Are you for or against GMO?
Do you think it should be banned or the other way round?
Do you trust politicians and "experts" regarding this matter?
eace
I am against GMO!
I think it should be banned!
Itrust neither the politicians or the experts. Both are bought and sold commodities.
I am fully aware of possible benefits as regards feeding the world, but the Corporations that control GMO are weasels. Monsanto, Union Carbide perhaps. It's like the Global Warming debate. There is really no debate, the consensus amont experts is that it is a real threat, yet the big carbon profiteers and polluters can buy experts to publish papers suggesting Global Warming is a fraud. The papers are frauds and the financiers and authors should both be arrested, except it's not illegal. Unethical, immoral, wrong, evil, etc., but not illegal.
Are you for or against GMO?
Do you think it should be banned or the other way round?
Do you trust politicians and "experts" regarding this matter?
eace
You mean this year it's man-made global warming. Last year it was just "global warming is a ghost/specter/fairy tale". Yes, when their own experts publicly turned against them and said global warming was real they had no choice but to concede the point. Of course, it took a decade and who knows how many billions of dollars for us to get that far.The issue is not global warming.The issue is man made global warming.
And thank goodness there will never be a "consensus among all the scientists" about anything because on that day science becomes religious dogma and ceases to be science. A very small few will continue to question even the most obvious. Personally, I still think there is no gravity - the Earth sucks.There is no consensus among all the scientists in whether or not man is the cause.
I am against GMO!
I think it should be banned!
Itrust neither the politicians or the experts. Both are bought and sold commodities.
I am fully aware of possible benefits as regards feeding the world, but the Corporations that control GMO are weasels. Monsanto, Union Carbide perhaps. It's like the Global Warming debate. There is really no debate, the consensus amont experts is that it is a real threat, yet the big carbon profiteers and polluters can buy experts to publish papers suggesting Global Warming is a fraud. The papers are frauds and the financiers and authors should both be arrested, except it's not illegal. Unethical, immoral, wrong, evil, etc., but not illegal.
Having Googled....I was about to post the same thing.....I assume you are talking about
GMO - Genetically Modified Organisms
and not
GMO - General Moly, Inc.
and not
GMO - GMO LLC
Right?
The issue is not global warming.The issue is man made global warming.Trying to lump in man made global warming fairy religion in with natural climate change suggest that you are trying to paint everyone who doesn't believe in man made global warming fairy tale like you do is a climate change denier.Funny how when a anti-man made global warming fairy tale study comes out its always, You man made climate change religious nuts claim they're funded by big oil. But somehow its perfectly acceptable if a pro-man made global warming fairy tale study is funded by people who believe in the man made global warming fairy tale religion. There is no consensus among all the scientists in whether or not man is the cause. If anyone should be arrested it should be all the people trying to push this man made global warming fairy tale on all of us and create laws that influence our pocket books. Trying to claim there is no debate is dishonest.
Disagree !
And why do you think this is a "fairy-tale" ??
I for one ,have more faith in the scientists than I do with right-wing politicians....and the Becks and Rushes of this nation...
Are you for or against GMO?
Do you think it should be banned or the other way round?
Do you trust politicians and "experts" regarding this matter?
eace
No true scientist promotes anything political, they are above that, most are, I'm sure, those who are not, I'll try to ignore.You have faith in the scientist promoting your political beliefs, not scientist in general.
Selection is simple enough. You keep the biggest seeds from this year's crop to plant next years crop and, over time, the plants will tend to have a higher yield for that environment. This is simply speeding up the evolutionary process.That said, I don't mind selection and hybrids, but GMO is another beer. I don't think we should mess up with Nature.
This thread is about Genetically Modified Organism (GMO). Sorry, I didn't think it was necessary to clarify that.
That said, I don't mind selection and hybrids, but GMO is another beer. I don't think we should mess up with Nature.
for example, am i for technology that will maximize food production in a growing / developing world? yes.
what i can tell you is that if we all want to keep reproducing, a large percentage of the additional food needed for a growing population is going to have to come from technology.
GMO's are occurring in nature all the time. We should stop it, right?
Hybrids mix two species together that, in nature, could never happen or might happen only once in (literally) a million years. In short, hybrids are not "natural". So, what exactly do you think they do with GMO's that makes them more dangerous?
I think we already do that and have been doing it for some time, though it's rather crude at this point. We're not building DNA from scratch or anything. As far as I know we're just pushing around some already existing sequences and controlling which genes cross over to the next generation.Directly manipulate DNA?
That's the problem. I think we shouldn't, it's too risky 'cause we don't know how that may end (mutations, viruses, etc).I think we already do that and have been doing it for some time,
The same could be said of most things that, sometimes literally, change the world.That's the problem. I think we shouldn't, it's too risky 'cause we don't know how that may end (mutations, viruses, etc).