/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11765819
He’s just telling people what they want to hear for votes. Not very complicated.

>>11765832
So, it's better to get votes from uneducated morons than educated folks?

>>11765836
If you’re a politician, yes absolutely. Most educated people have a nasty habit of questioning what you tell them.

>>11765844
(this)10^100

Ladies and gentlemen, 11765819 is what an actual paid agent looks like.

>>11765819
He's more famous for spamming lolsuits at people who don't believe him when he lies about inventing E-Mail
He used to plaster overpasses in campaign posters around here

>>11766104
Everybody knows Al Gore invented the internet.

>>11765819
>gmo bad
>How can someone have a science degree and still talk shit?
GMO is okay itself, but what is a real threat is patenting genes and corporations.
GMO patented plants contribute to biodiversity loss and monopoly, as patented genes can infest gene pool of non-GMO plants.

>>11765844
>Most educated people have a nasty habit of questioning what you tell them.
Then why are the educated the most likely to be neoliberals?

>>11766137
>GMO is okay itself, but what is a real threat is patenting genes and corporations.
And what threat has resulted?

>GMO patented plants contribute to biodiversity loss and monopoly, as patented genes can infest gene pool of non-GMO plants.
Regular agriculture leads to biodiversity loss just as much. And where has this resulted in monopoly?

>>11766141
Because conservatism is inherently conformist.

>>11766147
>And what threat has resulted?
Monopoly and biodiversity loss -> plants more vulnerable to insects, viruses, bioweapons.
Farmers want to be competitive, so they buy patented GMO plants, which causes biodiversity loss.
>Regular agriculture leads to biodiversity loss just as much.
loss from normal agriculture + loss from GMO and patents = more loss
>And where has this resulted in monopoly?
It didn't, because there's still some diversity and genes/plants are owned by no one.
On the other hand patented genes are proprietary, farmers can't use own seeds, if they have the genes.

>>11766166
>Monopoly and biodiversity loss -> plants more vulnerable to insects, viruses, bioweapons.
And where has this occurred due to GMOs?

>Farmers want to be competitive, so they buy patented GMO plants, which causes biodiversity loss.
That's bullshit as I already explained. Farmers have been monofarming for hundreds of years. This has nothing to do with GMOs.

>loss from normal agriculture + loss from GMO and patents = more loss
LOL, they're mutually exclusive. Either you're farming GMO or non-GMO. One replaces the other.

>It didn't, because there's still some diversity and genes/plants are owned by no one.
So when will there be 0 diversity so that your threat becomes real? LOL you have no idea what you're taking about.

>On the other hand patented genes are proprietary, farmers can't use own seeds, if they have the genes.
Farmers don't use their own seeds, they buy new ones with each planting since it's a waste of time to save the seeds. Nice LARP.

>>11766166
>loss from normal agriculture + loss from GMO and patents = more loss
So using one type of plant causes diversity loss but using two types of plants creates more diversity loss? Are you sure you're OK anon?

>>11766187
read a scientific paper or book about biodiversity loss due to modern agriculture technology
you have no idea what are you talking about
bye

>>11766193
Read a scientific paper or book about biodiversity loss due to modern agriculture technology. You have no idea what are you talking about.

Bye.

>>11766193
Weird how you failed to answer any of my questions and instead projected your own ignorance of agriculture and biotechnology onto me. And then left. It's almost like you're a LARPING retard.

>>11766192
>So using one type of plant causes diversity loss but using two types of plants creates more diversity loss? Are you sure you're OK anon?
I know "traditional agriculture" for Americans means one plant on 20km^2, but that's not the case for other places in the world.
Non-GMO plants are often worse than GMO plants, so farmers replace them with GMO.
Moreover GMO plants have much higher fitness, replacing the non-GMO plants.

