/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5803125
people like to panic about random shit.

>>5803134
I know, but those same people bash young earthers and climate change deniers, while I see little difference among them.

>>5803125
For me it's not at all about GMO's being unsafe. I think genetically modifying crops to produce more food is a good thing, and we should keep doing it.

I just hate Monsanto. It's a pretty convincingly evil corporation.

it's more a case of being overly cautious. it's impossible to anticipate or know how GMOs will mutate or interact in a natural environment.
it's the same reason why we don't bring exotic species since they can turn into invasive species and fuck things up.

>>5803155
But big business controls agriculture either way. So just because you hate the biggest, but still just one of a good amount of corporations doing research into GMOs, you fight them? Additional, much of the research is done by Universities who have little financial incentive, yet anti-GMO activists constantly sneak into fields to burn crops. It is ridiculous.

Plus, is Monsanto really that evil?

>>5803155

Yeah I saw Food Inc too!

Seriously though, Monsato is not an "evil organization" by any remote stretch, you dumbfuck.

Because of Monsanto, also because of the same reason things like electricity/vaccination/robots were abhorred by many at first

Things might get better once we start exploring the amazing potential that GMOs have to offer, specially in the area of medicine

>>5803173
The anti-GMO activists you're talking about are anti-progress fools, that's true.
However, I believe Monsanto needs to change its ways. It's about how it sues farmers for having their seeds (and, really, "owning" an entire species? Really?) that makes it bad.

>>5803192
Those farmers deserve to be sued. Monsanto doesn't own an entire species, farmers can still plant regular corn if they want. They are simply defending their patent, which they have every right to do. If it wasn't for patent protection research and development funds would significantly drop and progress would significantly slow down.

>>5803175
You don't think it's even slightly evil to patent organisms that have your special DNA, then put old-fashioned farmers out of business because your patented organisms reproduced and got their offspring on that farmer's land? Also, it's another big monopoly that has it's claws in the legislative process in the US, which is just annoying.

Most (okay some) GMO-haters I've met aren't actually against genetic modification, they just want to boycott Monsanto.

>>5803125

Can I encourage semi-educational trolling on naturalnews.com? If you've never heard of it, it's Mother Nature Central, full to the brim with anti-vaxers and anti-GMO nuts who celebrate when small farmers growing GMOs have their fields burned. I just don't like it.

>>5803169
The regulatory environment for GMOs is likely already too strict. The amount of time it has taken golden rice to be produced is an atrocity, and has literally allowed hundreds of thousands to die.

Adding a single gene to a plant (such as making it resistant to herbicides) that is already existent in the area is not comparable to an invasive species.

>>5803201

Different guy, but yeah, I agree that Monsanto have the right to protect their patents. However, it's a shame that they're making it so easy for anti-GMO activists to portray biotechnology companies as evil.

>>5803207
If they allowed that then people would simply steal the seed and say it was 'accidental'. Without proper patent protection R&D would come to a screeching halt.

>>5803224
It is a shame, but you can't blame them. Should they just allow themselves to go bankrupt?

>>5803207

>You don't think it's even slightly evil to patent organisms that have your special DNA

No. That research and those strains takes a ton of money and manpower to do.

>put old-fashioned farmers out of business because your patented organisms reproduced and got their offspring on that farmer's land?

lol it got there because the farmer tried to steal from Monsato and try to use their strains without paying for them. Unlike Food Inc.'s narrative, they very much know what they are doing when they look to steal these plants.

You have zero idea what you are talking about.

>>5803224

If it wasn't Monsato, backward science hating retards would target another major biotech company.

>>5803228
>Should they just allow themselves to go bankrupt?
They aren't going to go bankrupt, that's total rubbish. That's like saying Hollywood's economy is going to collapse because of online piracy... it's just not true.

>>5803125

You have to be extremely stupid and anthropocentric. Even though many many renown scientists swear it's safe, it is IMPOSSIBLE to know! We understand so little about the human body and its processes, the scientists who create GMO food are like children sticking in an antpile. They have no idea what side effects this shit can probably have. Dont be such a faggot and act like someone religious. Science is not a new religion that you put as THE measure of all things. And PLEASE, stop talking likes scientists are gods. Every scientist is still a human being and as such flawed, unknowing, greedy and close-minded. Dont believe every shit

>>5803253
It is a fact that they would lose a crap load of money and would stop investing in bio-technology. Is that better? Correct me if I'm wrong, but what other significant source of income do they have outside of bio-tech?

>>5803192
>>5803207
They are doing what they have to in order to pull a profit from their enormous (risky) investments. And before you say something stupid about corporations only caring about profits, keep in mind that pulling a profit is the only way their children get to eat. So we have three options here:
1. Hundreds, if not thousands, of peoples families live in poverty because someone didn't approve of what they do for a living despite the undeniable good that GMOs have done for less wealthy parts of the world.
2. Someone comes up with a better way to make money after spending millions of dollars to create new life.
3. You fucking get over it.

>>5803263
I'm surprised it took this long to get one of the anti-science wackos in here.

So, is wheat and corn safe to eat?

>>5803253
Are you fucking kidding me? Do you have any idea of the resources necessary to create new life AND get that life approved by the appropriate bureaucracy? Either they pull a profit or the worlds hunger problem only gets worse.

>>5803125
Smh. I keep seeing this retarded crap on instagram and facebook. Always posted by these retarded hipsters of course. Have you seen the strawberries, tomatoes, and oranges at Walmart, Aldi's, Target, or SafeWay? Literally every single one of them are huge and obviously displastic in cell growth, Its been like for a long ass time. If you havnt noticed genetic defects in the produce you buy at store until now then your pretty fucking dumb.

>>5803263
We can never be sure that the earth isn't 6,000 years old, right? We can never be sure that evolution is true, or that vaccines are safe, right? RIGHT?!

>>5803274
I'm not saying tear down Monsanto, burn their crops, or even boycott GMO's. I'm not a cook, I just have some friends who don't much like them, and I'm capable of understanding why.

I basically agree with what you say, it does the world more good than harm to make more food that's more nutritious. It only makes sense, doesn't it? But Monsanto is in no danger of bankruptcy as a result of some crop theft. That's all I wanted to point out.

>>5803299
They are though. If they allow some small crop theft, what will happen? Why would any farmers actually pay for it then? They would all start stealing the bio-tech. Also, why reward farmers who steal, and know full well what they are doing? They deserve to be sued.

>>5803287
I'm not even sure if i'm alive.I might be dead, right?RIGHT?

Felt the need to take it a bit further .

>>5803307
Which is why I made the hollywood analogy.
If some people can just download a movie, why would anyone pay for it? This will ruin movies for everyone!

Except most people do pay, and piracy hasn't stopped the film industry from making impressive profits. Seems to me like it's the same thing here.

>>5803273
>>5803287

Im not anti science, I am absolutely pro science, hardcore atheist. I just observe that many many people treat science like religious people treat their religion. Science is without a doubt the most credible source of knowledge, but you must be very naive to think that the "big" scientists dont have big, corrupt companies in their back. Who do you think pays the scientists? Where come the millions or billions of dollars from that are needed to research?
What makes you think that you can trust science boards that are bought and paid by global players that are only interested in profit? You guys are what is wrong with /sci/ people, scientists are for you what a priest is for catholics, you suck their dick and believe everything they say. That is not scientific, that is hurr durr

>>5803328

...............wtf is this post? Its like some edgy teen atheist bullshit mixed with the most ridiculous strawmanning.

>>5803316
Not comparable at all.

1) People go to the movies still for the 'experience', for the much larger screen, for the better audio, etc... There is still something offered by a theater. I don't think farmers get excited about the 'experience' of buying seed.

2) Movies are fairly cheap, while seeds are expensive. There is far more incentive to steal.

3) Sure, maybe some will buy. But their expenses will be much higher. It depends on the various subsidy policies for their region and crop, but what will happen to those who buy? Their prices will be undercut. The market would be unsustainable.

A far better comparison would be prescription drugs, which would support my argument.

>>5803328
>Im not anti science, I am absolutely pro science, hardcore atheist.
i lulzed hard....

So, once again, using that same logic, how can you argue with climate change deniers, young earthers, anti-vaccine nuts, etc..? They can use the same exact arguments. It is just a big 'conspiracy' by 'corrupt big government/business'.

Your logic throws science out of the window, you are certainly anti-science.

>>5803335
Okay, I'll concede the movie point. But on the topic of prescription drugs... My mom's a nurse who recently got back from Gabon. She was doing the good humanitarian thing, giving medicine to poor children and all that. She comes home, pissed off to no end that a company that made their generic medicine, which does the same thing by ripping off the expensive drug companies, got shut down for violating the copyright on this specific medicine they were using.

In her view, it's better to let some people steal from the developers, because that way at least the medicine gets into the hands of people who need it, and otherwise couldn't be able to afford it because the original costs X amount more.

tl;dr The drug company that invented the medicine isn't out of business, the one that was actually getting the medicine to the poor community is. Thoughts?

>>5803328
>hardcore atheist

Your little beliefs have nothing to do with the conversation. Why then fuck would we care that you identify yourself as an atheist? You look like fucking fool.

>>5803328
>not believing in god makes me a scientist because i am twelve!

>>5803356
Ah, but that's where you're wrong. The company that developed the medicine, and will continue to develop others, is allowed to continue, whereas the company that put forth zero effort to develop their own products goes away. So, you can have 20 expensive medications that, for the most part, will improve peoples lives, or 1 medication for less money. Which sounds better?

How do you think GMO's are grown?

Magic?

No. Monsanto creates GMO's resistant to roundup. Just so happens that roundup cant be washed off these plants since they absorb it causing :

Birth defects
mental problems
Cancers
etc.

Want to prove Monsanto does all of this?
Well too bad, a law was recently passed that makes it illegal to study the negative effects of thier gmo roundup plants.

What other incentive is there to make that law than to make more money just for the fuck of it while at the same time hurting who you feed?

They own a few mercenaries too, now what does a company that makes FOOD need with a private army?

Adding insult to injury is the high offices in the US government are high ranking employees of Monsanto.

Do your research.

Other than that, bring on the fish shaped strawberries, that would be delicious as fuck.

>>5803356
Why are the big companies still around though? It is because they go after these companies who steal. Once the patent runs out, then I'm all for generics. But in the mean time, we need a rule of law to keep the flow of money into R&D.

Where do you draw the line? Generics will always keep pushing it as far as they can, they are no less greedy then the big companies.

>>5803328
And in response to your attempted argument, science is pretty much open source; so long as the experiment and resulting data is published, we can be sure that there is no 'bought and paid for scientist' type conspiracy going on, because eventually someone will try to replicate the results.

It's pass/fail. If something is determined safe by a published study, it's safe to assume that thing is safe, since the people would be taking a nonsensical risk in falsifying the data.

>>5803380
Basically all of what you said is wrong. Why not look at both sides of an argument? Round up is safe for consumption, far safer than the alternatives. Why do you think farmers want to use round up? It is far less toxic than alternatives and far more effective. It is good for the environment since it prevents other chemicals from being used.

>>5803328
>scientists are for you what a priest is for catholics

So I guess I'm a science priest, then

>>5803380
Source: kook.org

>>5803374
>>5803384
But taking something off a market which you essentially don't fit into, because their profits should hypothetically be your profits is... silly! That clinic in Gabon isn't going to buy from the real company, it's just not in the budget for them. It seems the leeches on a big business serve a very legitimate purpose of bringing the good that they do into the "cracks" in the economy where they aren't able to reach.

>>5803398
I'll see you Sunday, for our weekly sacrifice to the lord Atheismo.

>>5803406
That is for the Gabonese government to determine. Things are often more complicated then they seem. For example, a generic may sell in an area where usually the large companies wouldn't sell. But what happens? A black market is created, and people go to this small town to buy drugs, and sell them for profits outside of those villages. The generics don't care, they just make more money. Markets are very complicated.

tried to explain to my sister the deal with this stuff and she cut me off mid sentence to go on about how evil monsanto is

that feel when their shit propaganda actually works

>>5803347
>climate change deniers, young earthers, anti-vaccine [and] anti-GMO
There is valid criticism behind what climate change deniers, anti-vaccine and anti-GMO people say.
Young earth=Creationists are, however, just retarded and have no real arguments at all. You should not throw these groups in one pot.
(No, I´m not a member of any of these groups or anything like that)

Climate Change, Vaccines and GMO is something you can find arguments against it and arguments that support it. (Climate obviously changes though, the argument is more how much and why).
Vaccines can have serious side effects.

>GMO
You can´t control it. Once a GMO plant is out in the open you can´t stop it anymore, that´s the problem as far as I know
and it might completely fuck with animals/humans/insect/other plants.
I didn´t read up on the topic though. Main argument against it is that it´s uncontrollable once it´s out in the fields.

You couldn´t even come up with some simple reasons as to why GMO might be bad, yet you call those opposing it idiots. You are ignorant and you´re only looking for others who tell you how smart you are.

>>5803328
>Hardcore atheist
laughed

>>5803422
softcore atheist 4lyfe

>>5803398
I prefer tech priest

It's not even genetic modification that causes problems, it's herbicides, which prevent plants from absorbing nutrients and growing healthy produce.

>>5803394

Bottomline: It kills bees.

why do you think Russia and many other country's banned it and are pissed off about bees?

If you dont know what bees do for the environment, then please, PLEASE go back to 1st grade.

Too bad no one can research this anymore either huh.

>>5803419
Yes, markets are complicated. That's why I don't like political or socioeconomic type debates. The conclusion is usually not concrete, and based entirely on ideology.

>>5803420
>There is valid criticism behind what climate change deniers, anti-vaccine and anti-GMO people say.
Dropped.

>>5803420
Yeah man, sage the thread away!

>There is valid criticism behind what climate change deniers, anti-vaccine and anti-GMO people say.

hehehe

>You say there are valid arguments.
>Then you make absolutely horribly anti-progress and anti-scientific claims at the end of your post.
>You acknowledge you don't know much about the topic.

You are part of the problem. Read some scientific papers on that matter before calling someone ignorant for being anti-wacko.

>>5803430
Oh please shut up, you are now officially an idiot. You are confusing neonicotinoids and glyphosate. One is an insecticide, the other an herbicide. This shows you will believe anything that supports your ideology.

>>5803420
>Climate Change, Vaccines and GMO is something you can find arguments against it and arguments that support it.
You can find arguments that challenge that the Earth is a sphere and that we are living on its surface.
>Vaccines can have serious side effects.
Proved by: no one ever.

Think you missed the crazy train to /x/.

>>5803435
What kind of scientist are you if you don't always try to disprove or poke a hole in everything?

>>5803437
How educated are you on the topic? I'm not very, but I know enough about biotech to know it could have unforseeable consequences. I'm pretty pro-GMO, but if it gets too audacious I could see something potentially happening. I always envision a good gene leading to a transformed bacterium that could get pesky, and spread the gene to more bacteria. But I'm hardly a biologist.

All in all, I think "hippies" (anti vaxxers, GMOs, Nuclear Energy, Alt Medicine) are much more dangerous to scientific progress than creationists or global warming deniers.

>>5803469
Still less of a danger than those lol-let's-budget-here-instead-of-space-because-muh-realism. Nothing worse than quitting in the middle of the way.

>>5803448
I do poke holes in everything. However, you said "valid" criticism. There is no valid criticism of the practice of vaccinating children, or the claim that Carbon output by human machines is causing a net increase in global temperatures.

>>5803478
The universe is probably littered with the one-planet graves of cultures which made the sensible economic decision that there's no good reason to go into space--each discovered, studied, and remembered by the ones who made the irrational decision.

>>5803469
For global warming deniers I am not sure, though it may be true. But in terms of creationism you are absolutely correct.

Anti-science right wingers tend to have views which don't affect us much (with the exception of global warming) but pretty much all anti-science lefty stuff does.

>>5803481
That has to be one of the most idiotic graphs Ive seen in my life.

>>5803516
Why?

>>5803516
Space is treated like a TV show, once you land the men a few times and plant equipment and take rocks back the effort ceases to be.
Add to that the fact that any single accident can destroy your budget because any failure is taken as a motive for cuts.
Why haven't we even prepared for moon settlement (the closest we have)? At least we have the ISS.

>>5803516
As bad as this?

>maybe if the daily gmo retard sounds like he's on the gmo side subtly, it'll be a successful thread
Fuck off you dumb nigger. We have this shit up 24/7.

>>5803528
Why would we settle on the moon?

>>5803550
Because we want to. Now get out.

>>5803550
A scientific base, just like Antartica.

>>5803535
oh lordy, sage it away, that'll work!

>>5803535
This was more or less an okay discussion, you pansy.

>>5803125
>The overwhelming scientific consensus in Europe, Japan, North America, and elsewhere is that it is no doubt safe

Oh? Japan just ban certain imports of wheat from America because GMOs the other day.

I dislike GMOs because:
1) Their patenting plants. Even if you find them in the wild. Stupid as fuck.
2) Just look at the past 100 years of chemical pesticides and shit that's been used on foods that been found to be unsafe. Or the past 10 years with China's 50% lead food products. Money talks far louder than morality/safety/regulations/reason...

