DescentBB

no soy snorting, please!

callmeslick wrote:sorry, but there is NO EVIDENCE in any of those articles about rapeseed crosspollinating with anything other than other rapeseed(canola) plants. None.
So, once again, panic sets in and wheat is somehow menaced by canola.
To your other question above....what happens post- RoundUp? Yes, we likely do develop a different herbicide, but the beauty of GMO is that such a cycle of resistance and all is FAR less when you have the edible species protected against the herbicide? Why? Because the initial doses of the herbicide can be far higher, and thus far more complete in weed devastation compared to low doses over time, which is what had to be done for non-GMO crops.

My attitude is that caution should be always be used when we do something new. Whenever we rush into a new science, we tend to make big unintended mistakes. Sometimes they're whoppers, like creating the drug thalidomide to cure morning sickness or sleeplessness in pregnant women. Any tinkering with the genetic code of any life on the planet should be done with extreme caution.

http://www.uvm.edu/vtvegandberry/factsh ... genic.html

Spidey wrote:Hey, if she doesn’t want to consume GMOs that’s her right, but where I have to draw the line is making that decision for other people.

So do you disagree with our Republican legislators that the government should be able to restrict a community's abilities to locally ban or regulate GMO's?

Spidey wrote:I don’t eat soy either….but mostly because it sucks ass…

Don't you mean to say that it runs out of the ass? And damn, I miss french fries fried in beef lard. Soy oil makes them taste like flavorless greasy potatoes!

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Actually, Vision is talking out of his ass. This does in fact tie in with his future of humanity BS, which can't work if nature is better than people's "improvements" on it, or humans always become high-minded and are humbled. Serious errors have been made in the past, and humanity is not above it now for all that CERTAIN PEOPLE have accomplished. I remain hopeful for what "we" could do, but grimly aware of what "we" are doing, and are going to continue doing. Science is awesome, but people are not. The wheel will come around again.

To speak metaphysically, I am certain that no one is capable of even approaching comprehending creation to the degree necessary to meddle without botching it. People's knowledge is imperfect, and their inner motives even more imperfect, while their situation (distractions, economic motivators, vices, deceptions) complicates their chances to a hopeless degree. It's a train-wreck waiting to happen, and the amount of damage is tied to the amount of energy put into it.

My point exactly. Human hubris gets us into more trouble than we'd like to admit.

And commenting on the original thread, the caveats of Obamacare are seeping out of the bureaucratic woodwork.

http://news.yahoo.com/hidden-downsides- ... 00570.html

Some of this is the fault of Republicans who failed to get the ball rolling early on those exchanges in their states. But even in Oregon, we won't have any solid prices until around mid-October, and the software to run things is way behind schedule as well. But as it stands, it looks like I may be glad I grandfathered my old plan 2 years ago. I'll see when once they get the prices posted.

tunnelcat wrote:So do you disagree with our Republican legislators that the government should be able to restrict a community's abilities to locally ban or regulate GMO's?

I don't think any local government should be able to ban GMOs, because that position is founded on nothing but anti-intellectualism. (By the same token, I don't think that any city should be able to ban large soft drinks, or other such nonsense.) However, I'm generally okay with labeling requirements, even if that opens things up to the ridiculous "everything contains lead" California sort of thing.

tc...

I actually believe it’s very proper for an upper tier of government to slap down a lower tier government when it tries to restrict the rights of the people.

That in fact is how I perceive the way tiered government is supposed to work…(not the upper most tier trying to micro manage the people like the Feds seem to think they have the right to do)

tunnelcat wrote:My attitude is that caution should be always be used when we do something new. http://www.uvm.edu/vtvegandberry/factsh ... genic.html

Interesting summary there, but it pretty much verifies the high ratio of potential risk versus actual damage. It seems like everyone is in love with the canola story because that page referenced it over and over again. Ok, we get it. GM canola is weedier and acts invasively, just as it was predicted to. Then again, most of the crops planted in the Americas are invasive anyway. Two hundred years ago we destroyed the biodiversity on this continent so we can have our tasty "natural" fruits and vegetables -- most of which don't grow here. So the canola is invading the invaders? Sounds like some sort of justice to me, haha!

GMOs have risks just like anything has risks. Nuclear weapons are probably some of the scariest things ever invented by man, yet you have a much, much higher chance of being struck by lightning or winning your state lottery than by dying in a hydrogen bomb explosion. Scary things get undue attention and GMOs get plenty. You are still more likely to die from a knife in your kitchen than from GMOs, but hey, let's not let facts ruin all the fun.

Top Gun wrote:I don't think any local government should be able to ban GMOs, because that position is founded on nothing but anti-intellectualism. (By the same token, I don't think that any city should be able to ban large soft drinks, or other such nonsense.) However, I'm generally okay with labeling requirements, even if that opens things up to the ridiculous "everything contains lead" California sort of thing.

Come on, I'm a science major, so I'm definitely not an anti-intellectual. I'm only proposing extreme caution when it comes to modifying the genetic code of anything. The unintended consequences could be a long time in coming, but nearly impossible to repair. Look how long evolution takes.

Labeling is fine, if you can get companies to do it. However, corporations like to fight labeling laws and they have the clout to do it. I've been seeing even freshness and sell by dates disappearing from food packages as of late. That's something a consumer would like to know, and a company would not to want to reveal, so that their product moves off the shelves, no matter how long it takes to sell.

Spidey wrote:tc...

I actually believe it’s very proper for an upper tier of government to slap down a lower tier government when it tries to restrict the rights of the people.

That in fact is how I perceive the way tiered government is supposed to work…(not the upper most tier trying to micro manage the people like the Feds seem to think they have the right to do)

In this case, who's rights are the locals infringing upon? The people's, or the corporation's? A what if a local farmer doesn't want a field of corporate canola plants growing next to his fields of organic crops? Who's right is it then? The local government's, or the state's? It's not like that rapeseed pollen, or the plants even, will stay put in it's own area.

Both, I would say.

hey, what about the GMO farmer, who can't use his seed stock because of cross-pollination with the feeble organic grain?

(actually, to be honest, the way it works is that farmers using GMO seed a not allowed, as part of the purchase contract, to plant resultant seed)

Spidey wrote:Both, I would say.

So who gets what he wants? Corporations have "purchased" more representation in our government than the people ever can, so what's fair? I certainly don't have the money to buy a senator's vote myself. Where's my say?

callmeslick wrote:hey, what about the GMO farmer, who can't use his seed stock because of cross-pollination with the feeble organic grain?

(actually, to be honest, the way it works is that farmers using GMO seed a not allowed, as part of the purchase contract, to plant resultant seed)

OK, here's a local example. What about an eastern Oregon wheat farmer who lost the sale of his entire whole non-GMO crop of wheat to Japan because some GMO plants were found growing in his field that weren't supposed to be there? The authorities still don't know how it got there. Plants, and animals, have a way of moving around that we can't control. That's nature. We can't keep it boxed up in one area no matter how hard we try.

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/ ... atxml.html

tunnelcat wrote:OK, here's a local example. What about an eastern Oregon wheat farmer who lost the sale of his entire whole non-GMO crop of wheat to Japan because some GMO plants were found growing in his field that weren't supposed to be there? The authorities still don't know how it got there.

if you have birds flying around visibly in your 'local' area, and anyone for miles around has a field planted in GMO wheat, you have the most clueless 'authorities' I have ever heard of. That's for starters. Second, a lot of those GMO 'bans', such as Japan's are due to a reluctance to allow productive American farmers to flood their domestic market. So, for anyone to grow for that market, with those restrictions is sort of foolish, given(as you note) that GMO is legal here, and nature will take care of the rest.

