NationStates Jolt Archive

Good? bad? environmentally friendly? not environmentally friendly?
Personally I think GMO's may not be a bad thing but I'm not sure. "As for Organically Grown" what exactly does that mean and is it really sustainable (from what I've heard you need more space to produce the same amount of food.)

Good? bad? environmentally friendly? not environmentally friendly?
Personally I think GMO's may not be a bad thing but I'm not sure. "As for Organically Grown" what exactly does that mean and is it really sustainable (from what I've heard you need more space to produce the same amount of food.)

Gee-Emm-whats?

The food of mad scientists.

lol *said with southern accent* . . .bad southern accent* . . .
Geeeeneticallly Modifieeed Organismssss

the Food Of Mad Scientists.

Its Alive Muhahahahah Muhahahahah MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
*cough cough cough*
ha

sweeet 1k posts!!!!

Its Alive Muhahahahah Muhahahahah MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
*cough cough cough*
ha

sweeet 1k posts!!!!

*notices you*

Get nine thousand more and you get to be relevant. *nod*

There are always going to be risks involved with, well, practically everything and anything.
The added bonus in developing GMO´s is that you can make it into anything you want.
Add some gene´s from plants growing in soils or climates that the other plant can't and voila, a more endurable plant.
Ok, it´s not that simple, but the overall analogy is correct.
Of course, if a money hungry and slightly corrupt company sells those GMO foods, you can't really trust that they have tested it thoroughly,substituted something for a cheaper counterpart or taken shortcuts along the way.
Oh, and I am against copyrighting genes.

*notices you*

Get nine thousand more and you get to be relevant. *nod*

aw thanks :D

Hell no, I don't want a Gargoyle-Mounted Osprey running around on my lawn! >_>

nature doesn't need to be improved, what we have now works and I can't see it working any other way

Get nine thousand more and you get to be relevant. *nod*

you mean I'm... :o

nature doesn't need to be improved, what we have now works and I can't see it working any other way

"nature" always works, And by nature I mean the balance of forces in the universe.
Even if we were to screw it up, it would seek out the closest equilibrium and run with it. That is nature.
Its like with the "global warming" issue.
People are afraid of change and equates their current surroundings and environment with some sort of ultimate standard.
And any other way is somehow wrong.
Earth has existed for millions of years before we came along, and barring any major accidents, will most likely be here long after we have moved along.

Good? bad? environmentally friendly? not environmentally friendly?
Personally I think GMO's may not be a bad thing but I'm not sure. "As for Organically Grown" what exactly does that mean and is it really sustainable (from what I've heard you need more space to produce the same amount of food.)

As a purely abstract principle, I don't think Genetically Engineered food is a good or a bad thing. As part of the corporatized, "Green Revolution" food system that's been implemented, I think GE technology has been used to bad ends.

Devlin Kuyek addresses a lot of the issues better than I will in a book called Good Crop/Bad Crop that I heartily recommend if you're interested in learning about sustainability and agriculture in Canada. Basically Kuyek argues that the patent-protected and jealously-guarded private seed libraries of corporate agri-business is contributing to a crop monoculture that will ultimately do us more harm than good. For centuries peasant farmers saved and traded seeds that enabled them to maximize outputs on their own land; these distribution and adaptation mechanisms are being obliterated by GE seed companies that don't want their "intellectual property" proliferated and undermining their monopoly rents. The result is reduced biodiversity in crops and consequently less capacity for local adaptation to soil conditions, pests, and microclimates.

Kuyek, among others, also suggests that there's a real discrepancy between the potential and actual uses of GE crops. Pest resistance and drought resistance are far less commonly bred than Monsanto's press releases would have you believe. In fact most research into GE crops has been around herbicide resistance, and Kuyek connects that to the chemical companies that own most Canadian seed companies: Monsanto, Cargill, etc are producing herbicide-resistant crops as an end-run around the expiry of patent protections on their herbicides. Kuyek's study of Canadian grains and oilseeds suggested that yields haven't actually increased at all since public seed research programs were dismantled and the private sector took over.

"nature" always works, And by nature I mean the balance of forces in the universe.

I can't say we live in a stable universe what with all the expanding and atrophy no?

Even if we were to screw it up, it would seek out the closest equilibrium and run with it. That is nature.

no, that is man affecting nature which never really goes so well for the nature part

Its like with the "global warming" issue.
People are afraid of change and equates their current surroundings and environment with some sort of ultimate standard.

so far we have had a reasonably stable climate for our history and even in times when that has shat the bed millions have died, to suggest that people are afraid of the change part if only half a story

Earth has existed for millions of years before we came along, and barring any major accidents, will most likely be here long after we have moved along.

and the dodo was once a successful is and species that had no fear of people :rolleyes:

fact of the matter is this post makes no sense to me and doesn't really provide any argument as to why the inherent instability caused in world markets by GM crops would be negated

Genetic Modification has great potential for entertainment. It'll destroy mankind, but it'll be an entertaining end. :)

nature doesn't need to be improved, what we have now works and I can't see it working any other way
A significant portion of "what we have now" is genetically modified to some extent. They may not have been engineered in a modern lab but artificial selection and breeding has given us our major food crops (maize, etc.) as well as the bulk of our meat (domesticated animals). So, nature has already been 'improved' to meet our needs.

The anti-GM lobby do have some valid concerns. There is a risk that genes spliced into food crops could find their way into wild populations via cross-pollination, in certain cases. However, this risk can be reduced in any of a number of ways. New organisms might have their genome altered to such a degree that they are incapable of fertilising unaltered strains. Alternatively, inclusion of so-called 'terminator' genes might be sufficient to prevent the organisms actually being able to propagate after x generations have passed (although this one looks slightly chancier to me since any multi-generational creation opens up the possibility of a mutation arising during reproduction that would allow the organism to reproduce successfully despite being 'programmed to fail').

Personally I think that further creation, and use, of GMOs is inevitable. In fact, I think it will go a lot further. For example, I think that the work done on cell cloning and lab-grown tissues in recent years will ultimately be used to grow meats for consumption. I have no real problem with that.

The only part of the whole shebang that I have problems with is the idea of patenting genes and organisms themselves. I realise that, on one level, they are simply products, but I can't help wondering how we'd go about settling a claim relating to an 'owned' gene that happens to turn up in a wild population after a cross-pollination event. I'm sure it would be messy.

A significant portion of "what we have now" is genetically modified to some extent. They may not have been engineered in a modern lab but artificial selection and breeding has given us our major food crops (maize, etc.) as well as the bulk of our meat (domesticated animals). So, nature has already been 'improved' to meet our needs.

shhh I new someone would point this out : P

its a bit of a leap for a cat breeder to suddenly start crossing cats and dogs no?

The only part of the whole shebang that I have problems with is the idea of patenting genes and organisms themselves. I realise that, on one level, they are simply products, but I can't help wondering how we'd go about settling a claim relating to an 'owned' gene that happens to turn up in a wild population after a cross-pollination event. I'm sure it would be messy.

your also forgetting that this will kill small farms dead crushing one of the vital building blocks of an economy and leading to a world of a few mega-factory farms

Genetic Modification has great potential for entertainment. It'll destroy mankind, but it'll be an entertaining end. :)

but how do we convince those stuffy biologists to breed moths and butterflies?

imagine the horror :eek:

Good? bad? environmentally friendly? not environmentally friendly?
Dunno yet, do we?
Personally I think GMO's may not be a bad thing but I'm not sure.
More food = not necessarily a good thing. You can make your food more filling. You cannot make your water more sustaining, nor can you instantly regenerate depleted soils, nor plant full-grown trees so that people have enough firewood.

Don't really want starvation being 'fixed' only to have water usage, soil depletion and deforestation becoming a far greater problem in the third world.
"As for Organically Grown" what exactly does that mean and is it really sustainable (from what I've heard you need more space to produce the same amount of food.)
It means growing stuff without using chemicals. Using ladybirds as pesticides, getting some proper crop rotation in there etc.

And is it really sustainable? Has been for the last few thousand years. As to the 'you need more space' thing - I'd rather have larger areas used responsibly than a small area in which the soil gets wrecked and needs fifty years to recover for five years' profit margins, to be honest.

shhh I new someone would point this out : P

its a bit of a leap for a cat breeder to suddenly start crossing cats and dogs no?


Not really, no. We have been cross breeding different species for millenia - ever heard of mules? Every fertilization of a haploid cell by another haploid cell brings with it Genetic modification - just without any plan behind it. Basically if you are opposed to genetic modification you are stuck with cloning (mitosis) as your only means of reproduction. Now you might want to argue that deliberately introducing foreign genetic material is different to this occurring randomly through mutation, but I can't see how - except that it occurs under controlled conditions when it is done deliberately.

your also forgetting that this will kill small farms dead crushing one of the vital building blocks of an economy and leading to a world of a few mega-factory farms

Why do you assume that GM will in any way affect the financial viability of small holdings? In general the intent of GM is to reduce the overhead costs in producing the crop - and it is the overheads that have the greatest chance of bankrupting small holders (I work for a rural credit focused credit cooperative - and our greatest risks are in lending for running overheads - fertilizer, pesticides etc. Lending for seed stock is minimal risk)

Don't really want starvation being 'fixed' only to have water usage, soil depletion and deforestation becoming a far greater problem in the third world.
You might think differently if you were starving. Of course the rest of it is important too, but people are going to continue depleting the soil and cutting down rainforests as long as it's necessary for their survival. Fix the first problem and the other two will become a lot easier to deal with too.

And is it really sustainable? Has been for the last few thousand years.
The global population was not above six billion for the last few thousand years. Organic farming might be sustainable, but how many will have to die? And keep in mind the people dying won't be the ones who deserve it.

There's nothing wrong with genetically modified food; the problem is with the way it's being handled. GMOs could save millions of lives, but as things stand they're just another opportunity for corporations to make money.

nature doesn't need to be improved, what we have now works and I can't see it working any other way



Luckily, neither nature, nor those 'improving' upon it, need your guidance.

I can't say we live in a stable universe what with all the expanding and atrophy no?


"Always works" and "balance of forces" don't actually have to equate to 'a stable universe'.

In the case of natural selection in plants (for example), nature 'always works' because, in the end, weaknesses drop out or are mitigated, and strengths thrive and or expand. But it's a balance, and - when the conditions change - nature 'works' again.

The only difference between that and GM is that GM shows results quicker. Which could mean it could adapt faster, might also mean it'll show weaknesses faster, but could mean that weaknesses in the design don't get the chance to find some happy medium, and jump straight to 'lethal gene' states.

We've been 'genetically modifying' our crops for thousands of years....

You might think differently if you were starving.
Well of course I would, but I'm not, so there we go.
Of course the rest of it is important too, but people are going to continue depleting the soil and cutting down rainforests as long as it's necessary for their survival. Fix the first problem and the other two will become a lot easier to deal with too.
More available resources breeds more people, especially when people are living in poverty regardless. GMOs will not change the levels of peoples' poverty when they're bonded to Montsanto for their short, pointless lives, and they will not create more water for the inevitably higher amount of people that will live longer, or be born as a result of a temporary food influx.
The global population was not above six billion for the last few thousand years.
Indeed.
Organic farming might be sustainable, but how many will have to die?
Absolutely none will 'have' to die. How many will die? Lots.
And keep in mind the people dying won't be the ones who deserve it.
Don't know about 'deserving' it, but you cannot claim that unreformed farmers are completely innocent.
There's nothing wrong with genetically modified food
That we know of, yet, on a large scale.
the problem is with the way it's being handled.
Something we can't exactly do much about.

"Scuse me, Montsanto, your copyrights, please, we're going to produce this on behalf of the WHO"
"Err no"
"We'll write you a mean letter"
"Get the fuck out of my office"
GMOs could save millions of lives
Thus dooming countless more millions by virtue of being born into a completely subservient relationship to whoever's providing your seeds.
but as things stand they're just another opportunity for corporations to make money.
And they will always remain so. If people can exploit something for profit, they certainly will.

GMOs are good. However, too many people see the words "Genetically modified" and think that it's bad for you. GMOs can, and will save lives once we figure out that GMOs make the most of the farmable land we have.

Well of course I would, but I'm not, so there we go.
Yet you still think you have a right to comment on others who take measures to prevent their own starvation? Unspeakable, stereotypical Western arrogance.
More available resources breeds more people, especially when people are living in poverty regardless. GMOs will not change the levels of peoples' poverty when they're bonded to Montsanto for their short, pointless lives, and they will not create more water for the inevitably higher amount of people that will live longer, or be born as a result of a temporary food influx.

If more available resources breeds more people, why is it that the populations of industrialized nations are so stable- in some cases even shrinking- while in the third world the population continues to explode? The real issue is wealth; an affluent society is likely to grow at a much slower rate, if at all. A society will never become affluent if it is unable to feed itself. As for water, agriculture uses a vast amount of it; higher yields would reduce the amount used. Also, I wonder if they consider their lives pointless.

Don't know about 'deserving' it, but you cannot claim that unreformed farmers are completely innocent.
"Unreformed"? What the hell is that supposed to mean? Would you suggest that we "reeducate" the "counterrevolutionaries", comrade? Most of those guys are just trying to feed themselves, and "reform", whatever that constitutes, has nothing to do with it; they do what they must to survive. So yeah, I'm claiming they're completely innocent.


Something we can't exactly do much about.
Why not?
"Scuse me, Montsanto, your copyrights, please, we're going to produce this on behalf of the WHO"
"Err no"
"We'll write you a mean letter"
"Get the fuck out of my office"
So take it out of their hands. Screw Montsanto. If another company made its own GMO products,which accomplished the same things in a different way than Montsanto's, then sold them without the various restrictions Montsanto uses, how long would Montsanto stay in business?

Yet you still think you have a right to comment on others who take measures to prevent their own starvation?
Obviously, or I wouldn't have posted.
Unspeakable, stereotypical Western arrogance.
Unspeakable, no, stereotypical, yes. We live in the best countries in the world. So why should we not tell people how to sort theirs out?
If more available resources breeds more people, why is it that the populations of industrialized nations are so stable- in some cases even shrinking- while in the third world the population continues to explode?
Because the resources we have available to us are produced at an extremely stable level, indeed such schemes as the CAP reduce the value of surplus goods to stop farmers from producing them.

I should have phrased my original point a lot better. The issue is not one of having lots of resources producing a large population (although it helps to create a much longer-living population), it's more of the stability of supply. Going from having nothing to having plenty all in one go makes people cheery. Cheeriness leads to sex, sex leads to more people.
The real issue is wealth
No, the issue is the speed of change in wealth.
an affluent society is likely to grow at a much slower rate, if at all.
Only when it's been affluent for a fairly long time. Look at Great Britain, whose population rose enormously throughout the 19th century because of the rapid increase in resources available to the common man.
A society will never become affluent if it is unable to feed itself. As for water, agriculture uses a vast amount of it; higher yields would reduce the amount used.
Higher yields might reduce the amount used by crops. But the more people you have, the more your water level is stretched by that, too, especially if they're becoming better-off and buying such luxuries as air-conditioning for their homes, which also use water.

And then when you get air-con, you need power to keep it going. Remind me how coal, oil, gas and nuclear power stations actually produce power again?
Also, I wonder if they consider their lives pointless.
Probably not. Will any of the corporations inevitably in charge of producing GMOs see them as anything other than statistics? No.
"Unreformed"? What the hell is that supposed to mean?
Rather backwards in terms of farming methods. In some cases this is an issue which can be solved simply with machinery and fuel supplies, in others it's more doctrinal.
Would you suggest that we "reeducate" the "counterrevolutionaries", comrade?
Pardon?
Most of those guys are just trying to feed themselves, and "reform", whatever that constitutes, has nothing to do with it; they do what they must to survive. So yeah, I'm claiming they're completely innocent.
The various agricultural revolutions are what made Europe and the rest of the Western world as great as they are. Producing a very steady stream of food is excellent, and stops the extreme highs and lows of supply and demand which are really to blame for the problems in the Third World.

Incremental change is key - the impact of very rapid progress has always been a very rapid regression afterwards. Look at Great Britain and the Industrial Revolution - massive increases in the mean standard of living, then
Why not?
Because you would have to pass the costs on to someone, now, wouldn't you?
So take it out of their hands. Screw Montsanto.
Yes, best of luck with that.
If another company made its own GMO products,which accomplished the same things in a different way than Montsanto's, then sold them without the various restrictions Montsanto uses, how long would Montsanto stay in business?
An extremely long time, seeing as it has a massive revenue base from non-GM products, in addition to stacks of cash earned as far back as the Vietnam War from government contracts, and the world's leading commercial GMO research personnel and facilities.

Unspeakable, no, stereotypical, yes. We live in the best countries in the world. So why should we not tell people how to sort theirs out?
Unspeakable, yes, for a lot of reasons. To start with, the situations we faced in the past are fundamentally different from the ones they face now. For another, what would you do if some rich asshole walked into your house and started bossing you around? Even if his advice was sound you probably wouldn't take it.

I should have phrased my original point a lot better. The issue is not one of having lots of resources producing a large population (although it helps to create a much longer-living population), it's more of the stability of supply. Going from having nothing to having plenty all in one go makes people cheery. Cheeriness leads to sex, sex leads to more people.
Given the fact that the population of the third world continues to increase at a tremendous rate anyway, how is this significant? Misery seems to lead to more sex too. If food supplies were stabilized, say with the help of GMOs, there might be no immediate decrease in the rate of population growth, but it seems unlikely that it would increase. Thinking beyond the immediate, it would make the society more affluent, eventually making them more educated, etc. In other words, it would inject some hope into the situation, something it currently lacks.


Only when it's been affluent for a fairly long time. Look at Great Britain, whose population rose enormously throughout the 19th century because of the rapid increase in resources available to the common man.
As already mentioned, the population is already increasing enormously.
Higher yields might reduce the amount used by crops. But the more people you have, the more your water level is stretched by that, too, especially if they're becoming better-off and buying such luxuries as air-conditioning for their homes, which also use water.
All those extra people are going to be there regardless. As for luxuries and so on, I'm hoping that by the time it becomes an issue we have some kind of practical renewable energy source, because if we don't we're probably all doomed anyway.



Rather backwards in terms of farming methods. In some cases this is an issue which can be solved simply with machinery and fuel supplies, in others it's more doctrinal.
"Simply" with machinery and farm supplies? Simple with money, impossible without. And if the problem is doctrinal, where are they to get this information that they lack? The farmers are not to blame.
Pardon?
You blame the farmers for things they have no control over, and you suggest that their deaths are justified. Stalin expressed similar views, once upon a time.


Incremental change is key - the impact of very rapid progress has always been a very rapid regression afterwards. Look at Great Britain and the Industrial Revolution - massive increases in the mean standard of living, then.
Manufacturing and farming are two very different things. A better comparison would be with the so-called Neolithic Revolution, when hunter-gatherers in the Middle East and elsewhere rather suddenly developed agriculture. No regression to be seen. One could also mention the Muslim Agricultural Revolution, which led to the Islamic Golden Age, or the British Agricultural Revolution, without which the Industrial Revolution never would have occurred.
Because you would have to pass the costs on to someone, now, wouldn't you?
Why speak of costs? There's no reason profit can't be made in an ethical manner.
Yes, best of luck with that.
Not being either a genetic engineer or a businessman, I'll pass. It does seem to me, however, that where there is profit to be made, someone eventually makes it. The current business practices involving GMO food provide a great opportunity for anyone interested in a more customer-friendly business model, and in the long run it seems unlikely to me that such an opportunity will be ignored.
An extremely long time, seeing as it has a massive revenue base from non-GM products, in addition to stacks of cash earned as far back as the Vietnam War from government contracts, and the world's leading commercial GMO research personnel and facilities.

The point I was trying to make is that their business practices are stupid and will hurt them if they refuse to change. On an unrelated note, I could say the same of the movie and recording industries.

Good?
Yes. For people and the environment. Not for hippies.

bad?
Only if you count feeding those dying of starvation a bad thing.

environmentally friendly? not environmentally friendly?
Well, they produce more food per acre and generally don't need as much in the way of chemical treatments to survive so I'd say yeah and the EPA and USDA seem to agree with me.

"As for Organically Grown" what exactly does that mean and is it really sustainable (from what I've heard you need more space to produce the same amount of food.)
Organically grown means using what are considered organic farming methods and materials. Instead of clean, safe, certified chemical fertilizers you fling shit (treated sewage) into your fields and let it bake in the sun for a while before planting. That's if you're doing it right. Dumping untreated shit directly on your crops can lead to spreading disease through fecal-oral contamination and that may mean introducing your organs to some new, potentially harmful friends.

Organic does permit pesticides and herbicides. They just have to be extracted from plants or other "natural" sources. Nicotine, a substance so toxic that if you spilled a couple teaspoons worth on you arm it'd probably kill you, is a popular organic pesticide. Rotenone is another popular one. That ordorless chemical has been shown to cause Parkinson's in rats and probably does in people too. In other words, organic pesticides can be more harmful and dangerous than their synthetic counterparts.

Organic means using more land because the crop yeilds are lower. It means using more fertilizer because organic varieties are usually less efficient. It means using more pesticides because the organic extracts don't always stick around long enough. It means using more water because the plants weren't modified to prevent water loss. If only organic were used on existing farmland we'd only be able to feed about 3-4 billion people at the most. It's also approved by hippies so it must be good for the environment even though it seems less efficient and potentially dangerous.

Organic is a backward step in agriculture. Vertical farming and biotech is the present and the near future. It's also overpriced and very overhyped.

~ browses the thread ~

Hmm...This thread is full of FUD, from both sides.

The problem with GMO is licensing & ownership of the seeds - If better crops were universally available (ie. similar price & terms of use as normal crops) then I would have no problems with GMO crops...Well, assuming natural contamination isn't dangerous and that we maintain diversity of crops in order to avoid the risks of monocultural farming. ;) (edit: and naturally that the spliced gene doesn't come with harmful side-effects, like toxicity)

Organic farming on the other hand is much better suited for small scale farming and thus should be supported in order to remain as a viable source of food. Though, with genetically enhanced crops even the small farms would probably enjoy a bigger yield - I don't see why in the future GMO & Organic farming should remain exclusive.

btw. The maxim I adhere to is that you can't grow too much food. :)

Nothing is true. Everything is permitted.