Are you against GMOs too? Then hear me out.

This forum is for anything not Reason related, if you just want to talk about other stuff. Please keep it friendly!
User avatar
normen
Posts: 3431
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

16 Feb 2018

Since we first planted seeds deliberately to harvest the fruit we engaged in genetically modifying crops. Since the 1920s and earlier we used poison, radiation and other means to randomly create mutations that we then selected by eyesight. The crops and animals we eat these days are all the result of these tens of thousands of years of this random gene editing.

So now we do it in an even more deliberate way. We do not create totally random changes anymore. Everything we do now could have happened without us knowing in the past, including what some would call a mix of species. There is only one species when it comes to DNA.

So am I against big companies making farmers dependent on them? Hell yes. Am I against decimating animal habitats for mutant crops? Totally.

But do I want humanity to starve to a size where it can sustain itself as a hunter-gatherer tribe, the only way that could arguably be called natural as in a world untouched by human intelligence? Doomed on a rock floating through space, ignoring its own possibilities? No way.

I do respect that I live in a society that seems to largely have a different opinion but I also feel that many people fall victim to misinformation about this topic.

Sorry for the interruption.


WongoTheSane
Moderator
Posts: 1851
Joined: 14 Sep 2015
Location: Paris, France

16 Feb 2018

Its' the same old conundrum: either stop going against nature OR let two billion people die. I'm smack in the middle: only let one billion people die, and restrain the GMO research to fun stuff, like adding squid genes to cannabis to get glow-in-the-dark joints. Perfect middle ground.

User avatar
FlowerSoldier
Posts: 470
Joined: 03 Jun 2016

16 Feb 2018

WongoTheSane wrote:
16 Feb 2018
adding squid genes to cannabis to get glow-in-the-dark joints. Perfect middle ground.
10/10 would blaze it.

User avatar
miscend
Posts: 1955
Joined: 09 Feb 2015

16 Feb 2018

Very soon we’ll be gene editing our children. Where is it going to stop?

User avatar
miscend
Posts: 1955
Joined: 09 Feb 2015

16 Feb 2018

WongoTheSane wrote:
16 Feb 2018
Its' the same old conundrum: either stop going against nature OR let two billion people die. I'm smack in the middle: only let one billion people die, and restrain the GMO research to fun stuff, like adding squid genes to cannabis to get glow-in-the-dark joints. Perfect middle ground.
Don’t you think the world is already over populated with humans. Think of how other species have not done so well in the past century. Many have gone extinct. Soon we will have to colonise other planets just to house our human populations.

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3431
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

16 Feb 2018

WongoTheSane wrote:
16 Feb 2018
either stop going against nature OR let two billion people die
Was that freudian, cheeky or a bit too smart to be discernible? :D

User avatar
FlowerSoldier
Posts: 470
Joined: 03 Jun 2016

16 Feb 2018

We don't have a problem growing enough food, we have a problem distributing it efficiently. About 1/3 of the food we grow is wasted.
http://www.fao.org/save-food/resources/keyfindings/en/

I think synthesized fertilizer did more to increase food supply than GMOs have.

I'm not against GMOs, but I fucking hate Monsanto, and I have a difficult time separating the two in my mind.

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3431
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

16 Feb 2018

FlowerSoldier wrote:
16 Feb 2018
We don't have a problem growing enough food, we have a problem distributing it efficiently. About 1/3 of the food we grow is wasted.
http://www.fao.org/save-food/resources/keyfindings/en/

I think synthesized fertilizer did more to increase food supply than GMOs have.

I'm not against GMOs, but I fucking hate Monsanto, and I have a difficult time separating the two in my mind.
Try doing that with the ACTUAL "natural" crop :) Grains in size similar to those you see in lawn, melons with 10% edible fruit etc. etc. And yeah, you're completely right fertilizer did a HUGE part too I just don't see why we would stop at this point because... because what again?

As you say, the topic itself is too loaded with idiocy in other areas but thats like saying we shouldn't have fridges because Saddam Hussein had one.
Last edited by normen on 16 Feb 2018, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
demt
Posts: 1357
Joined: 16 Sep 2016
Contact:

16 Feb 2018

You said pro GMO not overpopulation so I'm yes to GMO in an unfair world GMO is a unfair advantage
Reason 12 ,gear4 music sdp3 stage piano .nektar gxp 88,behringer umc1800 .line6 spider4 30
hear scince reason 2.5

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3431
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

16 Feb 2018

demt wrote:
16 Feb 2018
in an unfair world GMO is a unfair advantage
Demt, you are indeed a genius :)

Edit: And by the way, its been proven that if you let less people die then there is less overpopulation, without much lag. People are not rabbits.

WongoTheSane
Moderator
Posts: 1851
Joined: 14 Sep 2015
Location: Paris, France

16 Feb 2018

normen wrote:
16 Feb 2018
WongoTheSane wrote:
16 Feb 2018
either stop going against nature OR let two billion people die
Was that freudian, cheeky or a bit too smart to be discernible? :D
Cheeky. I just went off your "do I want humanity to starve to a size where it can sustain itself" and simplified the problem to "it's either GMO or people will die of starvation" (in the same vein as the "it's either nuclear power or back to candles" argument in the 70s). What's a good debate if we can't oversimplify complex issues to the point of not adding anything meaningful to the conversation? :D

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3431
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

16 Feb 2018

WongoTheSane wrote:
16 Feb 2018
normen wrote:
16 Feb 2018
Was that freudian, cheeky or a bit too smart to be discernible? :D
Cheeky. I just went off your "do I want humanity to starve to a size where it can sustain itself" and simplified the problem to "it's either GMO or people will die of starvation" (in the same vein as the "it's either nuclear power or back to candles" argument in the 70s). What's a good debate if we can't oversimplify complex issues to the point of not adding anything meaningful to the conversation? :D
I rather meant that your sentence implies that its "natural" to use GMOs :) I also think that humans and what they do is "natural".

And by no means would I say that GMOs are the ONLY way forward, just that theres no reason to hate them as much as people seemingly do. They are a chance to solve some dire issues NOW that cause a LOT of people - primarily children - to die. Without waiting for the random successes from what we do for a long time now.

Btw, the whole "theres not enough food / water / space / energy / rare earth x / phosphorus" doomsday ideas always make the same mistake, which goes something like this:

Image

They don't consider that you can't extrapolate like this. People are inventive, they use different rare earths, plant crops vertically, invent new kinds of energy production etc. But that only works when people look at things in a non-political, open-minded way.

User avatar
FlowerSoldier
Posts: 470
Joined: 03 Jun 2016

16 Feb 2018

"Btw, the whole "theres not enough food / water / space / energy / rare earth x / phosphorus" doomsday ideas always make the same mistake, which goes something like this:"

That's so true. That's the Fixed Pie Fallacy - the idea that one group can only benefit at the expense of another group.
The fact is that when a group of people work together, there is always more food / water / resources to go around.
Unfortunately politics poisons the discussion and it deteriorates into an Us vs. Them dynamic.

It's the oldest trick in the book - divide and conquer.

WongoTheSane
Moderator
Posts: 1851
Joined: 14 Sep 2015
Location: Paris, France

16 Feb 2018

normen wrote:
16 Feb 2018
WongoTheSane wrote:
16 Feb 2018


Cheeky. I just went off your "do I want humanity to starve to a size where it can sustain itself" and simplified the problem to "it's either GMO or people will die of starvation" (in the same vein as the "it's either nuclear power or back to candles" argument in the 70s). What's a good debate if we can't oversimplify complex issues to the point of not adding anything meaningful to the conversation? :D
I rather meant that your sentence implies that its "natural" to use GMOs :) I also think that humans and what they do is "natural".
Oh, no, I meant the exact opposite; or rather, I was presenting the argument (which I don't hold true) that GMO aren't natural: "manipulating genes goes against nature, so we're stuck between being un-natural and feeding the people, or remaining natural and letting people die of starvation". But again, that's rather far from my own views (which seem to coincide with yours on all fronts), I was just presenting opposing and oversimplified views for comedic effect. Because in the end, I don't think that any debate will change anything at all. If we (as a race) find a way to improve something, or explore further, we will. If there are laws against it, we'll hide in caves, and if it goes against morals, we'll emigrate to a rogue country, but whatever happens, we will keep altering the genes of everything that moves. We already do it for humans with genetic therapy, and I don't see anyone complaining, so the "I'll allow gene modification if it cures me but I won't allow it for wheat because morals" argument seems a bit self-serving.