Like I said, you can't keep the GMO genie in the bottle in nature, so it can't be controlled in the environment. I have a different opinion on the safety of GMO foods in our food chain than you, no insult to your degree, nor do I want to eat it if at all possible until the safety and consequences are fully known. That will probably be in a very long time, because genetic changes take a long time to manifest their consequences. Look how long it took for antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria to form? Decades? And now we're scrambling to find another solution to the superbugs we unintentionally created.

funny. people have no problem with genetically modified animals and plants, but when an engineer does it directly, it's suddenly a problem.

genetically modified animals and plants = selective breeding such as poodles, dachshunds, dairy cows, bananas, etc...

because genetic changes take a long time to manifest their consequences

yup. we got some really cute pets, good meat and some great fruit at the end.

tunnelcat wrote:Like I said, you can't keep the GMO genie in the bottle in nature, so it can't be controlled in the environment. I have a different opinion on the safety of GMO foods in our food chain than you, no insult to your degree, nor do I want to eat it if at all possible until the safety and consequences are fully known. That will probably be in a very long time, because genetic changes take a long time to manifest their consequences. Look how long it took for antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria to form? Decades? And now we're scrambling to find another solution to the superbugs we unintentionally created.

It's only taken around 10 years for some pests to build a resistance to these GM crops and after a few days research, I think that is the greatest threat. Directly modified seeds in a laboratory actually is low risk, because anything that is done is done locally, with specific intentions and the results can be observed almost immediately while still being contained in a laboratory. That's not the case with the long term effects on the pests these foods are engineered to combat. Proteins actually serve many different functions and besides building an immunity, it's also very possible to change these insects temperaments and eventually maybe even their very nature. Could lead to a radical rate of evolution or cause a great imbalance in the food chain.

Ferno, there's a slight difference between selective breeding and genetic modification, inserting the genes of an animal, a bacteria in this case, into the genes of a plant, wheat, corn or canola in this case. With selective breeding, either the animal or plant succeeds or fails to live after being bred with a similar type from it's own species. We have little idea of what non-plant genes will do in a plant. We've already seen how nasty viruses are with the genetic modifications they do in plants and animals in nature. By the way, most of the plants and animals we've made would probably not survive in nature for very long on their own, especially dogs and cats, because our interbreeding introduced weakening genetic faults, like stubby legs, short bodies or long ears. Many of those traits we love in our pets would hamper survival in the wild. After, let's say, an apocalypse, most dogs would revert to the original wild dog shape and size, similar to a wolf or wild dog in Africa. Cats may succeed, but only the few strong ones without those human induced genetic faults, like a flattened nose, or hairlessness. But GMO plants seem to be pretty hardy, unfortunately for the environment. And your forgetting that we're constantly ingesting glyphosate, an herbicide, or poison, meant to kill other plants. Don't forget they thought DDT was safe for humans and the environment........NOT.

Speaking of meat, beef is now one of those selectively breed and grown animals that's now tough, tasteless and unpalatable. That may not be the result of breeding, but it's the outcome of our large, mechanized food production. The last time I had a good steak was in the 1980's. Chicken in fast food restaurants is so injected with soy-based marinade to make it moist that it's rubbery and full of salt. Now they want to genetically modify Atlantic Salmon, that grow bigger and faster, so that they're ready for market quicker. How long will those babies stay in their pens before they escape and wreck havoc on other fish species? And, they have to dye the flesh with a colorant so that it's pink. Farm-raised salmon is normally white fleshed, which looks icky to the customer.

tunnelcat wrote:Ferno, there's a slight difference between selective breeding and genetic modification

the only slight difference is the amount of time it takes.

------

between the anti-GMO, anti-monsanto, anti-modern farming, virus interjection and anti-fish farming positions you hold.. i'm not sure where to start.

Time is what's the problem. We're too focused on quick solutions to worry about the consequences, which take TIME to show up.

Did you also know we have arsenic in our drinking water?

If you like to eat brown rice, you're getting a pretty good dose of arsenic too. That's the result of the stuff building up in our soils because of decades of insecticide use.

tunnelcat wrote:[T]here's a slight difference between selective breeding and genetic modification, inserting the genes of an animal, a bacteria in this case, into the genes of a plant, wheat, corn or canola in this case.

Again, you seem to be suffering from the delusion mad scientists are creating frankenfoods, which is not the case. The DNA of every plant and animal on the planet is mostly made up of genes from viruses and bacteria, and these genes continue to change without our help through perfectly natural mutations and interactions. This is our evolutionary heritage. The genes chosen for GMOs are carefully studied and the survivability of the plants are tested in trial after trial in the lab over years. It is no different than selective breeding other than being more precise. That's the important distinction. Rather than using selective breeding, which is a crap shoot, the exact changes are planned and executed.

Of the things you described above, the farmer losing his crops and whatnot, are the legal dangers of GMOs, something I think are evil in themselves. But the farmer losing his crop in a legal battle is not the same as the farmer losing his farm due to ecological catastrophe. I'm all for the science. I'm against the corruption in the legal system regarding GMOs. It's the same as our BS intellectual property laws.

That's not entirely correct Vision. Most, if not all of those changes were a result of some kind of pressure, where most likely some were able to adapt by changing physiologically, while most couldn't make the adaptation and actually died off because they were no longer suitable for their current environment.

EDIT: That is not to even take into account the cross contamination of animal and plant kingdom.

tunnelcat wrote:Like I said, you can't keep the GMO genie in the bottle in nature, so it can't be controlled in the environment. I have a different opinion on the safety of GMO foods in our food chain than you, no insult to your degree, nor do I want to eat it if at all possible until the safety and consequences are fully known. That will probably be in a very long time, because genetic changes take a long time to manifest their consequences. Look how long it took for antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria to form? Decades? And now we're scrambling to find another solution to the superbugs we unintentionally created.

I repeat and GUARANTEE there is utterly NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING about a GMO wheat, corn,soybean, canola etc that could EVER be potentially dangerous. As seeds/beans, they are basically little protein storehouses with a wee bit of carbohydrates and acidic oils. EVERY one of those is broken down by your body completely into basic sugars and short amino acid chains along with some small, simple organic acids and nitrites. This happens before they depart your stomach. Thus, what your body sees on the incoming food line is every bit as benign whether or not the seed/bean is GMO, organically grown from heirloom seed stock, hydroponic-grown in your nephew's attic, or whatever. People get some sort of notion that they are going in ingest wierd lifeforms(in dried seeds?), or alien DNA(see above about small organic acids). It just doesn't work that way. Ever.

Phenotypic variation (due to underlying heritable genetic variation) is a fundamental prerequisite for evolution by natural selection.

The idea of the phenotype has been generalized by Richard Dawkins in The Extended Phenotype to mean all the effects a gene has on the outside world that may influence its chances of being replicated. These can be effects on the organism in which the gene resides, the environment, or other organisms.

For instance, a beaver dam might be considered a phenotype of beaver genes, the same way beavers' powerful incisor teeth are phenotype expressions of their genes. Dawkins also cites the effect of an organism on the behaviour of another organism (such as the devoted nurturing of a cuckoo by a parent of a different species) as an example of the extended phenotype.

The smallest unit of replicators is the gene. Replicators cannot be directly selected upon, but they are selected on by their phenotypic effects. These effects are packaged together in organisms. We should think of the replicator as having extended phenotypic effects. These are all of the ways it affects the world, not just the effects the replicators have on the body in which they reside

So, Slick sees his food as cud and I see it as molecules that are broken down and completely utilized atomic energy. What we are doing is creating a pressure that will skew any result of an un-tampered with Natural Selection within the gene itself. I don't know, maybe it is just cud, but they look like molecules with atomic and chemical bonds. So, it has to go somewhere. We already have a good idea of how to manipulate the gene, but as far as our knowing even 30% of the implications, I still see it as a monkey at a control panel seeing what each button does.

EDIT: Another interesting thought, is if and to what extent we start doing this on the animal kingdom. You don't have to have the DNA of an extinct creature if you figure out how to replicate it's genes. I'm not sure I'm willing to accept a future of genetically altered super anything.

flip wrote:So, Slick sees his food as cud and I see it as molecules that are broken down and completely utilized atomic energy.

Are you sure you don't see your food as gravitational photonic electromagnetic sound waves?

flip wrote:I still see it as a monkey at a control panel seeing what each button does.

Those same monkeys have given us vaccines, anti-biotics, most of the knowledge we use to cure diseases (a lot of diseases), the basis for modern medical science, and still other monkeys have given us things like rocket-ships and the Internet. I feel safe in the hands of my simian overlords.

[youtube]JdhGc_Rma18[/youtube]

Are you sure you don't see your food as gravitational photonic electromagnetic sound waves?

I actually like this, but I see it more towards their total interaction.

They are inherently the same Even a sound wave is a ripple.

callmeslick wrote:I repeat and GUARANTEE there is utterly NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING about a GMO wheat, corn,soybean, canola etc that could EVER be potentially dangerous. As seeds/beans, they are basically little protein storehouses with a wee bit of carbohydrates and acidic oils. EVERY one of those is broken down by your body completely into basic sugars and short amino acid chains along with some small, simple organic acids and nitrites. This happens before they depart your stomach. Thus, what your body sees on the incoming food line is every bit as benign whether or not the seed/bean is GMO, organically grown from heirloom seed stock, hydroponic-grown in your nephew's attic, or whatever. People get some sort of notion that they are going in ingest wierd lifeforms(in dried seeds?), or alien DNA(see above about small organic acids). It just doesn't work that way. Ever.

That leaves the residual glyphosate or glufosynate ammonium on the beans as something that probably shouldn't be ingested, but is usually incorporated into any created food products because it can't be removed.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/article ... le_637.cfm

OK, how about GM crops grown for insect resistance? Each modified plant now contains the toxins necessary to kill the feeding target insect, which is intended. But what about non-target insects, like bees, or even humans?

http://www.naturalnews.com/025287_bees_honey_crops.html

vision wrote:Again, you seem to be suffering from the delusion mad scientists are creating frankenfoods, which is not the case. The DNA of every plant and animal on the planet is mostly made up of genes from viruses and bacteria, and these genes continue to change without our help through perfectly natural mutations and interactions. This is our evolutionary heritage. The genes chosen for GMOs are carefully studied and the survivability of the plants are tested in trial after trial in the lab over years. It is no different than selective breeding other than being more precise. That's the important distinction. Rather than using selective breeding, which is a crap shoot, the exact changes are planned and executed.

Of the things you described above, the farmer losing his crops and whatnot, are the legal dangers of GMOs, something I think are evil in themselves. But the farmer losing his crop in a legal battle is not the same as the farmer losing his farm due to ecological catastrophe. I'm all for the science. I'm against the corruption in the legal system regarding GMOs. It's the same as our BS intellectual property laws.

Despite what you say, GMO foods are frankenfoods, technically speaking. They were created in a sterile laboratory, by man, by intermixing the genes from 2 different species, one a plant, one a bacteria. It may be a nasty moniker, but it applies. And we aren't creating GMO's for better crops. We're breeding for a resistance to man-made herbicides and insecticides, which ARE sprayed in abundance all over the plants to increase yields. Chemicals we created to kill other organisms and plants by the way. Toxins. Sure, nature modifies genetic codes all the time with viruses and bacteria, sometimes with deadly results, sometimes with benefits, like those of the creosote bush. But that adaptation occurred so that no animal would EAT IT and no other plant would grow AROUND IT.

flip wrote:I still see it as a monkey at a control panel seeing what each button does.

Like flip said.......

tunnelcat wrote:That leaves the residual glyphosate or glufosynate ammonium on the beans as something that probably shouldn't be ingested, but is usually incorporated into any created food products because it can't be removed.

true in any case, even 'organics'......the product has to be cleaned

OK, how about GM crops grown for insect resistance? Each modified plant now contains the toxins necessary to kill the feeding target insect, which is intended. But what about non-target insects, like bees, or even humans?

http://www.naturalnews.com/025287_bees_honey_crops.html

the genes in question produce toxins in the leaves and stems, not in the resultant fruit. Wouldn't work on insects otherwise.Differentiated expression of proteins(pretty much the rule in any complex organism) would dictate that. No benefit is served if you have the toxins in the end product.

Despite what you say, GMO foods are frankenfoods, technically speaking. They were created in a sterile laboratory, by man, by intermixing the genes from 2 different species, one a plant, one a bacteria. It may be a nasty moniker, but it applies. And we aren't creating GMO's for better crops. We're breeding for a resistance to man-made herbicides and insecticides, which ARE sprayed in abundance all over the plants to increase yields. Chemicals we created to kill other organisms and plants by the way. Toxins. Sure, nature modifies genetic codes all the time with viruses and bacteria, sometimes with deadly results, sometimes with benefits, like those of the creosote bush. But that adaptation occurred so that no animal would EAT IT and no other plant would grow AROUND IT.

I repeat, again, the seeds/beans don't contain toxins. And, since your reading material seems to consist of a heavy reliance on 'organic' farming outlets, I am not the least surprised you can't seem to accept this. Yes, it is all about higher yields. And, that is good. There is NOTHING except fleecing the rubes that is behind most 'organic' farming, that I've ever seen, and I've seen the inner workings a couple, three times down on the Eastern Shore. It's a marketing ploy, nothing less in most cases.

tunnelcat wrote:And we aren't creating GMO's for better crops. We're breeding for a resistance to man-made herbicides and insecticides, which ARE sprayed in abundance all over the plants to increase yields. Chemicals we created to kill other organisms and plants by the way. Toxins. Sure, nature modifies genetic codes all the time with viruses and bacteria, sometimes with deadly results, sometimes with benefits, like those of the creosote bush. But that adaptation occurred so that no animal would EAT IT and no other plant would grow AROUND IT.

I guess "better" is a subjective term when you are up nature's ass. You know, nature? That perfectly working thing that failed to give us immunity to horrible diseases so we had to create vaccines for ourselves?

We are not engineering food to combat the hostile environment we created with poisons, but engineering food that can grow without our help. Nature is the hostile environment. Weather, insects, other plants and animals -- these are the reasons we have irrigation, pesticides, fences, herbicides, etc. We are making food that would require less of our assistance. Ok, so we make a food with a toxin that kills a pest and that in turn kills another animal who feeds on it. Does this mean should we just go back to poisoning and killing everything indiscriminately with a pesticide? No, because the damage done by GMO crops will likely be less than continuing to spray poisons everywhere. In my opinion that makes for "better" crops.

You seem to forget (or maybe you never knew) that nature and evolution do some horrible things. Want things to be truly natural? Well, let's get rid of most of the oxygen on the planet because that came into existence millions of years ago when some algae polluted the Earth with their waste product (oxygen). Wait, is it Ok for algae to manipulate and pollute the planet but not humans? Help me understand, because I'm not sure where to draw the line. Vertebrates? Mammals? Primates?

Nature created an immunity to the black plague.

..................................

You know medical science does have its dangers.

Example:

Every time a person is allowed to live to reproductive age with a disease or genetic defect that normally would have killed them before that age, the defect gets reproduced (assuming they produce offspring) where in the alternate case nature would have gotten rid of those defects.

The danger here in my opinion is becoming a more feeble race over time.

The "appeal to nature" trick always gets a good laugh out of me. I mean, anthrax is a naturally-occurring bacterium present in the soil in many places, so it must be good for us!

Spidey wrote:The danger here in my opinion is becoming a more feeble race over time.

Agreed. This has been a topic of discussion among scientists and philosophers for a long time now. It seems that we might escape the danger by becoming masters of our own evolution. In the meantime we just need to keep our genetic diversity intact, which shouldn't be that much of a problem since there exists plenty of racists, nationalists, and every other type of groupism imaginable. Michio Kaku thinks it will be many many decades before we can truly master our genes. I said on another page we would get pretty good at making changes in about 200 years. From an evolutionary standpoint this is a blink of an eye.

vision wrote:We are not engineering food to combat the hostile environment we created with poisons, but engineering food that can grow without our help. Nature is the hostile environment. Weather, insects, other plants and animals -- these are the reasons we have irrigation, pesticides, fences, herbicides, etc. We are making food that would require less of our assistance. Ok, so we make a food with a toxin that kills a pest and that in turn kills another animal who feeds on it. Does this mean should we just go back to poisoning and killing everything indiscriminately with a pesticide? No, because the damage done by GMO crops will likely be less than continuing to spray poisons everywhere. In my opinion that makes for "better" crops.

No, we're breeding crops that can resist our plant and insect TOXINS so that we can make MORE crops EASIER, just to feed MORE and MORE people. Yes I know nature is hostile. That's part of it's checks and balances. We keep trying to fight it off for the good of the human species, but is that good for us in the long term? Antibiotics were good, until nature did it's workaround with superbugs. Now we have to make new chemicals to fight the superbugs. Insecticides were good, until they almost killed of entire species of birds and created insecticide resistant bugs. Even bedbugs are resistant to DDT now. It's an endless battle, and nature just might win in the end, and not the way we want it to end.

vision wrote:You seem to forget (or maybe you never knew) that nature and evolution do some horrible things. Want things to be truly natural? Well, let's get rid of most of the oxygen on the planet because that came into existence millions of years ago when some algae polluted the Earth with their waste product (oxygen). Wait, is it Ok for algae to manipulate and pollute the planet but not humans? Help me understand, because I'm not sure where to draw the line. Vertebrates? Mammals? Primates?

Well, we're pretty much getting rid of oxygen in favor of CO2. We're putting pollutants in the water at an alarming rate and creating new hazards, like flesh eating bacteria and giant algae blooms. No, we're creating our own nightmare just to circumvent nature and nature is fighting back. There's always a consequence for our actions, and they're not always good. We're battling an adaptive system. I'm not against nature, or the science to battle it. I'm against our assumption that we can always WIN against nature with our technology. A lot of time, we end up LOSING.

tunnelcat wrote:A lot of time, we end up LOSING.

Show me one place where technology has caused us to lose, I dare you. There are over 7 billion people on the planet. That hardly looks like a losing record. Yes super-bugs exist, but those are exceptions. Antibiotics are still extremely effective for treating disease and infection. Insecticide resistant pests will not take over the world. You are nearly as gloomy as Thorne with your outlook. Yes humanity has major challenges ahead, but we are not likely to go extinct. We are probably the most adaptable species on the planet.

vision wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:A lot of time, we end up LOSING.

Show me one place where technology has caused us to lose, I dare you. There are over 7 billion people on the planet. That hardly looks like a losing record. Yes super-bugs exist, but those are exceptions. Antibiotics are still extremely effective for treating disease and infection. Insecticide resistant pests will not take over the world. You are nearly as gloomy as Thorne with your outlook. Yes humanity has major challenges ahead, but we are not likely to go extinct. We are probably the most adaptable species on the planet.

7 billion people? And that's a GOOD thing? Nature is great, but we need to respect it and work with it, not against it. That's not doom and gloom. It's being sensible and thinking before stepping into the void.

As for technology that has caused human loss, here are a couple of intentional, and unintentional ones. AND, they have to do with of all things, CODE. And we want to muck with genetic code.

http://www.wired.com/software/coolapps/ ... ntPage=all

There is also something called "gendercide", which IS a result of humans manipulating things the way they want, without understanding the consequences.

http://www.economist.com/node/15636231

tunnelcat wrote:7 billion people? And that's a GOOD thing? Nature is great, but we need to respect it and work with it, not against it.

GMOs don't work against nature any more than selective breeding or any other type of genetic manipulation does, that includes how you choose a mate.

tunnelcat wrote: As for technology that has caused human loss, here are a couple of intentional, and unintentional ones. AND, they have to do with of all things, CODE. And we want to muck with genetic code.

http://www.wired.com/software/coolapps/ ... ntPage=all

This hardly constitutes a failure or loss on humanity's part. Software is extremely reliable and has done far more to benefit humanity than cause it harm. Grade for your effort: D-

tunnelcat wrote:There is also something called "gendercide", which IS a result of humans manipulating things the way they want, without understanding the consequences.

Genocide is man against man, not man against nature. It also is not a consequence of technology. Grade for your effort: F

Got anything else?

vision wrote:This hardly constitutes a failure or loss on humanity's part. Software is extremely reliable and has done far more to benefit humanity than cause it harm. Grade for your effort: D-

Hardly. I'll think of that solace the next time MS botches a simple software update, or some software installation trashes the OS of my computer.

By the way, it's "genercide", not "genocide".

Ok. How about all the bridge and dam failures of yesteryear when civil engineering was still not yet an exact science?

By the way, the one area of biology that has had one of the greatest successes and benefits to mankind is vaccinations. I'm not one of those nutcases that thinks vaccines are bad for you.

tunnelcat wrote:Ok. How about all the bridge and dam failures of yesteryear when civil engineering was still not yet an exact science?

Nope, not even close. The vast majority of dams and bridges work exceptionally well, just like software, vaccines, airplanes, computers, and most of the technology we have created. Your claim is that when we tamper with nature (beavers make dams, is that a problem too?) it comes back to bite us in the ass. We have billions of people on the planet. Accidents that involve hundredths or thousandths of a percentage of the population do not constitute a "loss" for humanity as the benefits far, far outweigh the risks. Again, you can be wary of the potential damage done by technology and/or a chain reaction of technological catastrophes, but the potential to do harm is not harm.* GMOs are heavily in the spotlight, probably more than any other technological endeavor. It's safe to say with all the resistance genetic engineers won't get carte blanche to do as they wish.


* Even nuclear disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima, as horrible as they are, still demonstrate the effectiveness and strength of nuclear power as a whole.

A nuclear disaster cannot demonstrate anything positive about nuclear power. That is a foolish notion. These disasters have failed to officially demonstrate any number of things which are true. What they have demonstrated to anyone paying attention, is that prevention and containment of such a disaster is limited by priorities of cost and time, rather than responsibility or safety. It also demonstrates that the news media does not have the people's best interest at heart, and that they are firmly in someone's pocket. None of these things are positive. Pull your head out.

As an aside, I'm a fan of nuclear power. I just think it's scary in the hands of governments and organizations which have no conscience.

If I were in charge, the Fukushima disaster wouldn't have lasted longer than a couple of months, tops.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:If I were in charge, the Fukushima disaster wouldn't have lasted longer than a couple of months, tops.

How you would have handled it? Disasters like that show that on the whole nuclear power is safe enough for us to take for granted, like countless other technological advances.

My only point of this discussion was to point out that man has a learning curve with any endeavor he get's into. I only worry about what happens before we've learned what the consequences are long term. Decades are not long term. And living in a free country should allow me to have the choice of NOT eating GM foods.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:If I were in charge, the Fukushima disaster wouldn't have lasted longer than a couple of months, tops.

I've got the same question ST, what would you have done different? I've had one in mind ever since the disaster.