PDA

View Full Version : GMO's: Good or Bad, What Say You?



elgrau
08-25-2014, 03:05 PM
Agree with his (Gordon Fulks, Physicist) underlying message, and maybe even the "big picture" thinking on GMO's as the only thing currently preventing/postponing mass starvation, but I'm still a doubter as to the overall "good" of GMO's and "big agri" in general:


Gordon Fulks, Physicist, knows why GMO crops are good sense and humane
Posted on August 24, 2014 by john1282 | 2 Comments

Here’s another stupid woman crusading through the world for “organic” farming. Condemning the companies and technology that are preventing starvation.


Maybe she needs a marginal, subsistence, even starvation and inadequate diet so she can get hungry and lose some of her fat.

Then she can learn the importance of consistent and reliable, adequate food production and why pest and drought and disease resistant crops that derive from Genetic Modification keep kids and adults from starving outside of her well fed bubble.

Here’s the note from Gordon the physicist with the big picture brain.

Gordon:

Today’s anti-science attitudes and actions go much further than Global Warming and utilize similar tactics. Those opposed to modern agriculture are likely also opposed to modern industrial society and of course to rational explanations of our climate. They cannot separate competent from incompetent science and hence have no idea that they are supporting the systematic destruction of the objective reasoning that built Western Civilization and all of the Modernism that we enjoy today.

Chuck Wiese sees the problem in narrow economic terms, namely the push to impose a Carbon Tax. While that may be the most immediate danger, it is far from the worst consequences of pervasive scientific illiteracy, unrelenting propaganda, and no interest in ascertaining the truth.

When people have been taught that they understand climate and agriculture but do not even come close, they become a sort of societal pathogen that virulently spreads misinformation in tiny packages like a virus. Our climate is said to be warming, when it is not. Carbon dioxide is said to be responsible for Global Warming that is not occurring, for accelerated sea level rise that is not occurring, for net glacial and sea ice melt that is not occurring, for ocean acidification that is not occurring, and for increasing extreme weather that is not occurring.

Similarly, our food that is produced by modern means is said to be dangerous, when it is not. Organic food produced by third world methods and frequently comes from third world countries is said to be superior, when it is clearly not.

One would hope that citizens would begin to realize that the vast amount of misinformation they receive should not be passed on to the next unsuspecting person in an attempt to infect them too. To halt this disease, some citizens (and publications like the New Yorker) will need to learn enough to avoid passing on the virus. They don’t have to become scientists, but they do have to adopt the Royal Society’s motto: ‘Take nobody’s word for it.” That means challenging those who presume to be the consensus or authority on any subject.

An activist once offered me the good advice to “Ask questions!” Our illustrious President Obama once said: “Question authority!” That too was great advice. Why do they never repeat it today?

Gordon

Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Corbett, Oregon USA

It seems like many of the same tactics used to promote CAGW are used in promoting the anti-GMO cause.

AgentOrange
08-25-2014, 03:23 PM
Look at this fat tree hugging bitch.

3240

She does not seem to mind eating her share of the food and the share of many of her starving countrymen.

I suspect she is all in for modified pot crops or any mass production that would reduce her daily "toke bill".

Martin
08-26-2014, 11:44 AM
OK, I'll weigh in on this one.

Let's say you're a drug company and you come up with a blockbuster drug.

You invested lots on money in research and you get a patent on it. No one else can make it for a few years (unless you license it to them) and you rake in the bucks for a while. Eventually, other companies can make it and the world gets it.
Seems like a reasonable system.

Now, let's say you're Monsanto and you come up with roundup-resistant seed. You'd think they'd get a deal like a drug maker.
Not so.
They own the patent to a LIFE FORM.
It reproduces.
It creates hybrids with adjacent crops via pollinators.
Monsanto owns all of that.
Monsanto owns the seeds that come from the crop you plant.
You can't replant those seeds.
You have to buy more from Monsanto.
Forever.
Eventually, they'll own all of the grain and corn in the world due to their patented genome with their genetic markers in it due to cross-pollination.

Anyone else e a problem with this?