wellAlbidarned
Well-known member
Never observed Greens being particularly anti-scientific tbh.
Look harder.Never observed Greens being particularly anti-scientific tbh.
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.GM foods, nanotech, nuclear (obvs) - basically the whole biotech industry
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.That's not genetic modification, that's natural selective breeding. Massive difference.
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).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.
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.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.
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 '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).
Hahahaha, tell me you don't actually believe thisIt'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.
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.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.
Like what?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?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
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.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?
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.Struggling to think of, on a global scale, things that count as more important as tackling global poverty tbh.
The ones which are destroying soil fertility, slowly diluting the nutritional content of food, and shrinking produce gene pools.What are these poor modern farming methods?
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.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.
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.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?