/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6123484]

Why are GMO's so feared by the public when they have been universally deemed safe by the scientific community?

[Anonymous No.6123485]

hippies and religion

[Anonymous No.6123488]

>>6123485

It's criminal.

[Anonymous No.6123490]

>>6123485

I even had a science teacher that said they were bad in high school, clearly that person should not have been teaching science

[Anonymous No.6123491]

>>6123484
>universally deemed safe by the scientific community
Because this is a lie.

GTFO Monsanto.

[Anonymous No.6123494]

>>6123485
Mostly this.

Also it's not like we are making GMO weaponry. Or are we?

[Anonymous No.6123495]

>>6123491

No it's not.

[Anonymous No.6123497]

>>6123494

GMO occurs naturally over say 50 years, the technology is a speeding up of the process, it's a classic case of people fearing the scientist as a dr. frankenstein archetype.

[Anonymous No.6123500]

>>6123491

>GTFO Monsanto is a fear of big business. You typify the emotional response to the issue.

[Anonymous No.6123502]

ppl don't understand moral relativity and the fact that they gotta get with the times

captcha: sacred ivesTbu

[Anonymous No.6123506]

>>6123502

It's really annoying. Then you have an idiot like Raj Patel saying we should go back to subsistence style farming. That guy should be hung.

[Anonymous No.6123508]

>>6123497
Is it bad that I have a dream to make bio weapons like the organisms Umbrella made in Resident Evil?

[Anonymous No.6123507]

I've read a lot of studies on GMO. Frankly, the scientific community is biased when it comes to politically sensitive topics. Take global warming for instance; there is a lot of influence on perpetuating man-made global warming, but the data doesn't always reflect that point of view. Government funded science isn't 100% reliable, and for that matter, neither is privately funded science. If you want to trust a company like Monsanto whose government regulators and corporate officers travel through a revolving door, that is your choice. Personally, I would never protest them, but I will avoid GMO just because I don't think there's enough evidence either way.

[Anonymous No.6123509]

ITT: Liars lying so other liars can make mad cash off of their lies

http://www.ensser.org/increasing-public-information/no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety/

[Anonymous No.6123511]

Well ,for their aplications and implications

Unfertile seeds.
Registered genomes.
reducction of the genomic local variations in favor of the mass producted gmos.

Genetics can do amazing things but must be regulated.

[Anonymous No.6123512]

>>6123511
Classic fear mongering.

Patents last 20 years

Regulation is doing the most harm right now.

[Anonymous No.6123513]

>>6123509
>http://www.ensser.org/increasing-public-information/no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety/

That is not a credible cource.

[Anonymous No.6123514]

>>6123509

You simply do not understand the science.

[Anonymous No.6123516]

>>6123511

>unfertile seeds

oh no i can't get pregnant any more because i have the same genetics as an apple and am infected

[Anonymous No.6123518]

The real problem isn't with the GMO themselves its with the businesses that produce/use them.
Monsanto is the main fuel to the hippies fire, if the company didn't exist the movement against the industry would be fairly minimal.
Seeing as Monsanto is one of the main producers/suppliers of GMO strains to the agriculture community and the fact that they have copped a lot of shit (justifiably) really doesn't help the case of GMO in the peoples eyes. Its not the science their afraid of it's the people selling it.

[Anonymous No.6123517]

>>6123513
You are not a credible source.

[Anonymous No.6123521]

>>6123518

It's a combination.

[Anonymous No.6123523]

They confuse the idea of GMOs and what happens when you let for-profit corporations produce and control GMOs.

[Anonymous No.6123524]

>>6123485
Wow.
So much stupid in just three words.
Well done.

[Anonymous No.6123527]

>>6123484
OP there's two issues and you're clearly confounding them if you're retarded enough to make a thread with that post.

Also, we get threads like this on a daily basis. Refer to the last one in the archive.

https://archive.installgentoo.net/sci/thread/S6117307

reported for nsfw and being retarded

[Anonymous No.6123526]

I agree that a blanket condemnation of GMO's stems from ignorance. However, I do agree that in some cases there is a problem, not usually stemming from a danger the GMO directly represents, but rather from the incentives for modification (and stemming from modification) in the first place.
For example, the classic case of modifying crops to resist pesticides and herbicides, thus providing incentive for growers to use more of such.

I had a related, though non-GMO, discussion regarding farm-raised versus wild-caught salmon with a friend of mine the other day. Said friend runs a fish market, and recently attended a presentation by a large supplier of farm-raised salmon, intended to "dispel myths about the hypothetical dangers of dyed salmon". My friend was trying passionately to reassure me of the nontoxicity of the algae-based dye, despite the fact that I'd never disputed this. I avoid dyed fish, not because of the content of the dye, but because of what the need for it implies about the chemical and nutritional content of the fish.

Sorry for using a non-GMO example, but it's the clearest example I can give. There are similar cases of "hardy" crops containing less nutritional content, however. My fear is not crops magically damaging our genes, my fear is resources being rededicated to increasingly profitable, increasingly nutritionally barren, carcinogen ridden sources of food.

[Anonymous No.6123532]

>>6123484
because scientists are always bought by governments and corporations to say whatever?

[Anonymous No.6123537]

>>6123527
but lospital rule is always applyable to limits...
except when it's just a plug the value, like lim x->3 2x

[Anonymous No.6123548]

It's impossible to deem a technology as 'safe' if it's long-term effects on the health haven't been adequately studied. GMO tech in theory should be fine for human health, but right now the technology is a bit crude. Genes are inserted into the genome of plants at random, so unexpected things are bound to happen (plants could turn out less nutritional, etc..). An example of this would be that field mice reject GMO wheat entirely when given a choice between that and the normal cultivars.

People who claim to know that GMO is 100% safe are delusional.

[Anonymous No.6123554]

>>6123497
>it's a classic case of people fearing the scientist as a dr. frankenstein archetype.

People fear things that are powerful. Labor unions scare people because they are effective.
Knowledge is power and science deserves fear.
If /sci/ is any indication scientists are grossly irresponsible, often mentally ill people who should not be allowed near sharp objects much less bioweapons and nukes.
You can't have it both ways; either you are a potential threat or you are an irrelevant clown.

[Anonymous No.6123555]

>when they have been universally deemed safe by the scientific community

I lol'd

[Anonymous No.6123556]

>>6123554
>implying a clown can't be a threat

[Anonymous No.6123557]

>>6123526
>my fear is resources being rededicated to increasingly profitable, increasingly nutritionally barren, carcinogen ridden sources of food.
Guess what.
It's happening.

[Anonymous No.6123563]

>>6123514
Illiterates who think pop-sci is science.

[Anonymous No.6123564]

For one, GMO monocultures significantly reduce the biodiversity of the surrounding ecosystem, which eventually renders the soil infertile.

[Anonymous No.6123576]

>>6123548

It's been 20 years and not one case has come to light of them being unsafe. Every scientific body of note agrees, there is no danger.

[Anonymous No.6123580]

>>6123557

pls no

[Anonymous No.6123583]

Of course there's going to be some risks associated with it but primitive GMO has been around for quite a while. Dog breeds, cutting plants etc. Even Brassica oleracea was selectively bred for generations to produce cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, Brussels sprouts and a few more.

[Anonymous No.6123606]

>>6123576

Americans haven't been eating GMOs for 20 years, but since they've been introduced as staples in our diet cancer rates have skyrocketed.

[Anonymous No.6123611]

>>6123606

pls no

next you'll be denying climate change

[Anonymous No.6123620]

>>6123606

http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/data/race.htm

yeah really skyrocketing there.

[Anonymous No.6123625]

>>6123606