View Poll Results: Your vote on this proposal would be?

Voters
44. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    9 20.45%
  • no

    25 56.82%
  • no, but I would vote yes on labeling

    8 18.18%
  • undecided

    2 4.55%
Page 18 of 23 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 224

Thread: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

  1. #171
    User DNAprotection's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    cali
    Last Seen
    04-19-13 @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    85

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    I voted no because the only part of the proposal I agree with is that DNA shouldn't fall under intellectual property law. I have similar issues with music riffs, too.
    First thing is a ballot measure cannot change patent law.
    To amend patent law at this point it would take either the Mother of all civil law suits (the likes of which has yet to be dreamed of let alone filed) to overturn existing case law or an Act of congress and congress wont act on such because Monsanto et al has well feathered that nest with enough layers including the trump card of contracting for 'national security' projects etc to be safe/protected from any such efforts.

    What about diversity? Life continues on in part due to its diverse nature, like if you were trying to cover all your bets, wont you lose as well if that diversity is manipulated into monopoly? We live in symbiotic relationships with all other life, even if that life sees us as lunch, but this issue has no relation to self defense no matter how sweet Monsanto et al says their candy is, this issue is about nothing less than central control and ultimate power.
    "I have similar issues with music riffs, too"
    Genetic engineering from Monsanto et al is to nature what Hitler was to music shall we say in that it all had to be approved by the state.

    NAZI APPROVED MUSIC

    Under the Nazi regime, all music produced had to fit within certain standards defined as "good" German music. Suppression of specific artists and their works was common, yet musicians were permitted limited artistic freedom. The Nazis attempted to create a balance between censorship and creativity in music to appease the German people.

    This blend of art and politics led to a three-prong policy regarding musicians and artists:

    Loyal Nazi members who were talented musicians were guaranteed a job.
    Loyal Nazi members who were not talented musicians were not guaranteed a job.
    Any non-Jewish person who demonstrated a "genius" for music and was a member of the Reichsmusikkammer (Reich Music Chamber) was permitted employment. This exception in policy permitted musicians like conductor Wilhelm Furtwangler and composer Richard Strauss to continue working.
    Music Approved of by the Third Reich

    Art of the Holocaust

    Music and Politics in Hitler’s Germany:
    http://web.jmu.edu/history/mhr/Cathcart/Cathcart.pdf

    The Downside of Human Genetic Engineering
    Human Genetic Engineering Cons: Why This Branch of Science is so Controversial

    Arguing For and Against Genetic Engineering
    Arguing For and Against Genetic Engineering
    Last edited by DNAprotection; 01-24-13 at 08:48 PM.

  2. #172
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by DNAprotection View Post
    First thing is a ballot measure cannot change patent law.
    To amend patent law at this point it would take either the Mother of all civil law suits (the likes of which has yet to be dreamed of let alone filed) to overturn existing case law or an Act of congress and congress wont act on such because Monsanto et al has well feathered that nest with enough layers including the trump card of contracting for 'national security' projects etc to be safe/protected from any such efforts.

    What about diversity? Life continues on in part due to its diverse nature, like if you were trying to cover all your bets, wont you lose as well if that diversity is manipulated into monopoly? We live in symbiotic relationships with all other life, even if that life sees us as lunch, but this issue has no relation to self defense no matter how sweet Monsanto et al says their candy is, this issue is about nothing less than central control and ultimate power.
    I suspected as much. I guess I misread it.


    I've read a few books by Dawkins (not his anti-religious texts, though I support most of his position) and a few papers from genetic evolutionists. I've tended to think of things in terms of biology since HS. I understand the Cycle of Life and the importance of biodiversity, so you're preaching to the choir here..

    That still doesn't change my opinion of genetic modification and engineering. Nature Herself makes more mutations than we could ever hope to introduce into the system in the near to mid-term future. We changed the bio-landscape a hell of a lot more with farms and pastures and we keep adding to that acreage every year. Where is the outrage from that? Nowhere to be seen because we need it for survival. I'd rather see genetically engineered plants and maybe some modified bugs instead of more herbicides, pesticides, and decreasing natural acreage.

    The human population is going to continue to grow so we need to make some choices. Genetic modification and engineering OR a decrease in natural areas and more chemicals in the environment. I've made my choice, how about you?
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 01-24-13 at 11:24 PM.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  3. #173
    User DNAprotection's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    cali
    Last Seen
    04-19-13 @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    85

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    I suspected as much. I guess I misread it.


    I've read a few books by Dawkins (not his anti-religious texts, though I support most of his position) and a few papers from genetic evolutionists. I've tended to think of things in terms of biology since HS. I understand the Cycle of Life and the importance of biodiversity, so you're preaching to the choir here..

    That still doesn't change my opinion of genetic modification and engineering. Nature Herself makes more mutations than we could ever hope to introduce into the system in the near to mid-term future. We changed the bio-landscape a hell of a lot more with farms and pastures and we keep adding to that acreage every year. Where is the outrage from that? Nowhere to be seen because we need it for survival. I'd rather see genetically engineered plants and maybe some modified bugs instead of more herbicides, pesticides, and decreasing natural acreage.

    The human population is going to continue to grow so we need to make some choices. Genetic modification and engineering OR a decrease in natural areas and more chemicals in the environment. I've made my choice, how about you?
    "Humans have been farming for 10,000 years. Sixty years ago, after World War II, we started industrializing U.S. farming operations through a mix of policy decisions and accidents of history. This method of farming is neither inevitable nor efficient. More to the point, it can't be sustained." :

    Industrial Agriculture | Pesticide Action Network

    The Industrial Revolution for Dummies (World History) - YouTube

    To behave like a cancer and then fool yourself into thinking you have the cure with more cancerous behavior is not an option in my book.

    Unfortunately many humans have decided to let others do all the hard (less important in their view) labor type work while they devote their lives to the pursuit of miscalculated perceptions of 'convenience' and 'efficiency' due largely to their schooling or training = minds conditioned to think certain ways.

    One of the main reasons the land has been done the way you say is because people turned their backs on the land that feeds them in pursuit of 'loftier' goals such as going to school to become molecular biologist's or a chemical engineer's etc and within that training process the mind is mined for any and all conscience related thinking and replaced with a framed or boxed in type of thinking that accepts certain premisses without question and within that initial acceptance of the 'framework' one finds justifiable excuses to set aside ones conscience or redefine/rewire it backwards. Such training convinces the student that critical thinking exists within that higher edu framework when all the while its like teaching someone that suicide is actually survival...a very profitable game that.

    First thing one must do when bidding for central control of everything is to redesign the social structure and culture etc and the first job in that effort is to lure folks out of the garden, its easy, you just hold up a bright shinny well waxed apple because such is apparently irresistible to humans.

    Once folks are lured out of the garden and no longer 'grow their own', they then are simply helpless lambs for the slaughter because now they have become dependent on their 'big brother' for food and clothing and shelter and everything else.

    The land can only support us if we each partner with it as our ancestors did.

    Corporate interests influence everything, including the notion of how much land it takes to feed one human, more boxed in thinking etc.

    The truth is a very large amount of food can be grown in a very small area if working with nature instead of against it.

    Grow your own...

    6,000 lbs of food on 1/10th acre - Urban Farm - Urban Homestead






    "Crop yields are only part of the organic vs. conventional farming debate"

    By Parke Wilde, 3 May 2012

    "A version of this post originally appeared on U.S. Food Policy.
    Photo by Alternative Heat."

    "The journal Nature recently had an interesting meta-analysis — or quantitative literature review — about yields from organic agriculture. It’s called “Organic farming is rarely enough,” and the accompanying summary says, “Conventional agriculture gives higher yields under most situations.” This is probably true.

    Yet even environmentalists are overreacting to the study. A recent article by Bryan Walsh at TIME magazine’s Ecocentric blog is titled, “Why Organic Agriculture May Not Be So Sustainable.”

    The evidence Walsh presents fails to support the headline, though the article does begin with two good points: Organic agriculture does often produce less food per acre (see the Nature article above). And environmentalists should care about efficiency. Getting more output for lower resource cost is good environmentalism.

    Mostly, though, Walsh repeats common overstatements of the advantages of conventional agriculture. He writes, “Conventional industrial agriculture has become incredibly efficient on a simple land to food basis. Thanks to fertilizers, mechanization and irrigation, each American farmer feeds over 155 people worldwide.”

    But environmentalists discussing conventional agriculture should also remember several key themes.

    Not all productive technology improves the environment. Many technologies used in conventional agriculture are designed to save labor, not to save land. In Walsh’s quote above, huge mechanized combines elevate the number of people fed per American farmer, but they make little difference to yields per unit of land (the key environmental issue addressed by the Nature study). From one sentence to the next, Walsh conflates food per American farmer with efficiency “on a simple land to food basis.”

    Yield is not the same as efficiency. Organic agriculture commonly requires a trade-off, giving up some yield and undertaking some additional labor and management cost in order to gain something of value for the producer and for the environment. Advocates for organic agriculture say the trade-off is efficient — getting the most output for the lowest resource cost when all environmental costs are accounted. Walsh’s first sentence boasts of the “efficiency” of industrial agriculture, but the following argument fails to support the boast.

