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 2 of 23 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 224

Thread: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

  1. #11
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:30 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,289

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by LiberalAvenger View Post
    I voted undecided, until I see the movie, I'm not sure.
    Moobie at leben. I want genetic engineering confined. Big Corporate cannot be trusted. If there is a profit involved, there will be skullduggery afoot, eh?

  2. #12
    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 DaveFagan View Post
    Moobie at leben. I want genetic engineering confined. Big Corporate cannot be trusted. If there is a profit involved, there will be skullduggery afoot, eh?
    The cautious approach is the only path that makes sense for everything but profits and central control...in fact its a play for the most centralized control mechanisms imaginable, controlling the gene pool and the evolution of such, its like springtime for Hitler...and the attempt may be fatal due to unforeseen chain reactive effects...unforeseen because we simply don't have all the numbers to the complicated equations of life.
    Those here who have compared genetic engineering or gene splicing and or DNA re-sequencing to anything that happens in the natural sequences of procreation whether manipulated by our influence or not simply don't know what said terms mean and should study up before voting on such a critical issue.
    Biotech girl who claims to work in the field seems well propagandized by that which apparently pays her bills.

  3. #13
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,142

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by molten_dragon View Post
    And genetically modified food is going to be a big part of what helps feed the rapidly growing population of this planet.
    There's already more than enough food to feed everyone on the planet, and feed them quite well.

    The issue has nothing to do with supply of food. It has to do with two things:

    1. Distribution. Both lack of it, and doing it inappropriately.

    A lot of dictatorial nations, which are theoretically capable of feeding everyone, instead horde the food for the wealthy and powerful.

    Just as big of a problem is subsidized foods coming from places like America which flood third world markets with extremely cheap food and put local farmers out of business, resulting in an endless loop of food shortage that requires constant intervention and ever-worsening outcomes.

    2. Soil degradation. There is no way for genetic engineering to counteract this, and most make it worse, because they're engineered to grow bigger and thus suck more resources out of the soil.

    Artificial fertilizers and nitrogen fertilizers don't help in the long run, because they're quite damaging to the land and the water, as well as requiring huge amounts of fossil fuels in order to process, and can result in dead zones and worsened air and water quality, which is obviously harmful for crops. Also, as the amount needed increases due to loss of viability of the soil, the cost becomes unsustainable for farmers, and ultimately can put them out of business or decrease the amount of land they can afford to farm. Finding more farmers is pretty unlikely, with urban congregation and the ever-shrinking sustainability of farming financially.

    GMO's also cause degradation by allowing totally homogenous farm lands without any pestilence. Without diversity to help revive the soil, this speeds up the rate of erosion dramatically. It also makes farms extremely vulnerable to super-bugs. They can wipe out entire harvests at devastating speeds due to the total genetic homogeneity of the crop.

    Sooner or later, we're in for another Dust Bowl. Or, when a bad enough bugs develops, a shortage of a given crop CAUSED by GMO's. This has actually already happened with some sensitive crops like bananas.
    Last edited by SmokeAndMirrors; 01-20-13 at 05:57 AM.

  4. #14
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,554

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    I am against any impeding of science whatsoever.
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

  5. #15
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    This law would essentially prohibit hybridized plants too.
    It's a very stupid law.

    Now if it just limited IP ownership of GMO, I'd be cool with that.
    And by limit, I mean 5 years or less.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  6. #16
    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 Harry Guerrilla View Post
    This law would essentially prohibit hybridized plants too.
    It's a very stupid law.

    Now if it just limited IP ownership of GMO, I'd be cool with that.
    And by limit, I mean 5 years or less.
    First off, careful using the word 'stupid' because such a word hardly has a reason for existing and is the kind of word that reflects more a description of those who use it rather than on those they use it against.

    Second, You are quite incorrect about "prohibit hybridized plants", such is not a product of gene splicing in the sense and the proposal would not at all do such.

    You would do well to educate yourself on the subject before you go voting on our collective future because you have just voted to run naked into the darkness and to drag us all with you all because you didn't know what GE/GM organisms were and just assumed. Thanks...is that your definition of 'smart'?

  7. #17
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by DNAprotection View Post
    First off, careful using the word 'stupid' because such a word hardly has a reason for existing and is the kind of word that reflects more a description of those who use it rather than on those they use it against.

    Second, You are quite incorrect about "prohibit hybridized plants", such is not a product of gene splicing in the sense and the proposal would not at all do such.

