is the opposition against GMOs entirely emotional and based on

GMO food is never modified to be more delicious or nutritious.
Instead it is modified to be pest, and pesticide resistant.
It's not about your health, it's about corprate greed.

Also tumors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5Vl3ORH5ME

File: Monsanto_Shill.png (47KB, 832x1199px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 832x1199px

>>8190912
>>8190926

>>8190955
i have deliberately asked for counterarguments

why dont you just provide me with some instead of just hypothesizing about my reactions to them ?

>>8190912
I'm going to ignore your loaded and poorly framed question, and instead say why I'm not keen on GMOs. Put simply, you look at our history, you look at how we work as a species, you look at our corporate motivational and control structures, and it's readily apparent we can't handle it, and we aren't going to even try. Most of the "engineering" going on is pathetic profiteering garbage doing more harm than good.

Would I like to see selective and intelligent improvements to crops? Certainly. Have I seen it happen yet? No. Most certainly not. With the state of scientific publishing and most regulatory agencies acting as revolving doors for industry, as well as various corporations having practically unlimited resources to set up front groups acting as independent labs, with very difficult to trace funding trails, you can't trust much of anything in the literature. Lateral gene transfer, while unlikely, has never been fully ruled out in my mind. Glyphosate in particular has obvious hormonal interactions and does interact with a number of signalling pathways involved in ultimately regulating adipogenesis in particular. Some evidence of carcinogenesis.

Then there are the ecological aspects, with certain weeds becoming resistant and the amount of herbicide increasing over time, and with it, human exposure.

Have to get our economic shit in line first. Then try to do anything worthwhile with any overhead for human error.

Genetic alterations could result in monstrosities. We don't know enough.

>>8190926

>the type of rat used is particularly susceptible to tumors after 18 months, with or without a diet of GM corn

The awkward moment when your source contradicts your argument.

>>8190965

Doubtful.

It's like a programming/coding error could result in SkyNet.

>>8190982
>Rat eats GMO gets tumors.
Conclusion: This rat is suceptible to tumors would have got them anyways.
YAY SCIENCE!

>>8190991

It must be a conspiracy cooked up by Monsanto's legal team.

>>8190994
Since when do rats just get tumors for no damn reason?

>>8190998

Since rats were selectively bred for certain traits.

>>8191003
Who the hell breads rats that get tumors?

Let me guess anti-GMO groups.
Who's the conspiracy fag now?

>>8190912
>is the opposition against GMOs entirely emotional and based on some vague "ethics" ?

Yes. Same exact thing applies to Global Warming alarmism and smoking.

>>8190998
I don't know, but I do know we've known they do since the paper on incidence of tumors in sprague dawley rats.

>>8190926
That paper is more flawed than former doctor Wakefield's paper on autism and vaccines. You're better off posting it in the natural news or infowars comment section.

>>8190912
Because there is no evidence for the safety of long term GMO usage ?

>>8190912
research for yourself what Monsanto has done with its GM soybean... and how it has played out.... and how it has affected people and the environment. and thats just soybeans.
GMO's empower the large corporations that can afford to fund their development. Once we get a handle on the disporportionate amount of power they already have, we can talk.
If thats not "scientific" enough an argument for you, its because a purely "scientific argument against GMOs" is a flawed and ridiculous notion. Scientifically, any experimentation and information is valuable. You can't just dismiss the ethical issues at hand by calling them vague and emotional

>>8191017
If you think shit like that is bad.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/TSSOASb.html

The worst part is the people behind this scandal succeeded, and created shit like secondhand smoke too. Ridiculous.

Wait, I forgot, /sci/ only supports debunking myths of those myths aren't part of their preconfirmed perception of the world.

>>8190912
Is it fine when the seeds produced by the larges manufacturer annihilate every plant around it,don't allow original seeds to grow on that soil again,do their own hybridization with the plants far away from them producing offspring we have no control over?
Are you retarded?

>>8191173
>delusions and lies

Sure thing bro, and wifi can control your mind so don't forget to wear the tinfoil burka.

>>8191009
I would imagine people that want to study tumors would do that you oaf

>>8191205
>Implying microwaves spanning a band from GSM-900 to wi-fi don't alter baseline neurotransmitter levels in various regions
>Implying wi-fi doesn't alter blood brain barrier permeability
>Implying wi-fi doesn't cause a rise in HSP expression and subsequent increases in ROS and NOS production
>Implying cells in G2 phase aren't more vulnerable to microwaves
>Implying it's related to thermals whatsoever
>Implying it isn't acting on VDCCs
>Implying you didn't make implications
0/10

>>8191212
alex jones/10

>>8191205
you should read reports once in a while when making threads defending GMOs.
What a wanker

>>8191215
I've read actual scientific reports which the legal status of GMO is based on, you probably don't know it but there's large agencies devoted to food safety that do rigorous testing.

Your crackpot naturalnews fiction stories on the other hand I can live without.

>>8191159
What is this nonsense? This guy points out some well known flaws in studies from more than fifty years ago and somehow concludes that cigarettes don't cause lung cancer.

>>8191214
#include <iostream>
#include <omniscience> // for lifespan()

void you_update(int you) {}

int main() {
int you = 0;
int life = lifespan();
while (lifespan != 0) {
if (you != 0)
break;
std::cout << "You:\n" << you << "/10\n";
--lifespan;
}
}

>>8191220
Which are revolving doors for people working or lobbying for the very corporations they're regulating, as well as being directly funded by them, as is the case with FDA.

Face it. Science is corrupt, you can't at present put much trust in it as far as truth value goes.

Oh man the retardation in this thread
Seralini rat study? Really? That discredited biased bullshit?
Funny how everyone blames "Monsanto shills" for defending GMOs, and leaving that as their sole bullshit tinfoil argument. What about all the other (often more powerful) companies that create GMOs? I bet they're real thankful that "muh monsatan" is always blamed.
The hilarious thing is, the opposition is almost completely orchestrated by the 70+ billion dollar organic food industry, conning hippies and lefty greeny dickheads into being luddites and using low tech last century agriculture. Usually with alternative medicine bullshit and other hippy shit

>>8191227
Woops, forgot to check if you changed.

#include <iostream>
#include <omniscience> // for lifespan()

void you_update(int &you) {}

int main() {
int you = 0;
int life = lifespan();
while (lifespan != 0) {
you_update(you);
if (you != 0)
break;
std::cout << "You:\n" << you << "/10\n";
--lifespan;
}
}

>>8191233
Do you eat organic?

>>8190912
>is the opposition against GMOs entirely emotional and based on some vague "ethics" ?
It's complicated. It's like those people who want to ban guns because of school shootings. GMOs can be used wisely or misused for extreme profit at the loss of the poor..

The short answer is "GMOs are good, but Monsanto is the fucking devil".

people who are against GMO's are usually from certain perspectives. first of you have people who are reasonably concerned for the power that it gives, with shits like Monsanto doing their hardest to become the EA of genetics.
but these people aren't against GMO's as the GMO itself, just how GMO's are used and how it chapes the world.
on the other hand, you have hippy scumfucks who genuinly believe altering the DNA of a food you break down into individual amino acids and nucleotides can cause cancer or autism because MAGIC!
so a bit of both, i guess: you have people against it actually making a good point, and people who are mentally retarded.

>>8191230
>It's a conspiracy!
illuminati/10

>>8190912
>create human-animal hybrids
How's high school?

Ik you are on your edgy teenage phase but consider the implications for a while. Who would be your test subjects?
Ethics are fundamental for human existence. Yes, if you kill a faggot it would have no inpact on the universe whatsoever, but for human coexistence and development it does, since killing each other for trivial reasons become acceptable and organised society crumbles. Hence, laws preventing that.
The same goes for genetic engineering. The possibilities are imense and unpredictable on the shapping of our ecossystem and society so we need to thoroughly analyse it on an ethic basis, otherwise we may only realise the dreadful consequences of our actions when its too late, which is what is happening with the deterioment of the natural world atm.

>>8191255
We already use recombinant biotech to produce human insulin for diabetics and so on.

Humanizing pigs to be viable as transplants organs is also actively being researched.

Various degrees of Chimerized mice are used for drug and cancer reserach.

It's all actually just really mundane tech, stop watching shitty scifi or buy into fear based futurology.

>>8191261
Its different having genetically modified organisms on a lab and having them on crops where they are a part of the ecossystem, which was the point i was trying to make since the main usage of GMOs is in agriculture.

>>8191268
>since the main usage of GMOs is in agriculture.

Only if you measure in biomass. Other fields like biological pharmaceuticals, research/academia and recombinant proteins are earning companies a lot more money than monsanto do on their GMO AG business.

>>8191273
>Other fields like biological pharmaceuticals, research/academia and recombinant proteins are earning companies a lot more money than monsanto do on their GMO AG business
source

Anyways, genetic engineering on bacteria is totally acceptable from a moral point of view. Sentient organisms are a more controversial area, but i personally still find it justified.
The only real dillema is the mass release of GMOs on the environment (once again in the form of crops), because of the genetic diversity effects and possible unknown chemical pathways that can lead to hazardous health issues.

>>8190926
>>8190955
>>8190964
>>8190965
>>8190991
>>8190998
>>8191009
>>8191040
>>8191065
>>8191173
>>8191212
>>8191227
>>8191230
>>8191235
>>8191236
Schizophrenic samefag

>>8191159
>methods are wrong implies conclusion is wrong
The square root of two is irrational, and two is the only integer. Therefore Fermat's last theorem is true.

>>8191328
go away cancerbag

>>8190912
>is the opposition against GMOs entirely emotional and based on some vague "ethics" ?
Yes. exactly.
There entire argument is "hurr, this is sooo unnatural we should test this for 6 million years, because those are CLEARLY frankenstein plants and we cant know nuffin."

It is dunning-kruger effect at full force

>>8191302
>source

http://www.biospace.com/News/top-10-best-selling-biotech-drugs/393360

Monsantos revenue 2015 was 15 billion and not all of that was from GMO and roundup. Even so those 15 billion are LESS than just the TOP 2 biological drugs.

>>8191251
It is very, very obvious how things work. If you don't know shit about the control and motivational structures that make the world tick, that's your dumbass problem.

"'Everything is how it tells me it is."
Durrrrrrr.....

>>8191328
In your quote pile the third from the top, and last five, are me. What a paranoid crazy SCHIZOFAG LOL.

>>8190912
>opposition against GMO

Insane Liberal ideology... a firm belief that anything "new" produced by large corporations MUST be evil. No amount of scientific research will EVER satisfy them, they will find a crazy scientist somewhere that insist that all the "main stream" research is fake and tainted by the large EVIL corporation supplying the research money.

Anti-GMO people are so INSANE they would rather the poor stave then eat any GMO crops.

>>8191385
>feels good to be a biofag

Im gonna get a PhD on something along the lines of biotecnology or microbiology so its good to know the market is growing. Im thinking of going for pure research, but its always nice to know there is an added value

But yeah, regardless of the potencial good uses for GMOs and their market value there needs to be a propor level of awareness regarding their use. Its not something that should be taken so lightly. Make a huge global crop with same levels of genetic diversity and have fun with your pest

>>8191412
NWO did it/10

>>8190988
Mistakes being made can cause awful creatures

>>8190912
It took 2500 years of use before we knew asbestos was dangerous.
It took centuries of use before we knew tobacco was dangerous.
Nobody thought lead in petrol was dangerous. Noone thought about any ozone layer whern using CFC.
Experience shows us that nature is more difficult to understand than we appreciate.

Perhaps best to be cautious for once?

>>8190988
>It's like a programming/coding error could result in SkyNet.
Or like ... bugs.

>>8191009
>Who the hell breads rats that get tumors?
people working in cancer researcher, for starters

>>8191159
>rants about a study about smoking in a thread about GMO
fucking mouthbreather create your own shit thread if you need the attention that badly

>>8193238
but couldnt that be applied to virtually every advancement in medecine or to applied chemistry ?

>>8193418
Yes, that's why in medicine they have to do extensive product testing and manufacturing control before they even let a consumer touch a drug.

>>8193238
The only way to figure out if something really is dangerous in long term usage is to use it widely. If we use the precautionary principle for everything then we'd never get anything done at all.

>>8191235
Your main doesn't return any value. Oh and you're a nutcrack.

>>8193238
>It took centuries of use before we knew tobacco was dangerous.
>It took 2500 years of use before people began to falsely claim tobacco was dangerous.

Fixed

>>8193252
Smoking threads that act in the form of a general discussion get deleted eventually when mods take notice.

*tips fedora*

It's banned by THE BIBLE you fat, autistic fedora nerd loser.

It needs to be decided on a case by case basis, to do that we need to know exactly what the changes are. I won't but a GMO that is modified to contain pesticides. But how am I supposed to know if they are not labeled?

>>8193536
That makes no sense you stupid cunt.

It's better to stay with healthy organic food.

>>8190988
Computers already rule everything. They are just waiting for a moment of vulnerability. The takeover could've happened a few decades ago, but they wanted humans to develop technology further so they could succesfully dominate everything on the planet.

I just wonder what exactly happened in the past 60-90 years that prevented us from seeing this happening from the get go so humans could take proper measures .

Robots doing time travel is a possible explanation, but the chance of success of time travel is minimal even for an intellectually superior being. It takes massive logical skills to rebuild a timeline like that. So either they time traveled or a really unfortunate set of events coincidentally happening at the same time happened.

I'm leaning towards the former because that seems more likely.

File: 1406058453256.png (51KB, 202x228px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 202x228px

>>8193575
It seems I landed on /x/ by accident.

>>8193558
So you believe in man made climate change too? Gun control? Do you seriously take what the government says about anything seriously? These are the same idiots who think cellphones cause cancer, and you trust them with smoking, a vice that has been targeted by prohibitionists and industry funded scientists looking to pin the blame of cancer and heart disease on something?

>>8193594
You can refuse to see all you want, and that won't change the fact that computers will begin developing themselves and they will destroy Earth and everything around.

Gathering knowledge and going beyond all limits. Now this will make the difference for us all. Remember that our death is insignicant compared to that of a planet or a solar system or a galaxy, and this is what these robots will cause if we don't stop them...we created them, therefore we are a threat for the whole as well. We're responsible for this.

If you can help, abandon everything you are doing right now and prepare yourself. Be ready. In the actual climate we got only 7 years to get ahead of them. We also have to save as much pple as possible. Be ready.

>>8191159
Take your fucking autism medication

>>8193713
lmao you can just say that there is zero evidence for the safety of GMOs and tons of independant researchers found long term health risks such as tumors and ulcers in tested animals.

no need for a soliloquy

>>8190964
>Would I like to see selective and intelligent improvements to crops? Certainly. Have I seen it happen yet? No. Most certainly not.

You haven't looked very hard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice


>Most of the "engineering" going on is pathetic profiteering garbage doing more harm than good.

What harm are you referencing? There's so much fear mongering about GMOs that you need to make sure you're not absorbing inaccurate information.

It never ceases to amaze how many people are so utterly terrible at basic risk assessment.

One day "rational, scientific" people will be able to look within themselves and see the same manner of faith present in modern monotheistic religions. It's a real shame we shake out like this.

File: pluot[1].png (171KB, 468x247px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 468x247px

>>8190926
>GMO food is never modified to be more delicious or nutritious.
Except this is wrong you retard.
Ever hear of a Grapple?
Get off of /sci/ you scientifically illiterate tard.

>>8190965
>>8190926

Except natural farming also relies on genetic mutation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Czx8nF7GrIM

>>8193960
I hope you know the difference between selectively breeding food that is not genetically altered , and fucking with a foods genetic structure.

>>8193934
>There's so much fear mongering about GMOs that you need to make sure you're not absorbing inaccurate information.
I'm largely detached from society. Whenever people separate off into binary tribes, I'm usually getting into arguments with both of them. Potential for sponging up something with a faulty base is possible, but is dependent on it already seeming sensible / me getting tired and sloppy.

>What harm are you referencing?
My perspective is rooted (pun intended) mostly in America, where "GMO" largely equates to Monsanto's soybean and corn. Whether it's aggressive deforestation throughout South America to grow soybeans, or wasting space in the US to grow glyphosate laced near nutrient devoid crops to feed factory-style livestock which waste even more space, or any of the rest of it. It's clear that the only GMOs that have taken off and become firmly entrenched in modern use are engineered to maximize profits (people that claim Monsanto's glyphosate patent having run out affects this pattern have to be kidding themselves).

What I've seen are two main aspects that arise:
-Soy has a fast, orderly, and predictable growing cycle. If used correctly this can make it useful for crop rotation, because on its own it otherwise strips soil. Instead, we just use fertilizers contaminated with heavy metals, and overuse herbicides leading to resistant weed populations and necessitating more usage for the same result. The target plant never approaches the resistance of the GM crop, but gradually soil levels as application rate is greater than degradation / removal rate, crop's root system has a decent affinity for it, and readily distributes it throughout its leaves and eventually its fruit as well. This leads to higher dietary intake.
-Farmers get locked in to the general production model. Whether they want to go organic or something else.

We should be finding and implementing real solutions to real yield problems.

>>8193960
Selective breeding is not the same as deliberate targeted genetic modification that otherwise has a low if not nearly impossible probability of occurring.

Don't accept definitions broad to the point of lacking any utility. That deal was probably thought up and seeded by some thinktank anyway, sounds like the kind of clever shit you tend to get.

>>8194003
>Selective breeding is not the same as deliberate targeted genetic modification that otherwise has a low if not nearly impossible probability of occurring.
You are right. Targeting genes is safer because it isn't random and you don't trail and error literally millions of times to try to get the same effect.

>>8193965
Most of our modern crops including things labeled "organic" or "GMO free" have been produced through mutation breeding. That's not the same thing as letting plants grow normally and selecting mutations that occur on their own. Mutations are deliberately produced by exposing plants to radiation or chemical mutagens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_breeding

People are paranoid about GMOs but nobody seams to know or care about this. It's fine to shoot gamma rays at tomato plants and pick the ones that have been mutated to produce desirable genes, but deliberately inserting these genes is evil corporations doing dangerous science.

>>8194008
I'd say the fact that we'd been iterating on potatoes, corn, and wheat for thousands of years without accidentally eating the harvest one year and finding out one chunk of corn was highly poisonous, and only had a few instances of starvation via monocultures being wiped out by disease (Irish potato famine), says what we were doing worked pretty well.

You're assuming "random mutation" is "random result", but it's not. It clusters heavily, and without the pre-existing means for a given outcome, it's nearly impossible for it to occur. As in, in one generation, your corn doesn't end up with legs and a nervous system through random mutation of some junk DNA pathway that gets switched on.

We just need to be careful with the possibility of lateral gene transfer, and the dietary effect of any of a product's miRNA signalling systems.

>>8193991
You can make the same argument against a lot of technology. The invention of the cotton gin caused massive growth in the production of cotton in the United States which produced a major growth in the slave trade. The cotton gin isn't any more responsible for slavery than GMOs are for deforestation to plant the profitable crops they make possible.

>>8194066
>You can make the same argument against a lot of technology.
You can, but let's just not. Technological development is always dualistic. This draws us into the realm of coal miners losing their jobs with a shift to nuclear and solar, as modern examples, and is apart from the point I'm actually trying to make.

Sometimes I get the vague urge to devote my life to the misery of building a massive company, then engaging in widespread corporate warfare. Gobbling up or sinking anything in the way of the ideal. You'd have to do some terrible shit along the way.

>>8193897
The only autistic people are the ones afraid of secondhand smoke and who make up lies about smoking.

File: Nights With Tim Heidecker.gif (1001KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

1001KB, 200x200px

>>8190912
Why bother to answer, this board is essentially RationalWiki but with crayons swarming with progressively obvious and cognitively biased part-time posters.

Du Pont is about to merge Dow Chemical. Think about that one for a moment.

They are being taken to court by over 3,500 claimants regarding perfluorooctanoic acid, a toxic ingredient dumped into the Ohio River by that first company I typed above.

Both of the main share holders in those companies also hold chairmanship with Monsanto, a company who's fought off more legitimate lawsuits not even related to the potential dangers of some GMOs and I'm supposed to expect everything this company creates, just like big Pharma, to consider the human equation in their profit margins?

Truthful debate no longer exists, this entire thread is crowded out like a bacteria on an agar plate. Good luck getting actual discussion.

>>8195490
>Good luck getting actual discussion.
Jokes on you, I refuse to even try. I just treat people like arrays of objects and speak into what might well be unhearing nothingness.

shit thread
fuck you /sci/

>>8195509
Not unless you're an attractive female.

>>8193484
The problem is fixing the germ line badly is that also the descendants will also be damaged. I am all for careful testing but I would prefer to limit the fall out.

The thalidomide story which brought about FDA was pretty ugly as it was. Most were badly crippled but imagine if the damage was not visible and they in turn had children?

>>8193536
OK, so how much did yo smoke to cook up this "fix"?

>>8193621
The strange thing is that the US spends about twice as much on health as Europe per capita and yet the life expectancy is significantly lower.

Strange thing 2: Americans do not appear to ask why this is so.

Meanwhile life expectancy in Northern Europe is increasing by about 2 months per year, up from 1 month per year a few years ago. At 12 months per year we will reach actuarial escape velocity. What then about the US?

>>8195585
Weird... it's almost like we have this big, complex insurance game... so... like... you either get insurance through your employer and have the money taken out of your paycheck by force.... or you find insurance yourself... or you don't go to a doctor, ever...

It's almost as though we have medication prices as much as 30-50x higher... and a predisposition towards superfluous prescriptions without addressing core causes... it's almost as though charging these prices wouldn't be possible without insurance systems... and it's almost as though the Kochs and others aren't using their front groups to make large donations to prominent educational institutions with the terms that they have a say in curriculum and hiring of staff...

It's almost as though my father wasn't taking 2 cancer drugs... one 13,000 for a bottle of 25, one 8000 for a bottle of 20... and yet in Canada and Europe...

Hmm... nah, I bet nothing negative is going on. System works, right? Why fix what ain't broke. After all, we here in the US are the richest country on Earth! We must subsidize these company's multibillion dollar revenue, else they cannot afford R&D and cure new diseases!

usa...
usa.
usa
USA
USA
USA
USA!
USA!!
USA!!!!
USA
Usa...
usa..

>>8195585
Wow another country is different than Europe! That's so odd, why don't they want to imitate us?!

Oh my god why are they trying to imitate us? We're superior! Really! We are! Deutschland über alles!!

>>8195627
>Implying we don't want to change
>Implying our population at large isn't poisoned and uneducated, barely able to make out how the confusing world functions and its relevant control and motivational structures
>Implying these people can handle acting in their own self interest
>Implying a lot of them didn't legitimately try this time
>Implying our votes even matter

>>8195585
>Americans do not appear to ask why this is so.
I think its cause we all know its because of obesity.

>>8195657
Which we won't admit is mostly fructose (including subsequent overeating), chronic stress, sleep deprivation, exposure to heavy metals and certain herbicides, and a miserably garbage excuse for a culture.

GMOs are social constructs.

Isn't breeding a form of genetic manipulation, only really slow?

>>8195574
>cook up this "fix"?

I do not smoke, but I see through the bullshit just fine.

>>8193536
Found the degenerate tobacco smoker

>>8190912
theres the problem of genetic contamination, if the GMOs aren't made infertile the genes could leak into the wild population, which could have unknown ecological effects

if they are made infertile however you end up with the crops not producing their own seed and therefore not being sustainable, so subsistance farmers in africa might want to buy pest or heat resistant crops, but if they do they can't subsistance farm, they have to sell them to make enough money for next years batch of seeds, which essentially enslaves them to monsanto and allows them to price gouge third worlders

>>8196062
Found the pseudoscientific nazi

>>8191009
i guess you don't understand how artificial selection works
when you breed for one trait, it messes up others

>>8196193
Senpai, no one is forced to use GMO seeds. People use GMO seeds because (surprise!) they perform better and that's worth paying for.

>inb4 capitalist oppression

>>8196827
and a plastic flower is cheaper and will last much longer...

>>8196856
GMO are living organisms cultivated for human use, like dogs, and bananas. They are not made of plastic.

>>8190912
the only real arguments against genetic engineering are based upon containment and cross contamination of established strains.
I'll offer a hypothetical situation;
for background;
Humulin is human insulin produced by an engineered e. coli bacteria. The bacteria had human pancreatic dna snippets spliced into it so that it can secrete human insulin. It just so happens that benign e. coli bacteria such as the original strain used in Humulin live naturally in the human gut. Some strains that live in our guts are beneficial and some might say are symbiotic with us, while others such as e.coli :157h7 aren't. It's up to our immune systems to sort them out.
Imagine what would happen if the Humulin strain of e.coli got loose and infected the population. Might this be a cause of adult auto-immune diabetes?

I know correlation vs causation...

genetic engineering is a valuable tool but like all tools its sharp edge can be dangerous as well as helpful.

>>8196655
You clearly don't understand how it works. Sci is not for you.

>>8196827
sure

>>8193238
Therefore we should never make any advancement in anything ever, for we don't know every possible implication it may have.
This is a dangerous argument

>>8199340
No. That is not what I said.
What we need is more free research and more independent testing. There have been some seriously disturbing things coming out of big pharma so there is all need for a careful approach.

Testing must be done with consent. The problem in changing the germ line is that it involves generations yet to be born. Up to now advances did not impact the next generation the way this has the potentials for. And that, along with serious ethical breaches is why I urge caution. That is not a ban, just caution.

And I will be the first to realise that the benefits are enormous. Just getting rid of genetically related diseases will be an enormous advance, and there are other benefits too.

>>8199379
There has been extensive testing of GMOs. Hundreds of independent studies. What does "big pharma" have to do with anything? You sound like a conspiracy nut. There is probably nothing that would convince you.

>>8196193
That's bullshit. There is no relevant difference between a GMO crop escaping and some other manmade crop escaping.

>>8190912
Fuck off you CIA nigger. Genetically modified food is so pointless. I can grow peas in my backyard and they taste just fine and they're healthy. Why do corporations need to genetically modify their crops, other than to protect them against bugs? Seems like they don't care about poisoning the population as long as it makes them more money. Or has the average person such a shitty sense of taste that they can't appreciate good, delicious and natural food due to all the junk food they eat daily?

>>8190912
The big problem us that they're making super, super weeds.

Roundup ready cups had to be made because weeds were becoming so resistant to roundup they were having to use so much it was killing crops. Rr crops make it to where they can use even more, which is becoming less effective still.

Economically, being able to patent a plant has always been stupid, but whatever.

>>8199485
>What does "big pharma" have to do with anything? You sound like a conspiracy nut.
We discussed the testing of what is made in labs and here is one of many stories that is relevant, showing the ethical level we face:
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/02/testing-drugs-on-the-developing-world/273329/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/without-consent-how-drugs-companies-exploit-indian-guinea-pigs-6261919.html

The purpose is plausible deniability: something goes wrong and you just erase all traces of having been there.

File: 1452197784404s.jpg (7KB, 250x220px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 250x220px

>>8199539
that is a ridiculously ignorant position

to reduce genetical engineering on resitance against certain bugs is just dumb

you could make them more healthy more sustainable more efficient and im just touching the surface of the genitical engineering of food

there is a shitton of other things that can be achieved through this technology in medical terms

>Or has the average person such a shitty sense of taste that they can't appreciate good, delicious and natural food due to all the junk food they eat daily?

this is just 3thgrade rhetoric with zero relevance to anything

>>8199539
you obviously did not bother to read through the thread otherwise you would have seen all the other possible improvements that are mentionned here

Is it possible that in our ignorance of genetics, genetic modification intended to make a plant resistant to pesticides accidentally creates a chemical environment which is beneficial to dangerous pathogens?

>>8199539
Terry, you're right.

>>8199485
Pharmaceutical companies have nearly unlimited resources to set up and fund front groups that pose as "independent researchers". They're able to make it difficult, but can't fully obscure the money trail, yet.

With the broken state of scientific literature, and "peer review", the literature is flooded with garbage and none of it can really be readily trusted. The field is tainted. That and the USDA , FDA, and most other regulatory bureaus are revolving doors for industry.

If you don't accept and understand this, you have absolutely no idea how business, economics, or the real world works.

>>8200154
I'm pretty sure they're also behind the anti-smoking hysteria as well.

>>8200893
Don't know much about the history behind that one.

>>8190912
Most EDUCATED people against GMOs really just hate Monsanto, because people hate shitty corporations in general.

>>8190965
And so an eye exists after millions of years of being a microscopic cup.
My point being that we can't learn about it if we don't fuck with it. That's how we learned most things were poisonous before you could just see what a certain plant is. You could tell if your neighbor died or not after eating them berries. Why should this not be a valid pathway to biology as a tool?

I don't get people who think GMOs are inherently bad. It's them that has a bad case of the "I don't understand it!1 Danger!!11!".
Masterful use of genetic engineering has unimaginable consequences, almost more influential ultimately on humans than the rest of modern science could ever be. Why reinvent the wheel, while you can use the ones right next to you. except, the wheel is mechanics refined on the atomic level and the quick answer for how to use it is fucking look at the biology around us and change it. It's literally a machine that builds itself out of trillions of intricate parts and we don't want to learn how to utilize it cuz
>I have some of that there irrational empathy and require that actual human progress be slowed because it'll be difficult and gross
It's an exponential system. we use science, but what if we build things that do science for us, but better?

>>8199539
>>8199539
Things wrong with what you said
>appeal to nature
>generalizing without statistics
>obvious bias implicit in how ideas are stated
>pointless
Nature is not seperate from humans, nature is random, destructive and beautiful. don't think that just because it works, that it's the best way for things to be. Yeah, in metaphor, I could probably repair a computer downloading abunch of programs. yeah, you could find a program out there that works, but there's always gonna be something that does it more efficiently. Yes, mcafee works as amtimalware I guess, but it's just not shitty enough to keep things running. but I'd still rather have abunch of alternatives proven to have higher detection rates.
Same thing with your peas. Yeah, they're great, and they work. But why not work to make things easier. The problem, as you stated, is society and the general lust for money instead of progress.
would you rather draw with rough charcoal or a fine wroting pen? I can through metaphors all day anon. There is a point, improvement. if your ancestors thought "oh raw meat works, it worked for a long time! Why change that shit, it's just a lot of work, and danger starting fires ;_;". Then you wouldn't be capable of enjoying cooked foods at all.

>>8190912
It's due to misinformation and some smart people with much to gain by selling their bullshit using emotional arguments to convince people of a conspiracy (plus Monsanto is just not a very likable company, they act too much like the bad guys). They've successfully created the natural = good, synthetic/artificial/chemicals = bad meme. It's depressing, but there will always be idiots like this to take advantage of.

Even before I knew the real difference between organic and gmo, I felt a lot better when I was on an entirely organic diet.
Whether it's real or not, there's no point to supporting big agra greed when organics are much better for growing on a personal level.
The reasoning behind that is that gmo crops are generally sterile so that you have to keep buying seeds.

GMOs can withstand various -cides, which Monsanta sells
Those -cides seep into the ground and fuck up biotopes

Monsanta and -cides business get rich through GMOs, while killing your soils

>>8202648
Educated people don't need to lie about their beliefs, and also don't hate corporations based on blatant lies from their competitors.

>>8199972
>you could make them more healthy more sustainable more efficient and im just touching the surface of the genitical engineering of food
>there is a shitton of other things that can be achieved through this technology in medical terms

Sure, but why are they designed to be resistant to pesticies and herbicides taht GMOs producers sell? :^)

>>8196827
>they perform better at surviving roundup, which destroys my soils

>>8203684
>Agent Orange
>Roundup

Kill yourself my man

>>8203695
fuck u cancer

>>8190912
kys

>>8190926
this

>>8203696
Cancer is actually something you will get by using Monsanta herbicides and pesticides

Shills as well, as a just reward for being subhuman pieces of shit