Metanet Forums

What's your position on genetically modifying crops? it's banned in the EU and most of Asia, but very common in the US.

I personally support the use of GM crops, as they can dramatically reduce pesticide, water, and land usage. It may seem a bit extreme to say that GM crops will solve world hunger, but they do have the potential to do just that. They will preserve arid land, while enabling agriculture in bad conditions. This can dramatically increase world food production, reducing prices and allowing impoverished areas to grow their own crops, even if they're in bad land (as is the case in many third-world countries).

Thoughts?

I would support it, due to obvious reasons.
Cause if we can drink vitamin enhanced water, then why not genetically enhanced crops? There aren't really any cons to it. Other than probably a somewhat expensive start, but overall there's not really anything wrong with it. It's all with good intentions.

I once saw on Discovery, that there was an experiment to genetically modify babies. If that is successful, and is passed through, then GMing crops should no doubt be allowed.

I can't think of any reason off-hand that would make it a bad idea to improve crops.

This kind of science is more inevitable than most of the anti-crowed would care to admit.

I propose genetically modified scarecrows.

The problem with genetically modified crops stems more from the fact that people are unsure and somewhat afraid if these crops will have negative effects on human health over a period of time, seeing as they are not completely natural.

It really has nothing to do with economic pragmatism.

I support genetically modified crops to a point. That point is probably Monsanto.

Deathconciousness wrote:The problem with genetically modified crops stems more from the fact that people are unsure and somewhat afraid if these crops will have negative effects on human health over a period of time, seeing as they are not completely natural.

Sure, if you plagiarize Disney's definition of "natural." What, if it doesn't come from somewhere you think fairies might live, it's unnatural? News flash: unless you believe that humans were significantly influenced by extraterrestrial forces, everything we do and accomplish is natural by definition. Our cities are natural for the same reason anthills are natural. Our language is natural for the same reason dancing bees are natural. You'd have to use a definition like "operating purely on biological impulse while abandoning all social instinct and use of the pre-frontal cortex altogether," or something equally stupid, in order to consider anything humans do in the modern age unnatural. You do know we evolved just like every other animal on this planet, right?

Besides which, that's in no way a valid concern as soon as you remember that a very good proportion of nature wants you dead. How many species of plant in the world are suitable for regular human consumption? I'm not a botanist or anything, but I'm fairly certain that it's far less than most. So we develop rice that grows just about anywhere and is enriched with uncommonly-found dietary supplements, and you're concerned that sometime within 40 years it might make a meaningless contribution to the heart disease that already runs in your family anyway? You'd rather people keep eating plants that are clearly not giving them the diet they need, which is the cause of the problem to begin with, instead? Give me a frickin' break.

I'd love to see you deliver a lecture to some starving third-world country about how you were going to import super-rice that would grow anywhere with minimal agricultural know-how and make their children invincible, but you were afraid it might give them treatable health complications at an age that's twice their current life expectancy. "So go ahead and keep farming your insufficient quantities of stubborn, malnourishing rice, and enjoy your dysentery."
"...what're you, retarded?"
"No, we just don't think it adheres to the fantastical and arbitrary conception of 'natural' of people whose opinions have never mattered."
"Fuck you, we're starving."

It really has nothing to do with economic pragmatism.

It damned well should. That's the most important issue being treated here, and by bloody leagues at that. If your objection is that you, personally, wouldn't feel good about yourself for arbitrary reasons endorsed by Disney, Inc., I highly advise you to shut your face while the grown-ups are talking.

Tsukatu wrote:

Deathconciousness wrote:The problem with genetically modified crops stems more from the fact that people are unsure and somewhat afraid if these crops will have negative effects on human health over a period of time, seeing as they are not completely natural.

Sure, if you plagiarize Disney's definition of "natural." What, if it doesn't come from somewhere you think fairies might live, it's unnatural? News flash: unless you believe that humans were significantly influenced by extraterrestrial forces, everything we do and accomplish is natural by definition. Our cities are natural for the same reason anthills are natural. Our language is natural for the same reason dancing bees are natural. You'd have to use a definition like "operating purely on biological impulse while abandoning all social instinct and use of the pre-frontal cortex altogether," or something equally stupid, in order to consider anything humans do in the modern age unnatural. You do know we evolved just like every other animal on this planet, right?

What the hell is your problem? I was simply offering why the average person is against genetically modified crops. I never said that i held these beliefs. Not to mention i find your "Disney" reference to be extreme off topic and have no bearing on what is going on. I know the meaning of being "natural", and I know that you are simply arguing over the technicalities of the word. What you're attributing to the word "natural" is not what i meant in context, let alone that you're attributing a belief behind the meaning that isn't necessarily there. I honestly don't care how the crops are grown as long as they are not damaging to the average human's consumption.

Besides which, that's in no way a valid concern as soon as you remember that a very good proportion of nature wants you dead. How many species of plant in the world are suitable for regular human consumption? I'm not a botanist or anything, but I'm fairly certain that it's far less than most. So we develop rice that grows just about anywhere and is enriched with uncommonly-found dietary supplements, and you're concerned that sometime within 40 years it might make a meaningless contribution to the heart disease that already runs in your family anyway? You'd rather people keep eating plants that are clearly not giving them the diet they need, which is the cause of the problem to begin with, instead? Give me a frickin' break.

This is utterly hilarious. What does competition of survival in nature have to do with anything? I never mentioned it, and you are reading way too far in between the lines. I personally am not well versed on the specific problems of genetically modified crops, I simply know the over bearing issues with the modifications of crops. I don't really hold any specific view on them.

I'd love to see you deliver a lecture to some starving third-world country about how you were going to import super-rice that would grow anywhere with minimal agricultural know-how and make their children invincible, but you were afraid it might give them treatable health complications at an age that's twice their current life expectancy. "So go ahead and keep farming your insufficient quantities of stubborn, malnourishing rice, and enjoy your dysentery."
"...what're you, retarded?"
"No, we just don't think it adheres to the fantastical and arbitrary conception of 'natural' of people whose opinions have never mattered."
"Fuck you, we're starving."

What does this have to do with anything i stated.
Again you're placing a belief to me, i never mentioned to having. This is the most preposterous strawman argument i have ever seen.

It really has nothing to do with economic pragmatism.

It damned well should. That's the most important issue being treated here, and by bloody leagues at that.

I agree its the most important issue as long as the crops are not inherently damaging to humans. I am no reactionary fear-mongerer. But that doesnt mean the average person thinks that the economic issues are the most important.

If your objection is that you, personally, wouldn't feel good about yourself for arbitrary reasons endorsed by Disney, Inc., I highly advise you to shut your face while the grown-ups are talking.

Besides the obviously inane strawman, putting words in my mouth, and irrationally angered tangent you just went on, I find it quite ironic that you would say that i was being childish.
Are you simply allowed to talk in this fashion, and yet condemn others for it because of your status?

The way I see it is that is something can be done to crops to increase their yield, or allow them to be grown all year round when they couldn't before, then surely that is like the greatest thing you could do in terms of producing food? Although it has a long way to go, it could have the potential to end some of the worlds hunger. All of this providing that the GM crops don't kill us all by then though. :/

Tsukatu wrote:everything we do and accomplish is natural by definition

This applies to instances where people say things like "homosexuality is unnatural", it does not really apply to instances where people are distinguishing between things made by humans and things not made by humans. :/

Deathconciousness wrote:Besides the obviously inane strawman, putting words in my mouth, and irrationally angered tangent you just went on, I find it quite ironic that you would say that i was being childish.
Are you simply allowed to talk in this fashion, and yet condemn others for it because of your status?

Yeah, that's about it.

Tsukatu wrote:Sure, if you plagiarize Disney's definition of "natural." What, if it doesn't come from somewhere you think fairies might live, it's unnatural? News flash: unless you believe that humans were significantly influenced by extraterrestrial forces, everything we do and accomplish is natural by definition. Our cities are natural for the same reason anthills are natural. Our language is natural for the same reason dancing bees are natural. You'd have to use a definition like "operating purely on biological impulse while abandoning all social instinct and use of the pre-frontal cortex altogether," or something equally stupid, in order to consider anything humans do in the modern age unnatural. You do know we evolved just like every other animal on this planet, right?

No we didn't. Nothing evolved. And besides, that's not how the word "natural" is functioning here. Genetically modified crops aren't "natural" because they wouldn't have simply sprung out of the earth, given enough time...just like basically every single other thing humans have done since Creation. The crops themselves are "natural." Not the genetic modifications.

Tsukatu wrote:I'd love to see you deliver a lecture to some starving third-world country about how you were going to import super-rice that would grow anywhere with minimal agricultural know-how and make their children invincible, but you were afraid it might give them treatable health complications at an age that's twice their current life expectancy. "So go ahead and keep farming your insufficient quantities of stubborn, malnourishing rice, and enjoy your dysentery."
"...what're you, retarded?"
"No, we just don't think it adheres to the fantastical and arbitrary conception of 'natural' of people whose opinions have never mattered."
"Fuck you, we're starving."

Dude. What is it, do you have a toothache? That's ridiculous. The problem is whether it will cause serious health concerns over a period of time within their life expectancy (which will, by the way, hypothetically increase once more food is provided.) What if it gives you a nasty cancer or some kind of condition that kills your family?
Then again, death by painful starvation and death by painful disease rank pretty equally on the unpleasantness scale.

Deathconsciousness:
What the hell is your problem? I was simply offering why the average person is against genetically modified crops.

...and I was responding to them. I don't see what the problem is.

Deathconsciousness:
I never said that i held these beliefs.

...and I didn't accuse you of doing so. I can't find an instance of a non-general "you" in my post.
You: "This is what they think."
Me: "That's stupid."
You: "Don't call me stupid!"

Deathconsciousness:
Not to mention i find your "Disney" reference to be extreme off topic and have no bearing on what is going on.

How is it not on-topic? The question is about genetically modified crops, so it's pretty obvious that the word "natural" is going to be thrown around a bunch. I compared the commonly-held concepion of what is "natural" to what the Disney corporation frequently features in its movies -- technology and all the works of man are unnatural.
I'm going to ask that either you explain to me what on God's green Earth makes you think that people's conception of what is natural is "extremely off-topic" in a discussion about genetically modified crops, or promise not to throw around accusations like that before putting a minimal amount of thought into them (because you clearly didn't with this one). Quote the previous sentence and reply to it; I want to see this.

Tsukatu:
Besides which, that's in no way a valid concern as soon as you remember that a very good proportion of nature wants you dead. How many species of plant in the world are suitable for regular human consumption? I'm not a botanist or anything, but I'm fairly certain that it's far less than most. So we develop rice that grows just about anywhere and is enriched with uncommonly-found dietary supplements, and you're concerned that sometime within 40 years it might make a meaningless contribution to the heart disease that already runs in your family anyway? You'd rather people keep eating plants that are clearly not giving them the diet they need, which is the cause of the problem to begin with, instead? Give me a frickin' break.

Deathconsciousness:
This is utterly hilarious. What does competition of survival in nature have to do with anything? I never mentioned it...

...and neither did I!
My paragraph that you just quoted, above, does not address natural selection in the slightest; it has nothing whatsoever to do with it. What it does talk about is how most plants are not suitable for human consumption, and if the issue was pursued, I was going to go into how anti-gen-engers effectively operate on the assumption that the way things are in nature is absolute perfection when it comes to nutrition.
It almost seems to me like you're skimming, deriving what you want to, and then making an embarassingly uninformed reply. In this case, at least, I'm seeing a definite failure in reading comprehension. Take your time, dude. No rush.

Deathconsciousness:
I personally am not well versed on the specific problems of genetically modified crops, I simply know the over bearing issues with the modifications of crops. I don't really hold any specific view on them.

Yes, you've made that clear, and that's why I haven't been talking specifically to you the way I am now. Even so, it's more than a little silly to come into a discussion about something of which you admit ignorance, state what you think someone else might have to say about it, and then take personal offense when the view that isn't yours is attacked.

Tsukatu:
I'd love to see you deliver a lecture to some starving third-world country about how you were going to import super-rice that would grow anywhere with minimal agricultural know-how and make their children invincible, but you were afraid it might give them treatable health complications at an age that's twice their current life expectancy. "So go ahead and keep farming your insufficient quantities of stubborn, malnourishing rice, and enjoy your dysentery."

Deathconsciousness:
What does this have to do with anything i stated.

Okay, seriously?
Remember when you said, "The problem with genetically modified crops stems more from the fact that people are unsure and somewhat afraid if these crops will have negative effects on human health over a period of time, seeing as they are not completely natural," like, two posts back?
Well, y'see, I'm talking about how the "negative effects on human health over a period of time," if they exist, are not strong enough reasons to override the good reasons not to (which mostly involve third world countries needing modified crops very, very badly).
It's clearly on-topic and easy to spot, but you manage to find a way to be confused about how what I'm saying is relevant, which, I'm sorry, leaves me stunned.

Deathconsciousness:
Again you're placing a belief to me, i never mentioned to having. This is the most preposterous strawman argument i have ever seen.

God, you really love that phrase, don't you? I'm almost tempted to count how many of your posts don't contain the phrase "srawman argument." Bonus points if you don't use it correctly, such as this one.
"Oh, snap! No he didn't!"
But no, seriously, you strawmanning doesn't apply here, for at least these two reasons:

• You're not the one with the belief. You said it (multiple times), and I'm totally on the same page. I know this isn't your belief, so I'm not talking specifically to you. Strawmanning requires that I distort a view you actually have, whereas you haven't really given your view.
• A strawman argument is one that takes a distorted version of a view and argues against that... whereas the view I'm arguing against isn't a distorted version of your view, but merely not yours. You've offered the stance I'm attacking as a stance someone would actually take (and I agree with you to that point -- that's certainly one of the mindsets people might have about genetically modified crops). But I'm not making it out to be anything different than you said; your only complaint is that you're paranoid enough to think I'm talking specifically to you, and that's not a strawman argument.

Deathconsciousness:
I agree its the most important issue as long as the crops are not inherently damaging to humans. I am no reactionary fear-mongerer. But that doesnt mean the average person thinks that the economic issues are the most important.

...but they should. That was kind of my point. I'm well aware that people don't think of it that way; that'd kind of be why I said it in the first place. An insufficient number of people consider economic pragmatism important, and this is a problem. Thank you for confirming something that had to have been known already to use the word "should" meaningfully.

Tsukatu:
If your objection is that you, personally, wouldn't feel good about yourself for arbitrary reasons endorsed by Disney, Inc., I highly advise you to shut your face while the grown-ups are talking.

Deathconsciousness:
Besides the obviously inane strawman, putting words in my mouth, and irrationally angered tangent you just went on, I find it quite ironic that you would say that i was being childish.

Holy shit, do you know what the general "you" is? The world does not revolve around you!
If I were to say:
"If you, personally, are satisfied by punching babies, then you're a monster."
This means:
"I don't know if any of you are or aren't, but if any of you people reading this are the sort who derives personal satisfaction from punching babies, then those of you are monsters."
This does NOT mean:
"I have reason to believe that Deathconsciousness punches babies. He's a monster."
This is a very common grammatical construct, and it's not terribly hard to understand.
I am not accusing you of holding any of these beliefs. I did not write what I did with the notion that that belief was yours, and neither was that response directed specifically at you.
Y'know that song that goes, "you're so vain?" That song isn't about you, either.
This post is about you, because you decided to make this all personal, but the last one didn't have anything to do with you and everything to do with the mindset you brought into the discussion.

Deathconsciousness:
Are you simply allowed to talk in this fashion, and yet condemn others for it because of your status?

What the balls are you talking about? I didn't have a lick of ad hominem in my post, whereas it's rampant in most of yours. It seems like you constantly think you're under attack or something, which would explain why you keep thinking people are strawmanning you (in this thread and others). And it happens with such alarming regularity that I'm starting to suspect you do it to feel victimized.

