I had to share this. Hehe. The original “debate” can be found at https://plus.google.com/u/0/102082383403038732632/posts/A1GGVkg6h2i if he hasn’t deleted it.
Yeah, like, starvation because you were born in a region with too many people and not enough farm land and there’s no solution because a culture of self obsessed over fed to the point of electric wheel chairs and heart disease children decided to get miffed because GMO wheat capable of growing on the side of a building might cause intestinal distress in rats.
You have no clue what needs to be at the fore front, half your posts are about the latest cell phone trivia. Since it’s clear another third of them are now going to be this racist ignorant organic industry cheer leading,I’ve uncircled you. I’m happy to continue the debate but I just thought I’d be up front about my reaction.
Norman Borlaug on Penn and Teller: BS
The only problem with GMOs are the IPLs which ensure that if they are found to be unsafe, I’m not allowed to fix them thanks to a patent. Go fight THAT battle. It’s one we’re on the same side as. After it’s won then we can bicker about how to best starve the third world so our bread can have enough fiber or some shit before we drown it in corn syrup, brown dye for the crust, and bleach for the inside.
Shit like this is why so many people abroad hate our pampered guts, even when we aren’t pampered at all.
All I can see is the following…
“Likewise uncircled you back too. GMO is a disaster in India. It had become a factor in the Suicide Belt. To implement GMOs with studying how they would impact different climates and biospheres is a global disaster in the making.”
Uncircling me is childish. That’s obviously a spite thing. I’ve complained about your posts before. (too much cellphone) But I liked your activist and IPL posts, so I kept you. My uncicrling you was purely because your signal to noise ratio dropped past my threshold when you started shilling for Monsanto’s PR department. The character of my posts don’t change because I start to dislike yours because you suddenly adopt this anti-GMO crusade. Reminds me of the kid that eat a plate full of casserole and only after finding out it’s got broccoli in it says he hates it.
And make no mistake, shilling for Monsanto is exactly what you’re doing. You’re letting them drag the debate to an area that they will certainly win. Think about it. If the land mass of india has to choose between Monsanto patented wheat and starvation it’ll pick Monsanto wheat because it’s not a moron. That’s the choice presented by the Anti GMO crowd, also, said crowd can be placated by safety restrictions and testing and the like, which will STILL allow Monsanto to maintain a wheat monopoly. Win/win for them.
The GMOs aren’t the problem, if they are open sourced they can be tested and repaired or proven unsafe and abandoned, the IPL surrounding GMOs and the corporate greed it enables is the problem.
Secondly, I’m well aware of the situation in india, and again that is an IPL problem relevant so how we handle GMOs legally, not GMOs themselves.
“farmers using GM seeds promoted by Cargill and Monsanto have led to rising debts and forced some into the equivalent of indentured servitude to the moneylenders.” https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Farmers%27_suicides_in_India#Causes
Notice that has nothing to do with genetics or food safety.
Bringing that up as evidence is circular logic. It’s exactly like saying “Drugs should be illegal because they are unsafe, just look how often people die in prison on drug charges.”
Don’t you see what Monsanto is doing? They are getting people to confuse an IPL and corporate greed issue with a Food technology issue. Because while I’m attacking GMOs I’m not attacking the architecture of IPL that allows them to patent food improvement and monopolize the wheat market.
Your analogy points to a basic belief that GMOs can solve the world’s hunger and what’s wrong is the IPL. As someone who is born from a poor country, the problem is not food production but social causes such has inequitable distribution of food.
I also don’t have much confidence with the ‘testing’ in GMOs open or otherwise. Your Indians are going to starve from the Monsanto patented wheat anyway when they found out it couldn’t grow properly with the local climate, bugs and diseases. In fact the Indian cases are the result of GMO crops that failed in the first place. It was a technology failure right off.
And your circle defense is bogus too. So it’s just a coincidence that you discovered my content was lacking and uncircled me within an hour of me scolding you? Right.
Look man, you uncircled me because I made you angry. Own it.
“…the problem is not food production but social causes such has inequitable distribution of food. “
Even if that were true. (Which it absolutely isn’t.) Attacking GMOs on safety grounds is not going to endanger Monsanto’s food monopoly which is clearly part of that “inequitable distribution” you just mentioned. You’re working for them. Don’t you get it? If GMOs are banned they’ll just use genetic research to find a target and then selectively breed the wheat to behave as it wants and then patent that. We’ve been doing that for thousands of years. Go wiki the banana. Then wiki “cultivar”
“I also don’t have much confidence with the ‘testing’ in GMOs open or otherwise.”
So what, you want a complete ban? That’s absurd because it could never be enforced, and borderline genocidal because it would criminalize the kind of efforts that have saved billions of lives in the past. Clearly you didn’t click the link.
“Your Indians are going to starve from the Monsanto patented wheat anyway when they found out it couldn’t grow properly with the local climate, bugs and diseases.”
That may well be the case at first, but it hardly justifies a complete ban on trying to improve the crops. What’s next, you going to ban horticulture as well? How about hybridization? Maybe a ban on plant cloning and splicing entirely?
“In fact the Indian cases are the result of GMO crops that failed in the first place. It was a technology failure right off.”
That argument is pure nirvana fallacy.
You types are so ignorant. You think GM is black magic basically. It would be funny if it wasn’t so lethal.
I would in fact favor a complete ban on GMO if we cannot handle this responsibly. The consequences of contamination are too great and there are too many failure points of irresponsibility.
I just feel you are shilling a technology without the consequences on the human lives it can destroy.
Bravo for owning it. Though I guess I’m now disappointed in a world where flatly stating you are vindictive isn’t something to be ashamed of. Eh, whatever.
“Unfortunately we cannot keep on using farmer’s lives and families as a guinea pig for this.”
And your solution is to ban trying? What do you suggest there prime minister? This I gotta hear.
“I would in fact favor a complete ban on GMO if we cannot handle this responsibly.”
Your standard of responsibility is literally impossible. Have you studied any science history at all? Don’t answer, I already know you haven’t. And I think you using the term responsibility is disgusting since clearly you’ve never had any in your entire life.
When you do finally get some, you’ll notice that When it comes to helping those depending on you you do what it takes if its an option and you’re open to ALL the possibilities or else you shouldn’t have that responsibility.
Further, just what do you think will happen when you ban it? If you think banning something makes it go away I’d like to remind you that you live in the real world.
“The consequences of contamination are too great and there are too many failure points of irresponsibility.”
Give me one demonstrable negative consequence of “contamination.”
“I just feel you are shilling a technology without the consequences on the human lives it can destroy.”
That’s insulting coming from the guy who had plenty to eat today that is blithely sentencing half the world to starvation because he’s a scared of technology. You’re the dupe that if given his way would ensure Monsanto has a wheat monopoly for the next 75 years.
If I didn’t see the big picture so well lethal ignorance like yours might be cause for concern.
Rule of thumb: Spend at least four times reading as you do typing.
Now, respond to a single one of my arguments in this post or above with valid citation, or I’m taking whatever you say next as an admission of defeat.
Clearly you’re not conversant in these issues.
Failure points? I really don’t think you have ever lived for years in ’emergent countries’ to have any inkling of the procedures and corruption there. If it can fail, it will fail.
You have absolutely no idea that you are not talking to an American and yes I was born and lived in the Third World.
China just banned genetic corn did you know that?
Yeah, science does and often demand extraordinary levels of validation. Not all technology can be treated with the same level of proof. A television is not a nuclear plant.
What makes you think that?
“If it can fail, it will fail.”
Nirvana fallacy if you’re being general and hyperbolic, absurd if you’re being literal. If everything magically failed in the third world everyone would break their neck on the way to the river.
“You have absolutely no idea that you are not talking to an American and yes I was born and lived in the Third World. “
You nationality is irrelevant, the fact that you aren’t starving right now is. You telling me you’re close to death from lack of food as we speak? Somehow I doubt it.
“China just banned genetic corn did you know that?”
Are you sure? I’d love some citation on that.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/10/us-china-origin-idUSTRE8190JV20120210
“Science isn’t exactly proving that GMOs are safe.”
That depends on who you ask and even if they weren’t the burden of proof is on you to prove it isn’t anyway especially when the choice many people will face is GMO food or death by starvation. Your lack of priorities is staggering.
“Somehow would you want to prove scientifically without a doubt that these protein insecticides are not harmful to humans, to animals and to the biosphere? “
I don’t have to. Asking me to prove a negative is illegitimate. Besides the term “not harmful” is a nonsense term. Everything is harmful to some degree. The question is the value of the trade-off. We’re talking about people dying otherwise. Kinda hard to fail that standard.
“Countries like Hungary and France doing the same are not out of whims.”
Citation please. Further there’s no way you can prove they aren’t banning it (if they are) just to avoid ending up as vassals of Monsanto.
“Social media let’s you be openly vindictive by the way.”
And my skill set would let me kill people that annoy me. That doesn’t mean I’m ethically permitted to do so. Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.
“The fact you are the first to actually squeal about it strikes me as intriguing. “
You misunderstand. I honestly don’t care if you follow me or not. I just took objection to you trying to say you unfollowed me exclusively because you found my content insufficient. But you went on to admit you were just being vindictive, which is perfectly within your rights. At that point the matter closed for me.
P.S. You didn’t provide an ounce of citation. Quit arguing from memory and link me to something other than the original post’s article. The original post just says that GMO plants plus heaps of herbicide may be toxic. That’s deceptive as it doesn’t say the GMO itself is toxic.
“…with other residues of pesticides specific to GM plants.”
Specific to GM plants only because the non-GM plants died. Thus the article is about the safety of insecticide and herbicide, not GMOs.
That’s misleading to put it mildly. Especially in an article purporting to contain new information about threats of GMOs specifically.
You are arguing that radiation is deadly to humans, not the nuclear material that produces it. That is completely moronic.
Oh and I choose to unfollow you a matter of ethics? You must be desperate or thin skinned or both.
Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/france-asks-eu-to-halt-monsanto-gmo-corn-approval/#ixzz1n17yC4nK
Is it any wonder why France is taking action against Monsanto and genetically modified foods alike? Nations like Hungary have already taken severe action, ripping up Monsanto’s corn from the very farmlands they were contaminating. We are continuing to see countries, states, and cities standing up against Monsanto’s reckless endangerment of the planet as a whole.
Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/france-asks-eu-to-halt-monsanto-gmo-corn-approval/#ixzz1n18Cxt00
Good for them. I’m happy to stipulate harm. My core argument stands. Starvation, IPL, improvement.
“You are arguing that radiation is deadly to humans, not the nuclear material that produces it.”
Hardly. GMOs don’t secrete these pesticides and herbicides. The argument being made by the last half of that post is roughly equivalent to saying hamburgers are deadly because after being sprayed with strychnine they kill people.
“Read the article on top and rebut it.”
The top of the post does indeed present an apparently credible statement of potential harm. But my arguments stand. The issue is one of IPL. Now that the fault has been detected it should be corrected, but thanks to IPL to attempt to do so without working for Monsanto would be illegal. And even if the food is partly toxic it’s still better than starvation.
Let’s see what you’re willing to eat after day 4.
“Oh and I choose to unfollow you a matter of ethics?”
No, lying about your reason to save face was unethical. But you admitted it so I got past it. When will you?
“It is genetically modified rice China is banning.”
I can’t find a single reference to that outside the anti GMO blogosphere. Find me a moderately impartial source and we’ll revisit it. For the purposes of debate though I’m happy to stipulate that china has done as you say. That doesn’t refute my argument.
“Somehow I wonder how you brought hybridization with transgenics.”
Because it’s just another method of ending up with a plant with a genetic code we desire and we’re not acting like it’s freaking sorcery. Did you wiki the banana?
“With hybrids we are mixing genes of the same species through natural reproduction.”
Genes don’t have a species, they are genes. Different letters making up a word, so to speak. Specific combinations of genes are what define a species. Calling the process that results in cultivars and hybrids “natural reproduction” is absurd. It’s no more natural than in vitro fertilization.
The word natural is meaningless anyway. Is a beaver dam natural? How about a termite mound or a bird nest? How about a plow or a camp fire? At what point does our manipulation of the world become objective synthetic? It’s as worthless a term as race.
“We are not inserting the gene of another species into a very different and unrelated species.”
Show me an instance of this being done. As far as I’ve been able to determine claims of animal genes in GM plants is pure propaganda.
Your claims of mutant insects and such again is a critique of pesticides, not GMOs. Secondly, sources within the anti-GMO blogosphere are not citation.
But yes France is seeking to show Monsanto the door. Fortunately, no one in France is starving to death as far as I can tell.
Again for the purposes of the debate I’m happy to stipulate that France is terrified.
“On another front, Monsanto’s Roundup is creating farmland-crushing super weeds”
Non bias citation? And once again, I’ll stipulate because this is a pesticide complaint.
And next time, post all your crap as a single post please, it’s rude as hell to spam me with a quintuple post. Be patient, finish your thought, proof read…
Apparently you can’t assail my core argument.
To illustrate that weakness I will stipulate that GMOs as they are, are toxic and environmentally dangerous. I don’t think they are sufficient to warrant the reaction the public is having in some sectors, but again just to get you to stop parroting pissedvegansforgreenmotherearth.TV as a news source I’ll concede the point.
Now tell me how a ban is going to stop Monsanto from getting a wheat monopoly and how you intend to feed everyone with organic farming and baseline food crops? Trick question. You can’t. So, what’s the answer? Let people starve to death rather than give them the option of eating food that isn’t good for them over the long term?
Look who’s talking. I’ve yet to hear your response to the food crisis and how long term health effects (of other people of course, not you) are somehow superior to death by starvation in terms of what we should avoid.
You act like you live in a frozen world. News flash. It’s trying to eat you right now where you sit. You’re having a pearl clutching freakout over the basics of evolution because frankly you’re ignorant. This isn’t anything to be ashamed of unless you are unwilling to do the homework to fix it. And reading only one side of a debate isn’t homework.
You think the bugs aren’t already super bugs?
You think the weeds aren’t already super weeds?
You going to ban antibiotics also for fear of resistant staff infection?
“The genes of a virus inserted to a plant is not the same as genes from the same species of plant mixed together through natural means.”
Actually that depends on the genes in question.
_”…drought, floods, destruction of fertile soil…”_
Exactly. Do you not understand the point of genetically altering a food?
_”They are quite specific, naming even the officials and bodies involved.”_
Then it should be no problem to find some independent verification. Do you have no concept of what an impartial source is?
It’s like we’re debating atheism and all your citation is coming from the Vatican.
_(nuclear wheat ramble fantasy)_
Uhh, what?
For the billionth time, I’m perfectly willing to stipulate that GMOs cause cancer, erectile dysfunction, or spontaneous human combustion if you prefer. Just so long as it’s less lethal than starvation my argument holds.
I’m done repeating my core point. Until you provide independent citation for something we’re done.
