[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

File: 137 KB, 350x350, onlythedead.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5400813 No.5400813 [Reply] [Original]

>Anon, would you like to sign this petition to ban GMOs from the campus dining area?

>> No.5400823

back to >>>/pol/

>> No.5400831

>No, I don't want to pay double the price for your hippie food.

>> No.5400836

Technically, if you don't use GMO, food is cheaper to produce.
The one and only reason GMOs are used is because it makes a giant amount of money for the petrol lobby.

And if "bio"-food is so expensive, it's because the sellers put the price to what people are ready to pay, not what it's worth.

>> No.5400839

>>5400836
>Technically, if you don't use GMO, food is cheaper to produce.
You don't know anything about commercial farming.

>> No.5400863

>>5400839
Odds are he's a member of an organic food co-op.

>> No.5400864

>>5400836
Troll or Idiot?

>> No.5400871

>>5400839
Well organic food is grown and feed by underground bugs and bacteries, they are already here and work for free
GMOs are grown and feed by chemicals and you have to buy more of them again, and again, and again.
No need to be an economic expert to understand wich one is the cheaper.

You can also just look at farmers, organic farmers are buying more and more lands, GMOs farmers are selling their lands because they are broke.

>> No.5400873

>>5400871
Dont feed the trolls supporting GMO's

>> No.5400877

>>5400871
Technically, everything in nature is chemical. Artificial fertilizer is necessary for places that have poor soil and to add/replenish nutrients in the soil. This helps commercial farms get bigger yields. Organic farming, on the other hand, just use outdated farming methods, which result in lower yields.

>> No.5400883

>>5400871
[citations needed everywhere]

>> No.5400884

>BAN GMOS
>eats domesticated plant varieties

What's the difference between altering genetics through breeding and doing the same thing but with lab procedures?

Isn't anti-GMO just anti-corporatism like organic? Who do you think will produce non-GMO foods if they're banned? You think Del Monte will just give up and give all their money to you? Who do you think grows organic food? Do you honestly think Trader Joes and other natural stores are not corporations? Did you know they gross billions of dollars a year? Did you know that "natural" farming methods fucking suck? In third world countries where they farm organically, they regularly get sick from smearing shit and piss all over their crops. What's wrong with current farming methods? Can you even reply to this post without "muh monsanto"

>> No.5400890

>>5400871
>horse shit, horse shit everywhere

>> No.5400893

>>5400871
Organic farming uses just as much, and sometimes more, fertilizer and pesticide as conventional farming. "Organic" just means they shit and piss on the plants instead of spraying them with Roundup.

>> No.5400894

>>5400871

All plants are fed by chemicals.

>> No.5400939

>>5400884
Lab procedures or breeding have the same problem, you'll have an inadapted variety unable to grow without outside help or even worse, a variety killing other forms of life.
Whatever it does, it will just unbalance the eco-system.
Have you ever heard about these nazis breeding villages? There's still nazis in some towns trying to make a superior race, for now they managed to make inbred communities.
About what's wrong with the current farming methods it depend wich one you're talking about, for GMO's the main problem is the murder of every underground life, without them, the land die and you can't grow anything without adding chemicals. It also fuck up the land irrigation causing floods.

>>5400893
Bad organic farming use fertilizer and pesticide, good organic farming use nothing you don't even have to work on anything, just wait and scavenge, everything else is done by underground life.

>> No.5400941

>>5400884
>BAN GMOS
>eats domesticated plant varieties
Thats my point of view. I have no qualms with the idea of GMO, however as an anticapitalistic twat, I do prefer to buy local organic vegetables grown by local farmers.
Anti-GMO people are just angry hippies with no real concept of what actually goes on.

>regularly get sick from smearing shit and piss all over their crops

>sick
>piss
u wot m8?

>> No.5400945

>>5400939
are you aware that even with modern farming methods we lose ~50% of all grown stock? what you call "good organic farming" is completely unsustainable and unachievable if youre wanting to even break even.

>> No.5401058

>>5400893
>"Organic" just means they shit and piss on the plants
"Troll" just means shitpost and pisspost on the thread

>> No.5401081

No, but I'd gladly sign one meaning all we eat is GMO

>> No.5401096

While GMOs do have many advantages (more can be grown at a time, more resistant to disease and such), they may not (and probably will not) be good in the long run.

While GMOs, as I stated above, are highly resistant to weeds, they have also... created... a kind of super-weed. And no, not the good weed either.

Since these weeds are highly impervious to herbicides and conventional agricultural control products, farmers oftentimes can't destroy the weeds without destroying their entire crop.

However, I think the switch from GMOs to organic should be gradual - we have become so adjusted to GMOs, the effect it would have on the food supply would be terrible.

So it's either choose GMOs and suffer genetic and/or cancerous conditions or (in the case of all organic farming) only feed a select few billion.

>> No.5401107

>>5401096
>So it's either choose GMOs and suffer genetic and/or cancerous conditions or (in the case of all organic farming) only feed a select few billion.
I feed myself on 100m2, I've seen a family on the internet claiming they eat for 5 people on 250m2
We have ~153.000.000.000.000m2 of arable lands, let's assume 50% must remain wild and 25% is used for something else, we still have 38.250.000.000.000m2 available.
With 10.000.000.000 people on earth (because many aren't referenced) we have 3825m2

TL;DR: With organic farming, if we use only 25% of the available space, we can feed every human on this planet 38 times... Without using vertical farms nor underground mushrooms cultivation...

>> No.5401114

I'd sign it to stick it to Monsanto.

>> No.5401127

>5401107

Not bad...

>> No.5401133
File: 29 KB, 278x273, 1352275405090.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5401133

>>5400884
- Organic breeding is limited by the slow rate, low spread and low impact of random natural mutations
Every generation is slightly different than the previous, and it takes a very long time to change the ecosystem

- GM technology can be used to alter as many genes as you want, wherever you want, however you want, resulting in totally different unpredictable species, which we release into the wild after 2 years of rat lab tests made my PhD students who smoke weed and don't have a clue or care about the permanent impact on the ecosystem (the only ecosystem we have and need to survive) because they are blinded by scientism and their own interests/career

>B-B-BUT IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME GUISE! YOU'RE JUST A LUDDITE!
Being overly cautious when we have all the time in the universe is not being luddite. It's being smart.

And you're taking all these blind risks just so you can buy potatoes for 10 cents cheaper.
Or to feed Africans so they can breed more, so we have more people starving in 20 years, and then have to take even more risks.
The truth is you don't even care about feeding Africans. Or about cheap potatoes. You don't give a fuck.

Because this debate is not about GMO.
You just want to live in the future prematurely.
And you're willing to risk everything for your sci-fi fantasies.
Scary to think that's the mindset in most of our universities.
I'll be surprised if we don't go extinct before 3000.

>> No.5401138

>Ug, would you like sign petition to ban fire from tribe?

>> No.5401140

>>5401133
This.
I also agree with the sentiment that we should ban wireless internet and cellphones until we've better studied the long term effects of these potentially very harmful technologies.

>> No.5401142

>>5401140
When the risk is non-zero then it's bound to blow up in your face, if you try your chance too many times.

>> No.5401151

>>5401142
So do you ever cross roads?
Drive a car?
Allow visitors into your home?
Breathe unfiltered air?
Or just exist in general?
If not then I applaud you for sticking to your ideology and not being a massive hypocrite.

>> No.5401157

>>5401151
The hypocrite argument is sophism.
Anyway, enjoy being wrong.

>> No.5401195

>not being part of the personal garden master race

>> No.5401200

All i want is the right to grow my own crops.
Fucking Interstate Commerce Clause.

>> No.5401202

>>5401200
Why can't you?
Provided you don't sell them I fail to see how commerce has anything to do with your garden

>> No.5401203

>>5401202
not that guy, but probably this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

>> No.5401205

>>5401203
>People have no money
>I know! let's implement laws to increase wheat prices!
Wow, America. Your government is a pack of assholes

>> No.5401211

>>5400813
GMO's are shit because they're not genetically contained. The pollen from said specialized GMOs have contaminated entire fields of non-GMOs (which lead to several thousand farmers getting sued to the point of having to be monsanto's bitch for the rest of their lives...) on top of other kinds of specialized GMOs getting ruined and contaminated as well. You can look this shit up and see for yourself. The shit's potentially dangerous now because of the 'terminator' genes that were inserted as PLASMIDS into monocots such as corn. Now imagine that plasmid spreading into the species of another angiosperm... It's why there's a seed vault now- to protect be the 'back up' in case that gene comes about in other angiosperms.

Now I know that GMOs have a downside, but it does have a good side that I'm fully behind. The only thing that needs to change is to find a way to localize and specialize the genes into the chromosomes of plants instead of using plasmids and risking genetic contamination. On top of that, the pollination needs to be more controlled, either manually or by making the different same-species GMO crops incompatible with each other by altering the plant even further- or by finding a way to make the plant reproduce asexually and yet still yield the products and the like.

(pol) Another thing to change is the nature of patents surrounding GMOs and to prevent corporations from having a hand at controlling the FDA.

>> No.5401214

>>5401211
Another thing to add is the fact that we have GMOs was to originally keep away pests and weeds.

The bt gene forms a protein that can rupture the stomachs of insects upon injection, though harmless to us, the gene insertion into plants can present the same problem as would one use pesticide instead. Insects can evolve to withstand it, potentially. The same with weeds. We've seen weeds become more and more potent to protect against the powerful herbicides. The herbicide currently in use now has the ingredients for agent orange in it. Round up is also known to cause birth defects and is considered a carcinogen on top of that. It's just as bad, if not worse, than to have animals shit on your crops. Either way, we've been eating GMOs and the like for a good near two decades now. The only think that I feel that we can do is to either improve organic farming or to vastly improve biotechnology.

>> No.5401216

>>5401205
the kicker is that there is a case where a guy wanted to feed his family with his own crops, and was ruled by the Supreme Court as violating the interstate commerce clause because he was detracting from the economy.
That's the case i was speaking of.

>> No.5401219

>>5401214
I recall that DDT or whatever that psticide was was actually harmless to humans, there was even a guy who ate it for years to show it off, and something abot a thin egg shell study that was purposefully bolloxed.

>> No.5401231

>>5401214
*sigh
You do realize that's not a problem with GMO's it's a problem with the strain of plant. GMO crops don't have round up coursing through their xylems, their modified to be resistant towards roundup.

>> No.5401232
File: 44 KB, 360x474, gmo-tomato-fork.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5401232

GMO is the way to go.

>> No.5401236
File: 100 KB, 430x375, monsanto-no-food_6384a1.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5401236

>>5401232
Only if Monsanto goes.

>> No.5401237

>>5401107
wat. do you think we have the resources to convert 50% of land into farmland? and that it wont fuck up the ecosystem? crops arnt just used for food, you need them for other products too. using all current land used for food production with organic methods feeds only 3 billion.

>> No.5401238

>>5401236
what did Monsanto ever do? that wasn't just hippy lies. almost all complaints about Monsanto has nothing to do with them.

>> No.5401244

>>5401238
Monsanto stages hostile agricultural takeovers by planting it's version of their crop in their farmlands , thenswooping in with a subpoena to inspect for patent violation and boom, thy find the genetic pattern they patneted in the farmland and sue the farmer for everything they own, unless the farmer chooses to settle in debt and under employment to them.

>> No.5401245

>>5401244
do you mean they find the gene in the land they planted it?

>> No.5401252

>>5401245
Not that guy but yes, they find Bt-modified crops in the fields of farmers who haven't bought Bt-modified seed an sue those farmers.
Prior to today, I had not heard the accusation that (>>5401244) is making (namely that Monsanto intentionally and surreptitiously plants Bt-containing GMOs in those fields). I have heard repeatedly that natural and essentially unpreventable cross pollination of GMO/non-GMO organisms gave Monsanto the opening (namely finding GMO derived crops in fields of farmers who hadn't bought the seeds) needed to file suits of this nature.

>> No.5401253

>>5401252
*and sue

>> No.5401296

im pretty sure the suits were coming from people saving the grain corn they harvested from the year before... and planting that seed instead of buying the new hybrid for the next year.. it certainly crazy how it all works but when it comes down to it... its all about bigger better yields.. the conspiracies in the ag industry are limited.. everything that is sketchy is right out in the open.. like any publicly traded commodity..

>> No.5401323

>>5401296
>>5401252
thats not monsato, thats the american copyright and patent laws that are fucked up.

it you dont do everything you can to prevent other people from infringing on your patent/copyright, you lose it. for example lets say someone pust a show on youtube, if the company doesnt tell youtube to remove it, and it can be shown that they knew it was on youtube, they lose the rights to the show and someone else can then take it over. they also cant non patent the genes becasue then someone else can come along and patent it and then say that monsanto in infringing on their patent.

this has nothing to do with GMOs, its about the fucked up laws people make without thinking about the consequences. i know plenty of people in other contries that has used 2nd generation monsanto seeds, and they didnt get sued (of course it doesnt work great, since half the plants dont have the roundup gene and die). its only a vew countries that have that retarded laws.

>> No.5401586
File: 16 KB, 300x330, 1355060824245.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5401586

>>5400871
>You can also just look at farmers, organic farmers are buying more and more lands, GMOs farmers are selling their lands because they are broke.

Sure thing that's the reason buddy.

>> No.5401635

>>5401238
Monsanto was one of the companies that developed Agent Orange, a rather nasty defoliant used in Vietnam.

>> No.5402257

>>5401635
It ended up not working out, though.