Someone Is Crazy And It's You, by Jonathan Coulton wrote:You set the trap.
You lie in wait 'til someone trips the wire.
Then you jump out and get your feelings hurt.
And you act surprised.
"How did that get there?
Why does everybody hate me??"
We're all familiar with the tragedy of being you.
It's hard to give you any sympathy when all you do
is beg for pain.
Baby, someone is crazy, and it's you.

I seem to recall some study done where the pesticide that was added to a potato genome damaged the livers of rats who ate the potatoes. If that same pesticide is in potatoes sold to the public, I suppose there might be a problem.

The major issue I have with this is the ridiculous things that are forced on farmers in the name of "copyright protection" by the companies that produce genetically modified plants. Apparently you can't grow the food for more than one year--even though it might lower the cost of food and help to combat world hunger--you have to buy new seeds from the genetics companies every year. There's something fundamentally wrong with a system like that from my point of view. Of course, that ties into all the wonderful problems NAFTA caused for Mexico and Central America, too.

scythe33 wrote:I seem to recall some study done where the pesticide that was added to a potato genome damaged the livers of rats who ate the potatoes. If that same pesticide is in potatoes sold to the public, I suppose there might be a problem.

...which isn't genetically modifying food, thats just someone using too much pesticide and the plant sucks it up, literally putting the pesticide in the food.

Genetically modifying food is screwing with the DNA to make it naturally more resistant to diseases/bugs/heat/cold/drought/floods so that it can flourish in a wider variety of environments. It doesn't add poison to the seed/fruit/root/whatever as some people seem to think.

incluye wrote:Genetically modified crops aren't "natural" because they wouldn't have simply sprung out of the earth, given enough time...

a) You don't know that.
b) Given enough time, it would actually be likely that similar strains would grow, since genetically modifying deals with making the plant grow better in tougher conditions, which is exactly what evolution would make it do

(and to avoid the above argument, this post was not directed at scythe)

genetically modified crops would promote overpopulation. so, while there is nothing wrong with using them, i think there should be some population control if we decide to use genetically modified crops. other than that issue, i can't see anything wrong with using them. i think also that Africa, which is a very undernourished and underused continent, would benefit considerably from these modified crops. from that benefit alone, using modified crops is worth it. we would be bringing a whole continent to life.

yungerkid wrote:genetically modified crops would promote overpopulation. so, while there is nothing wrong with using them, i think there should be some population control if we decide to use genetically modified crops. other than that issue, i can't see anything wrong with using them. i think also that Africa, which is a very undernourished and underused continent, would benefit considerably from these modified crops. from that benefit alone, using modified crops is worth it. we would be bringing a whole continent to life.

The thing about overpopulation is that it's rampant in places like the China, India, and the US, which are for the most part places that are already well-equipped to provide their populace with food (whether or not they can afford it or not is another story altogether). Parts of the world that would benefit the most from genetically modified crops simply don't have enough to go around.
If you want to combat overpopulation, this isn't your fight. Let people eat.

maestro wrote:I support genetically modified crops to a point. That point is probably Monsanto.

Ah, this raises an important point. The commercialization of GM crops does concern me - it worries me that Monsanto has such a stranglehold on them.

yungerkid wrote:genetically modified crops would promote overpopulation. so, while there is nothing wrong with using them, i think there should be some population control if we decide to use genetically modified crops. other than that issue, i can't see anything wrong with using them. i think also that Africa, which is a very undernourished and underused continent, would benefit considerably from these modified crops. from that benefit alone, using modified crops is worth it. we would be bringing a whole continent to life.

I'm not quite sure how having more supply of food would promote overpopulation. It's not like starving people are saying, "Hey, we can have ample amounts of food, let's make more babies just cause we don't have to worry about not having food to feed our children anymore!" Hell, the only thing that promotes overpopulation is the need for sex. Not the amounts of food.

TribulatioN wrote:

yungerkid wrote:genetically modified crops would promote overpopulation. so, while there is nothing wrong with using them, i think there should be some population control if we decide to use genetically modified crops. other than that issue, i can't see anything wrong with using them. i think also that Africa, which is a very undernourished and underused continent, would benefit considerably from these modified crops. from that benefit alone, using modified crops is worth it. we would be bringing a whole continent to life.

I'm not quite sure how having more supply of food would promote overpopulation. It's not like starving people are saying, "Hey, we can have ample amounts of food, let's make more babies just cause we don't have to worry about not having food to feed our children anymore!" Hell, the only thing that promotes overpopulation is the need for sex. Not the amounts of food.

Ironically, some of the highest areas of malnutrition also have some of the highest birthrates...

smartalco wrote:

TribulatioN wrote:

yungerkid wrote:genetically modified crops would promote overpopulation. so, while there is nothing wrong with using them, i think there should be some population control if we decide to use genetically modified crops. other than that issue, i can't see anything wrong with using them. i think also that Africa, which is a very undernourished and underused continent, would benefit considerably from these modified crops. from that benefit alone, using modified crops is worth it. we would be bringing a whole continent to life.

I'm not quite sure how having more supply of food would promote overpopulation. It's not like starving people are saying, "Hey, we can have ample amounts of food, let's make more babies just cause we don't have to worry about not having food to feed our children anymore!" Hell, the only thing that promotes overpopulation is the need for sex. Not the amounts of food.

Ironically, some of the highest areas of malnutrition also have some of the highest birthrates...

Ironically? I think you mean "evolutionarily". If they didn't have high birthrates, then those populations wouldn't exist for you to remark about them. Healthy populations worry less and less about procreation and more and more about recreation. Compare: Western civilization to the Third World. When Americans realized they were too medically advanced to freakin' die, they didn't feel as compelled to have babies. Intelligence and safety breed the non-breeding.



Anyhow, like most people, I favor the painful starvation of the African people over the minute possibility of one of them actually surviving beyond the age of 30 and developing a tumor.

Im for GM crops.

Im also for the use of cloned meat, and the meat of the offspring of cloned animals. Another form of food that seems to be damned by the same well-fed people that damn GM.

blue_tetris wrote:Anyhow, like most people, I favor the painful starvation of the African people over the minute possibility of one of them actually surviving beyond the age of 30 and developing a tumor.

Cancer kills, y'know. No one should have to suffer like that. u_u

blue_tetris wrote:Ironically? I think you mean "evolutionarily".

True, I blame my lack of logic on making that post at roughly 1 AM.

smartalco wrote:

scythe33 wrote:I seem to recall some study done where the pesticide that was added to a potato genome damaged the livers of rats who ate the potatoes. If that same pesticide is in potatoes sold to the public, I suppose there might be a problem.

...which isn't genetically modifying food, thats just someone using too much pesticide and the plant sucks it up, literally putting the pesticide in the food.

Genetically modifying food is screwing with the DNA to make it naturally more resistant to diseases/bugs/heat/cold/drought/floods so that it can flourish in a wider variety of environments. It doesn't add poison to the seed/fruit/root/whatever as some people seem to think.

Ahem. Allow me to explain the modification of a potato.
Normally, the common vareity of potato (incidentally, the common variety of potato is quite tasteless; it's chosen because it stands up well to deep-frying.) is attacked by a pest, whose name I don't remember, so it's pest x. Bacillus thurigiensis (sp?) produces a toxin that kills this pest, but not most plants. The genes for this pesticide are taken from a bacterial plasmid and inserted via "gene gun" into the potato gene, producing a potato that produces this toxin (bt toxin, for short) throughout the whole plant. Both the leaves and flesh of the modified potato contain quite high concentrations of bt toxin, rendering the potato extremely toxic to pest x.
Now, bt toxin has been safely used in agriculture for decades, and it's regarded as one of the safest tools we have for fighting crop-destroying insects. However, previously bt toxin never appeared in the flesh of a potato-only on the surface-and what did seep into the potato was at a much lower concentration than today.
This brings up the totally new issue of humans consuming large amounts of bt toxin. However, due to some legal finagling, the safety of consuming this toxin (which, as it's a species-specific bacterial toxin, is hopefully good) was never tested.
I call that an issue.