    You would do well to educate yourself on the subject before you go voting on our collective future because you have just voted to run naked into the darkness and to drag us all with you all because you didn't know what GE/GM organisms were and just assumed. Thanks...is that your definition of 'smart'?
    No, it's stupid.
    I understand the risk of GMO, I just think that they're minor when compared to the benefits.

    Hybridization does the same thing, that GMO does.
    It combines favorable genetics, which produces a superior product.

    Although hybrid plants are less specific.
    And yes, I know that GMO processes use outer species genes to make the finished product.
    All I have to say is, SFW.

    Your wanted legislation is just another chicken little, in the science world.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  8. #18
    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 RabidAlpaca View Post
    I am against any impeding of science whatsoever.
    This proposal doesn't do that, it impedes profits that attempt to be gained regardless of the lack of science that exists in this area.
    True Science is about learning all the facts, the facts about GE tech is that only a fingertip worth of facts are in our knowledge at this point.
    Good science seeks to answer questions, not to market products for profit before the science is complete.
    Would probably be more accurate to say that you are against the progress of science because it would impede the corps reach to cash in on incomplete science.
    cheers

  9. #19
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,554

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by DNAprotection View Post
    This proposal doesn't do that, it impedes profits that attempt to be gained regardless of the lack of science that exists in this area.
    True Science is about learning all the facts, the facts about GE tech is that only a fingertip worth of facts are in our knowledge at this point.
    Good science seeks to answer questions, not to market products for profit before the science is complete.
    Would probably be more accurate to say that you are against the progress of science because it would impede the corps reach to cash in on incomplete science.
    cheers
    From the bill you posted:

    3.(a) This ACT does hereby prohibit live genetically engineered and or genetically modified plants (including the seeds and pollen thereof), animals (including the offspring thereof), insects (including the offspring thereof), and or any such organisms from existing within the boarders of the state of California, and that all living genetically engineered plants (including the seeds and pollen thereof), animals (including the offspring thereof), insects (including the offspring thereof), and or any such genetically engineered genetically modified organisms have six months from the date of the adoption of this ACT into law to be removed from the state by those individuals or corporate or government entities that brought and or posses such within the state of California, and which shall be done in a manner that does not further the threat of genetic pollution and or genetically engineered DNA contamination exposure to the commons and or natural world.
    This makes all genetic engineering of any kind completely illegal in california. And you want to try to say it doesn't impede science? Get out of town, clown.
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

  10. #20
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,554

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    There's already more than enough food to feed everyone on the planet, and feed them quite well.

    The issue has nothing to do with supply of food. It has to do with two things:

    1. Distribution. Both lack of it, and doing it inappropriately.

    A lot of dictatorial nations, which are theoretically capable of feeding everyone, instead horde the food for the wealthy and powerful.

    Just as big of a problem is subsidized foods coming from places like America which flood third world markets with extremely cheap food and put local farmers out of business, resulting in an endless loop of food shortage that requires constant intervention and ever-worsening outcomes.

    2. Soil degradation. There is no way for genetic engineering to counteract this, and most make it worse, because they're engineered to grow bigger and thus suck more resources out of the soil.

    Artificial fertilizers and nitrogen fertilizers don't help in the long run, because they're quite damaging to the land and the water, as well as requiring huge amounts of fossil fuels in order to process, and can result in dead zones and worsened air and water quality, which is obviously harmful for crops. Also, as the amount needed increases due to loss of viability of the soil, the cost becomes unsustainable for farmers, and ultimately can put them out of business or decrease the amount of land they can afford to farm. Finding more farmers is pretty unlikely, with urban congregation and the ever-shrinking sustainability of farming financially.

    GMO's also cause degradation by allowing totally homogenous farm lands without any pestilence. Without diversity to help revive the soil, this speeds up the rate of erosion dramatically. It also makes farms extremely vulnerable to super-bugs. They can wipe out entire harvests at devastating speeds due to the total genetic homogeneity of the crop.

    Sooner or later, we're in for another Dust Bowl. Or, when a bad enough bugs develops, a shortage of a given crop CAUSED by GMO's. This has actually already happened with some sensitive crops like bananas.
    You have absolutely no idea what science is and is not capable of. Nobody does. And it'll continue being that way as long as we allow anti-science legislation like this to exist.

    Not to mention anti-science legislation that is chock-full of the words "god" and "the creator".
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

Page 2 of 23 FirstFirst 123412 ... 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
  •