|
Bokhari has done more for the NDP party this election than anyone in the NDP party.
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 02:43 |
|
|
# ? May 14, 2024 11:52 |
|
Count Roland posted:Its not GMO stuff in particular I'm opposed too, its the practices of large companies with profits in mind. GMOs are a bit unique, because it allows for novel stuff like genes being patented and owned by companies. These are the sorts practices I oppose. (I have a variety of problems with big agriculture and food not related to genetics at all). Part of the reason more companies to make genetically engineered crops is that the anti-GE crowd has demanded increasingly stricter and stricter rules and regulations around what is acceptable. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but these demands have effectively priced everyone but the gigantic multinationals out of the market for developing a GE crop. It takes something around $115 million to develop a GE crop and probably around 10 years of applied research and development. The other point is that the research that lead to the development of GE crops *was* developed by public scientists. Governments have neither the time nor the resources to devote to developing a GE crop when industry will gladly do it. And industry makes money off of the technology in part to recover their investment, and partly because they're in it to make money. This works well for farmers because farmers also want to make money - farmers buy GE seed because growing these seeds has either an intrinsic (kills insects) or side benefit (less time, both equipment and person devoted to managing a herbicide resistant crop). Consumers also haven't complained much until recently, when we reached the point where we could produce poo poo tons of food because clever corporations managed to combine their GE technology with hybrid technology making high yielding crops that have additional benefits. These crops are safe to consume and as Vyelkin said above there's no sane policy reason to enforce labeling of "GMO" products. First off, "GMO" is a meaningless term as everything in nature is a GMO. Second, there are also products labeled as "GMO free". Buy those. Also when you mention using GMO stuff to prevent a catastrophe let's look to Golden Rice to see what anti-GMO activists have done to a potential technology that has been given away by multinationals and developed as a humanitarian product. They spread lies and slander regarding a product that could save millions of children from blindness because of their own twisted agenda. And you're anti corporation? You should be anti anti-GMO activism if you care at all about humanity. William Saletan at Slate wrote an excellent article about the hypocrisy of these activists: http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...nd_errors.html. I saw the inventor of Golden Rice, Ingo Potrykus, speak at a conference a couple years ago. He was so upset by what activists had done to his idea. The technology could have a positive impact on the poorest people, but they now don't even want the technology because of the lies they've been fed. The activists have managed to convince the people that need this stuff the most that it's poison.
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 03:06 |
|
That sort of thing is exactly why I hate hippies and "environmentalists." We need GMO food and we need nuclear power and these loving useless quarter-wits are standing against both out of sheer willful ignorance.
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 03:32 |
|
PT6A posted:That sort of thing is exactly why I hate hippies and "environmentalists." Let's not kid ourselves, you hate everyone. Except Trump, maybe.
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 03:47 |
|
we could just replace pt6a with south park quotes
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 03:59 |
|
Lovin my new avatar! The rebuke is a tad bit more subtle than my last one.
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 04:34 |
|
PT6A posted:That sort of thing is exactly why I hate hippies and "environmentalists." We need GMO food and we need nuclear power and these loving useless quarter-wits are standing against both out of sheer willful ignorance. "quarter-wits"
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 04:41 |
|
PT6A posted:That sort of thing is exactly why I hate hippies and "environmentalists." We need GMO food and we need nuclear power and these loving useless quarter-wits are standing against both out of sheer willful ignorance. Do you mean literal environmentalists or some fictitious strawman conjured from your oilbrain
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 04:54 |
|
Jan posted:Let's not kid ourselves, you hate everyone. PT6A hates Trump plenty, he yelled at me in one of the canpol threads cause I said Trump would probably be a better president than Hillary because he buys into the whole American Hitler thing.
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 04:57 |
|
TheKingofSprings posted:Do you mean literal environmentalists or some fictitious strawman conjured from your oilbrain quote:Green Party MPs will work to: quote:The Greens globally have said “no” to nuclear energy because it is neither safe, nor clean, nor economical. Federal climate change policies should encourage the most efficient, effective, and environmentally friendly measures to curb GHG emissions. Man, those are actually nuttier than I remembered. Ending uranium mining is bananas.
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 04:59 |
|
TheKingofSprings posted:Do you mean literal environmentalists or some fictitious strawman conjured from your oilbrain http://www.davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/queen-of-green/faqs/food/understanding-gmo/ quote:The safety of GMO foods is unproven and a growing body of research connects these foods with health concerns and environmental damage. For this reason, most developed nations have policies requiring mandatory labeling of GMO foods at the very least, and some have issued bans on GMO food production and imports.
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 05:10 |
|
Doesn't Suzuki have a background in genetics?? How could he possibly buy into that?
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 05:24 |
|
Cynically- it could be an image thing? He knows his audience?
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 05:28 |
|
He probably hasn't done any actual work in genetics since well before GE became commercial. There are people with backgrounds in atmospheric science who think climate change is a crock, people in nuclear science who think nuclear power plants should be shut down, and people with medical degrees who think vaccines are bad for you. There will be people in every field who deny some of the tenets of that field due to obstinancy, funding from outside sources, not keeping up on current research, and very rarely because they've come up with a genuinely innovative idea that will change their field. David Suzuki is not the last one I know Suzuki catches a lot of flak in this thread, but The Nature of Things was loving awesome and along with Quirks and Quarks fueled my love of science as a kid. I think I'll forgive an 80 year old man a few bad opinions considering the good he's done for science and environmentalism in this country.
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 05:58 |
|
He's a skeptic at heart and he's watched untold billions of organisms die from slight changes to their environment. Our ability to create, be science, engineering or even art has always vastly outpreformed our ability to forsee it's outcome.
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 06:00 |
|
https://thebovine.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/the-trouble-with-monsanto-and-gmos-dr-david-suzuki-spells-it-out/David Suzuki posted:“Because we aren’t certain about the effects of GMOs, we must consider one of the guiding principles in science, the precautionary principle. Under this principle, if a policy or action could harm human health or the environment, we must not proceed until we know for sure what the impact will be. And it is up to those proposing the action or policy to prove that it is not harmful.” You could read a good rebuttal to that logic and a summary of the current evidence at http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/review-10-years-gmo-research-no-significant-dangers/ and make own educated opinion. It will probably be something like "Vaccines work, the planet is warming, gmos are safe, evolution is real and the OLP is corrupt."
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 06:03 |
|
Baronjutter posted:Doesn't Suzuki have a background in genetics?? How could he possibly buy into that? Even with a background in genetics (perhaps even especially with a background in genetics), I can definitely see how one would be wary of GMOs in general. Sure, pretty much all genetic improvements that see their way to the public are done in a careful, controlled environment. But statistics being what they are, there's always the faint possibility that you're introducing a gene modification that's beneficial in most respects, but happens to interact with a different gene in such a way that causes it to drift unpredictably and perhaps out of control. That genotype you observed making cabbage more resilient to insects and parasites might turn other species in the same genus into uncontrollable weeds with practically no value, until the Earth is covered in them. It's unlikely to happen, but all it takes is one honest mistake that spirals out of control. It's a bit like the argument that computer scientists have about AI. For the most part, "AI" is anything but "intelligent" and just dumbly applies an algorithm to some known metrics to try and improve itself. But all it would take is one AI with the right kind of data being told to optimize itself without explicitly trying to preserve human life and civilization... And suddenly you end up with an AI whose directive is to produce red staplers at any cost, including that of releasing advanced nanomachines that convert all organic life into red staplers. Obviously a highly unlikely and downright comedic outcome, but science pessimists, regardless of domain, remain aware that all it takes is that one exception to the rule that fucks up the entire world for everyone else.
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 06:07 |
|
The stupid thing is that there's very real discussions that should be had about GMO crops, but almost all of them center on ecology and patent law. Instead we have idiots who somehow convinced themselves that GMO crops are bad for them because reasons.
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 06:59 |
|
Nationalize genes
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 07:11 |
|
What can you really do in the face of people who are determined to never budge? If they are so dogmatic that facts no longer matter, and they'll just find a new problem for every solution, at what point do you just ignore them and move on? We do that with acquaintances or co-workers in our everyday lives, whenever possible, so why not with anti-science nuts? Edit: I want to add, after further thought, that one of the other dangers of dogmatic people is that they can poison the well for genuine discussion. Anyone who wants to bring up Monsanto is at risk of being labeled a conspiracy nut, even if there are genuine concerns to be had about the company. Segments of the anti-GMO crowd vilify Monsanto as some shadowy extra-legal organization of New World Order evil elite scientists plotting kill us. That's crazy. But if you want to talk about the company's commercial practices and patent trolling, you get lumped in with the illuminati guys. I guess my broader point is how do you educate a public that doesn't want to be educated, or worse, has already gone down the conspiracy well? HackensackBackpack fucked around with this message at 07:46 on Apr 8, 2016 |
# ? Apr 8, 2016 07:11 |
|
PittTheElder posted:The stupid thing is that there's very real discussions that should be had about GMO crops, but almost all of them center on ecology and patent law. Instead we have idiots who somehow convinced themselves that GMO crops are bad for them because reasons. Because random mutations are preferable to genetic modification. Except in dogs cause we made dogs cuter.
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 07:31 |
|
My only real concern with GMOs is things like a breed ending up being more dependant on certain nutrients leading to a more rapid degradation of arable land, or maybe something boosts the production of a certain enzyme that we find out after the fact is super lethal to bees or something. We've seen a lot of situations in the past century where new pesticides, materials, medications etc end up being super bad for us after the fact. Couple this with the fact that even now corporations are fighting tooth and nail to keep stuff we're pretty sure is already killing us in the market, like Round Up, and ya I'm a bit weary of the modern GMO food industry. It has nothing to do with 'OMG fish DNA in tomatoes!' Still, I eat the stuff because gently caress it.
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 13:38 |
|
quote:Good Friday morning to you.
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 13:40 |
|
Brazil's right wing, not satisfied with taking down their own political elite, has got a hunger for more.quote:Ms. Gryzinski, the former executive editor of Veja, calls Mr. Trudeau “the embodiment of vaguely leftist and confusingly well-intentioned liberalist dreams, a handsome guy who shamelessly shows off his physique and preens for photos in yoga poses.”
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 13:44 |
|
Someone tell Notley that the best thing for Canada's economy is for Alberta to keep their overpriced oversubsidized extremely ecologically devastating poo poo oil in the ground and do something else.
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 13:48 |
|
Canada added 41000 jobs in March And people say we're killing the economy.
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 13:59 |
|
35k full time positions is good news at a glance but I'd live to see What this positions offer in terms of job security duration salary and benefits. I wouldn't be cheering if it ended up being 35k 6 month no extension no benefits 13$ an hour contract positions.
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 14:07 |
|
bunnyofdoom posted:Canada added 41000 jobs in March Well, not you personally.
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 14:10 |
|
JVNO posted:Cynically- it could be an image thing? He knows his audience? It's either this, or the fact that he's a huge idiot, or maybe a bit of both.
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 14:11 |
|
Look, what I do in my free time is none of your business. Also..... more fuel to dump Tom with
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 14:12 |
|
ChairMaster posted:PT6A hates Trump plenty, he yelled at me in one of the canpol threads cause I said Trump would probably be a better president than Hillary because he buys into the whole American Hitler thing. To be fair, at this point I hope he beats Ted Cruz for the R nomination because gently caress Ted Cruz. But, yeah, I think he'd be a disaster as president.
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 14:18 |
|
Well yeah but he was a Liberal back then.
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 14:33 |
|
PT6A posted:To be fair, at this point I hope he beats Ted Cruz for the R nomination because gently caress Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz is the worst thing Canada has ever exported. Worse than Bitumen, Nickelback, Celine Dion, Bieber and Avril Lavigne combined. I'm serious. Trump is a cartoon character but Cruz is horrific in every possible way. His views on women and LGBTQ are positively medieval and whereas Trump said he wanted punishment for women who had abortions, it's a tenant of Cruz's loving faith. He is repugnant in every possible way. If I was forced to choose between Trump and Cruz I'd take Trump. If I had to choose between Rob Ford and Cruz, I'd take Ford in a heartbeat. Seriously. Reagan and Nixon were politically repugnant. Cruz is Batshit Tea Party Crazy personified and would do more damage than both of them.
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 14:55 |
|
Jan posted:Sure, pretty much all genetic improvements that see their way to the public are done in a careful, controlled environment. But statistics being what they are, there's always the faint possibility that you're introducing a gene modification that's beneficial in most respects, but happens to interact with a different gene in such a way that causes it to drift unpredictably and perhaps out of control. That genotype you observed making cabbage more resilient to insects and parasites might turn other species in the same genus into uncontrollable weeds with practically no value, until the Earth is covered in them. It's unlikely to happen, but all it takes is one honest mistake that spirals out of control. Um, what? Nature is in a state of constant competition, if there was a single mutation that caused a plant to "take over the Earth" it would've happened by now. It's not that easy. Yes there are invasive species but an earth conquering superweed isn't going to happen. And keep in mind that human cultivated plants aren't particularly good at surviving without our care in the first place (seeing as how they're designed to maximize edible yield at the expense of basically everything else).
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 15:18 |
|
MA-Horus posted:Ted Cruz is the worst thing Canada has ever exported. Worse than Bitumen, Nickelback, Celine Dion, Bieber and Avril Lavigne combined. Don't forget asbestos. And yeah, this. "American Taliban" is not hyperbole given his record. A Trump nomination would not be a bad thing with Cruz as the the alternative. ed: gently caress, what did I just type? We're really down the rabbit hole on this one. Hexigrammus fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Apr 8, 2016 |
# ? Apr 8, 2016 15:20 |
|
Hexigrammus posted:Don't forget asbestos. No kidding. Christ, we should lend them Harper.
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 15:31 |
|
Oh.quote:Guests paid $500 a ticket to attend the “private reception” with Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould in the Toronto offices of international law firm Torys LLP. Proceeds from the event went to the Liberal Party of Canada. http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/wilson-raybould-attends-liberal-party-fundraiser-at-law-firm-1.2850648
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 16:00 |
|
EvilJoven posted:Someone tell Notley that the best thing for Canada's economy is for Alberta to keep their overpriced oversubsidized extremely ecologically devastating poo poo oil in the ground and do something else. You got some ideas on what she can do in 3 years that won't be political suicide and lead to a landslide election of Wildrose or other Tea Part-lites? I'll bet you she wants to do something else but she has probably come to the realisation at this point that she can't do that because Albertans are fickle and stupid
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 17:20 |
|
Yikes. https://twitter.com/Colettod/status/718470941823643648 https://twitter.com/Colettod/status/718469435682648065
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 18:02 |
|
|
# ? May 14, 2024 11:52 |
|
Aces High posted:You got some ideas on what she can do in 3 years that won't be political suicide It might be that the right thing to do as a leader isn't good for her career. Did she campaign on the strength of the premiership as a resume-building exercise? E: this is the kind of dumb post that deserves to be orphaned at the bottom of a page Subjunctive fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Apr 8, 2016 |
# ? Apr 8, 2016 18:05 |