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3431
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

16 Feb 2018

WongoTheSane wrote:
16 Feb 2018
Because in the end, I don't think that any debate will change anything at all. If we (as a race) find a way to improve something, or explore further, we will.
Agreed. But I'd rather see famine and war ended in my lifetime than "in the end" :) We've come so far in so few time :o

WongoTheSane
Moderator
Posts: 1851
Joined: 14 Sep 2015
Location: Paris, France

16 Feb 2018

normen wrote:
16 Feb 2018
WongoTheSane wrote:
16 Feb 2018
Because in the end, I don't think that any debate will change anything at all. If we (as a race) find a way to improve something, or explore further, we will.
Agreed. But I'd rather see famine and war ended in my lifetime than "in the end" :) We've come so far in so few time :o
Famine, access to clean water, and probably the end of cancer, hopefully. Indeed, what a journey. And all the little things, like being able to talk in real time with someone who is half way across the globe, access to information for virtually everyone, and a man-made machine that's outside the solar system and still talking to us. War, though... I'm not optimistic on that one. :(

Not to derail, though, GMO is an interesting subject. Let's get back on track!

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3431
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

16 Feb 2018

WongoTheSane wrote:
16 Feb 2018
normen wrote:
16 Feb 2018


Agreed. But I'd rather see famine and war ended in my lifetime than "in the end" :) We've come so far in so few time :o
Famine, access to clean water, and probably the end of cancer, hopefully. Indeed, what a journey. And all the little things, like being able to talk in real time with someone who is half way across the globe, access to information for virtually everyone, and a man-made machine that's outside the solar system and still talking to us. War, though... I'm not optimistic on that one. :(

Not to derail, though, GMO is an interesting subject. Let's get back on track!
Well why not derail it?

It's not really GMO but using DNA as parts for "nano bots" seems to make progress lately, they can build actual little "bots" that release a reagent when a little "sensor" molecule - which can basically be "programmed" to react to a certain other molecule - comes in contact with e.g. cancerous tissue:

https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/12/new-d ... /?ncid=rss

Image
The scientists behind this study tested the delivery bots by injecting them into mice with human breast cancer tumors. Within 48 hours, the bots had successfully grabbed onto vascular cells at the tumor sites, causing blood clots in the tumor’s vessels and cutting off their blood supply, leading to their death.
..and actual war has been in steady decline as well. :)

WongoTheSane
Moderator
Posts: 1851
Joined: 14 Sep 2015
Location: Paris, France

16 Feb 2018

normen wrote:
16 Feb 2018
It's not really GMO but using DNA as parts for "nano bots" seems to make progress lately, they can build actual little "bots" that release a reagent when a little "sensor" molecule - which can basically be "programmed" to react to a certain other molecule - comes in contact with e.g. cancerous tissue:

https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/12/new-d ... /?ncid=rss

The scientists behind this study tested the delivery bots by injecting them into mice with human breast cancer tumors. Within 48 hours, the bots had successfully grabbed onto vascular cells at the tumor sites, causing blood clots in the tumor’s vessels and cutting off their blood supply, leading to their death.
..and actual war has been in steady decline as well. :)
Interesting. They don't expand on how exactly the bots identify cancerous cells, though. I'd beta-test that in a heart beat! :D

User avatar
miscend
Posts: 1955
Joined: 09 Feb 2015

16 Feb 2018

normen wrote:
16 Feb 2018
FlowerSoldier wrote:
16 Feb 2018
We don't have a problem growing enough food, we have a problem distributing it efficiently. About 1/3 of the food we grow is wasted.
http://www.fao.org/save-food/resources/keyfindings/en/

I think synthesized fertilizer did more to increase food supply than GMOs have.

I'm not against GMOs, but I fucking hate Monsanto, and I have a difficult time separating the two in my mind.
Try doing that with the ACTUAL "natural" crop :) Grains in size similar to those you see in lawn, melons with 10% edible fruit etc. etc. And yeah, you're completely right fertilizer did a HUGE part too I just don't see why we would stop at this point because... because what again?

As you say, the topic itself is too loaded with idiocy in other areas but thats like saying we shouldn't have fridges because Saddam Hussein had one.
I think what you are talking about is done through artificial selection/selective breeding rather than gene editing. Humans have been selectively breeding food crops for millennia. It is not the same as genetically modifying food crops in a lab however.
Last edited by miscend on 17 Feb 2018, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
full-of-life
Posts: 53
Joined: 13 Oct 2017

16 Feb 2018

What if you could say; My tomatoes are patent-free!

User avatar
Noplan
Competition Winner
Posts: 726
Joined: 16 Jan 2015
Location: Cologne, Germany

17 Feb 2018

I am not against GMOs. I have only something against many practices of large corporations. Resistances of the plants are, for example, an unmanageable intervention in biological cycles. Anyone who claims that it is controllable and absolutely harmless, that says only from a purely financial aspect and not scientifically. Every action is bound up with great causal chains that we can not easily anticipate. The food industry is a large-scale intervention and should therefore be constantly questioned, even if wrongly. That's better than the other way around.

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3431
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

17 Feb 2018

Noplan wrote:
17 Feb 2018
Resistances of the plants are, for example, an unmanageable intervention in biological cycles.
Well no, thats exactly my point. We manage them for thousands of years already. We didn't know what kinds of resistances we added (or removed) by accident in the past. We just saw the results and managed them.

About spraying gigatons of weed killer onto our soil - thats a completely different question where we probably agree.

User avatar
Noplan
Competition Winner
Posts: 726
Joined: 16 Jan 2015
Location: Cologne, Germany

17 Feb 2018

We manage them for thousands of years already
Yes, but the effect today is enormous compared to two thousand years ago. Not only because of the drastically increased population, but also because the meat industry and other industries need to be supplied by this technology. Since the whole thing happens on a large scale, a change can also have a great impact.

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3431
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

17 Feb 2018

Noplan wrote:
17 Feb 2018
We manage them for thousands of years already
Yes, but the effect today is enormous compared to two thousand years ago. Not only because of the drastically increased population, but also because the meat industry and other industries need to be supplied by this technology. Since the whole thing happens on a large scale, a change can also have a great impact.
Yes but that works both ways. Improving the yield by a small fraction is massive net gains :)

User avatar
bxbrkrz
Posts: 3810
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

17 Feb 2018

normen wrote:
16 Feb 2018
Since we first planted seeds deliberately to harvest the fruit we engaged in genetically modifying crops. Since the 1920s and earlier we used poison, radiation and other means to randomly create mutations that we then selected by eyesight. The crops and animals we eat these days are all the result of these tens of thousands of years of this random gene editing.

So now we do it in an even more deliberate way. We do not create totally random changes anymore. Everything we do now could have happened without us knowing in the past, including what some would call a mix of species. There is only one species when it comes to DNA.

So am I against big companies making farmers dependent on them? Hell yes. Am I against decimating animal habitats for mutant crops? Totally.

But do I want humanity to starve to a size where it can sustain itself as a hunter-gatherer tribe, the only way that could arguably be called natural as in a world untouched by human intelligence? Doomed on a rock floating through space, ignoring its own possibilities? No way.

I do respect that I live in a society that seems to largely have a different opinion but I also feel that many people fall victim to misinformation about this topic.

Sorry for the interruption.

Every individual should have easy access to GMO technologies, not limit it to a few mega monster corp. It needs to be disruptive, like blogs read on a phone were to newspapers made out of pulpwood.
GMO based farming will complete Elon Musk's mission to Mars; highly developed for a specific planet, moon or zero gravity. CRISPR at home will be a reality one day, growing and building fruits and vegetables locked with one's DNA profile only. People will CRISPR torrent the latest hacks for Monsanto's seeds, or upgrade last year's chihuahua with bat wings.
We can't even imagine what the future will bring.

I am all in for GMOs, but not for evil lawyers sending you cease and desist letters because you did not have the right to grow a plant and showing it on Youtube one day.
757365206C6F67696320746F207365656B20616E73776572732075736520726561736F6E20746F2066696E6420776973646F6D20676574206F7574206F6620796F757220636F6D666F7274207A6F6E65206F7220796F757220696E737069726174696F6E2077696C6C206372797374616C6C697A6520666F7265766572

Post Reply
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests