[ame=http://vimeo.com/26202998]GMO Film Project Sizzler on Vimeo[/ame] Has to be one of the best put together trailers I've ever seen, cannot wait for the full project!
dead serious the anti GMO movement is a falacy. everyone is like, omg, gmo = bad. that has to be one of the least scientific things iver ever heard. here is how science ACTUALLY works. This particular GMO caused a 20% increase in cancer in rats. why? not, omg ALL GMOS ARE BAD gmo's are responsible for over 80% of medicins on the market. do you know anyone with diabetes? you want to tell them to stop taking insulin cause its from gmos? before gmos insulin was derived from pigs, and was very expensive. not to mention gmo's are the reason we can produce large crops and feed the masses. the world is not black and white. the all natural falacy must not be allowed to cloud logic. yes there are problems with the food industry. no gmos are not responsible. the problem is that we dont investigate our own food, we just blindly eat it.
first of all, i in no way commited a straw man. and you definatly commited a strawman yourself, or you just misunderstood my arguement. admittedly is wrote it in an offensive manner. let me try again. It is a falacy to claim that GMO's are bad. Nothing is black and white. I agree that big agra is a bunch of lying theving skumbags, and they are indeed poisoning us. This is a good case against the current status quo, but not against the science of genetically modifying organisms. My arguement was simply that genetics have much to offer, and we shouldnt be so quick to point fingers, and overgeneralize. (also a falacy) Now ill point out some points on genetics. All plants are mostly identical to eachother genetically, and hybridizing, and selective breeding have been going on since the beginning of agriculture. Genetic modification is just a workaround to get things you cant normally get through selective breeding. Its like an advanced version of selective breeding. Now if a GMO plant could be bigger, and more disease resisant, and perhaps have more benificial nutrients, then isnt that a good thing? Id like to compare a nuclear reactor to a nuclear weapon. On one hand, millions of people get cheap energy, on the other, millions of people die. Dont hate the science, hate the scientist. I didnt mean to defend the current agriculture system. I hope this clears things up. I actually agree with about 90% of the things you posted, i think we just had a misunderstanding. I disagree with one of your statements though. "No, it's composed of shades of gray so I can't understand why you see this issue as such a white one. I recognize the benefits GM plants have provided us in the modern medicine industry however, it is a dangerous thing to push in terms of agriculture!" again, its not that GMO's are bad. there is absolutly no evidence that simply being a GMO means bad. We need to be much more carful though, and not just put random shit on the market without studiyng it.
Glad you amended your first post, which was pretty haphazardly put together. We're more in sync than I thought and the part up there is my only disagreement with your second post! Cheers!
This is what I gathered from your post. 1. You agree that we still don't know if GM foods are good or bad, but due to a couple of studies, you assume that must mean they're all bad. 2. You cite the fact that companies making GM seeds are robbing farmers and use that as evidence to support your assertion that all GM goods are bad. However, the reality is that it's not the GM's that suck, its the money hungry corporations. It's not the GM food's fault that these corporations want to keep making money off of these farmers and keep them like slaves. There's still no reason to claim that GM foods are evil. More research needs to be done before banning them. There are still so many potential benefits that it would be a horrible mistake to never give them a chance. This issue falls under the same category as stem-cell research and marijuana prohibition, imo.
Sigh. You gathered it mostly wrong, and you missed my post about the dangers of the PROCESS itself! There has been reports of it being destructive, many biologists will claim that the altered dna is unstable and is unpredictable ESPECIALLY in the long term. They're already out there and very legal - can you confidently support that knowing that there's been shoddy testing and no long term testing? Re-read my post, I used many examples as to why people don't trust eating GMOs and why farmers are not putting up with GMO crops. If it all blurred together to you, try again! C'mon man. The organic/local seedbank movement needs your help here! Don't just troll and polarize!
i have a question if a hypothetical gmo plant were engineered to be more resistant in dry weather, and to grow more fruit, and after testing it was found that the plant was perfectly healthy, and eating caused no ill effects, then would it still be bad for being a GMO? your arguement against it was that its ok to engineer bacteria to make medicine, but plants are more complex. and we are actually eating them. in this case the hypothetical plant should solve your GMO issue? as for using bacteria and viruses to engineer, yes thats one way of doing it. It isnt a good case against the science of GMOs though, as it is perfectly conceivable that in the future safer more reliable meathods will exist.
The problem here is that your plant is hypothetical. In reality, the gmo's being pushed on us do nothing to increase productivity and have not been tested properly. so your point is moot.
Yeah, so why don't we invest more money into finding safer, more reliable methods for producing gmo's? Like I said before, so much potential. Look, this is what you're not understanding. I, in no way shape or form, believe that the way gmo's are treated right now is ok. It's despicable, to say the least. However, things can change. New legislation needs to be passed, regulating both the production and distribution of gmo's. People have a right to know what is in their food and gmo's that are cancerous or otherwise unfit for human consumption should be kept off of the shelves. The answers is NOT an outright ban, but a new system for REGULATION. And, as a final note, I would like to add that if, after strenuous and careful testing, all gmo's turn out to be far too dangerous for human consumption by they're nature, then and ONLY then should we be banning them. Why should we ban them before we truly understand the potential harms or benefits? When has that ever worked in the past (I'm looking at you, marijuana)?
true true false. my point: the science of genetics and modifying organisms is not "bad" i agree that there are major problems right now in agriculture. and gmos are one of them. im honestly more worried right now about the e.colli outbreaks from cow runoff into vegetable farms. the point is that you cant condemn an entire science just because a bunch of greedy people misuse it. its like nukes. yea it was bad to nuke japan, and we hope to god no one ever nukes anyone again, but the existance of nuclear weapons shouldnt stop the science of nuclear physics. nuclear energy can be very useful. so yes my plant is hypothetical. My hypothesis was properly written in an if-then statement, therefore the point cant be mute.