use of insecticides in agricultural, urban, and suburban areas are also of concern. Are you willfully dumb? They talk about the loss of milkweed in corn and soybean production, not about the corn and soybean plants themselves being GMO or HT. Tom Clancy is Dead fucked around with this message at 04:01 on Mar 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:Surely, the Obama administration singling out the two largest GMO crops as the primary stressor behind the Monarch decline is part of Michelle's evil plot to something organic something They aren't singling out GMO.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 03:58
|
|
|
Etalommi posted:Once again, the GMO does nothing on it's own. The issue you have is with our use of the herbicide. That's enabled by the GMO, but is not a property of the GMO, and is most certainly not a property of GMO in general. This argument comes up again and again. It isn't a property of GMOs in general, it's a property of a class of GMOs called herbicide-tolerant (HT) GMOs. If you have an HT GMO and no herbicide, the GMO technology is rendered ineffective. You might as well have saved a buck and seeded non-GMO. If you have an herbicide and no HT GMO, the herbicide is also ineffective. Your crop dies. If you have both an HT GMO and its herbicide partner, only then does the GMO technology work to enhance crop protection. It's a package deal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
Etalommi posted:You are talking about https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/Pollinator%20Health%20Strategy%202015.pdf, correct? Why is milkweed declining in corn and soybean fields?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:This argument comes up again and again. Because somehow you still don't get it. Mofabio posted:If you have an HT GMO and no herbicide, the GMO technology is rendered ineffective. You might as well have saved a buck and seeded non-GMO. Yes, exactly. So if you appropriately regulate the herbicide, which is the thing that is actually doing the damage, there is no more problem with the GMO! It's almost like magic. Or maybe the problem was never the GMO itself. Mofabio posted:Why is milkweed declining in corn and soybean fields? We have insufficient regulation on roundup usage and insufficient incentive structures set up to get the market to do what society wants it to anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 04:09
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:Why is milkweed declining in corn and soybean fields? This is actually all John Deere's fault for inventing the sod-busting plow.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 04:09
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:Why is milkweed declining in corn and soybean fields? Because we are using an herbicide we would be using regardless of GMOs and even if we stopped using it farmers would just torch/hand pick the milkweed fixing absolutely nothing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 04:09
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:This argument comes up again and again. This is not a property of HT GMOs. It is a property of any successful elimination of weeds neccesary for an animal species, which is not matched with creating other places for the weed to grow in.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 04:10
|
|
|
Etalommi posted:Yes, exactly. So if you appropriately regulate the herbicide, which is the thing that is actually doing the damage, there is no more problem with GMO! It's almost like magic. I agree! If regulations were such that say 10% percent of corn and soy fields were glyphosate-free, milkweed would grow. But if you're not using glyphosate on 10% of your crop, you're also gonna save a buck and buy the cheaper, non-GMO seeds. Put another way, regulatory regime A, where 10% of your crop must be herbicide free, looks identical to regulatory regime B, where 10% of your crop must be non- or Bt-GMO. Just from the fact non-GMO seeds are cheaper. Agree?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 04:13
|
|
|
fishmech posted:This is not a property of HT GMOs. It is a property of any successful elimination of weeds neccesary for an animal species, which is not matched with creating other places for the weed to grow in. Um. Do you not think HT-GMOs were successful at eliminating a weed necessary for animal species? Do you mean it's not only a property of HT-GMOs? Because I'd agree with that statement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
KiteAuraan posted:Because we are using an herbicide we would be using regardless of GMOs and even if we stopped using it farmers would just torch/hand pick the milkweed fixing absolutely nothing. Haha you think farmers are hand-picking weeds in 2016. Before the GMOs they'd just leave the milkweed, wasn't worth a lot of hassle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:Haha you think farmers are hand-picking weeds in 2016 Well, virtual slave migrant workers, but same principle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:Haha you think farmers are hand-picking weeds in 2016. Before the GMOs they'd just leave the milkweed, wasn't worth a lot of hassle. Ok, how did they do it before this. Edit: ok so I guess weeds are just not worth the time to control them. rip monsanto Grognan fucked around with this message at 04:29 on Mar 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 04:23
|
|
|
I have this incredible feeling of deja vu...
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
Grognan posted:Ok, how did they do it before this. Weed management pre-1996 IIRC was tilling and multiple rounds of an herbicide cocktail over (I wanna say, but feel free to correct me) ~100 days. Milkweed is hardy and resistant to tilling and was one of the last surviving pests in the monoculture. Post-'96, farmers shortened the herbicide application period and use just a single herbicide: glyphosate. It was probably the most radical farming shift since mechanization, but that's my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:Um. Do you not think HT-GMOs were successful at eliminating a weed necessary for animal species? No, HT GMOs are completely ineffective at eliminating weeds. You need an entirely different strain for that. Read a book for once in your life. Grognan posted:Ok, how did they do it before this. Before they successfully killed less milkweed, but the very existence of farmland in the place of what tended to be either forest or open grassland before massive European cultivation moved in caused a boom in milkweed growth compared to the original amount on the land. It's kinda like how suburban and urban areas are an environment that coyotes can thrive in, so they've spread a ton since America got heavily urbanized and suburbanized, where before many areas they live now wolves would out compete them Or like how deer populations boom in suburban areas, because they create a lot of edge-of-the-forest land where they thrive in comparison to open grasslands or deep forest.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
fishmech posted:No, HT GMOs are completely ineffective at eliminating weeds. You need an entirely different strain for that. Read a book for once in your life. READ A BOOK FOR ONCE IN YOUR LIFE
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:Weed management pre-1996 IIRC was tilling and multiple rounds of an herbicide cocktail over (I wanna say, but feel free to correct me) ~100 days. Milkweed is hardy and resistant to tilling and was one of the last surviving pests in the monoculture. Post-'96, farmers shortened the herbicide application period and use just a single herbicide: glyphosate. It was probably the most radical farming shift since mechanization, but that's my opinion. ok, doesn't secondary tilling contribute to soil erosion?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 04:35
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:Um. Do you not think HT-GMOs were successful at eliminating a weed necessary for animal species? I don't think there's a disagreement about the facts here. The problem is that a new product has allowed farmers to kill a weed more effectively than before. There is now ecological fallout from this and we need to fix it. Your proposed solution is to ban the technique by which this particular product was created, and not necessarily the product itself. Do you not see how this is a terrible solution that restrict unrelated products, while still allowing for other products which are harmful in the exact same way?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 04:35
|
|
|
Alternatively, gently caress butterflies
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:READ A BOOK FOR ONCE IN YOUR LIFE Seriously buddy you're showing yourself to colossaly not understand how plants work here. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Alternatively, gently caress butterflies
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
Dr. Stab posted:Your proposed solution is to ban the technique by which this particular product was created, and not necessarily the product itself. Do you not see how this is a terrible solution that restrict unrelated products, while still allowing for other products which are harmful in the exact same way? I didn't propose banning GMOs, I just pointed out an HT-GMO ban is the same thing as an herbicide ban. I think GMOs are awesome, generally speaking. There are two ways of looking at the HT-GMO problem. I think that HT-GMOs are ruining an otherwise amazing technology, have had unintended environmental consequences, and have put at least one species on the endangered species list. This thread's way of looking at HT-GMOs is to circle the wagons. One person actually said, about a crop protection technology, "there are no unintended consequences". And another said that mere criticism of one class of GMOs "risks vilifying a useful technology". There's also a scaffold of weird thinking, based on the foundational truth that the midwest is a highly disturbed environment, that (contra US Fish and Wildlife, which believes they're at risk of extinction) monarchs are merely now returning to pre-colonial population levels.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Seriously buddy you're showing yourself to colossaly not understand how plants work here. how do plant work (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:I agree! If regulations were such that say 10% percent of corn and soy fields were glyphosate-free, milkweed would grow. Well, no, because apparently you can't keep your terms straight, since Bt is an insecticide protein, and that seems like Freudian slip of your overall opinion on GMO rather than an innocent mistake. Beyond that, though, there are some substantial differences. It's very possible to use herbicides in fields without HT tolerant crops, from doing it in the off season or when ready to harvest, to using targeted herbicides, to using it at times that are critical for the development of one plant but not another. Limiting the GMO, the thing that doesn't actually do the damage, also sets precedent and blames the technology for the sins of something else.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
Not to mention the fact that if you are using a Bt crop, you're required to have a 10% set-aside boundary to avoid developing resistant insect populations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 06:56
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Alternatively, gently caress butterflies The response to scientific ignorance is probably best not to take a different scientifically ignorant stance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 07:19
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:This argument comes up again and again. Then why the gently caress were the 10 posts prior to this one talking about GMOs in general, without the nuanced reference to HT GMO crops specifically, you colossal idiot? Saying "GMOs are killing monarchs" is equivalent to saying "Rainbow Papayas in Hawaii are killing monarch butterflies in North America". It's retarded. Eventually you came to the realization that Roundup Ready crops do not represent all GMOs and now you've moved the goalposts to HT GMOs. Except you're still an idiot, because HT GMOs don't kill milkweed; herbicides do. Getting rid of HT GMOs would just result in something else getting developed that removes milkweed from farm fields just as well, if not better. Here's a log of your total idiocy: Mofabio posted:Reality's latest anti-GMO bias: 11% to 57% Monarch extinction likelihood over 20 years. "Monarchs are dying therefore GMOs are bad, please ignore that neither the arstechnica article nor the White House publication ever actually mention GMO technology but are rather pointing out the problems with our systematic elimination of milkweed regardless of the means" Mofabio posted:So, Obama listed the loss of milkweed in corn and soybean crops as the first primary stressor of monarch populations. "Everyone keeps telling me that the problem is loss of milkweed and doesn't have anything to do with GMO technology specifically. Durr durr durrrrrrrrrr but the real problem is GMOs!" Mofabio posted:Declines in milkweed abundance are well documented and highly correlated with the adoption of herbicide-tolerant genetically modified corn and soybeans6, which now constitute 89% and 94% of these crops, respectively, in the U.S. This is where you transition from talking about GMOs generally to talking about herbicide-tolerant GMOs specifically. But, being an idiot, you still fail to realize that eliminating all HT GMOs from North America only temporarily delays the problem; farmers will continue seeking out alternatives for eliminating milkweed. Genetic modification is not the issue here. The elimination of milkweed is the issue. If you eliminate one effective technique for eliminating milkweed, then other effective techniques will be sought out and eventually found. This is akin to worrying about gun violence and then banning a very specific brand of shotgun; it doesn't actually solve your problem. Mofabio posted:I don't disagree, but that's all theoretical. GMO corn and soy actually exist, and I'm talking about the effects of those. "You're correct that GMOs aren't the true cause of the Monarch decline, but I want to keep talking about GMOs anyway because I'm a crusading dipshit" Mofabio posted:I guess that's why they're on the endangered species list now, and have an 11 to 57% chance of extinction in 20 years. You apparently do, too, according to the previous post. But you're too dense to realize that Mofabio posted:Contra this emerging scientific consensus, recently backed by US regulatory bodies, this thread instead wants to live in a world where GMOs have "no unintended side-effects". One person in this thread believes that even talking about possible GMO side effects is "disingenuous and risks vilifying a useful technology". Elimination of milkweed is the effect you dumbshit, it's the entire point of growing these specific crops. The issue here is that farmers don't give a poo poo about butterflies and will do whatever it takes to eliminate Milkweed, and this is true regardless of whether or not HT GMOs exist or are available. The solution isn't to bitch and moan about GMOs. One much better solution is to adopt regulations that allow native flora and fauna to thrive alongside agricultural products. There's also the comedy option: create HT GMO Milkweed  but I'm sure that you'd find some idiot reason to oppose that, too
QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 07:56 on Mar 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 07:49
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:I agree! If regulations were such that say 10% percent of corn and soy fields were glyphosate-free, milkweed would grow. If you're not using herbicides, you can't plant to the density that modern corn and soybeans are planted to without losing crop plants to being crowded out by weeds instead of just crowding themselves. Hence, it's milkweed versus yield per acre, and yield per acre is always going to win that fight.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 08:24
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:I didn't propose banning GMOs, I just pointed out an HT-GMO ban is the same thing as an herbicide ban. I think GMOs are awesome, generally speaking. There are two ways of looking at the HT-GMO problem. I think that HT-GMOs are ruining an otherwise amazing technology, have had unintended environmental consequences, and have put at least one species on the endangered species list.  Are you even capable of logically thinking about cause and effect?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 10:40
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Trabisnikof posted:The response to scientific ignorance is probably best not to take a different scientifically ignorant stance. Evolution has dictated that butterflies are useless in the world we are creating. Let them fall. Or create milkweed sanctuaries for them if you want. I mean, none of that has anything to do with gmos. Maybe some crazy eco terrorist can make roundup ready milkweed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 13:45
|
|
|
The monarch population has some strong indicators over the past two years that attempts to reverse their decline are working. They've covered more land the past two years during their migration then they did the previous ones. Hopefully it'll continue and we can move past the butterflies are why we can't have GMO's.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 14:33
|
|
|
Why not just create HT milkweed? Problem solved. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:I didn't propose banning GMOs, I just pointed out an HT-GMO ban is the same thing as an herbicide ban. I think GMOs are awesome, generally speaking. There are two ways of looking at the HT-GMO problem. I think that HT-GMOs are ruining an otherwise amazing technology, have had unintended environmental consequences, and have put at least one species on the endangered species list. Your posting gimmick is sad as poo poo
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:you colossal idiot Haha dude, calm the gently caress down.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 12:14 |
|
|
To annoy Mofabio even more.... It's Norman Bourlag's birthday. Happy birthday to a guy who helped feed millions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 17:39
|
|