• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The DNA Protection Act of 2013

Your vote on this proposal would be?


  • Total voters
    40
Re: Rathi use your talent 4this project, godspeed', fly like a monarch'

You're placing man outside of "nature" as if man is an artifice, not part of "nature."
How can you say, that what man does, is not what "nature" wants?

Do you have a direct communication line to "nature."

I do, it's called a conscience.
 
Re: Rathi use your talent 4this project, godspeed', fly like a monarch'

I do, it's called a conscience.

See though virus and bacteria, have arguably caused more harm/change to every species on earth, than man has.
Why do they not have the same line of communication to "nature."

Virus, have modified the DNA of millions of species and no one cares about that.
 
Re: Rathi use your talent 4this project, godspeed', fly like a monarch'

Whose to say we aren't?


Man is an integral part of "nature" though.
So with that being true, what man does it what "nature" wanted.

We have a microbiologist and a doctoral student in pharmacology, telling you that, you really don't know what you're talking about.
Yet you continue to post these conspiracy theory/non related videos, that have nothing to do with the topic and you're continually deflecting information be posted to the contrary.

Did you know that virus has been altering the DNA of most animals, since their existence and that humans would no likely exist, had virus not randomly altered our DNA over these millions, to billions of years?

Yes Harry and it works naturally by the numbers not by judgement...
Is that actually suppose to serve as a volley Harry?
So because some brainwashed spoon fed from the machine robot spews out something you automatically swallow?
Have you considered a career in porno Harry...you've already got a great stage name and you swallow, its perfect...gay porn...just sayin.
Weren't you just the one who was telling us all that nature wants this or that? lol...
How does that account for me Harry? Just an involuntary natural reflex of nature I guess lol...
Whats nature telling you here Harry?
(law of attraction, all that you fear or disregard (videos lol truth) will remain coming at you like a Harry magnet)




You're placing man outside of "nature" as if man is an artifice, not part of "nature."
How can you say, that what man does, is not what "nature" wants?

Do you have a direct communication line to "nature."

Actually yes, and so do you Harry, you just don't use it.
 
Re: Rathi use your talent 4this project, godspeed', fly like a monarch'

See though virus and bacteria, have arguably caused more harm/change to every species on earth, than man has.
Why do they not have the same line of communication to "nature."

Virus, have modified the DNA of millions of species and no one cares about that.
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.
 
Re: Rathi use your talent 4this project, godspeed', fly like a monarch'

Yes Harry and it works naturally by the numbers not by judgement...
Is that actually suppose to serve as a volley Harry?
So because some brainwashed spoon fed from the machine robot spews out something you automatically swallow?
Have you considered a career in porno Harry...you've already got a great stage name and you swallow, its perfect...gay porn...just sayin.
Weren't you just the one who was telling us all that nature wants this or that? lol...
How does that account for me Harry? Just an involuntary natural reflex of nature I guess lol...
Whats nature telling you here Harry?
(law of attraction, all that you fear or disregard (videos lol truth) will remain coming at you like a Harry magnet)

Humans work by numbers too.
Yet you're discounting that.

Personal attacks to try to make your argument successful, don't work, nor do stupid music videos.



Actually yes, and so do you Harry, you just don't use it.

And what is that and why do you assume, I don't use it?
 
Re: Rathi use your talent 4this project, godspeed', fly like a monarch'

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.

Virus manipulate animal DNA.
Human DNA is riddled with manipulations by virus.
 
Re: Rathi use your talent 4this project, godspeed', fly like a monarch'

I am sure it is but man will never trump nature. Nature is too awesome.

Man is part of "nature", just like virus and bacteria.
If virus can do it, why is it different for man to do the same?
 
Re: Rathi use your talent 4this project, godspeed', fly like a monarch'

Humans work by numbers too.
Yet you're discounting that.

Personal attacks to try to make your argument successful, don't work, nor do stupid music videos.





And what is that and why do you assume, I don't use it?

No Harry, humans use judgements that are bias by the prejudice of personal interest perspectives that systematically disregard the numbers that wish to be ignored or that to humans may serve no purpose and further as I have pointed out to your pointed yet detached head many times before in this thread there are also the unknown numbers which nature has in its automatic files...humans, though a part of nature still have not gained access to those files Harry...we haven't even earned the right to ask yet lol..
 
Re: Rathi use your talent 4this project, godspeed', fly like a monarch'

No Harry, humans use judgements that are bias by the prejudice of personal interest perspectives that systematically disregard the numbers that wish to be ignored or that to humans may serve no purpose and further as I have pointed out to your pointed yet detached head many times before in this thread there are also the unknown numbers which nature has in its automatic files...humans, though a part of nature still have not gained access to those files Harry...we haven't even earned the right to ask yet lol..

Ok, your entire argumentative premise and reasoning behind your argument is totally ignorant.
Again, you have nothing backing your argument except for the mysticism of "nature knows better."

Obviously, the best way to nueter your argument is to stop responding to this and letting it die.
Good day. :)
 
Re: Rathi use your talent 4this project, godspeed', fly like a monarch'

Bring on the mutants!


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

Man is part of "nature", just like virus and bacteria.
If virus can do it, why is it different for man to do the same?

Nothing at all. Both are controlled by nature, not the other way round.
 
Re: Rathi use your talent 4this project, godspeed', fly like a monarch'

Man is part of "nature", just like virus and bacteria.
If virus can do it, why is it different for man to do the same?

I very clearly addressed that in my last post Harry.
The question in your post I forgot to get to which LA and I both made quite clear in three different posts Harry and if you couldn't even recognize when people are talking about 'conscience' when you ask about our direct line to nature then how are we to believe that you even have one? If you do its clear that you have cut yourself off from it just as the machine requires...its part of 'higher edu'...its basic training to detach from such so as to be 'professional' etc...detach from your conscience far enough and the corps masters will call you an 'expert' and fly you like a flag...your a very confused Harry little critter, not like that cool smart connected to his conscience Harry that I know and love...

 
The article is a joke. The Cauliflower mosaic virus promoter is deliberately introduced as part of the genetic modification process and fragments from the virus are to be expected. There is no evidence that the protein is expressed or that it would even be harmful if it was. The risk is likely higher for natural foods, as they are regularly infected by the full version of the Cauliflower mosaic virus.

Thank you.

People don't understand that viral vectors can be used to transfect genes into cells. People see the word "virus" or "genetic modification" and just freak out without actually understanding what is going on.
 
Thank you.

People don't understand that viral vectors can be used to transfect genes into cells. People see the word "virus" or "genetic modification" and just freak out without actually understanding what is going on.

Its entirely irrelevant if people understand such concepts with regard to the prevailing fact that you could write a thousand such sentences and it wouldn't change the component of unknowns which you continually fail to respond to and thus exhibiting a perfect example of my claim that your type of thinking does exactly that as a matter of standard protocol at the expense of us all.
Such viewpoints require a disconnection to ones conscience and you were trained in this behavior by the system that you now suckle from for your living.
The first lie a person tells is to their self and thats what your 'higher edu' taught you to do by accepting certain premisses without question and as the frame wherein all other thinking is done, its dubbed 'critical thinking' in effort to further legitimize such but its actually more the opposite of such in a sort of Orwellian way.
This thread is merely a microcosm of your demographic within the collective genetic traits of the human race and so far its not looking to good for ya.
I don't see much genetic viability in your thought processes for long term survival and thats what this threads really all about, just trying to equate human chances of extinction.
Soon I will be posting a conclusions page that will explain my findings of scientific note concerning the challenge of this thread unless I am banned from doing so by those here that wish to restrict thought and expression...stay tuned.

How far can man go in controlling nature:
http://www1.umn.edu/ships/pesticides/library/clement1962b.pdf

Episode -029- “Controlling” Nature:
Episode -029- "Controlling" Nature |

Show Notes

"People think they can control nature with sprays, tractors, mono cropping, cleverness and technology – it doesn’t work
I believe that nature has the final say
It makes more sense to work WITH nature instead of against it
There are no feedlots in nature, no matter how you try and justify it, there are no feedlots in nature
Feedlots concentrate animals and many people make the argument that “we can’t feed 9 billion people without industrial ag” Well, what about the corn that required to feed those animals? Where does it come from? Is that “sustainable?”
Proper livestock management can increase stocking rate by 1000% in some cases. 400-500% more likely, I’ve seen it done
A lot of people are caught in this paradigm, so they will come up with creative ways to justify their practices
Industrial Agriculture practitioners are hard working, smart and dedicated but there is a better way
What a lot of them don’t understand is that we have an unfair advantage, the sun
Responsible use of toxic chemicals is an oxymoron – in most cases
This is why I’m not a big fan of poultry and other critters that eat grain – feeding them grain is detrimental on many levels, economically, socially and environmentally. Try to avoid importing grain to your farm/ranch."

With biotech no need for so much troublesome conditioning...

 
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".

"You have absolutely no idea what science is and is not capable of. Nobody does."

Thats the whole point because with this kind of technology you have no idea what could happen as a result and to even gamble at such is to impede or destroy my rights to not have you do so.
This isn't relative to a trip to the moon or inventing the wheel or TV or any other thing you can think of short of nano tech etc because of its collective and chain reactive effects at levels that could make a nuclear melt down look tame and yet you still care not of others rights or safety and somehow you are convinced you are the voice of sanity and rational thinking. Its hard to fathom.
Peoples words in these posts and in the proposal like 'creator' etc are not out to get you and are not your enemy and should hold no power over you unless you allow such RabidAlpaca. The real enemy you should take best notice of exists in your own mind.
The only anti science views i've seen have been expressed by you and the other like-minded posters because at the end of the day what you are really doing is foregoing good thorough complete unbiased science to occur in reach instead for instant gratification of corporate profit interests...I suppose you were also swallowing tobacco science lol, gov/corps handed cigs out for decades knowing full well it was a bad idea...only tobacco is limited in its destructive reach.

 
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.
 
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:
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:
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."


:peaceCan you dig it?


 
Last edited:
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.
 
"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 ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom