/sci/ - Science & Math

Favor. A lot of things can be potentially be bad for you like drugs have a process of approval, I don't see why that can't work for gmos

>>10191670
How else would we feed the world?

GMO is better than completely random mutations, which is what society has been relying on for all food produces for all of history until now.

Favor, It pisses me off to see it's the new hit meme in supermarkets to put "Non-GMO" on there foods, Like its some kinda bad thing.

With advancements you could have a plant that easily fills the rolls as a food stock for a nations with nearly 20% less land used, And it's all the more important now that everyone's crying over Climate Change and the meat industry.

>>10191670
Favour.
There is no reasonable argument in oppositio of GMOs, mostly it's misinformed mommas that think if food is genetically altered, your DNA also gets. altered.

i'm pro-GMO and pro-GMO-labeling. i see it as basically like when flour says it's enriched because they added some niacin.

>>10191670
Against. There have been no studies comparing people who eat GMO vs non-GMO. GMO crops also create a monopoly in the agriculture industry and actually increase the need for pesticides and herbicides.

>>10191670
Favour. EU policy on gene-editing and GMO's are completely based upon fear and protectionist interests. organic farming is completely viable I must say.

Hoover the middle men in the food industry complete ass rape farmers with the prices they buy the produce with and the going price in markets and it's REALLY bad in many parts of the world rich or poor.

>>10192675
Top quote an Indian man who quit his office job at IBM to go farming

>So that was the bitter truth. All the sowing, watering, weeding, harvesting and cleaning are done at the farm. The cost of labour, seeds, water and electricity is borne by the farmer. But the bulk of the profits go to the trader who just packs the material and charges a bomb from unsuspecting city dwellers.

>>10192460
>test GMO on animals for 3-6 months MAX
>no generational offspring testing whatsoever
>apply GMO to humans for ~100 years
And you wonder why Jews avoid GMO.

>>10191670
>patenting food

FUCK NO

>>10191670
>be /sci/
>pro-GMO
Oh Gawd.

>>10191670
Depends.
GMO refers to a lot of things. You may as well be asking our opinion on medicine or motorized transportation.
Furthermore it has more than just a few issues with it that are more complex than "GMO GUD OR BAD?" The patent issues surrounding them, for instance, is a completely separate issue from the safety one, and one that many can have wildly differing opinions on.

>>10192726
Also this shit, this shit right here.

>>10191670
please go to >>>/his/ or ask a sciene or maths related question

>>10192772
>GENETICALLY MODIFIED
>Non-science
What about when the genes escape to non GMO plants in the wild or on farms (intellectual property laws apply)? What if all individuals of a species gets a GMO gene and we find out it's detrimental only after the initial release into the environment.

>>10191670

As a scientist, this just infuriates me. It is absolutely the most idiotic thing to be against GMOs.

First of all, ALL life is genetically modified. Breeding of dogs based on characteristics is a form of genetic modification...

People think because I tinkered with something at a molecular level it is somehow harmful. The only harmful thing is the sheer ignorance of the public.

One huge example of how genetically modified organisms have saved millions of lives is insulin production.

You can put an insulin expressing vector into E. coli., and they will produce insulin. This can then be used by type 1 diabetics to STAY ALIVE.

Is the "harmful" lol... again this is the stupidest shit ever.

>>10192726
patenting genes
patenting food
and patenting shit that was always public or "for the people" like strains or breeds of an area's crops or animals.

>>10192802
Tinkering with species on the genetic level is not comparable to natural selection/ breeding programs.

>>10192809
Don't you think a corporation should be provided public funding to edit rice to have more vitamin A to prevent nutritional deficiencies, then have to bury the work because it wasn't profitable because the people they wanted to market to couldn't afford food in the first place?

>>10192842

As I had stated, I think it is a fear due to the general publics lack of understanding rather than there being an actual issue arising from it.

GMOS = LESS PESTICIDES


FDA NIGGERS GET IN THE WAY BY EXCLUDING GMO SPECIES FROM BEING "ORGANIC"

ORGANIC FOOD WITHOUT PESTICDES WOULD BE CHEAPER WERE GMO ORGANISMS ALLOWED IN QUALIFICATIONS


AVERAGE IQ OF POPULACE IS 100 AND FALLING. THEY THINK GMO SOUNDS SCARY AND THATS WHY GMOS ARE LABEBELED.

FREE MARKET AND DEMOCRACY ARE A MISTAKE IN LOW IQ SOCIETY

>>10192859
typing with cap locks does not nor will it ever make you sound more authoritative.

>>10192846
im talking patenting heiloom seeds.

>>10192862
it's cruise control for cool you fagget.

>>10192847
As an environmental biologist, I fear that these GMO crops could intermingle with the wild varieties resulting in an entire species with various competitive GMO genes. GMOs are the biological equivalent of pandoras box because you can never remove the genes from a wild population.

>>10192885

This is a valid concern. I do agree that creating an advantage may be devestating, but I think eating these cropts is harmless.

>>10191670
No GMO = World Famine

>>10191670
In favor, because almost everything we eat has had its genes modified by one technique or another so if we stopped eating them we'd all starve. And I don't want to starve.

>>10192726
But that's a different issue.

>>10192842
This is true -- with the former we know exactly what genes are being changed, with the latter two we have no fucking idea.

>>10192877
Oldfag detected.

>>10192892
As more money goes toward GMOs, and these hyper competitive plants/ genes inevitably escape, displacement of local/rare flaura and fauna is bound to occur. GMO's might be harmless to eat, but we couldn't possibly test it in humans considering the span of time required in testing a lifelong variable and there is no control group (everyone on earth has been exposed to GMO).

>>10192919
That's why we have genetic tests, to track those genes through the generations. In biological science, there are entire species of rats/mice/etc. that are denoted by a specific gene.

>>10192897
famine isn't actually due to having no gmo's. It's rather issues with

-Transportation
-War
-storage issues
-fucked up market prices
-and bad policies.
-climate cycles.

>>10192885
>>10192892

Isn't this just as true for crops we've modified by other means?

>>10192927
>factoid :D

>>10192921
>hyper competitive

How is a strain of rice that is more nutritious "hyper competitive?"

>>10192927
Interesting but I don't see how it is relevant.

>>10192941
With gene editing, you can add as many genes as you like in a single generation of plants (e.g. frost/ drought/ insect/ fungal resistance) which allows them to greatly out compete local populations if released. If you look back at the history of human agriculture, it takes hundreds to thousands of years to magnify desirable qualities which gives wild populations a chance to evolve alongside farmlands because there isn't such a severe bottleneck on the population.

>>10192943
Two examples from wikipedia: C57BL/6 mice have a dark brown, nearly black coat. They are more sensitive to noise and odours and are more likely to bite than the more docile laboratory strains such as BALB/c.[15]
BALB/c is an albino, laboratory-bred strain from which a number of common substrains are derived. With over 200 generations bred since 1920, BALB/c mice are distributed globally and are among the most widely used inbred strains used in animal experimentation.

>>10192944
Nutrition is not the only thing they add to these plants, as I have stated in previous posts.

>>10192946
It's relevant to the question at hand being that we don't know the genetics of natural populations when in fact we catalog many genomes. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome

>>10191670
OPPOSSE

Because it's not the GMOs that are bad, it's metric ton of chemicals they spray on them.

>>10192726
>>10192809
THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS

Patenting food should be illegal.

Yes to the principle of GMOs.
No to the current state of agro GMOs.
Monsanto has terrible business practices and should rot in hell. And Roundup-soaked crops are most likely harmful.
But, with GMOs, we could technically have plants expressing a very specific set of proteins, specifically targeting insects, bacteria and fungi, and of which we could control expression and stability over time.

https://www.ewg.org/childrenshealth/glyphosateincereal/

>>10192460
Zishy?

>>10192802
>how can progress be bad, if it copies nature and is super duper safe on paper, btw I am doing science myself xDDD

I bet you havent even finished your bachelor, yet you call yourself a scientist, little boy.
Constant influx of dumb fucks like you are the little gears that keep the lab slave industry of medical/pharmaceutial/agricultural science going.

Rednecks don't understand science.

>>10191670
GMO is fine faggot.

>>10191670
People who won't eat GMO's but eat cultivated fruits and vegetables that have been selectively bred for years are idiots.

>>10194044
>faggot
Why the homophobia?

>>10194066
Because freeze peach.

>>10191670
But in the long run these self-prop systems will probably be less dangerous to the global self-prop systems than will those biological self-prop systems that have been intentionally or unintentionally created or altered through direct human action, e.g., through genetic engineering. One would have to be extraordinarily naive to imagine that organisms created, altered, or manipulated by humans will always remain safely under control, and in fact there already have been cases in which such organisms have not remained under control, including cases in which organisms have escaped from research facilities. 39 Such escaped organisms have the potential to do serious harm. For example, the so-called "killer bees" are a hybrid of European and African bees that escaped from a research facility in Brazil. Since then they have spread over much of South America and into the United States, and they have killed hundreds of people.

>>10194854
It's true that, to date, none of these biological self-prop systems has come close to threatening the survival of any of the dominant global self-prop systems, but present-day biotechnology is still in its infancy in comparison with what we can expect for the coming decades. As human interventions in biology reach further and further, the risk of disastrous consequences continually rises, and as long as the technological equipment needed for such interventions exists, there are no practicable means of controlling this risk. Small groups of amateurs are already dabbling in genetic engineering. 42 These amateurs wouldn't have to create synthetic life or do anything highly sophisticated in order to bring on a disaster; merely changing a few genes in an existing organism could have catastrophic consequences. The chances of disaster in any one instance may be remote, but there are potentially thousands or millions of amateurs who could begin monkeying with the genes of microorganisms, and thousands or millions of minute risks can add up to a very substantial risk.

>>10194855
Some people think it may become possible in the future to create microscopic ("nanotechnological"), non-biological self-prop systems that could reproduce themselves uncontrollably, with deadly consequences for the whole world. Others claim that (macroscopic) self-reproducing robots will probably be built, and even the rabid technophile Ray Kurzweil admits that such machines will evolve beyond the control of human beings. This writer does not have the technical expertise to judge whether such speculations are plausible or whether they should be dismissed as science fiction. Yet, today's science fiction often turns out to be tomorrow's fact.

Because of their ability to reproduce themselves by the billions in a short time, microscopic self-prop systems, biological or not, may prove to be especially dangerous to the global self-prop systems. On the other hand, human self-prop systems may turn out to be more dangerous after all, not only because they are intelligent, but also because they exist as subsystems of the global self-prop systems and therefore can potentially impair the integrity of the latter. But this line of inquiry is leading us too far into speculation, so we'll drop it here.

>>10194854
>>10194855
>>10194857

>OP makes a thread about pros/cons of GMOs
>full of shitposts about grey goo armageddon and photos of the unibomber

this thread fucking sucks

>>10194874
Except that Ted Kaczynski actually has valid arguments against gene editing, retard.

>>10191670
I'm in favor of GMOs but we apparently need to do something about the fuckin pesticides

What can go wrong will go wrong
>inb4 hundreds of off-target mutations caused by CRISPR(-CAS9) https://futurism.com/4-crispr-may-cause-unintended-mutations-new-study-shows/

>>10192474
Note that even Judaism says that GMOs aren't Kosher. Now we've got non-GMO labeling by third parties, prefer the third parties over gov't since that could be corrupted by corp.

My stance of GMOs in neutral, DNA verification to mark things as GMO or non-GMO raises awareness about which products are GMO and which not. Although there are studies proving it's safe, there have been problems including off-target mutations, which could be limited. What are the consequences of off-target mutations?

>>10192859
Think off-target mutations and unintended mutations
Think Murphy's law
The reason IQ is falling has more to do with the pollution that impacts the brains rather than the genes, since change in genes happens in general slowly.

>>10192892
Not all GM crops are harmless. Think epicyte, which makes humans render infertile. Look up for article though.
Read article, it's been admitted http://archive.is/qKjkp

Negative information makes fear, there's reason for instinct to exist as fear is one

>>10196196
The use of pesticides could be reduced by turning biodiversity against pests.
Herbs that are normally fought with herbicides should better get mechanically removed as these herbs also could be used for food, medicinal and other purposes.
TL;DR Teleological reasoning based application of herbs (TRBAH)

>>10191670
-Sterile seeds, anothe rmechanism of vertical control
-Upregulated endotoxin production, excuse to spray more and more herbicides all over it, and therefore a downregulation of nutrients and beneficial compounds made in response to fungal and bacterial presence.
-Hey let's alter the shikimate pathway. Huh, why is my crop nutrient devoid?
-Eg glyphosate is incorporated into the plant at all levels, as it mimics glycine and cells will use it as such. It cannot be washed off.
-Vast capacity for abuse, eg epicyte.

GMO is the braindead brute force version of farming. Control everything because you can, never realizing to get equivalent outcomes you actually have to control very little. Are there possibilities for genetic improvements to crops, which won't be utterly terrible? Yes. Are they possible now? Clearly not. There is no incentive and no functioning infrastructure for proper safety testing.

If you eat GMO you're an idiot, and you will be punished as such. Issue is you'll misattribute the cause of the issues you're sure to develop and you'll litter /sci/ and your mind with "why haven't they found the gene / immunotherapy / etc for my issue yet?" Even though no one had such issue 50 years ago, suddenly it's all in the genes, and there's big money in paying hoards of researchers to chase genes around for 15 years. Make money by not losing money (keep cat in bag), make money with potential payoffs when you find treatments to solve problems people are giving themselves with bad food.

Eventually all of us will be forced to eat GMO when they find some way to legally dominate the food supply.

>>10194894
Actually, many GMO proponents and zealots on this board make their own fallacies as well.
Circular reasoning, appeal to ignorance, black-white logic (dualist absolutism), appeal to bureaucracy and strawman fallacy. In some cases even the fallacy fallacy

>>10192726
>>10192809
>>10193006
There is literally nothing wrong with patenting GM seeds. If the farmer doesn't want to keep paying for GM seeds (things that took a shitton of money to develop), then they can just go back to using non-GM crops like they did before. And no, they won't be sued if a few GM crops accidentally grow on their land because other farmers near them used them.

>>10196684
>There is no incentive and no functioning infrastructure for proper safety testing.
There's an anti-incentive really.

>>10197756
Well stated.

>>10191670
>everytime a big issue is in the news or new publications come out pushing something there are a half dozen “just asking questions/feedback” threads with nondescript, easily spoofed “organic” threads about the subject all of which are designed to bring out the most insane advocates of both sides of the issue
>reddit has confirmed biotech and agrotech and pharma shills on it
>w-we’re not like them even tho there are shills on /pol/ and /tv/
really makes you think!