>>5803535
This has been a pretty solid thread in my opinion, but yeah, it did go down a little when you posted.

>>5803607
>1) Their patenting plants.
They aren't. Idiot.
>2) Just look at the past 100 years of chemical pesticides
"We can't even no nuffin" Idiot.

>>5803607
There is a difference between politics and science. The scientific field in Japan is an strong concordance with the West, and the rest of Asia for that matter. The politicians? Not so much.

Also...

1) More like DNA strands they created, it isn't like they can't use regular wheat or corn. Without patents, no progress in science in this field would be made. The support of the idea of intellectual property is a basis of modern civilization.
2. GMO's are not pesticides, they actually decrease the amount of such chemicals used and are positive for the environment. There are already very heavy regulations on this.

So, don't fear new technology just because it sounds scary. Look at the facts.

>>5803607
However one feels about patents they have nothing to do with the safety of GMOs.

ITT: Corporate Shills

>>5803689
>>>/pol/ >>>/x/ >>>/g/

>>5803699
Tell that to your masters at McDonalds and Microsoft.

>>5803738
✓ Runs GNU/Linux
✓ Is a vegetarian
✓ Shut up, I'm listening to Lawrence Krauss

>>5803641
>restrict usage rights to prevent testing of harmful side effects

>>5803738
>le period bump face
Fuck off tinfoil faggot.

I've got three major problems with GMOs.

1: The gene modding isn't to improve nutrition, but saleability. Making a strawberry bigger at the cost of its nutritional content, for example.

2: Hostile business practices: Monsanto is the poster child for this one. They drive seed trucks by competitor's farms, deliberately spill some seeds that float into the field and sprout. Then they inspect the fields, find their crops, and sue the farmers for theft, taking the lands.

3: GMOs tend to be of a single genetic stock. A disease that is effective against it would wreak havoc upon the entire food network, much like the Potato Famine.

>>5803774
Wrong in all 3 counts while regurgitating the same shitty points that get posted every time this thread is up.

>>5803783
Got any proof there, or are you just going to dismiss the three largest claims against GMO?

>>5803785
Search the last GMO thread, then go back to /x/.

>>5803785
the accuser has to provide proof, not the other way around

Assumes, they'd let disease wreak havoc.

>>5803207
You don't think its even slightly evil to patent organisms that have your special DNA, that you had no idea what was contained within it because you have neither the power to time to decode it, then put millionaire farmers in bankruptcy after stealing the corn after a clearly state contract expires because your migrant workers went to strike because of the horrid working conditions, so you needed to cut a few corners to make a big profit that year?
Also, it's another big monopoly that has input into legislative laws focus on agriculture because it would be unreasonable to make laws without representation of the businesses most effected by them?

>>5803774
>>5803783
>>5803785
>>5803797
Okay okay okay, either one of you just present facts to either dismiss or prove the points.

I don't know exactly how to feel about GMO, because those seem like pretty valid problems. Come on, one of the sides can gain a supporter let's go.

>>5803986
Fuck off you dumb shit and lurk, this thread is up 24/7 on /sci/ with everything answered 500 times which could be easily googled in 10 secs anyways.

I'm a vegan hippie tree hugging cunt, and I have no problem with GMOs. The problem I have is with Monsanto and their unethical business practices. I think originally the problem was with their business, and the anti-monsanto sentiment evolved into an anti GMO sentiment once your average idiot found out about it.

>>5803774
There is no such thing as a biological free lunch. That being said, we have an excess of availability of a lot of certain resources, so we should engineer towards converting what we have into what we want.

But you can't make strawberries bigger, redder, shinier, more durable and more nutritious without increasing energy requirements or narrowing growing conditions severely. MonSatan is only acting in their best financial interest, which they are beholden to do by their shareholders.

I doubt they specifically sabotage crops with their seed to steal land.

The lobbying and shit is a problem. I get their idea, and I understand, but it's a problem.

>>5804052
I think that's the only logical or sane anti-GMO stance one can take.

Only other "anti" stance I take is that they should be a little more cautious about long term effects of GMOs. I understand fully that it's highly unlikely, and that testing is fairly rigorous, but, among thousands of projects, and billions of consumers, if it's possible, it becomes more a "when" than an "if".

>>5804117
>MonSatan
/pol/ go pls

>>5804188
/pol/ likes Monsanto. They adore megacorporations, and/or malevolence.

Also,
>paragraphs long post
>greentexts one word

If I were /pol/arized I'd be blaming Jews for... Everything, not calling business practices into question.

>>5804188
Your constant posting is counterproductive to your saging, though I agree with your posts.

The only issue i have with monsanto is that their seed monopoly thing is a pretty big dick move.

My only issue with GMOs is... Nothing.

>>5804274
It isn't at all a dick move for reasons already stated multiple times in this thread... but it doesn't matter how many times that point is refuted, the post will be made again...

>>5804274
How long is their patent anyway?

I completely agree that a person who creates something has in tellectual rights over it, for a fair amount of time. imagine if the people who designed electronics or motors or even something as simple as a paperclip or a post-it note didn't not have an ability to make money from it.

Many many people work very hard to invent/design something. it costs money usually, time always, some every so often it is someones dream to do so. Can you take it away from them?

I know monsanto isn't some tinkerer in his garage, slaving away for 20 years on some idea to make him rich, but where does one draw the line?

What if i were an independent scientist, and the technology allowed me to create an entirely new fruit that was unlike any other? what if i worked my entire life on it and sunk a fortune into making it? are you saying its wrong for me to have say, a decade or so to reap the rewards of my hard work before any tom dick or harry could make money off of my invention?

>>5804279
Also, they do not have a monopoly. There are other seeds that can be purchased. They don't grow as well as Monsanto's seeds. They only have a monopoly on their own creation, and are guilty of having a monopoly on the best seeds around.

Monsanto is evil in the way that mcdonalds is evil because the big mac is delicious.

>>5804299
I don't know when they all run out, but I am sure they can be found pretty easily online. I think for biotech you get 20 year patents, though i'm not sure.

But I know that round-up resistant corn's patent, their best seller, is running out next year in 2014.

>>5804304
100% correct

>>5804312
Assuming the quoted 20 years is true, i think that's fair considering the millions dumped into r&d.

People tend to forget that GMO's feed the world. They're no less that a human created miracle. Where once we would have to tell a starving people "sorry, food wont grow here. the terrains too rocky, the soil is too poor, you don't have enough water, and the bugs will eat everything" now we can just design a food to grow where it would rather not, yield more calories per plant, crowd closer to its neighboring plants than it would like, and grow in a thirsty place.

Billions of lives have changed, for the better, simply because they aren't hungry.
How many hippies want cheap energy with no emissions, then protest nuclear power? How many hippies prayed for a cure for world hunger? standing in the way of progress in areas they don't understand, yelling in the face of people who have spent their lives learning these areas of science that "No! It isn't natural and it makes me feel bad, so i know better than you!"

>>5804299
>isn't some tinkerer in his garage
why does that matter when it comes to patent rights?

>>5804346
Exactly, they burn field trials as people starve, and delude themselves into thinking they are doing good.

And nuclear power, another issue where these hippies drive me crazy... We have the damn technology to heavily decrease carbon outputs, yet ironically the environmentalist won't let us use it to the great detriment of the environment.

>>5804354
Well, in case you missed my point: I am saying there is no difference, hence the "where do you draw the line?".

A tinkerer in his garage is a romantic idea, and breeds sympathy, while a corporation doing R&D, and controlling a patent does not evoke the same emotion.

The emotions behind our allegiances should be ignored, because the principle is the same. They did the work, so they should reap the benefits, at least initially and to a reasonable degree, regardless of who we are talking about.

>>5804356
Yes of course, lets keep burning coal. My grandparents are from West Virginia, and what they have done to that place should cause a public outcry. The cut off the tops of all the mountains and turn them into plateaus. The exposed earth causes landslides and the runoff water poisons the land of the people in the valleys. Where are the environmentalists on that one?

But yeah, nuclear power is scary. Anything that i don't understand is scary. I can't be buggered to learn anything, so i'm just going to ban it.

>>5804393
Of course, super scary and it just isn't 'natural'.

>>5803442
Not him, but vaccines can cause allergic reactions. Then again so can, you know, ANY medicine, food or chemical.

Anything relating to autism is bullshit though.

>>5804393
I understand your sentiment, but to be fair there are a lot of environmentalists that are upset with mountaintop removal mining.

>>5804457
Yes, yet they oppose nuclear energy which is by far the best remedy currently available to us.

>>5804457

Odd though, that I've never seen anything on the news about it. Not to say they don't oppose it, but its news to me if they do. Ive yet to talk to anyone about this that knew about it before today. If were a hot button issue then why no protests or coal plants getting shut down?

I hear shit every year about nuclear power getting protested in some way or another.

>>5804459
It's the nirvana fallacy. They want a perfectly environmentally safe power. Coal is bad, it increases carbon emissions and requires damaging mining.

Nuclear power creates waste, so is also bad. Why can't scientists make a power source that is:

1: Economically viable
2: Perfectly Environmentally friendly
3: Contains no risk whatsoever

I mean, I'm not asking for much here.

>>5804466
nirvana fallacy, that's a new one. I would have called it "perfect solution fallacy". If the solution is not perfect, we must ignore that it is better than the current way of doing things and wait for the perfect solution.

>>5804469
>The nirvana fallacy is the informal fallacy of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives. It can also refer to the tendency to assume that there is a perfect solution to a particular problem. A closely related concept is the perfect solution fallacy.

But yeah, they're pretty much the same thing.

The issue isn't "Does Nuclear power have problems?" Of course it does, fairly substantial problems.

The issue is, "Is nuclear power more sustainable and environmentally friendly than fossil fuels?" Of course it is, by a fair margin.

Of course, I'm preaching to the choir, I assume /sci/ love nuclear power.

>>5804466
And that is a major problem in society overall, a trumpeting of idealism over realism; while what should be the case is that we have ideals within a realist framework.

>>5803328

>2011+2
>Implying that your level of belief in the unfalsifiable has anything to do with your understanding of the falsifiable

>>5804475

I don't even understand how GMO's offend people.

>need crops to feed the hungry, lower food prices, make them taste better
>they do it
>i don't know how they did what i wanted, so now i'm going to say no.

I'm going to say a fair part of the GMO hating is affluence and arrogance.

Many people with money like to have things that a better than what common people can afford, so they must invent reasons why they must buy more expensive versions of things.

Many people like to claim that they know more about something than the average person. A hippie buying only organic cotton and food from the farmers market gets to talk all day long about how they're helping to change the world.

I used to work as a butcher, and i saw this coming. Everyone can buy filet mignon, and if everyone can buy it, what do people buy to feel rich? Prime filet. Now prime fillet is affordable. So then it must be all grass fed. then it must be organic. then it must be pasture raised and killed in its sleep after its daily massage.

Food is cheap now. once upon a time, eating beef at all was a sign of wealth. People need to invent things to feel superior too.

It's not so much that GMO crops may not be safe, it's more the fact that few of them are actually useful.

Monsanto's idea of innovation is to take a crop and either make it resistant to some sort of biocide or make it resistant to a pest. Well, in the case of the former that sounds all fine and dandy, means you can keep your field weed free just by take your tractor and going for a scorched earth pesticide policy. Just one problem. First, the weeds eventually become resistant to Roundup. Second, Monsanto wants your money, so of course they're going to charge you more, but they're also going to make it so that the plants are sterile and you can't produce your own seed, thus making your their bitch. This is pretty heavy, given that grain producers have saved their seed harvest after harvest, the end result being crops that gradually become attuned to their local environment and produce higher yields over time. In the end it's arguable whether or not your making any more money than before.

In the latter case with the pests, same damn thing, I worked for a farmer who used to grow GM corn before going organic. You pay more for corn seed that's advertised as being resistant to earworm due to it producing bT bacteria on its own, but you're always going to have stragglers who make it, and sure enough you've got an earworm population that's resistant to this particular strain of bT, so Monsanto has to go in and make a variant of GM corn with a new strain of bT, all the while you've got yield losses because those damn worms are eating your crop. When I worked there we tried this organic pesticide that contained some bacteria they discovered back in the 90s living in some old abandoned brewery in Cuba, worked like a charm.

Anyway, with these bT crops you're running into the same issue as before. Yeah, you might get higher yields, but at the same time you're paying more for seed that you have to buy year after year.

>>5804513
Anyway, the point I'm getting at is that Monsanto doesn't give a shit about revolutionizing agriculture and putting an end to world hunger or any of that. It's just in it to make money, hence why you have GM crops that don't do anything too exciting other than develop a resistance to certain specific pests and chemicals, and hence why they do shady shit like lobby extensively in Congress and make GM terminator seeds that force their customers to buy new seeds year after year.

Personally, I think that genetically modified rice with the Vitamin C in it is just dandy. That's world changing. Most GM crops though, they're really not.

>>5804500
My thoughts exactly, a great post.

>>5804513
If it isn't financially worth it to have roundup resistant corn, so be it. But I highly doubt that seeing how dominant it has become in the market over time. If it wasn't cost effective the trend would be going the other way; market forces are a powerful and effective thing.

>>5804516
If they didn't have to buy new seeds then their would be no financial incentive. And wanting to make money is not evil.

Also, I agree, modified rice is great. Though it is actually vitamin A, not C.

Alright, I'm off to bed.

>>5804513

Organic food can be viable, yes, but it is more expensive and yields are WAY lower. America exports shittons of corn to the world, and if it were organic, we could not do that. Were talking less than half of the yields with organic.

As far as herbicide/pesticide resistance, yes they do exist and are a focus right now. Corn is a big one for GM crops, but it is not the only. We have GM crops all over the place that grow in conditions where they could ot before, and that increases the farmland available, as well as yields. Organic food CAN NOT sustain the worlds population at this point. GMOs will never go away, thank god, because people will starve and no one that pulls the strings is that stupid.

Organic food will be a luxury for rich people to indulge in while looking down on the plebs, meanwhile punjab the street urchin will get his bowl of GM rice because there is enough to go around.

And goddamn it, i will have my frankenfruits. I want apples that taste like fruit punch, and blueberries the size of my eyeballs.

>>5804531
Market forces? This is farming we're talking about. Farmers don't make money from corn, they make money from the government paying them per bushel.

So yeah, farmers will go with whatever you have that increases yield and doesn't sound too outlandish. They don't really factor in cost/bushel, what matters is just the bushels, making more so the taxpayers pay them more.

>>5804534
Not wanting to make money isn't evil, no, aggressively prosecuting farmers who they allege are saving seed contaminated with their patented genetics is pretty damn evil though. Media pirates knowingly download copyrighted material, they're breaking the law, even though the law is pretty stupid. Farmers who have produced their own seed stock over the years only to have it contaminated by patented genetic material aren't intentionally breaking the law, they never wanted to in the first place, but they're still going to get prosecuted for that, and they can get prosecuted for a host of other things as well. As a non-GM farmer, you really can't avoid this fate. You're hard-pressed to find seeds from the ag giants that don't have terminator genes, and you're hard-pressed to avoid having your crop contaminated with these patented genes considering there's GM pollen all over the place as well as a host of other contamination scenarios.

Anyway, enough ethics, back on track here. This isn't innovation, this is litigation and all sorts of legal bullshit.

>>5804562
>implying these farmers are telling the truth

No officer, i didn't stab her, she fell on the knife.

Monsantos claim, at least in one case i read about, was that a group of farmers got together, one purchased the seeds and grew the crop with the intent of cross pollination, and then all split the cost of the seeds.

They were hoping to claim that you can't blame the wind, and they had no intent.

>>5804553
Actually, I never necessarily said that organic food is the answer, I merely worked at an organic farm. Personally, I agree, to an extent, at least with regards to grains, and certainly cotton, we're probably better off using chemical fertilizers and pesticides with regards to yield. With regards to vegetables I'm pessimistic. In developing countries where land is scarce and the population density is relatively high I believe small-acreage intensive farming is the way to go.

The yields actually aren't that much lower, we're talking about 80% of what conventional crops could yield. But, here's the kicker, which is why I specifically mentioned developing countries low in land and high in people, organic farms are more efficient in terms of fertilizer use (no shit), and in energy use. You're really getting more bang for your buck.

Funny you should mention cotton actually. There was this one unfortunate accident where farmers in India fed spent cotton crops to their cattle. The cattle all died. Quite a few farmers committed suicide afterwards.

>>5804590
>You're really getting more bang for your buck.

I just don't see how that's possible. The yield per acre on genetically modified foods is multiple times that of not genetically modified. You may have a point with fertilizers and herbicides, but you cant argue with the higher yielding strains weve developed. If you can plant 2.5 times (i think the liberty strain of corn does this, but don't hold me to that.) as many stalks in the same acre, and each stalk produces 40% larger cobs, and an extra 50% more calories per kernel...it's just no contest.

>>5803125
People also don't know that virtually ALL crops are genetically modified in some way.

>>5803774
>take their lands
my sides

>>5804346
applause

>>5804601
There is no biological free lunch. It needs to absorb more sunlight and water to grow and maintain those hyper-calorie-dense giant cobs & kernels, and the necessary support structure to maintain them without damaging the plant.

Which isn't an issue in the US, but I can see it being a limiting factor elsewhere.

Also where's my Gene-Mod kit for fucking with my own genes at home? I need to tweak my testes to produce at 300% and turn off most of my androgen receptors so I can be the goddamn hulk.

>>5804465
because it takes place in remote areas away from the public eye

plus, the powers that be have a lot of restrictions on mountaintop mining and require environmental protections, that are sometimes weak but at least something is being done.

>>5804648
>The food intake also increases by ~300%
everythingwentbetterthanexpected.jpg

>>5804657
As stated in my own post, there is no such thing as a biological free lunch. Anabolism requires calories.

I expect that there would be other physiological issues, perhaps heart issues from carrying around enormous amounts of mass, even lean body mass stresses the heart after a point.

I am opposed to unlabeled, untested GMO's in the market. I also dislike the whole farmer exploitation thing, but the reality is I don't hate GMO's because they are GMO's. I actually like the idea of furthering the development of GMO's in order to find crops that can be grown in all climates and conditions.

With that said, the use of GMO's could be linked to health problems, and the fact that we are releasing GMO's into the public market without any sort of label to say that it is in the food and without having first tested the organism to make sure it is safe.

TL;DR: We're not against GMO's. We're against Monsanto.

>>5803169
That's bullshit. Potatoes are native to the Americas but are mostly produced in China, India, and Europe today. And wild Potatoes, like wild carrots, came in all colors, shapes, and sizes. We made the modern brown-skinned oblong balls of white starch what they are through primitive genetic manipulation and it's far from the only case. Tomatoes, grapes, wheat, rice, apples, oranges, cows, horses, pigs, chickens, and every other thing we cultivate to eat or use has been radically altered for easier handling and higher yields and nobody bitched about it a hundred years ago because white people were starving. If you oppose genetic manipulation of food today it's because you hate brown people you racist asshole.

the only reason I've seen to be against Mansanto is Agent Orange and their atrocious history with respect to PCBs.

If GMOs were so bad, people would be dropping like flies.

You know what? Why participating into this conversation? We can't change anything, what is said here won't stop, would be like discussing a comet coming right after us: We can't do shit.

>>5804744
Butterfly effect, of course.

>>5804648
>There is no biological free lunch

I'm not implying all the benefits of GM are done to all crops. For higher yields, yes, fertilizers, water, and sunlight are all required in higher amounts. This is one niche.

There are other strains that have lower yields, but will grow in poor soil. Others grow in low water. Others grow unpalatable food, that can be used for livestock. All of these grow in places where yields would be non existent, so their lower yields are still a net gain.

>>5804663
Two times you claim that there are 'untested' GMOs being put into our food supply.

You obviously therefore have NO IDEA what you are talking about on this issue.

>>5803265
> the undeniable good that GMOs have done for less wealthy parts of the world.
I'm sure that's why Haiti outright rejected Monsanto's donation of seeds.

>>5803244
>>5803224
If you weren't retarded you would realize that owning the rights to entire organisms could potentially deter scientific discovery.

>>5804744
Fuck off you nhilistic teenager.

GMOs are fine; Monsanto is corrupt.

>>5804459
>>5804466
That's a gross generalization, a good chunk of them are pro-nuclear power.

For instance:
http://blog.ted.com/2010/06/10/does_the_world/

>inb4 you mongoloids through a fit over it being a ted talk

>>5805562
>through

Who's the real mongoloid here?

>>5805577
heheh, was thinking the same

>>5805562
I'm not anti-ted, but am too lazy too listen to some talk right now. I'm the guy who made the first post you quoted, and you are right, there is a growing pro-nuke segment within the environmental movement (which I applaud). But they are still way outnumbered for the time being, so my comment still stands.

>>5805577
heheh, was thinking the same

>>5805562
I'm not anti-ted, but am too lazy to listen to some talk right now. I'm the guy who made the first post you quoted, and you are right, there is a growing pro-nuke segment within the environmental movement (which I applaud). But they are still way outnumbered for the time being, so my comment still stands.

IT is because people are stupid.
Most of the worlds population is still brainwashed (I.E. Religion), thereby halting technological advancements. There are still stupid old woman who think that everything alive has a consciousness, and stupid old men who think that gay people are going to burn in hell, and theres the 90% of highschool swagfag group that doesn't learn anything, and theres the IQ 120 president/Prime Minister who's just looking to make money.

Actually we can. Carbon dating, Fossils, the existence of OIL, the reproduction of stars.
Vaccines are not safe duh, They are feeding you a virus so that you can fight it off. It's like throwing you at a tiger so that you can learn to kill it, or rather, a cat, so that you can learn to kill the tiger easier.

>>5803201
Patented species (that's the same as owning, don't deny it) contaminate natural fields and the farmers are then sued into paying. Fair?

Also, progress is also slowed when companies have an iron grip on their patents. That's unfree knowledge. A balance is needed between the ability to profit from research and said research becoming open to all. So far, the focus is exclusively on company rights, not on public benefit.

>>5805635
You are a stupid one... the viruses they inject are dead, they can't harm you. So it is more like putting you in a room with a dead tiger and using it for target practice.

>>5805627
Acting as if it is religion that is stopping GMOs is ridiculous. I'm not religious, but look at where the heaviest opposition to GMOs is. It comes from leftist groups in Japan and Western Europe. Not many religious people there.

>>5803125
There is nothing wrong with it if we know what is in it and what it does and ensure that consumers can know what is in it.

There have been cases where people have had an allergic reaction to something they thought was safe because a new gene in the organism produced whatever they were allergic to.

>>5805659
To me, at least, it seems that a great deal of these irrational fears come not only from religious beliefs, but also from political ideology and the blind following of whatever political figure or group.

828 scientists can't be wrong

>>5805696
Of course, it is all about ideology. That is why many religious people are believers in 6-day creationism. But on GMOs most religious people aren't bad. They tend to be fairly pro-biotechnology, nuclear technology, vaccines, etc... because those do not conflict with their ideology.

For these anti-science leftist groups, they oppose bio tech, nuclear tech, and vaccines because it conflicts with their ideology. Why? Because it isn't 'natural'. Following their ideology they have no reason to accept creationism, so they don't, but if they had an ideological reason I'm sure many of them would.

>>5805713
I'm actually quite surprised the religious aren't more opposed to GMOs because it is 'playing God'

>>5805719
If you took it too far, such as messing with humans, that would likely be the case. But most are fine with biotech when dealing with plants.

>>5805751
>too far

Do you think genetically engineering humans is too far?

>>5805713
what's ironic is that this portion of the left tends to be the most outspoken against religious people, they tend to be the dawkins fanboy armchair evolutionists. they wonder how people could be stupid enough to not follow the scientific consensus on evolution, then they suddenly become super skeptics about vaccines and gmos

>>5805762
Do I think it is personally? No, but many of them would. And I won't look down on them for it, since it does bring up tough ethical questions.

Even there, I feel they would support it for some areas, such as preventing diseases.

>>5805713
>creationism
That's protestant/fundamentalist heretics, the catholics have never opposed anything with the exception of the Galileo affair.

>>5805769
For them, it is all about arrogance and feeling like they are better than other. That is their ideology.

>>5805779
That is why I said 'many' religious people, since I also know many who are fully supportive of evolution. Also, there are many Protestants who feel that way also, not just Catholics.

I'm not particularly religious, but not in anyway anti-Catholic, but I wouldn't go as far as to say that the Galileo affair was the only exception... Overall, Catholic areas have a lower acceptance of evolution than Protestant areas. Not all Protestants are fundamentalists.

>>5805788
Well it depends on what sort of way they take, some are more progressive while others more conservative.

Overall the real problem is the ease with which sensationalism spreads, although considering the characteristics of Monsanto it is near justified in cases. Patented genes fall in what I consider justifiable paranoia.

It will come and go, like nuclear power protest or vaccines cause autism.

>>5805781
good point. i think that's the main difference between your standard scientist (who tends to be atheist but doesnt make a thing about it) and your hurr durr reddit super atheist who is intent on making sure everyone knows how stupid religious people are

muh hubris


muh hubris

>>5805812
Actually, I just checked out a decent infographic which breaks down belief of american scientists compared to the US public.

About 50% have no religion, though only 17% are atheist. That is kind of what I expected.

>>5803125
>I'm really going to trust amoral faceless corporations with producing food in an ethical and environmentally save manner.

Either your a clueless idiot or a naive idiot. It is not a science thing, it is a trust thing. On a regular basis Companies lie, put humans and environment in danger all for a profit. Do you want companies with a track record of exploiting the people, putting poison in our land, water and foods to have power over what we eat? What our children eat?

>>5805834
Another one... it comes from a Christian group that is pretty pro-science, but they aren't the ones who did the polling. I think it was all from Rice University.

>>5805845
Reminder that this would be avoided with state-funded research.

>>5805845
Go back to /x/, and chill with climate change deniers, young earthers, etc... you know, your ilk.

>>5805849
Yes. Like stem-cells.
I'm being sarcastic, congress is so deadlocked asking them to allocate money to anything on a timely manner is impossible. God help us if it is a controversial topic

>>5805853
This isn't a conspiracy theory, it is a completely well documented trend.

Company says "A" is good for you.
We all consume "A".
Rash of deaths.
Company still says "A" is good for you.
Thousands of studies so otherwise.
Decade long litigation process
Company finally admits "A" is bad for you/the environment.
20 fucking years later.
Company comes out "B".

>>5805869
Yes, but it the opposite here, Thousands of studies have come out and said that Monsanto's crops are safe. The science is clear on this. Honestly, the evidence that these crops are safe is even stronger than the evidence for anthropogenic global warming, which is very strong.

So either...

1) Accept the evidence
2) Accept it is a conspiracy theory

>>5805879
>Mosanto is safe
The legislature that passed implies otherwise.

>>5805919
>More conspiracy theories

Please post facts. Show me scientific studies please.

Even though Monsanto's food is okay to eat, Monsanto's business practices are awful.

>>5805949

So I guess this thread belongs on /pol/ then.

Because I'm not really seeing any biology or chemistry discussion.

>>5805955
Good plan post this on /pol/ and let them tell you how its all the Jews somehow.

>>5805979

It's actually not that hard to have a serious discussion on /pol/ without involving Jews, but you have to frame the question right.

I just don't think these Monsanto threads actually involve much scientific discussion. The conspiracy theorists sound like they barely understand introductory biochem.

>>5803125
they're under copyright because one of the large companies developed them, farmer A has his field next to farmer B, farmer A bought the right to grow that shit, as nature goes it will fly some of its seeds on the field of farmer B (idc if you see some other shit in this, plants fly their seeds around or something), the company that has the rights finds out farmer B sells its stuff and sues farmer B because he hurt their rights and he has to pay, even though he would have killed it off if he noticed he grew them
this is the main reason that shit is banned in germany, farmers can't grow their things anymore if one of their neighbours decides to grow it

>>5805928
there are none, only some documentaries that show that where their products are used childs are more likely to be cripples

>>5805879
>Thousands of studies have come out and said that Monsanto's crops are safe.
they're mostly done by monsanto itself

>>5805999
I'm fully aware of that, which is why I asked for them.

>>5806002
Same question as >>5805928

Show me studies that say they aren't safe.

>>5806019
i have no idea, seen a documentary on german tv that was about that kinda stuff, they flew their reporter team somewhere to bumfuck south america and looked up some farmers that grew tobacco and used monsantos fertilizer or something and the boy of the family was a retard and then they drove into the village there and found out most of the children there were retards, on the other hand they flew over the fields with small planes to spray that shit and parts of it got into the village of course
then some stuff in germany and something about one chemical supposedly being in there and toxic and how that stuff is in most foods that we have and some material about the legislation and that most of the studies involved in the EU legislation are done by people that also work for monsanto
aren't there any similar things in english or something?

>>5806067

Isn't there anything similar that's actually a controlled study instead of a movie?

>>5805879
>monsanto is safe
>global warming is real
>the media can tell no lies

>>5806067
That is the problem. The sources are always, 'some documentary', or 'www.MonsantoIsTheDevil.com', etc... I want to see peer reviewed scientific studies.

>>5806002
The GMO crops themselves are safe.
What is unsafe are the tons of pesticides and other chemicals they spill over the crops.

>>5803155
I keep on hearing about Monsanto. I have no idea who or what they are, all I heard from them is negative shit, they sound like the EA of everything that isn't entertainment and the boogeyman to all liberal douches

Why are liberals such dogmatic corporate cock suckers?

I really want to know.

>>5806083

>>>/pol/

>>5806080
Yes, pesticide and other chemicals which gm crops are able to decrease the use of.

>>5806092
please argue against>>5805996
if possible
tl;dr what do if gm-food gets its seed on other fields causing the owner of these other fields to be accused of copyright infringement

>>5806089
This has everything to do with politics.

>>5806098

So take it to the politics board, this is /sci/ and political science is not a real science.

>>5806092
You are kidding, right? That's not the actual industrial use at all.

The vast majority of GM crops are simply resistant to a certain kind of pesticide that kills about everything else, i.e. round-up etc.

>>5806098
>google
>gmo side effects
>gmo cancer
>gmo disease

and tell me this shit is safe.

Not that I want it banned or anything, I'm a libertarian, I just want to take away monsanto's monopolistic power.

>SEED PATENTS LEL

>>5806101
>political science is not a real science.
I agree

>>5806102
>Vast majority
In terms of what is used, or in terms of the raw number of varieties? If that latter, it isn't true.

Also, yes, much of it is just resistant. But what does that allow? It allows roundup to be used, which with tons of studies, it has been proven to be quite harmless to humans. It is so effective in killing plants though that resistance is extremely useful. So what does resistance do? It decreases the use of harmful chemical that are otherwise used. If they don't use roundup, they use much worse chemicals from an environmental stand point.

>>5806106
Find me one peer reviewed study please.

Oh, and your image proves you to be an idiot. I guess the anti-fluoride crowd and anti-gm crowd are one and the same though.

>>5806106

I love how that list says the same things several times over in different words to make itself look longer.

-1/10

>>5803125
dear anon fag

i must say, yes, they are econ and efficient to grow, yet, there are those that speculate because they dont have access to the technology to create that efficient-economical foods, they follow they own agendas, but you must also realize that monzanto also follows its own personal agenda and it looks heavily grim if you come to think in the market logic that has been followed and how it deletes moral obligation and all the cheating that is done in the name of competency, also the way it is managed by monzanto jeopardices the growth of emerging countries if they allow their cheap production to become a rent.
if uncheked, monzanto will be the Weyland-yutani of real life.

>>5806106


>libertarian

>caring about monopolies

college freshman detected

>>5806106
>Anti-fluoride
I hope that is deliberate trolling my good general.

>>5806083
First you have to verify your hypothesis that liberals are corporate dick suckers. Recruit students from a 101 class and have them fill out a survey to determine their political views. Then present them with a corporate dick and have them suck it. Oh and also you'll need to find some variable which correlates with dogmatism of sucking. You should be able to get at least three publications out of this work if not more.

>>5803388
Scientist arent ethical beings, most are scared people that realize they took the wrong carrier and can't have children until their mid 40s

>>5806155
I've done this study myself actually. Liberals have a 16% higher probability of sucking my corporate dick.

>>5806157

>what is menopause

>>5803125
1. Paid or sponsored research on the company terms fails to work as a good proof of anything.
2. Companies explicitly regulate that their products may not be subjects to tests.
3. Check out this one http://www.naturalnews.com/037249_GMO_study_cancer_tumors_organ_damage.html

>>5806171
Not OP, but...

1. Acting is if only monsanto studies show it is safe, when essentially all non-organic industry studies show that also. (there is big money in organic food)
2. lol, no. They go through so much testing by the government and a crap load of scientists.
3. That study has been so thoroughly debunked. They were using a strain of rat that was already susceptible to tumors, and there was no abnormal increase.

#3 in particular makes it quite obvious you are an ideologue who believes whatever supports your prior opinions.

I'd support it if it lowered food prices where I live. If all we do with magic rice is use it to feed starving people over seas, no support. Saving populations today will just lead to more strain on future resources.

>>5806191
those people aren't hungry because the lack of resources, most actually manage to find a cheap food source, saying that people is dying of starvation EN MASSE is just show to people in rich countries to rally their feelings.

>>5806200
One, many people do have issues with starvation, or more commonly, with malnutrition. The latter is common and causes many other problems later in life.

Two, even if malnutrition isn't an issue, it lowers prices and allows them to spend less on food. This allows them to spend more in other areas, such as education.

>>5806145
>statist
>caring about monopolies

>>5806184
1. Non-organic industry is zillions times larger than the organic one. By non-organic I mean both GMO and generally using any sorts of chemicals.
2. Can you be more specific? To my knowledge goverments do not order the tests themselves, but rather expect the company to provide one unbiased themselves. (this could be easily biased)
3. Because I've presented a reference? Can you provide counter-reference to this one?

Please note, I've never mentioned I'm anti-GMO. I'm simply sceptical.

what's more efficient about crops that doesn't produce seeds necessary for replanting?

>>5806295
> seeds necessary for replanting
Go take a biology class

>>5806295
Indeed, its not bioeconomically efficient, but they grow fast. the ungrowing seed is necessary as a safe guard for natural enviroment. ya?

>>5803125
>The overwhelming scientific consensus in Europe
lol, no. EU has the most restrictive laws regarding the import and cultivation of GMO. only 2 are permitted to cultivate, and only about 50 are permitted to be imported.
if you're gona troll, do it well
also>>5803263
and>>5803155

>>5806524
Umm, yes actually, there is a difference between policy and science. Just look at how Portland recently voted down fluoridation of their water. The scientific establishment of Europe is strongly in support of GMOs.

There is not just one "GMO". The process of genetic modification is relatively safe, just like melting metal to craft tools.

The problem comes when our "metal crafters" begin crafting tools that are sharp on all edges and hand the tools to unsuspecting commoners claiming that "THIS IS THE FUTURE".

GMOs are easily abused to fill pockets and disregard long-term/slow-forming illnesses or negative health externalities.

The US has a history of "make money first, being responsible is for losers", so their concern with GMOs is justified.

>>5803173
Monsanto owns a mercenary group.

Why would a FOOD company need mercenaries?

>>5806774
So they can silently take out retards who spam anti monsan- I mean anti monsatan shit on 4chan.
Monsanto if you're listening pick the fucking pace up, I'm tired of these faggots.

Q:So /sci/, tell me why so much of the developed world is so anti-science on GMOs? The overwhelming scientific consensus in Europe, Japan, North America, and elsewhere is that it is no doubt safe

A:The problem is proving GMOs are bad is that they work in very complex systems and self replicated and mutate, so testing the hypothesis of them being safe is nearly impossible. This does not mean we should blindly call them safe, like we do. I like to be careful with things this important. What we do know and can say is there is a numerous cases with very strong correlations between GMO and death, contaminated surrounding systems, increases genetic homogeneity (which is bad in this case), has not so far increased yield or drought resistance to a significant effect as promised and can not violate conservation of mass and energy, allows patents to be used as weapons and other social economic problems. By the way OP, Japan has a strict no GMO rules. Interesting correlation, places that restrict GMO have not been affected by the odd drop infertility that has been growing since shortly after GMOs went to common markets. In fact there is a huge amount of doubt they are safe, just very little proof do to how hard it is to test these hypothesizes. But as you may know correlation does not mean causation, therefore no real proof, though for many of these I would say it good enough to warrant not using GMOs.

S (because it is a statement not a question): it is just more efficiently and effectively simply doing what we have done for millennia.

A: Yes, selective breeding is a TECHNICALLY a form of genetically engineering, but laboratory genetics are very different. If you actually knew the mechanics behind them you would not be saying stupid things like they are the same. Selective breeding would never have given us the Spider-Corn accident. Though old fashion selective breeding has given us the big trouble just look at what happen with Gros Michel. And while that may be one of the worst, it is not an isolated case. There is some good documentation on dogs, now realize the same thing is done to the planets we eat.

Q: I know people are stupid and all, but is that the only reason?

A: No, see above and much more not covered here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvkj7cqGk1w
Penn and Teller put it succinctly.

>>5806934
Oh my Lord, that is so wrong I don't even....

Please, provide some sources. Oh, and I'm tired as hell of people comparing policy to the opinion of the scientific establishment. Yes, Japan's policy is highly unfriendly towards GMOs, but it is about about politics, not science. The same is true in Western Europe.

Main issue with GMOs is the fact that they could easily mutate and gain the ability to reproduce, and due to their improved genetical material, specifically chosen for the location they will be bred in, they could easily take over entire eco-systems without us being able to do a damn thing.

>>5807557
Did you read this part? "The problem is proving GMOs are bad is that they work in very complex systems and self replicated and mutate, so testing the hypothesis of them being safe is nearly impossible." Now you want me to produce papers I can do that. You want me to produce papers that are not clearly manipulated by interest groups, sorry I have not found any good ones you would care about. However remember the null hypothesis here.

I would ask you. Do you think it is a good idea to eat things that we don't understand what it does to our health? Before you say GMOs are just the planets we normally eat. Think of how methanol and ethanol are nearly identical but one is much more deadly, and most science is designed to error on the side of caution. Though it does not prove anything, I think it at least supports not eating GMOs till we have more evidence.

As for your complaint about politics messing with science I do agree this is a real problem. Please note that while in my first post I did mention some political issues, as they are real problems. They are irrelevant to the key question on if GMOs are safe. Do not lump me in with politically corrupted science.

Look at the news with GMO wheat in Japan. Think about how banning one of the big 4 globe foods from the largest producer is a real hassle, you do not do it lightly. Also Japan's originally policy was not to use GMOs till they had more data, they were just playing it safe as they know self replicating systems are very hard to stop once they start, though originally they were very hopeful and eager like they are with most new technology. In fact there economy was gearing up to use GMOs, they wanted them. Then after they did lots of tests they concluded it was very bad and that shaped their strong anti-GMOs policy. Not the other way around.

Please display your time-machine if you are going to ignore temporal causality. Along with any relevant material on how to build it and how it works.

>>5807757
>Do you think it is a good idea to eat things that we don't understand what it does to our health?

Do you think that we fully understand the effects of coffee and other foods/beverages with a bevy of biologically-active small molecules in them? Good lord: look at how opinions about eating tuna and drinking wine have changed over the past ten years!

>>5807766
You activated my trap card. "The Unknowing Philosophers Forum". It changes the map to a Philosophers Forum in which knowledge can not exist. Because we are not certain about anything, we therefore know nothing. This invalidates all forms of thought, communication and scientific understanding.

GAME OVER

Anti-GMO idiots might actually be stupider than anti-vaccination retards.

>>5807766
It is not totally known, but it much more consistent then you think and make it sound. People don't read the source material for many of those sensational health headlines, and they need to (remember this salt water energy solution? pic related (Hint: News not understanding RF input energy) [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejHXMqPfytw ]). Most of the changes in tuna are attributed to the increase in mercury, which was not commonly found in tuna before even though they were tested for it back then. (Fish is good, put mercury in fish, now fish is bad.) The changes is wine are simple as well. If you actually go back and read the sources they have wildly different dosages, as well as age groups. (Little wine is good, too much wine is bad.)
>>5807780
Please leave this board, your are not funny.
>>5807788
Wow, mightier then thou much? This is one main reason why conversations to find answers is so hard.
Also learn the difference between idiot and retard.

>>5807885

Is English not your first language?

Also do you actually know biochemistry?

>>5806082
Monsanto wants to make all farmers buy their crop and reveal exactly how they do business.

If a farmer doesn't participate he's put on a watchlist. They try to find a way to threaten him legally. an easy way to do so is to find Monsanto crop from neighboring fields and claiming he illegally uses Monsanto crop.

>>5807888
Yes, English is my first language, but I not very good at it. Why do you ask?

Yes, although I specialize in inorganic oxides. Why do you ask?

>>5807892
Don't forget this, tinfoiler >>5806774

>>5806774
Same reason De Beers has its own air force with fully armed attack jets. "To protect our investment" (I mean attack helicopter I could understand, but attack jets?)

> The overwhelming scientific consensus in Europe, Japan, North America, and elsewhere is that it is no doubt safe;
Did you miss all those times Europeans burned fields of GM crops?

>>5803169
>it's impossible to anticipate or know how GMOs will mutate or interact in a natural environment.
It's impossible to know for sure, but you're wrong that it's impossible to anticipate.

There is no reasonable reason to expect the proteins inserted into plants to have sudden novel activity.

>>5807969
This is an anti GMO retard thread.
We can't even know nothing here mate.

>>5807966
idiotic social policy developed by lawyers does not reflect the scientific consensus

>>5803125
>So /sci/, tell me why so much of the developed world is so anti-science on GMOs?

Because of superstition. Education could only go so far in helping people become less ignorant and fearful of new technological developments. In any country, regardless of it being 1st, 2nd, or 3rd world, there will also exist a population that operates on irrational/illogical thinking. Anti-GMO is sort of like a religion, except that it worships "nature".

>>5808006
But it does. Universities won't get public funding if they don't march to the drummer of liberalism.

>>5803125

I totally trust Monsanto


they would never do anything wrong

>>5808023
This is a troll thread. A well made troll thread at that. But seriously stop it.

>>5807966
So, using that logic creationism isn't the scientific consensus, because some people disagree...

>>5808023
le Alabama face

>>5803263
>we understand so little about the human body

>>5808558

Well, that is technically true. However, that isn't due to scientists being greedy or morons, it's simply due to the fact that the human body is simply a goddamn clusterfuck of awesome complexness which is probably take a good time to decipher. The more I know, the less I am sure about it.

And yeah, a pretty good reason not to use GMOs is that we know jack shit about interactions. It wouldn't be ethical to feed something you are unsure of to people who are healthy, so we have no way to know.

>>5808579
We are sure though for those in wide production. We are as sure of gm corn a we are regular corn.

GM foods are more beneficial than harmful.

But in the bigger picture that's bad.

With the trends in developing countries, collapse is inevitable.
The better a given food production technology is, the more people will be fed, and the more children they'll have.

But more people, more children, will only make the collapse come sooner, hit harder, and last longer.

In the longer term, with more educated and restrained people, increased food production is a good thing. But the more merciful thing is to let the people starve now and make room for a better future.

>>5807962
>Same reason De Beers has its own air force with fully armed attack jets.

Anyone got sauce on this? I can't find any info on this. Anon might be smoking too much GM crack.

>>5808587
>
> rampant obesity in the US
> historically unprecedented volume of degenerative diseases
> widespread nutritive deficiencies

Sure thing, buddy.

>>5803192
>Monsanto needs to change its ways. It's about how it sues farmers for having their seeds

Blame US patent law.
If you do not defend your patent, you lose it.

>>5808751
Alright, that comment has nothing to do with mine but alright.

You know what time it is?
It's HITLER TIME!


On a more serious note, I have yet to see a convincing argument that says GMO food is any worse for you than regular food.

I would think the 1 billion lives saved from starvation would agree with me on that.

But it's not about them. It's actually about whether or not the food is, in fact, somehow worse for you.

From a purely metabolic standpoint, once the food hits your digestive system it is reduced to amino acids, sugars, and whatever else (I'm a geologist not an organic biologist damnit).

As for the "Roundup" claims, if you engineer a food which does well to act as a natural herbicide, or even a natural insecticide, that, after testing, only targets pest type species, then I have to ask: What's the big fucking deal? I mean, you just saved crops, reduced pesticide loads, and have deprived an invasive species food that would be wasted.

I'm just not seeing how that makes GMO food any worse than any food you selectively breed over a few seasons for the same purpose.

Ok you don't like Monsanto, that is a valid argument if its an ethical one. However, if you start filtering in talking points without examining without bias business practices, research and development, and much else, you are little better than the ones you purport to be "Paid shills" Or whatever conspiracy theory talk is popular this week.

That's all I got. I just wanted to be the unfortunate soul who invoked godwins law.

>>5809004
My understanding of roundup ready crops is that they are more resistant to the herbicide roundup so farmers can use more roundup on the crops and this is what makes a lot of people butthurt about it (more chems on the veggies), not that it imparts some pest resistance.

I don't care much about this either way, so I haven't paid attention and could be wrong.

>>5809021
Not the above guy, but people who feel that way are stupid. Roundup is harmless to humans. If roundup isn't used, they have to use other less effective herbicides which are much worse health and environment-wise than roundup.

>>5809004
Pretty much this

>>5806145
A monopoly could potentially infringe on personal freedoms. Makes sense to me.

>this thread

>>5809070
More like this

I predict more periodic bumps by the faggot OP who makes this every time the old thread is off the main pages.
Prove me right faggot.

>>5809088
oh look, it's a sage fag. Imma help the OP out, cause sage fags are fags. BUMP.

>>5809092
You gotta wait at least 4 hours since the last reply faggot.

>>5809094
4 hours? why?

>>5809096
It's how you can tell it's the sad OP or a mazon lackey bumping his shitty thread.

>>5807757
>>5807563

>>5806959
>>5807557

>>5805270
>>5805498

>>5804744
>>5804833

>>5804833
>>5805270

and so forth

>>5805834
I may be reading it wrong, but it says 41% of scientists don't believe in any higher power. Honestly, saying "That doesn't count as atheist" seems to be a pedantic argument at best. No god, no "spiritualism", you qualify as an atheist in my book, regardless of what you self identify as.

>>5809111
Learn to catalog bro, the front page isn't the advantage it once was.

>>5809124
There is definitely a difference between atheist, agnostic, and irreligious. I for example am the latter, but neither atheist or agnostic.

>>5809127
Irrelevant.

>>5809143
No it isn't, not at all. I basically always use the catalog now, and it makes me far more likely to find a thread on lower pages. That is how I found this thread. It is a great tool.

>>5809111
Heh, OP here. Two of those were me, the rest must be my mazon lackeys.

I haven't bumped this thread much, and only when I'm legitimately replying; but must admit I'm quite surprised it has lasted so long.

>>5809129
Meaning you believe in god/a high power but you're not sure which one?

Or do you just care so little you don't form an opinion? That seems an odd stance to take, seeing as it's so open-shut you can just say "Hmmmm, massively complex claim with no evidence. False." and be done.

>>5809149
And you decided to periodically add replies every few hours regurgitating the same old shit that fills this thread every time it comes up. Then you decided to wait a day, and remake this thread, and continued doing this for months. In other words, fuck you.

>>5809154
I neither actively believe or disbelieve in a god/higher power, and also don't actively believe that knowing the answer is unknowable. So I am neither atheist, agnostic, or theist. I am just a skeptic.

I am not here to discuss the validity of atheism, this is a gm thread. Go to reddit atheism. Either way, 'nothing in particular' and 'agnostic' is not atheist.

>>5809160
Wait what? This is the first time I've made this thread; you are an idiot. The good majority of those bumps were not me. And for someone who hates this thread you sure do post a lot in it, you have posted in it more than I have. Since you sage it makes it clear which posts are yours. Your actions contradict your words.

>>5809179
I legitimately do not understand what "neither actively believe or disbelieve" means, mostly because in my understanding the two terms can be written as X and ~X. It's a basic law of logic that anything is X xor ~X, so saying "I neither believe nor disbelieve" sounds like saying "This is neither a chair nor a non-chair".

But whatever, I didn't bring up religion, and it's probably not relevant. Sage for offtopic.

>>5803125

Believe it or not OP, your image is fitting.

In 1929, pioneering work using electrical currents to stimulate heartbeats was being performed in Sydney by a physiologist and a physicist named Dr. Mark C. Lidwell and Major Edgar Booth, respectively. The science sparked public outrage over religious beliefs and ethical concerns regarding "unnaturally" reviving the dead, as well inspiring the much beloved classic motion picture, "Frankenstein" in 1931. Public outraged prevented all scientific inquiry into pacemakers for the next 25 years.

The sad truth is that anti-science has been around for longer than you or I OP, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Indeed, the current reimagining of Frankenstein's Monster into Frankenfoods speaks to condemn the underlying logical inadequacies of the science denialists. How many people could have been saved by in the 30 years that pacemakers were shunned? How much carbon could we have avoided dumping into the atmosphere with funded and reliable nuclear power? How many people can we save from starvation through GMO exploitation? How many more decades/centuries are reasonable people going to have to put up with this shit? Don't you denialists already have religious communities that stopped trusting science at an arbitrary point somewhere before the evil electricity was exploited? Fuck off, srs.

>>5809195
>100% of people expose to water will die

Challenge accepted.

>>5809194
It is off topic, but you limit yourself in thinking there are only two possibilities, atheism or theism. Agnosticism is another middle ground. Broad skepticism is saying that I am neither convinced of atheism or theism, I do not know; but am also not convinced that the answer is unknowable (agnosticism).

>>5809207
Agnosticism seems like a dodge. I don't know any atheist who says "I have 100% certainty god doesn't exist". In fact, most atheists don't claim absolute certainty on any topic, except for some things where they feel like they can, such as "P(A|A)".

Still, YOUR BELIEFS are what is being questions, not the nature of knowledge. You can have beliefs without certainty (eg any belief you have about virtually anything). Most atheists are "Agnostic", but their belief is "I don't believe in god because reasons (mostly lack of evidence)".

Saying "I don't know, but it's knowable" is acceptable as long as you don't accept it as an end state. That is an unresolved state, like an unanswered math problem. You shouldn't look at 1+1 and say "This is probably solvable" then pretend that's an answer. You should be curious, and curiosity is resolved when you answer it.

In short, I don't see how agnosticism answers the question, and I don't see how "broad skepticism" is even an answer at all.