Genetic Modification in Food

[wellAlbidarned]

Never observed Greens being particularly anti-scientific tbh.

 

[Spark]

Never observed Greens being particularly anti-scientific tbh.

Look harder.

 

[silentstriker]

Aren't they against GM foods for no reason whatsoever?

 

[Spark]

GM foods, nanotech, nuclear (obvs) - basically the whole biotech industry

 

[silentstriker]

Someone has to explain the argument against GM foods to me. Farmers have been doing that for thousands of years. Have they seen a wild banana?

So many of our foods exist because they were cross-bred by farmers.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

That's not genetic modification, that's natural selective breeding. Massive difference.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

GM foods, nanotech, nuclear (obvs) - basically the whole biotech industry

They're not drop-dead "against" any of those ideas, they're against the idea of half-arsing them without seriously considering the future consequences in the name of profit. Speaking from the NZ Green's perspective, ftr.

 

[silentstriker]

That's not genetic modification, that's natural selective breeding. Massive difference.

It's not natural - it's by definition artificial if farmers are doing it. And it's genetic modification because farmers have been combining different genes from different species to yield a different product. The only difference is now we can do it better instead of haphazardly and semi-blindly.

 

[silentstriker]

They're not drop-dead "against" any of those ideas, they're against the idea of half-arsing them without seriously considering the future consequences in the name of profit. Speaking from the NZ Green's perspective, ftr.

What 'considerations' are those, when it comes to GM foods? Because you know, GM foods, fortified with vitamins that are deficient in a large percentage of the world's population, could save millions of lives. It's primarily scare mongering, mostly from the left, that's stopping it. It's hysteria about 'frankenfoods' (whatever that means).

 

[Spark]

Mm yeah they say that, but then you get down to the actual substance of their criticisms and it's pitifully obvious that they have very little knowledge of the actual scientific literature, or if they have they've completely ignored it (which was my original point).

Hypocrites tbh. They hammer the science to the death but only if it suits their pre-ordained ideology.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

It's not natural - it's by definition artificial if farmers are doing it. And it's genetic modification because farmers have been combining different genes from different species to yield a different product. The only difference is now we can do it better instead of haphazardly and semi-blindly.

It's not artifical though - it's just a guiding hand to natural process. Natural processes are slower but provide some error-control and limits as to what can occur. Fiddling with things and such a basic level which are going to go out into the world and reproduce within many ecosystems is not something which should be done lightly imo.

What 'considerations' are those, when it comes to GM foods? Because you know, GM foods, fortified with vitamins that are deficient in a large percentage of the world's population, could save millions of lives. It's primarily scare mongering, mostly from the left, that's stopping it. It's hysteria about 'frankenfoods' (whatever that means).

The problem with GM there is that, while it potentially has good uses, it's inevitably going to be used as a poor short-term patchover for problems which are basically direct results of poor modern farming methods. I'm not one of those people who wants to label the whole concept as evil - that's stupid. It has (or will have) a place, it's just that there's plenty of other things we should be thinking about sorting out ahead of it.

 

[Uppercut]

It's not artifical though - it's just a guiding hand to natural process. Natural processes are slower but provide some error-control and limits as to what can occur. Fiddling with things and such a basic level which are going to go out into the world and reproduce within many ecosystems is not something which should be done lightly imo.



The problem with GM there is that, while it potentially has good uses, it's inevitably going to be used as a poor short-term patchover for problems which are basically direct results of poor modern farming methods. I'm not one of those people who wants to label the whole concept as evil - that's stupid. It has (or will have) a place, it's just that there's plenty of other things we should be thinking about sorting out ahead of it.

Hahahaha, tell me you don't actually believe this

 

[silentstriker]

It's not artifical though - it's just a guiding hand to natural process. Natural processes are slower but provide some error-control and limits as to what can occur. Fiddling with things and such a basic level which are going to go out into the world and reproduce within many ecosystems is not something which should be done lightly imo.

Um, what? Some random radiation hits a strand of DNA in a vegetable and breaks it, the repair mechanisms don't work, and voila, you have a random mutation. What error control are you talking about? It's only us humans that provide error control because we decide specifically what genes to put in.

The problem with GM there is that, while it potentially has good uses, it's inevitably going to be used as a poor short-term patchover for problems which are basically direct results of poor modern farming methods. I'm not one of those people who wants to label the whole concept as evil - that's stupid. It has (or will have) a place, it's just that there's plenty of other things we should be thinking about sorting out ahead of it.

Like what?

 

[Ruckus]

I want my apple sized raspberries already goddamnit

 

[Spark]

Struggling to think of, on a global scale, things that count as more important as tackling global poverty tbh.

 

[Johnners]

It's not artifical though - it's just a guiding hand to natural process. Natural processes are slower but provide some error-control and limits as to what can occur. Fiddling with things and such a basic level which are going to go out into the world and reproduce within many ecosystems is not something which should be done lightly imo.

The problem with GM there is that, while it potentially has good uses, it's inevitably going to be used as a poor short-term patchover for problems which are basically direct results of poor modern farming methods. I'm not one of those people who wants to label the whole concept as evil - that's stupid. It has (or will have) a place, it's just that there's plenty of other things we should be thinking about sorting out ahead of it.

What are these poor modern farming methods?

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Hahahaha, tell me you don't actually believe this

I'll admit my knowledge of genetics is pretty limited, so I'll drop that part of the argument

Um, what? Some random radiation hits a strand of DNA in a vegetable and breaks it, the repair mechanisms don't work, and voila, you have a random mutation. What error control are you talking about? It's only us humans that provide error control because we decide specifically what genes to put in.




Like what?

Like major alterations in the way our already ample food supply is distributed? Like encouraging long-term sustainability in our food production systems using techniques which already exist and don't require billions of dollars in investment? The root of poverty is not that there isn't enough food to go around - it's that some people have way, way too much.

Struggling to think of, on a global scale, things that count as more important as tackling global poverty tbh.

You misunderstand me. I'm not proposing global poverty should be deprioritised, I'm proposing that there's ways we should be going about dealing with it before jumping on the "GE will solve everything" bandwagon.

Anyway, I'd honestly be all for it if it was actually going to be used to tackle global poverty, but I have little faith left in that kind of idealism. It's going to be used to get a few ****s who don't give a toss about solving global poverty rich, because they're the ones with the money to invest in it. Happy to be proved wrong, but in my opinion no scientific development is going to solve a problem like this alone - it's got to be done with far more fundamental changes in our attitudes and idealism.

What are these poor modern farming methods?

The ones which are destroying soil fertility, slowly diluting the nutritional content of food, and shrinking produce gene pools.

 

[silentstriker]

Like major alterations in the way our already ample food supply is distributed? Like encouraging long-term sustainability in our food production systems using techniques which already exist and don't require billions of dollars in investment? The root of poverty is not that there isn't enough food to go around - it's that some people have way, way too much.

Yes, yes, that's all well and good. Wile you're working on that, we have the ability to help millions of people right now...IMMEDIATELY..by improving their diets by getting them the vitamins they need. It's only hysteria that's keeping that out.


Plus, wouldn't it be much more sustainable long term if you could have fewer food sources that would provide you with all the nutrients and vitamins you needed, rather than having to scrounge around for a whole bunch of different vegetables, fruits, etc for what you need?

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Plus, wouldn't it be much more sustainable long term if you could have fewer food sources that would provide you with all the nutrients and vitamins you needed, rather than having to scrounge around for a whole bunch of different vegetables, fruits, etc for what you need?

Then the gradual decline in population growth would halt. If more fat people with terrible eating habits don't die, we risk a terrible economic burden for the next generation supporting the social safety net.

 

[silentstriker]

Haha.

It's interesting though - the best way to stop population growth is by lifting people out of poverty. The industrialized, healthy, countries have the lowest birthrates by far.