/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9787541
no it means they are more open to non-authoritative sources, mostly due to the proliferation of and access to those sorts of sources on the internet.

>>9787548
thats a good trend, but i do not follow the reasoning behind abandoning GMO's, changing DNA to increase yields isn't inherently dangerous it will not always make food poisonous,
in any case we have already proven that GMO crops have great potential to increase yields.

>>9787565
>>9787548

More than just that they can add vitamins and stuff (gold rice comes to mind) for people in developing countries. People are inherently mistrustful of scientific reasoning. No matter how many times you show them the numbers or prove the ideas they think of it as some sort of magic out of their grasp. It is certainly a failure of the education system that fundamental scientific ideas are difficult to accept for most people. It is provably not the fault of those people, as religion shows us, when an answer is present people are willing to accept it completely.

>>9787627
>People are inherently mistrustful of scientific reasoning
No, they don't trust giant corporations to tell us the truth and have our best interests in mind.

>>9787541
>education system is failing
Yes, it isn’t teaching critical thinking.

>>9787541
A successful FUD campaign.

>>9787627
>they can add vitamins
...but they usually don't, because vitamins don't increase revenue.
Greater crop yield increases revenue, and that's what they want.

>>9787541
The education system is absolutely terrible at teaching the scientific method. I’ve asked people what their thoughts on placebos are and by their answers it’s evident they know fuck all. When you google any pseudoscience shit most of the time websites like “naturalmotherearthlover420” pops up spouting things as gospel.

Also a lot of those companies have vast amounts of funds to spread misinformation and are nearly impossible for the pussy FTC and FDA to act. Even worse is that many use Mlm marketing to spread their sti riddled campaigns across the world, 20-60 year old women gobble this shit up because it’s sold to them by their “friends” on Facebook or that cunt Oz. Take for example Herbalife, they’ve essentially have a cult (some of these companies also actually incorporate religion to goad people into this scamming) following of deluded middle age women that think they are turning a huge profit despite more than likely making a net loss, while spouting how their shit cures cancer and HIV. Not only that but they have political connections out the ass (pic related).

>>9787684
John oliver GTFO

>>9787692
I just used it for the podesta little bitch

>>9787671
greater crop yield is still a good thing. You can't not produce food, so you may as well do produce in an efficient manner.

>>9787541
What I'm getting from this graph is that about 90% of people are retarded. Maybe there's extra chromosomes in the lettuce

>>9787638
>MUH CURPURASHENS

>>9787541
Personally I wouldn't be surprised that the focus on make believe health issues isn't a diversion tactic astroturfed by the agrochem industry to obfuscate the apocalyptic biodiversty loss, hyper predatory business practice, economic homogenisation, corruption, and general fucked up Nature of GM and agrochem business.
The fact that all critism of anti GMO is directed to the nutjobs and not the large body of evidence of the real problems of GMO farming points to the agrochem propganda machine trying to systematically focus the problems of GMOs to conspirational health concerns instead of real problems like biodiversty and economic/legislative corruption.

>>9788395
Shill

Part of it has to do with a lack of proper education on what common agricultural procedure is. There's a valid argument to be made about how there's a higher chance of unintended effects when introducing a new gene to a food source, because that gene and its products didn't co-evolve with humans or other mammals in a slow, steady rate that nearly guarantees the ability to properly metabolize.

However, this argument is completely nullified by the nature of selective breeding of crops and animals. That takes what is a rare mutation that has a product we're not well adapted to, and sweeps it through the population. On top of this, it's been common practice for a long time to inspire mutations in the plants by radiation, so you're really just randomly blasting its genome, and then selecting for increased yield. This is just as dangerous as GMOs (with the caviat of genes from other organisms), but most people do not know that 'organic' crops are grown and selected for this way.

>>9788437
very possible. but you also have the science-as-religion types screaming that we must accept everything about GMOs else we are a no brain or a shill

any time someone complains that GMOs mean farmers have to buy seed every year instead of saving seed, that person doesn't know anything about the agriculture industry. farmers haven't saved seeds since the 30s. most of the major varieties sold since then are the result of hybrid crosses. you CAN'T save seed from hybrid crosses, the offspring are wildly unpredictable.

also, if you save seed, you need to clean it yourself and store it, and the seed you save is going to be a mix of good and shitty seed. it turns out, someone figured out half a century ago that if you just pay someone else for the seeds every year, you get a uniform mix of quality seed that you don't have to pay to clean or store and it ends up being cheaper in the end

>>9788505
ok , which seeds historically were for sterile hybrids? i can only think of some wheat cultivars. please teach me.

>>9787541
>U.S.
Yes. Americans in particular seem to lack skills in comprehending what the fuck they're reading and analyzing text and thinking about the source. I think this was one of the most valuable skills I learned in Finnish schools, and they really drilled it into my brain. It's frustrating when you come across people who just haven't been educated like that. It's not even their fault.

>>9787627
People don't think its "magic out of their grasp". That's the most arrogant scientist answer I've ever heard. The world is nigging complex, especially the human body. People aren't going to trust you unless they have reason too. On GMOs, why the hell should I trust them? Do we know, truly, that some hyper complex process of the human body doesn't get all fucked up on em? Not saying that's the case, I certainly don't believe it is, but if humans have been eating non GMO for thousands of years what the hell reason do I have to know that they're safe.

>>9788513
They probably mean that it wasn't economical for farmers to recover seeds from the harvest for re-planting and that buying a new batch is cheaper.

>create crop resistant to 100x normal insecticide spray
>crops get sprayed with 100x normal amount of poison
>OP asks the question:
>>Why does everyone think GMO's contain poison?

GMO in itself isn't bad
What's bad is the way GMO is being used.

They maybe think its poison because they spray it with shit thats made to kill fucking everything else? Or because messing with the dna tends to create further mutations which can lead to a cancer?

Wed produce enough food for everybody if we were using non gmo crops anyways.

Its good to see people waking up to these facts.

You know about 10 years ago youd see a show on discovery how gmos lead to cancer, there were scientists in britain who proved it but lost their jobs and were silenced forever, now theres trash shows like selling storages but you can still find some good documentaries on youtube about what gmos do

>>9788657
It's herbicides not insecticides, still cancerous.

>>9788641
that would be reasonable, and fit with farms getting ever bigger

>>9787541
It's not the poison in the, but the gratuitous amounts of herbicides they are engineered to handle because the weeds are becoming resistant.

>>9788513
hybrid offspring usually aren't sterile, the issue is more that you get all the heterozygous traits that made the hybrid a good crop suddenly independently segregating and you have an unpredictable variety of phenotypes

>>9788618
There are thousands of natural foods people also havent eaten for thousands of years, not even counting all the new varieties due to artificial selection and mutations. How do we know those mutations wont fuck something up? how do we know drinking something natural like milk wont cause a bad reason in some fraction of the population? o wait, we do, because we can detect something like that pretty quickly and its not limited to GMOs, its a property of food in general. Its a shit argument to say something bad can happen, because GMOs are food and something bad can happen with all food.

>>9787541
i am not that knowledgeable about american education specifically. but if half of the people in a country believe the world is younger than 10000 years you have to be fucking scientifically illiterate over there.

>>9787941
It destroys agricultural communities, biological communities, and the food commodity economy, it concentrates economic power, and property into a very small pool of private and state power, corrupts our legislature, drives family farms and artisanal food producers to extinction, destorys water resources and native plant and insect biodiversty, crippling our ability to handle ecological change and economic crashes, it is only good for investors and detrimental to the good of the world.
It drives unemployment and urbanization causing massive ecological and social problems.
It actually is a waste, and only efficient at extracting capital gains from life. Its efficient they same way cancer is efficient at converting a body, which eventually kills the body and the cancer.
It is a major source of poverty, biodiversty loss, cultural death and all manners of systemic degeneracy.

>>9792664
Well written comrade.

>>9792664
Don't forget the massive contribution to climate change in the form of carbon emmisons, which should be the opposite in traditional agriculture that doesn't rape the soil and nutrient cycles, it alienates people from the living world turning them into inhuman monsters that don't even know that hamburger come from cattle or think about anything outside of the lifeless hellscapes of their concrete niches. Agricultural homogenization and degeneration and mcdonaldification make people retarded and lazy, unwilling to protect their own homes, and conceptually inept to even conceive of the threats to their existence and causes of their struggles. It's farming humans to be mindless commodities that are expected to accumulate capital value and turn a profit not unlike potatoes. The worst part is nobody is driving the wheel, this isn't contrived by some intellegence, it's all feedbacks and constraints that are hardly available to human comperhension let alone human control.

>>9792664
>>9792704
and let us not forget the issues involved with someone OWNING the copyright for these crops. Better hope Monsanto's Round Up Ready corn doesn't manage to cross pollinate with yours.
You got a license for that food?

>>9787541
>% of U.S. adults

>>9792664
It drives down commodity and food prices making food more affordable and available. It lifts subsistence farmers to greater production and profit, and increased standard of living. It diversifies economic power in developing nations, but in the developed world only the most efficient survive. Artisanal food production is for elites and are not affected, in that they get premium prices. It decreases the amount and concentrations of herbicides which is good for the environment and small farmers. http://b4fa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/11-Honduras-and-Bt-HT-maize.pdf and https://futurism.com/two-decades-scientists-gmos-corn-good-seriously/ and https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93310225 30 years and multigenerational feeding studies using GMO grains have shown no adverse effects. https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/no-sign-health-or-nutrition-problems-gmo-livestock-feed-study-finds/

>>9792935
>It drives down commodity and food prices making food more affordable and available.
To snack manufacturers, everyone's has all the Doritos and taco bell, wow.
>It lifts subsistence farmers to greater production and profit,
Forces them to rape their farm or lose it, a complete load of shit.

> It diversifies economic power in developing nations
Fuck you shill, I've been to the cerrado and I've been to kenya. Fuck you I will rip your intestines from your ass and use them to strangle you. People's lives are destroyed, not to mention all the non human life gone forever. Slumlord.
>. It decreases the amount and concentrations of herbicides which is good for the environment and small farmers.
Bullshit it insures that weeds will devolp a tolerance to glycophosphate and forces small farmers to by the newest Monsanto bullshit that results in highly invasive super weeds.
http://www.businessinsider.com/r-update-1-monsanto-sues-arkansas-over-proposed-herbicide-limits-2017-10
>Artisanal food production is for elites and are not affected,
Whole foods is not an artisnal food producer.
>>9792935
Do everything you can to distract from biodiversty loss, pajeet. I've never seen a more obvious paid shill in my life.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268055996_Fatal_harvest_Old_and_new_dimensions_of_the_ecological_tragedy_of_modern_agriculture
Kill yourself

Bump

>>9793158
interesting

>>9793186
indeed

People that are stupid should simply be killed.

>>9787541
So you trust other businesses to have you pay more for their product because it's "natural"?

>>9787541
Because glyphosate is a poison, and genetically engineering crops so you can soak the field in it is not a good thing for anyone.

>>9787638
So you trust other corporations to have you pay more for their product because it's "natural"? As if any company cares about the public's health over profit.

>>9788437
Spot on m8. I think a lot of the banter and people picking sides are natural outcomes of the tech, but the conspiratorial bullshit like OP's post obfuscates the real problems with GMO's and big agra quite effectively.

>>9793311
just look at this obvious front website
https://gmo.geneticliteracyproject.org/FAQ/do-gmos-encourage-monoculture-cropping-and-reduce-biodiversity/
>biodiversity of untouched nature will almost always far surpass that of farmland, and it’s important to keep as much of that nature intact as possible. That’s the primary argument for modern agriculture: efficiently farmed land helps reduce the area of farmland needed. The use of GMOs also significantly increases yields, which reduces deforestation and other destructive practices used to create farmland, particularly in the developing world. A 2014 study estimated that the use of genetically engineered crops over the first 15 years of its use had preserved more than 32 million acres from being converted to agricultural use.

the study
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/environment-and-development-economics/article/impact-of-agricultural-biotechnology-on-supply-and-landuse/95DE94FB6AAA97236E05CBAC931BAE9A

its basically trying to claim that making more money per acre of land raped is saving land from being raped.

>>9787541
>push GMO crops on people whether they want it or not
>the people who speak up and say they don't want it are ridiculed and attacked by your presstitutes
>cranks come out of the woodworks in response, telling people your GMO products are unsafe
>some people latch onto what the cranks say
>continue forcing your product on people, don't even let them have the choice of eating it with GMO labeling
>even more people latch onto the cranks and begin to think you're up to something

The problem with GMO food is the presentation of it. The agricorps tried being authoritarians forcing their food down everyone's throats, and the natural response is rejection. If it's good for big business, it's not good for you.

People's issues with GMO crops would disappear if they were given a choice of eating them or not.

Since it's been decided this choice isn't allowed, people completely avoid all GMO and consider it poison.

The agricorps only played themselves.

>>9793348
>use less land
>more land for wild
it's not hard to understand. extra profit per land acre is GOOD for the environment.

>>9793366
no it means investing industrial agriculture and converting land to food commodity production will give higher capital returns, driving demand for wild land to be converted into hyper industrialized seas of gm corn. and destroying sustainable agriculture.
this is basic economics

>>9787541
DEMONIC SCIENCE!!!

>>9788618
Weird how you trust that your computer, medicine, any technology you use isn't harming your body, but suddenly GMOs are not trustable. It has nothing to do with trust, you are just a gullible buffoon that swallowed new age nonsense.

>>9793369
you actually think that the demand is infinite. jfc, anti-gmos are retards.

>>9788678
Why are you on the science board if you are going to deny science and promote pseudoscience?

>>9793394
>you actually think that the demand is infinite.
is the price goes down and population and the consumer market continues to rise, yes.
and of course the destruction of traditional; agricultural communities and less people participating in the agricultural economy means more urbanized people i the consumer market . this is a deadly feedback that is particularly evident in the so labeled and unfortunate "developing world".
you don't understand how systems behave or how agriculture works and have the nerve to call me a retard.

>>9793403

>>9793403
not that guy but you're quite the retard indeed

>>9793478
Oh no I've been blown the heck out

>>9792664
very little of what you said is true or relevant

>>9792711
>Better hope Monsanto's Round Up Ready corn doesn't manage to cross pollinate with yours.
If it happens by accident they'll pay to remove the contaminated crop from your supply. If you intentionally select for glyphosate resistant crops, that's an extremely clear-cut violation of patent law, there is absolutely no reason you wouldnt be liable for patent infrigement. your dispute should be with the legal system that allows companies to aggressively pursue the issue with the courts, not with monsanto.

>>9793530
epic refutation

>>9793538
this isnt an academic debate, this is a nipponese poke and stick tattoo blog comment section

>>9793541
wow, gtfo retard.

>>9793508
you blew yourself out. maybe you should read a bit about economics before spouting nonsense.

>Eating post green revolution radiated food

Nature already provides us with everything, why do we have to mess up the environment by playing around with genetics?

>>9793984
How?

>>9787684
The scientific method =\= experimental design