NationStates Jolt Archive

I was wondering what you lot think of GMOs.

I ask, because in my social circle, people dismiss GMOs out of hand, for no apparent reason. Of course I've spoken to people about this at length, but it's very much the same as debating the merits of orthodox Biblical beliefs with insane Christian fanatics. I hate to say it, but it's unfortunately true.

To help get this debate started, I'll throw in a few numbers & facts. They're from memory & most are a couple of years old, but the accuracy should be adequate for this debate.

GMOs do not contain weird animal genes.
GMOs are not released for commercial purposes without undergoing several years of tests for unexpected side effects.
GMOs are subject to far stricter regulations & control than similar non-GMO products.

Somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20,000 people die from hunger each day.
About 1/5th of the peoples of the world do not have an adequate food supply.
The most hotly contested GMOs are developed to meet the needs of countries suffering from food shortages.
The countries suffering from food shortages are developing countries that, as a rule, have virtually no chance of establishing a functional aggri-business without resorting to GMOs.

I'm not an expert on any of this. I don't even have a very good understanding of the subject, to be honest. The argument I hear against GMOs, though, obviously comes from people with even less understanding of the issue than I have.

I repeatedly hear about the danger GMOs pose to local ecosystems & consumers. I understand that danger, I really do. I also understand that the same danger is posed by traditional breeding methods, because both the general idea & result are the same. Genetic manipulation is just much better at getting the desired results & far quicker - and the results are actually tested before they're introduced to the consumers & ecosystems.

Are people just scared because the words "gene manipulation" is a favorite explanation in cheap horror flicks, and death by starvation is something that can't fathom, or are there really legitimate reasons for trying to fight this?

There's a bunch of other reasons for why I think GMOs are great thing, of course. They're less pressing, but still pretty nifty. For example, one of the really cool things about GMOs is the potential for increasing yeilds. That means smaller areas needs to be used for farmland & thus cheaper production costs & less pollution. Even better, more resistant crops, faster growing crops & less resource-demanding crops all mean higher output, cheaper production, less pollution & so on. All great things if you ask me. Not that you did, but pesky details like that won't stop me.

So.. Opinions? Arguments? Angry rants? Angsty rants? Don't be shy.

I don't trust them. That and the seeds and spores can potentially wipe out local flora by supplanting it.

The problem with some GMOs is that they don't do what the makers say they will, and in the meantime, they're used to lock local farmers in to using only that company's seed.

Companies like Monsanto are way more concerned with making sure that farmers can only use their seed, so there's a whole lot more concern about building in the genes that keep the seed sterile until you add the agent that only Monsanto can provide. But then if the seed doesn't provide the advertised effect--it's not hardier or able to survive on less water, for instance--the farmer's screwed because 1) he probably can't afford to switch over to another seed and 2) it's likely anything he does plant will be affected by whatever his neighbors are planting.

As to eating them, I've probably been eating them all my life without knowing it. I'd like to have the choice, which is why I support labeling requirements in the US.

I don't trust them. That and the seeds and spores can potentially wipe out local flora by supplanting it.
I don't, either.

If it's genetically changed bacteria to produce insuline - fine and dandy with me.

If it's genetically "enhanced" crops and animals - I'm not at all in favor of those.

The problem is that, with nature, you never know what will come out of the live experiments.
It sure is very different from any breeding projects, be they fauna or flora.

Besides, like the recent rice scandal showed, even with the current very restrictive laws in place, those GMOs do get into the food chain, and we are the test animals.

The most despicable thing I've seen so far are the crops that can be grown and harvested, but the seeds of those plants won't germinate, thus forcing the farmer to buy from the company anew. WTF?

The problem with some GMOs is that they don't do what the makers say they will, and in the meantime, they're used to lock local farmers in to using only that company's seed. The problem is that, with nature, you never know what will come out of the live experiments.
It sure is very different from any breeding projects, be they fauna or flora.Ok, so your concern has to do with corporate scumfucks rather than the actual crops. That I do understand, and it's a concern I share - both in general & in this particular case.

The obvious solution, and one I've advocated all of my adult life, is to abolish corporations. That won't happen though, at least not for a good long while.
An equally impossible alternative would be to outlaw commercial GMO research. Given the situation, I think that'd be a pretty damn good idea, but.. It won't happen.

Stricter control probably won't work either, because the current problems have more to do with circumventing the existing control and raping customers.

Bad as all that is, it doesn't really address whether or not GMOs are a good thing or not. Opposing the continued development & use of GMOs because misuse isn't impossible, makes no more sense to me than banning the use of penicillin products because they're presently dangerously overused. It just doesn't seem to be the right way to go about it. Not when we're talking about technology with the potential to save a shitload of lives, as well as alleviate a lot of the problems in the aggri-business today.Companies like Monsanto are way more concerned with making sure that farmers can only use their seed, so there's a whole lot more concern about building in the genes that keep the seed sterile until you add the agent that only Monsanto can provide. But then if the seed doesn't provide the advertised effect--it's not hardier or able to survive on less water, for instance--the farmer's screwed because 1) he probably can't afford to switch over to another seed and 2) it's likely anything he does plant will be affected by whatever his neighbors are planting. The most despicable thing I've seen so far are the crops that can be grown and harvested, but the seeds of those plants won't germinate, thus forcing the farmer to buy from the company anew. WTF?Very true, but it remains equally true when we remove GMOs from the discussion. If memory serves, Venezuela got strong-armed by corporate scum to outlaw re-seeding altogether from any crops. The only way GMOs could be a special case here, would be if GMOs somehow magically made it impossible for corporate thugs to be corporate thugs.

I suppose an international agreement to outlaw such tactics & products with the same results, could solve the seed problem.As to eating them, I've probably been eating them all my life without knowing it. I'd like to have the choice, which is why I support labeling requirements in the US.I am a great fan of choices, so no argument there. Or maybe there is, sort of. If the result of labeling GMO foods is an extra little label on everything but organic foods, then it's really just an excercise in futility. For example, do stuff that had GMO products introduced 2, 3 or 10 steps removed still get the tag? If it's unforseen skrew-ups we need the label for, then they should, right? Besides, like the recent rice scandal showed, even with the current very restrictive laws in place, those GMOs do get into the food chain, and we are the test animals.Damn.. In one ear, out the other. I'm sorry my memory is a wee bit fuzzy, but wasn't this a case of illegally bypassing restrictions & control for a couple of years?

I agree it's a big problem. How can we protect ourselves from criminals with get-rich-quick schemes & a tendency to dabble in GMOs, exploiting the lack of functional control mechanisms in developing or otherwise disorganised countries? Or for that matter, how can we prevent desperate governments from participating or orchestrating shit like that?

Even if we resorted to an international ban on GMOs, an international agreement on regulations & their enforcement would still be more effective - because what would prevent the desperate from resorting to GMOs in secrecy?

If you cannot control the GMO properly (which I believe you honestly can't outside a closed laboratory) then they don't have any room outside those confined spaces.

Apparently, controlling big corporations doesn't work, controlling the trafficing of GMOs doesn't work properly, the labeling policy is a joke, etc., etc. ...

It cannot be up to the consumer to decide, either, because with GMOs you never know "whatcha gonna git".

So, unless the GMOs can be proven beyond any doubt to be safe, I say away with it altogether. (That does exclude those safe uses like insuline production, though).

Besides, those chimeras that are build in labs kind of creap me out.
"Oh, look, we took a couple of genes from here, a couple from there, shake, stir, look what we have. Isn't it perrrrty?"

Uh-uuhh. And I have worked with GMOs, too, during my biology courses at university. And while those GMOs were considered to be "safe", you wouldn't believe what kind of trouble we had to go through security-wise...

Besides, remember the guy who invented Heroin because he was looking for something less addictable than Morphium? Imagine that happens with bacteria, plants, or even animals...

We've been tinkering with nature enough, already, without understanding how things work in the long run. I don't want to be part of a GMO experiemtn gone bad.

Oh, and my problems do stay with the original crop. If I don't want my food to be GMO, but some other farmer has GMOs on their fields - how is anyone to guarantee that the non-GM oranisms aren't turned into GMOs without anyone knowing, beyond anyone's control?
Corn, for example, spreads their (GM-)pollen by wind. And it's not like a bee will see a difference when they go from field A to field B. But the resulting honey is a nice mixture of GMO/non-GMO produce.

And I simply don't want that.

I'm for the most part against them. While it is true that they are subject to more stringent testing than most other products, I'm still not convinced that they're not harmful to us. After all, within 50 years, cancer rates have skyrocketed. What's causing it? It seems to me that messing with food could have something to do with it, and in most cases, the risk isn't worth it.

Humanity's record at improving on mother nature is pretty dismal. On the other hand, I have complete faith in Earth's ability to eventually correct our blunders. We simply aren't that important. :p

Rather than quote you, Similization, I'm just going to reply here. The corporate problem is the biggest one, in my eyes, because of the very nature of corporations. They are mandated by their charters, to put profit above every other consideration. It's their legal obligation. So that means that they can shit all over the consumer as long as the cost-benefit analysis winds up in their favor, and that happens a lot of the time, and when we're talking about changing the food chain, perhaps irrevocably, that's a problem.

And corporate hypocrisy on these kinds of issues is astounding. Corporations are among the loudest screamers for "let the market decide" but these GMO makers are crying that if we force them to label their products, no one will buy them. Isn't that the market deciding?

Humanity's record at improving on mother nature is pretty dismal. On the other hand, I have complete faith in Earth's ability to eventually correct our blunders. We simply aren't that important. :p

Yeah, but are we going to be around to appreciate the correction? ;)

Yeah, but are we going to be around to appreciate the correction? ;)

I guess that depends on how big the blunder is. :p

The problem with some GMOs is that they don't do what the makers say they will, and in the meantime, they're used to lock local farmers in to using only that company's seed.

Companies like Monsanto are way more concerned with making sure that farmers can only use their seed, so there's a whole lot more concern about building in the genes that keep the seed sterile until you add the agent that only Monsanto can provide. But then if the seed doesn't provide the advertised effect--it's not hardier or able to survive on less water, for instance--the farmer's screwed because 1) he probably can't afford to switch over to another seed and 2) it's likely anything he does plant will be affected by whatever his neighbors are planting.

As to eating them, I've probably been eating them all my life without knowing it. I'd like to have the choice, which is why I support labeling requirements in the US.

I was eating some GM cauliflower yesterday. It had been modified to carry 25 times the normal amount of Vitamin A.

Tasted quite good, and doesn't seem harmful. They also didn't modify the seeds like that (Monsanto hasn't done that with everything they've worked on).

People have been modifying things for millenia now in a much more haphazard way than the labs do.

My only problem with GMOs is that food production could be entirely dependant on a few products owned by greedy corporations.

I'm for the most part against them. While it is true that they are subject to more stringent testing than most other products, I'm still not convinced that they're not harmful to us. After all, within 50 years, cancer rates have skyrocketed. What's causing it? It seems to me that messing with food could have something to do with it, and in most cases, the risk isn't worth it.

Well, it has a lot to do with the extension of lifespans of late (rarely do people die of pneumonia at 60), combined with an increase in background radiation (from atomic weapons testing), the hole in the Ozone Layer, atmospheric elements and an awful lot of other factors. I doubt that Genetic Modification has much to do with cancer rates. Not even to mention the ability to diagnose the diseases has improved greatly. In the past, someone might have cancer, and no one would ever know it.

If you cannot control the GMO properly (which I believe you honestly can't outside a closed laboratory) then they don't have any room outside those confined spaces.That brings us back to my opening statement about conventional crops refinement. You make it sound like GMOs will have a different kind of impact than what we know from conventional crops, and isn't really the case. We've already cross-bred crops from various corners of the world, intruduced alien plants into our ecosystems & so on. The difference with GMOs is the acceleration of the changes, not the changes themselves.

The danger though, is of course real enough. We've already destroyed aspects of local ecosystems by conventional means, and an accelerated pace naturally increases the risks, since local ecosystems can't GM themselves to cope with unforseen rapid changes. And yet.. We're talking about millions of people who could survive & crops that could go a long way in alleviating aggri-business pollution, which is fucking massive - and that's an understatement. We already know that the level & type of pollution is wreaking havoc both locally & globally, and we already know that the pollution adversely affect animals & humans alike. Last I checked (which was a couple of years ago, so bear with me), males involved in large scale crops farming were three times as likely to be infertile as the rest of the male population in the UK.

The way I see it the problems already exist, and whereas conventional methods can't address them, GMOs just might. I don't think the stakes are higher, because business as usual is fucking killing people by the millions & steadily destroying our ecosystems on a global scale. If that's all the alternative there is, then I'll gladly eat GMO-fed cows 'til I explode, if it'll convince anyone to go for it. Hell, I'd do it twice if I could, and I'm a vegan.

@ The NAZZ: yea well.. Corporates are corporates. Trapping people in bullshit contracts, cornering markets by any means necessary & killing people in the process is all good to them. Giving people an opportunity not to pay them for it though, that's just bloody obscene.

I'll never understand the concept of corporate law. It makes about as much sense as Nazi-Skinheads.

People have been modifying things for millenia now in a much more haphazard way than the labs do.
My only problem with GMOs is that food production could be entirely dependant on a few products owned by greedy corporations.
That statement is so broad, it could apply to anything...
I was eating some GM cauliflower yesterday. It had been modified to carry 25 times the normal amount of Vitamin A.
Tasted quite good, and doesn't seem harmful. They also didn't modify the seeds like that (Monsanto hasn't done that with everything they've worked on).
The problem with todays veggies and fruits is that by the way they are grown, many are bound to have less vitamines, minerals, and other beneficial traces in them. That is the problem, not the plant itself. Like apples and tomatoes which have less "good stuff" in them over the last decades (don't have an internet research source, though - saw on the tellie)
Like those huge areas in Spain or the Netherlands that are completely under plastic wrap (not sealed off, though) - I forgot what they called it... Something along the lines of "plastic ocean", mare so-and-so, even visible from space.
That brings us back to my opening statement about conventional crops refinement. You make it sound like GMOs will have a different kind of impact than what we know from conventional crops, and isn't really the case.
How can you really tell? Those effects might start showing an effect after 20, 30, 40 years of eating GMOs. You and I are supposed to be the guinea pigs for that - which I don't want to be, and it's my right as a consumer not to have it on my dinner table. Now, if it isn't marked properly, I can't tell.
We've already cross-bred crops from various corners of the world, intruduced alien plants into our ecosystems & so on. The difference with GMOs is the acceleration of the changes, not the changes themselves.
Again, crossbreading is a different approach - if it works through natural selection and try and error, the "natural" way, I'm okay with it. But having some white-coats mess with it is a whole different story.
Plus, you don't know how those accelerated changes impact on the ecosystem. That's why I'm against introducing GMOs to it.
The danger though, is of course real enough. We've already destroyed aspects of local ecosystems by conventional means, and an accelerated pace naturally increases the risks, since local ecosystems can't GM themselves to cope with unforseen rapid changes. And yet.. We're talking about millions of people who could survive & crops that could go a long way in alleviating aggri-business pollution, which is fucking massive - and that's an understatement. We already know that the level & type of pollution is wreaking havoc both locally & globally, and we already know that the pollution adversely affect animals & humans alike. Last I checked (which was a couple of years ago, so bear with me), males involved in large scale crops farming were three times as likely to be infertile as the rest of the male population in the UK.
Ah, but that's monoculture taking its toll. Just take a look at how we grow our food now - wheat or corn fields for miles and miles. No hedges in between (would help reduce the soil depletion), no different crops, alternating each year, etc. - there is a reason why three-field crop rotation works as well as it does. Only that instead of benefitting from long-term profits, that industry is looking for the maximum profit and maximum gain instead of producing a decent amount of quality food.
Plus, I've noticed the absurdity to grow crops (like rice) in places that not only don't have enough water to support that, but in addition lead to a very bad, insufficient diet.
There is enough food, it's only not being distributed right. (Obesity anyone?)
The way I see it the problems already exist, and whereas conventional methods can't address them, GMOs just might. I don't think the stakes are higher, because business as usual is fucking killing people by the millions & steadily destroying our ecosystems on a global scale. If that's all the alternative there is, then I'll gladly eat GMO-fed cows 'til I explode, if it'll convince anyone to go for it. Hell, I'd do it twice if I could, and I'm a vegan.
Here you lost me - I simply don't get you mean... :eek:
@ The NAZZ: yea well.. Corporates are corporates. Trapping people in bullshit contracts, cornering markets by any means necessary & killing people in the process is all good to them. Giving people an opportunity not to pay them for it though, that's just bloody obscene.
I'll never understand the concept of corporate law. It makes about as much sense as Nazi-Skinheads.
There's a good movie out called The Corporation ( http://imdb.com/title/tt0379225/ ) and it really is worth watching. Adresses many of those things we talk about here, as well as adding a whole world of others to the equasion. I highly recommend it.

I just have one simple question for all of you who are against GMOs. Have you ever starved, or have you ever seen a person starve to death in front of you? Probably not. Just like Norman Borlaug said "some of the environmental lobbyists of the Western nations are the salt of the earth, but many of them are elitists. They've never experienced the physical sensation of hunger. They do their lobbying from comfortable office suites in Washington or Brussels. If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for fifty years, they'd be crying out for tractors and fertilizer and irrigation canals and be outraged that fashionable elitists back home were trying to deny them these things." As the population of the world around you continues to expand, it does not take much thinking to realize that if GMOs are not used, then the only options left are to clear more land for farms (which will still eventually run out) or force people to starve to death.

My suggestion is to read up on the works of people like Dr. Borlaug. He has literally saved the lives of billions of people through his research and work that involves the genetic modification of plants. Here is a link to his Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug. If you do not trust Wikipedia, the external links at the bottom of the page provide an excellent amount of information.

I just have one simple question for all of you who are against GMOs. Have you ever starved, or have you ever seen a person starve to death in front of you? Probably not.
No, and I don't see how that has anything to do with my personal distrust of GMOs and what I would like to have for food.
Just like Norman Borlaug said "some of the environmental lobbyists of the Western nations are the salt of the earth, but many of them are elitists. They've never experienced the physical sensation of hunger. They do their lobbying from comfortable office suites in Washington or Brussels. If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for fifty years, they'd be crying out for tractors and fertilizer and irrigation canals and be outraged that fashionable elitists back home were trying to deny them these things."
And that has to do with GMOs how?
Now I do see the advantages of crops which are more draught-resilient - but introducing foreign "poison" genes into plants to make them resistant to fungi or insects is another matter, because nobody can guarantee that it won't affect beneficial organisms as well. Besides, just like with poisons, insects with a shorter life-circle tend to adapt to those changes rather sooner than later (like roaches or rats against poisons).
As the population of the world around you continues to expand, it does not take much thinking to realize that if GMOs are not used, then the only options left are to clear more land for farms (which will still eventually run out) or force people to starve to death.
Well, then please, do more thinking - for GMOs are not the easy way out of the misaligned distribution of food around the world.
As others have pointed out already, GMOs serve corporations to create dependencies in exactly those regions you are refering to.
Instead, why not rethink the U.S. and E.U. policies that shield the agricultural markets? There is enough food on this here planet to support each and everyone of us humies - if we were willing to make the effort to get it to those in need.
Besides, the common "we're starving, let us secure our own future by producing even more offspring" is not really working all too well, eh?
My suggestion is to read up on the works of people like Dr. Borlaug. He has literally saved the lives of billions of people through his research and work that involves the genetic modification of plants. Here is a link to his Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug. If you do not trust Wikipedia, the external links at the bottom of the page provide an excellent amount of information.
How many of those uncounted billions of humans who live on Earth has he helped? (Keep in mind - there ain't much more than 6 - 6.5 I take)
That guy is more than just slightly biased towards his own work.

My suggestion is to read up on the works of people like Dr. Borlaug. He has literally saved the lives of billions of people through his research and work that involves the genetic modification of plants. Here is a link to his Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug. If you do not trust Wikipedia, the external links at the bottom of the page provide an excellent amount of information.Now why the fuck didn't I mention that guy? He's been my hero for years.

In all fairness to the people I surround myself with though, I better mention that most of them are dirty old squatters who certainly knows what it means to starve, and I'm pretty sure most have seen poverty related death first hand, though probably not from hunger.Here you lost me - I simply don't get you mean...What I was trying to say is that apart from the label argument, every single one of the issues you raise will remain issues regardless of whether we're talking about conventional crops or GMOs.

The difference - according to me, that is - is that without GMOs, those issues can't be addressed. With GMOs, however, the most desperately important & immediate problems can be addressed. At least in theory. Making sure it also happens is a political problem, but without GMOs, the opportunity isn't even there. To quote the good Dr. Borlaug from memory: "the alternative is for 1/5th of the population to agree not to exist, and I'm not seeing any volunteers."

You asked how I can be sure GMOs have the same impact as conventional crops. I can, because the difference is a question of direct & indirect manipulation. The outcome itself is identical. In any sense, the only practical difference is the speed at which crops are changed. The "How" of it is the same. If you're terribly worried something will happen to you because you ate genetically manipulated crops, then you should be worried about eating conventionally manipulated crops as well. Those are cross-bred with all sorts of weird shit too, and for the exact same reasons. GM is just a far, far more reliable way of doing the same damn thing.
I'm not saying it isn't a valid concern. It is. It's a perfectly valid concern whenever we fuck with various organisms, be it housecats, cows or GMOs. GMOs are subject to a hell of a lot of scutiny (in theory at least. Thank you China) because of the rate of the changes. Traditional crops aren't. Each new plant is alien to the ecosystem it's introduced in, with all that entails. If you think the "natural way" resembles anything that goes on in nature, or doesn't occationally whipe out bits of local ecosystems, think again. We refine both crops & animals a hell of a lot faster than nature can, without the use of GM technology. We have for centuries, if not thousands of years. And it does cause havock every once in a while, because parts of ecosystems can't possibly adapt fast enough or gets killed off for other reasons. It's not at all rare. That we also threaten ecosystems by using extreme amounts of land & chemicals just makes it all the worse, and GMOs may alleviate both of those problems. That's something non-GMOs have no hope of doing.

The monoculture you're talking about is the result of three basic limitations. Our need for produce, our economic system, and our crops. If any of those three issues can be addressed, then there's hope for change. The problem is that they can't really be addressed - except with GMOs. Those just might help solve the problem.
Philosophically, there's a shitload of ways to remove those obstacles without resorting to GMOs. I'm an anarchist myself & I have plenty of suggestions. They just can't be implimented right now, and people are dying. Millions of them. Every single year. I'd prefer doing away with this fucked up pseudo-market economy we've adopted, but bastard that I am, I'm not about to watch people die to make a point. Not when there's a chance they won't have to.

The notion that we can feed the entire human race without resorting to GMOs, isn't outright wrong. We could if we all came together & decided to do it. If we all did that, though, we'd be financially skrewed. The thing is, money is a greater concern than human lives. Otherwise there'd be no hunger, poverty or developing countries. It's all shit we could do something about, if we really wanted.

That leaves one option; cheap, viable resources that will enable developing countries to feed themselves, and perhaps even compete with us some day. GMOs may well be the most desperately needed resource anyone can offer. Other than death, what's the alternative?

Seriously. If GMOs aren't an option, then what can we realistically do to achieve the same results? We're not talking about the cure for AIDS, but when you get right down to it, GMOs may be even better.

Thank you for your reply - it did give my an impetus to think about it even more.

(Then again, I'm not easily convinced, to please, do keep posting good arguments ;))

I'm still not convinced that the big problem lies within the crop itself, even though we've been adapting it for millenia to fit our needs and are now able to do so in a shorter time span.

What I do object, though, is the way the food industry is treating us consumers like children, and introducing their "revelations" to only further their own gains.
I don't believe for second that corporations are working for the good of mankind.

On the other hand, I have learned that food is valuable commodity and wasting it (Tomatina anyone) is a crime. Hell, I feel bad about anything I have to throw out because I couldn't keep up, and be that only a lone apple or something. ;)

I have nothing against genetically modified food in principle. DNA isn't the Bible, it's OK to rewrite it.

What does concern me is what I put into my body - I like to know, and it's rare nowadays that ingredients lists on products really let you know. This is a problem that doesnt even have to do with genetic modification.

It's like when you find "flavouring" as an ingredient. That's kind of vague, isn't it?

GN don't worry, I'm not exactly out to convert anyone. I just wanted to have a go at the debate in a forum where people have the time & opportunity to think out their arguments & look shit up. Obviously I'm fairly bloodyminded myself, but I'm honestly not too keen on GMOs myself. Not because I'm dead scared of GM technology, but because the only reasonably certain prediction I can make, is that corporate fuck-ups will abuse the technology to get the better of me, with no regard for the consequences. Shit like that is the sole purpose of their existence.

So I'm not lying when I say I'd like someone to change my mind. What I am saying though, is that it'll take some pretty eloquent bullshit, or some very convincing fatcs to convince me that my own convenience is more important than human lives.

I'd offer some more arguments, but I'm tired to the point of being incoherent right now, so it'll have to wait.