>>11766195
>>11766187
>t. Monsanto
>That's bullshit as I already explained. Farmers have been monofarming for hundreds of years. This has nothing to do with GMOs.
Where does all these local varieties come from?
GMO plants have global reach and that's dangerous.
>LOL, they're mutually exclusive. Either you're farming GMO or non-GMO. One replaces the other.
Brain dead logic. By agriculture I mean using pesticides, insecticides, synthetic fertilizers, etc.
GMO plants replace varieties of non-GMO plants, because they're more profitable.
>So when will there be 0 diversity so that your threat becomes real?
Do you even biology? What the fuck. Yes let's replace all biomass with chickens and GMO corn, nothing bad will happen.
>Farmers don't use their own seeds, they buy new ones with each planting since it's a waste of time to save the seeds.
In the USA, maybe.

>>11766187
You can read these two papers for example:
>Feeding the world: genetically modified crops versus agricultural biodiversity
>Herbicide resistance and biodiversity: agronomic and environmental aspects of genetically modified herbicide-resistant plants

>The first obstacle is the claim that genetically modified crops are necessary if we are to secure food production within the next decades. This claim has no scientific support, but is rather a reflection of corporate interests.

>Scientific data indicate that agricultural intensification and pesticide use are among the main drivers of biodiversity loss.

>They rather show that the adoption of herbicide-resistant crops impacts agronomy, agricultural practice, and weed management and contributes to biodiversity loss [...]

>>11766205
>I know "traditional agriculture" for Americans means one plant on 20km^2, but that's not the case for other places in the world.
Almost all agriculture in the world is monofarming, because it's efficient.

>Non-GMO plants are often worse than GMO plants, so farmers replace them with GMO.
>Moreover GMO plants have much higher fitness, replacing the non-GMO plants.
Just replace "GMO" with "new cultivar" and you'll see why this has nothing to do with GMOs.

>>11766227
>>t. Monsanto
Nice conspiracy theory.

>Where does all these local varieties come from?
So you don't understand what monofarming is.

>GMO plants have global reach and that's dangerous.
How do they have any more global reach than what's planted now? How is it dangerous? You retards can never actually expiration your delusional fears.

>Brain dead logic. By agriculture I mean using pesticides, insecticides, synthetic fertilizers, etc.
How does that respond to what I said?

>GMO plants replace varieties of non-GMO plants, because they're more profitable.
Yes, they replace them, they don't add to their effect. Good job.

>Do you even biology? What the fuck. Yes let's replace all biomass with chickens and GMO corn, nothing bad will happen.
I'm confused since you said there is no monopoly since there is still diversity. So when is there going to be a monopoly and no diversity? You realize that for something to be a threat, it has to have some chance of occurring, right?

>In the USA, maybe.
In the world. Read a textbook.

How do I get a job as a Monsanto shill?

>>11766298
Apparently all you have to do is disprove a lie about GMOs and you are automatically paid by Monsanto.

>>11765819
People like you ALMOST make me somewhat hopeful that the Zionists will exterminate the Goyim. They're right, you animals are braindead retarded. You can't be trusted to have intelligent dialogue about more complex issues, you're not capable of self regulation. The goyim are completely insane and their understanding, technological capability, and numbers need to be capped and severely managed if they are allowed to continue to exist at all. The Jews are probably what save this place every retarded cycle. Perhaps their leadership remembers what happens if you don't take these, admittedly horrible, measures. Like vaccination.

>>11766295
>So you don't understand what monofarming is
Obviously there is a huge difference between each farmer monofarming with their own crops and every farmer using identical crops, you monkey.
>How do they have any more global reach than what's planted now?
Because you sell your crops to other countries under the incentive that it's cheaper for the farmer.
>How is it dangerous?
If a virus comes along, since the plants lack variation, a much larger population of crops will die.
>How does that respond to what I said?
To come up with the idea that GMO farming and regular agriculture are mutually exclusive requires an immense amount of retardation.
>they don't add to their effect.
Non-sequitur.
>So when is there going to be a monopoly and no diversity?
>If something hasn't happened yet, it won't ever happen

>>11766416
Hey, I resent that. I'm a goy, but I'm not retarded like OP.

>>11766154
BTFO

>>11765819

Between him and the Trump douche, they are making it even easier to vote Democrat in Tennessee this year.

>>11765819

Monsanto is bad but not because of GMO's. They have a bullshit monopoly on their genetic seeds and screw their customers over in serveral ways with those seedless fruits of theirs forcing farmers to buy more from them instead of being able to plant more of their own.

>>11766444
>Obviously there is a huge difference between each farmer monofarming with their own crops and every farmer using identical crops, you monkey.
Yes, obviously. So why are you confusing the two? You haven't even shown GMOs have decreased the amount of farmed cultivars.

>Because you sell your crops to other countries under the incentive that it's cheaper for the farmer.
Are you illiterate? The same is true for new cultivars. The question was, how is this different from cultivars?

>If a virus comes along, since the plants lack variation, a much larger population of crops will die.
Again, this is true of all monofarming.

It's really amazing how anti-GMO tards are so lacking in any argument that they can only attack monofarming instead of GMOs. Not only does this fail as an argument, it also illustrates their ignorance of the topic they are so vehemently arguing about.

>To come up with the idea that GMO farming and regular agriculture are mutually exclusive requires an immense amount of retardation.
You already admitted that they're mutually exclusive. You replace a non-GMO crop with a GMO crop. You don't add a GMO crop onto a non-GMO crop. So your claim that the effects are additive is nonsense.

>Non-sequitur.
So you didn't say their effects are added together? You just did.

>>So when is there going to be a monopoly and no diversity?
>If something hasn't happened yet, it won't ever happen
I'm asking you when it's going to happen, not if it's happened yet. In order to be a threat you have to show it can actually happen.

>>11766486
Don't know what you're talking about, but shikimate pathway. That is all.

>gmo bad
>dogs bad
>whey bad
>watermelons bad

All GMOs. Not via labs but by cultivation/domestication.

>>11766468
>They have a bullshit monopoly on their genetic seeds and screw their customers over in serveral ways with those seedless fruits of theirs forcing farmers to buy more from them instead of being able to plant more of their own.
What seedless fruits? Also, this doesn't even make sense since buying these alleged "seedless fruits" is a choice.

In reality, there is no such product. Monsanto sued farmers that deliberately saved seeds from the previous crop in order to avoid paying Monsanto. You might not like this, but it's no different from other legal protections for proprietary technology that can be copied.

>>11766490
Not an argument, try again.

>>11766500
It sure is, and I will engage no further.

>>11766505
It's literally not. You lose, schizo.

>>11766521
Nope, it literally is. I totally and irrevocably win, and not only that, you completely lose. I owned you and you were owned. That's outright and absolutely the way it happened.

It won't be easy, but you'll come to terms with it one day.

>>11766416
if this was not bait you just show that the jew lacks empathy needs in order to act in non degenerate and civilized manner. You prove that your kind is a plague that does not wish to improve the lives of humans because you don't view non Jews as such. You should be exterminated so you stop trying to taint not only western society but science as a whole with your perversions.

>>11766538
You improve the lives of humans the same way you improve the life of a pet. Beyond this, you can't expect to interface with them. They can't reason.

>>11766486
>You haven't even shown GMOs have decreased the amount of farmed cultivars
https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/45179/43668_err162.pdf
There's no leap in logic required to see that the increased spread of GMOs implies a decrease of farmed cultivars.
>So why are you confusing the two?
Literally what? Anon was talking about the problems of widespread homogeneity of crops, and you keep babbling on about monofarming. Learn the difference between them, you dunce.
>Are you illiterate? The same is true for new cultivars.
Are you? Anon originally said that there is nothing inherently wrong with GMOs.
>The question was, how is this different from cultivars?
idk maybe look at the statistics for how widespread cultivars are compared with GMO crops, retard.
>Again, this is true of all monofarming.
You stupid cunt, the difference is losing all the crops in a state or country compared with losing them from a single farm.
>You already admitted that they're mutually exclusive.
No.
>You replace a non-GMO crop with a GMO crop. You don't add a GMO crop onto a non-GMO crop. So your claim that the effects are additive is nonsense.
You are more stupid than a downie. We are talking about effects here. You take the effects of regular mono-cropping, then add in the effects such as global homogeneity. In fact, to see that the effects are not mutually exclusive, just consider growing a single farm practicing mono-cropping with a GMO vs non-GMO. Then the effects would be identical, and hence are not mutually exclusive.
>So you didn't say their effects are added together?
Is English not your first language? The effects of two different things can be the same.
>I'm asking you when it's going to happen, not if it's happened yet.
>In order to be a threat you have to show it can actually happen.
Showing that it can actually happen is entirely different to predicting the future and saying that for certain it will happen on such a date.
You need to learn basic logic.

>>11766531
No, there is no argument there. Anyone can see this. Stop embarrassing yourself.

>>11766557
No matter how many times you double down, you're still wrong. Sorry Anon.

>>11766498
>What seedless fruits?
Not hard to look it up.
>Also, this doesn't even make sense since buying these alleged "seedless fruits" is a choice.
Learn some basic economics. If you're a very large business, then it is easy to take out small businesses by lowering the price of your own product to the point where your opponent can't make a profit. This is the threat for the farmers if they don't accept Monsanto's crops.

>>11766541
Nobody asked you to interfere, fuck off back to Israel and leave the rest of us alone. Stop pushing for the destruction of out morals and the "replacement" of European culture and ethnicities.
You don't want to deal with us in a positive way as you yourself said so just fuck off.

>>11766559
I'm not doubling down. You failed to provide an argument here >>11766490 and every post afterward has doubled down on that failure. My post remains uncountered.

>>11766562
>Not hard to look it up.
If it's not hard to look up then it certainly can't be hard for you prove your claim. Unfortunately for you, you can't. GMOs being sterile or seedless is a common myth propagated by GMO denialists which only serves to illustrate your lack of knowledge.

>Learn some basic economics. If you're a very large business, then it is easy to take out small businesses by lowering the price of your own product to the point where your opponent can't make a profit.
Then why isn't everyone growing GMOs? Your argument is self-defeating. Not to mention that this doesn't even respond to my post. A product being more profitable or more efficient than others still does not force anyone to buy it.

>>11766569
I have no such desires and push for no such things. This doesn't stop me from complaining about the deficits of Goyim, and highlighting the superiority of Jews. It's just like the Germanic tribes and the Romans. They could have utterly destroyed Rome if they wanted. This has been going on for a long time.

All the different types of Goyim have been observed, documented. Their historical and racial particularities traced out, their genetic organizational tendencies reverse engineered. They failed. Every single one of them are a failure. The entire world is rapidly becoming a mediocre amorphous shithole, the most pitiful "utopia" you can imagine. This is undeniable. They failed because they're inferior. At least, for now.

Myth and belief drives people. Denial changes nothing.

>>11766577
No, it's my post that remains uncountered. Refer to:
>>11766490
Specifically:
>shikimate pathway

>>11766591
They just about are. Something like >90% of corn and basedbean is GMO.

>>11766595
Yeah, that's not an argument. An argument has at least a premise and a conclusion. "shikimate pathway" is not even a sentence let alone a premise and conclusion.

>>11766592
>The entire world is rapidly becoming a mediocre amorphous shithole, the most pitiful "utopia" you can imagine. This is undeniable. They failed because they're inferior. At least, for now.
You speak as if that is not mostly thanks to you and your people. But even regardless of that, Israel is not what I would call a successful state by any stretch of the imagination.
It's militarized, in constant conflict and recently it is falling in the exact same shit Zionist, like soros, pushed on the west.
Feminism, new pseudo scientific bulshit, and even racial riots are becoming more and more commonplace on your Jewish utopia. If goys have faille you haven't done much better.

>>11766603
Not even a full sentence is required to completely and utterly destroy your argument.

>>11766609
Obviously more is required since you have failed to do so. I doubt you even know what your argument is since you can't explain it beyond two words.

>>11766600
Too bad "just about" isn't everyone or you might have an argument that made sense, if we ignore that it's still a choice.

>>11766607
You should know I'm only a Jew in ancestry. Israelis are cattle as well, Zionists readily cannibalize and sacrifice their own. I hear they're also beginning to fluoridate the water supply, and they've long since weaponized the intersex dynamic (which makes major internal problems obvious, old method of control). Nonetheless, you have to recognize the power and success. Most people cater to Jews quite readily, and are terrified of even questioning the Jew or anything related to it. Jews are the ultimate narcissists and psychopaths. At the same time, the child-like naivety of the Goyim is maddening and unyielding. Zionists themselves have noted this long ago. They noted the Jew is cold and businesslike, the Goyim are messy and playful.

Anyway. Thought you could use some Devil's advocate.

>>11766623
No Anon, actually, you. You don't know what my argument is, therefore you don't know what your argument is. There is no argument. Shikimate pathway. That is all.

>>11766627
You just show that you have no understanding of how things work.

>>11766637
How?

>>11766635
I don't know what your argument is because you refuse to present one. We agree that there is no argument. You automatically lose.

>>11766649
No, we've been over this. I irrevocably won, so how could I possibly lose? Much less automatically. I would say I automatically win here. And I won even more thoroughly than even that. My victory against your argument is monumental, monolithic, irrevocable, insurmountable.

No, it's clear that I am the victor here, and for quite some time as well. I'm afraid it can't be revoked. I am the winner now and forever. Even a casual onlooker must nearly and actually quake in his boots at the mere recollection of my argument.

>>11766141
Which Neoliberalism?

>>11766141
Educated ≠ indoctrinated. Jumping through the hoops of higher education does not inherently make you educated.

>>11766416
>Say you're going to leave forever because nobody understands you
>Come back in less than 24 hours
Nice willpower

How dumb does someone have to be to not blindly believe vaccinations and GMOs are good without doing any kind of investigation or scientific experiments to verify these things themselves?

>>11766783
???

>>11766645
By not realizing that outliers are a thing, and a general rule will still be true despite them.

>>11765819
I do not think he is dumb anon, he managed to make people believe him and give him money.
I wish i was a good liar.

>>11766758
Good fucking god I don't have harsh enough words to describe how much I detest Keynesian economics. Fucking post keynesians have ruined the world.

How people don't understand the enormous risk GMOs bring is beyond me. We are fucking with our food supply and one mistake, just one mistake, could bring catastrophic results to the human race.

We don't need GMOs in our world to feed everyone. Using GMOs is one of the riskiest things we could ever do.

>>11765819
>How can someone have a science degree and still talk shit?
>implying vaccines and GMOs aren't bad
Imagine being this retarded.

>>11767242
>We don't need GMOs in our world to feed everyone.
Veganism is the solution to feeding everyone. It takes something like 20 pounds of grain for 1 pound of cow meat.

>>11767334
Okay, so you've got a single argument against beef. How does that imply that we should eat vegan?

>>11767231
>Being this retarded

>>11767405

>>11767242
>just one mistake, could bring catastrophic results to the human race.
That's retarded. How will me changing corn to be resistant to disease kill everyone? It's not like corn will start running around killing everyone with guns. GMOs are tested extensively before they are used in production. GMO is great technology that could solve a lot of problems (see golden rice for example), but it can also be abused with herbicide overuse. But the fear of it killing everything is bullshit propaganda and believing that GMOs are worst thing ever is unscientific.

>>11767438
>GMOs are tested extensively before they are used in production.

They're not.

https://usrtk.org/seedybusiness.pdf

>However, FDA does not itself test whether genetically engineered foods are safe. The FDA has repeatedly made this clear. As Jason Dietz, a policy analyst at FDA explains about genetically engineered food: “It’s the manufacturer’s responsibility to insure that the product is safe.”[2] Or, as FDA spokesperson Theresa Eisenman said, “it is the manufacturer’s responsibility to ensure that the [GMO] food products it offers for sale are safe…”[3]

>>11767575
Yes, it says that manufacturer does the testing. Do you really think some company would put a dangerous product on the market just to get sued to oblivion?

>>11767612
Yes? It happens all the time. EG: VW scandal. Or with Exxon Mobil hiding away climate change reports. Exxon Mobil STILL hasn't been found guilty in court, despite their obvious crimes.

GMO companies make tons of money and lobby hard to remove any laws preventing them from being accountable to whatever they do. And if they are sued, they hire the best lawyers to rip up the opponents' arguments.

It's standard corporatism.

>>11767612
>He's never heard of the tobacco or alcohol industries.

>>11767438
Same sentiment was held regarding global pandemics until very recently. And whether or not you think the disease itself is a problem, the outcomes from everyone's reactions are.

>>11767634
>corporations bad
>save the planet man, join our cause, here is some brownies
Even if you hire best lawyers if there is direct evidence of your fuckup you'll pay for it. See starlink corn. It's also a lot harder to hide or cover up GMO failures than fudging your emissions.
>Exxon is responsible for climate change because they make fuel
Even if they lobby against certain polices, and their hide numbers we're in no position to abandon fossil fuels. No matter what source of energy you pick it will still have some effect on climate and environment. Even fusion. Only way to prevent further impact on the environment is to move to other planets, but we don't have sufficient technology to do that, so we can just hope that expansion will happen before we make this planet unlivable.

>>11767242
>could bring catastrophic results to the human race
What? how much of a retard can you be? we aren't destroying the previous grains when we advance to the next. the worse that could happen is a bad few harvest that cause a few gastric problem and is therefore discontinued.
Of course new technology has some risks but they a minimal compared TO WHAT WE ALREADY DID IN ORDER TO MAKE CROPS A THING IN THE FIRST PLACE! Not only were potatoes poisonous there are still their poisonous cousins in the wild the manioc.
Almost all leafy greens were selective breed for genetic mutation on the course of thousands of years in order to get what we have today . Keep in mind natural genetic mutations are not as stable or as safe as lab controlled ones.

>>11765819
jesus this board has turned to shit, defending some pajeet who is baiting karens for votes

>>11765819
I've said it before, I'll say it again. Vaccination is systemic circumcision. Especially, ultimately, a circumcision of the brain itself. That's why the Hep B is given at birth. It's supposed to stunt the development of your hippocampus and put the brain into a permanent pro-inflammatory state, causing rapid aging and gradually crippling your brain function. This is part of why you have all these posts lately about guys in their mid twenties with rapidly declining brain function. Part of it is due to microwave radiation, part of it is due to inhaling aluminum for years upon years. But I think a large part is whatever they put in us with that first shot.

>>11765819
GMO is not bad,but we literally dont know if its 100% not bad.
Hell may of the current food additives are not that safe let alone something that has been genetically modified.

>>11767114
Then show they're outliers.

>>11769776
By definition they are outliers, you dumb fuck.

>>11765819
>>11768758
Funny how the last thread was moved to /x/ then deleted from the archive. Funny that.

>>11770246
Clam bed
Vacks innate id
Sir Come Sized

xddd

>>11770298
>The absolute state of zog brainwashed anti-anti-vaxxers

>>11770319
I would just say the absolute state in general. Rereading that post I realize it means the opposite of how I interpreted it.

Really used to dealing with insane vaxxer cult members.

>>11770027
How?

>>11770450
Learn what words mean, you stupid cunt.

>>11770457
Uh oh, it's another retarded schizo refusing to actually make an argument.

>>11770481
Already made my argument. You're too retarded to comprehend it. Not my problem.