    Producing more grain is not the same as feeding the world. Any time the high yields of U.S. corn production are mentioned, it should be noted that most U.S. corn goes to ethanol and animal feed. Walsh seems to think that Iowa corn farmers do well at feeding the most people possible for the least land, which is false. If the goal is to feed the world, then most of the calories produced in Iowa corn fields are squandered already, and this loss matters more than the organic yield penalty matters.

    Most hard-headed, well-grounded advocates for organic agriculture already understand the yield tradeoffs, and they already value efficiency. For example, Rodale studies over the years have always claimed that lower chemical input costs offset modest yield differences — a claim that may be nearly consistent the new Nature study.

    I have sometimes met beginning organic farmers who are dismissive of yields and efficiency. But I have never met an organic farmer who has been in business for five years and remains dismissive of yields and efficiency.

    There is one lesson in this whole argument for organic advocates. It is important to speak plainly about yield differences and about efficiency. Perhaps Walsh was not sufficiently familiar with hard-headed, well-grounded research on organic practices, but instead may have been reading some excessively optimistic pro-organic public relations. Then, when the PR message was contradicted by the Nature study, Walsh overreacted. It is best all around to state the relative advantages of environmentally sound production practices plainly and precisely from the start.
    Parke Wilde is a food economist. He teaches graduate-level courses in statistics and U.S. food policy for the Friedman School at Tufts University and edits the U.S. Food Policy blog."


    Can you dig it?


    Last edited by DNAprotection; 01-25-13 at 11:41 AM.

  4. #174
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by DNAprotection View Post
    Grow your own...

    6,000 lbs of food on 1/10th acre - Urban Farm - Urban Homestead

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCmTJkZy0rM
    "They make about $20k a year which they use to buy the things they can't grow like wheat, rice, and oats."

    Hmmm, I wonder why they can't grow those things as well? I'm pretty sure everything they grow, except citrus fruits, can be grown by a Midwest farmer in addition to the grains. In fact, most Midwest farmers DO grow those things for themselves, in addition to their grains, and there are plenty of other sources of vitamin C that can be grown other than citrus fruits.


    As for 30 tons/acre:
    Double Up nets top yield at 30.5 tons per acre: New peppers point to improved returns | Western Farm Press


    Also, one pound of lettuce =/= one pound of grain.


    It wasn't real clear where the fish food came from.


    There is one lesson in this whole argument for organic advocates. It is important to speak plainly about yield differences and about efficiency. Perhaps Walsh was not sufficiently familiar with hard-headed, well-grounded research on organic practices, but instead may have been reading some excessively optimistic pro-organic public relations.
    Which is exactly what your posts bring to mind.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  5. #175
    User DNAprotection's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    cali
    Last Seen
    04-19-13 @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    85

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    "They make about $20k a year which they use to buy the things they can't grow like wheat, rice, and oats."

    Hmmm, I wonder why they can't grow those things as well? I'm pretty sure everything they grow, except citrus fruits, can be grown by a Midwest farmer in addition to the grains. In fact, most Midwest farmers DO grow those things for themselves, in addition to their grains, and there are plenty of other sources of vitamin C that can be grown other than citrus fruits.


    As for 30 tons/acre:
    Double Up nets top yield at 30.5 tons per acre: New peppers point to improved returns | Western Farm Press


    Also, one pound of lettuce =/= one pound of grain.


    It wasn't real clear where the fish food came from.


    Which is exactly what your posts bring to mind.
    I thought you said you understood symbiotic relationships?
    Your post seems to reflect entirely disregarding such.
    Yields must be balanced with propagating healthy soil, and frankly concern for the soil itself must come first.
    Feed the worms and they will do the rest has always been my approach to growing and my yields are amazing.
    I think your just trying to find any excuse to get out of doing the work yourself.
    I think when the system shuts down, the people who choose as you apparently have will be very hungry, better not let'm take your gun cuz your gonna need it when you come for my food

  6. #176
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

    Re: Rathi use your talent 4this project, godspeed', fly like a monarch'

    Quote Originally Posted by LiberalAvenger View Post
    It's not nice to mess with mother nature. Mother nature always has a reaction to a man made reaction.
    Right. We should never have built houses, never tilled fields, never experimented with crop modification (which goes back thousands of years and is a direct contributor to civilization), never created vaccines, never dicked around with penicillin, never touched chemistry, etc etc etc. This kind of absurd naturalistic fallacy is the extreme of ridiculousness.

  7. #177
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by DNAprotection View Post
    I thought you said you understood symbiotic relationships?
    Your post seems to reflect entirely disregarding such.
    Yields must be balanced with propagating healthy soil, and frankly concern for the soil itself must come first.
    Feed the worms and they will do the rest has always been my approach to growing and my yields are amazing.
    I think your just trying to find any excuse to get out of doing the work yourself.
    I think when the system shuts down, the people who choose as you apparently have will be very hungry, better not let'm take your gun cuz your gonna need it when you come for my food
    Maintaining healthy top-soil content and silt deposits is very important for agriculture. Luckily we can maintain enormous yields on a constant basis (we no longer have to leave fields lying fallow) because of our abundant access to agricultural chemicals and increasing advances in engineered crops. It is a problem that we will continue to grapple with but we will have to overcome, and I see no reason that we wont.

  8. #178
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by DNAprotection View Post
    First thing is a ballot measure cannot change patent law.
    To amend patent law at this point it would take either the Mother of all civil law suits (the likes of which has yet to be dreamed of let alone filed) to overturn existing case law or an Act of congress and congress wont act on such because Monsanto et al has well feathered that nest with enough layers including the trump card of contracting for 'national security' projects etc to be safe/protected from any such efforts.

    What about diversity? Life continues on in part due to its diverse nature, like if you were trying to cover all your bets, wont you lose as well if that diversity is manipulated into monopoly? We live in symbiotic relationships with all other life, even if that life sees us as lunch, but this issue has no relation to self defense no matter how sweet Monsanto et al says their candy is, this issue is about nothing less than central control and ultimate power.
    "I have similar issues with music riffs, too"
    Genetic engineering from Monsanto et al is to nature what Hitler was to music shall we say in that it all had to be approved by the state.

    NAZI APPROVED MUSIC

    Under the Nazi regime, all music produced had to fit within certain standards defined as "good" German music. Suppression of specific artists and their works was common, yet musicians were permitted limited artistic freedom. The Nazis attempted to create a balance between censorship and creativity in music to appease the German people.

    This blend of art and politics led to a three-prong policy regarding musicians and artists:

    Loyal Nazi members who were talented musicians were guaranteed a job.
    Loyal Nazi members who were not talented musicians were not guaranteed a job.
    Any non-Jewish person who demonstrated a "genius" for music and was a member of the Reichsmusikkammer (Reich Music Chamber) was permitted employment. This exception in policy permitted musicians like conductor Wilhelm Furtwangler and composer Richard Strauss to continue working.
    Music Approved of by the Third Reich

    Art of the Holocaust

    Music and Politics in Hitler’s Germany:
    http://web.jmu.edu/history/mhr/Cathcart/Cathcart.pdf

    The Downside of Human Genetic Engineering
    Human Genetic Engineering Cons: Why This Branch of Science is so Controversial

    Arguing For and Against Genetic Engineering
    Arguing For and Against Genetic Engineering
    Dude you are a lunatic.

  9. #179
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by DNAprotection View Post
    I thought you said you understood symbiotic relationships?

    Your post seems to reflect entirely disregarding such.
    Yields must be balanced with propagating healthy soil, and frankly concern for the soil itself must come first.
    Feed the worms and they will do the rest has always been my approach to growing and my yields are amazing.
    I think your just trying to find any excuse to get out of doing the work yourself.
    I don't think of them as symbiotic, since that's a very specific biological term, but, yes, I do understand the inter-relationships between species.

    Not at all. You're talking about those idiot industrial farm corps, not the family farmer. Family farmers pass farms down through the generations. They are VERY careful about the land and soil since they expect it to be in the family for generations - unlike your 0.1 acre subdivision plot that people buy and sell by the thousands per day. Get your facts straight, dude.


    Quote Originally Posted by DNAprotection View Post
    I think when the system shuts down, the people who choose as you apparently have will be very hungry, better not let'm take your gun cuz your gonna need it when you come for my food
    Again you have no clue. I own no guns and when I shoot animals at all it's with a camera. However, my hunting friends (and the family farmer!) take up the slack for me and keep the deer population in check. Otherwise there would be no food for anyone.
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 01-25-13 at 01:38 PM.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  10. #180
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

    Re: Rathi use your talent 4this project, godspeed', fly like a monarch'

    Quote Originally Posted by LiberalAvenger View Post
    That is part of nature's plan. There are many good guy bacteria.

    Viruses? Maybe used to control over population by man. Size does not matter to nature.
    Nature does not have a plan. 'Nature' is not a conscience anthropomorphic thing, nor is it a force. It is simply the word we use to explain the natural rules, laws, and orders of the Universe. This includes physics, biology, chemistry, everything. It is a catchall word that too many new-ager's have stolen to mean whatever pseudoreligious thing they want.

    So my answer to that is this: "Nature" can go screw itself. Mankind should do whatever is within its power to make life more prosperous, healthy, and fulfilling that it can. This means taming nature, down from the smallest microbe to the sun of our stellar system. The glory of mankind is our mastery of the Universe and the march of technology.

Page 18 of 23 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •