|
|
|
Badger
Skeptic Friend
Canada
257 Posts |
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2010 : 05:10:43 [Permalink]
|
| Playing God with kid gloves vs. playing God with a wrecking ball. The potential for major f-ups is way higher. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
 |
|
|
Badger
Skeptic Friend
Canada
257 Posts |
 Posted - 08/06/2010 : 12:03:58 [Permalink]
|
Typically, when one f's up genes, the organism fails to thrive (if it even makes it out of the embryo stage at all).
It's not as easy as being hung over one day, and creating a master race of flying vampire goats that spin webs when one was just trying to make a cantaloupe taste more cantaloupey. |
If you think it's work, you're doing it wrong. |
|
|
|
Badger
Skeptic Friend
Canada
257 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2010 : 12:10:40 [Permalink]
|
Typically, when one f's up genes, the organism fails to thrive (if it even makes it out of the embryo stage at all).
It's not as easy as being hung over one day, and creating a master race of flying vampire goats that spin webs when one was just trying to make a cantaloupe taste more cantaloupey. |
If you think it's work, you're doing it wrong. |
|
|
|
Badger
Skeptic Friend
Canada
257 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2010 : 12:12:06 [Permalink]
|
Unintentional replication! How topicaly, AND ironic! |
If you think it's work, you're doing it wrong. |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2010 : 12:27:14 [Permalink]
|
I think most people have the idea that human DNA is being implanted into turnips or Fish DNA is being implanted into corn, in some kind of insane "What if" experiment or some kind of whacky idea to produce intelligent vegetables that can water themselves or something. When in reality what you actually get are more mundane things like Genes from a type of rice which thrives in wet environments but produces a low yield being inserted into a type of rice which dies in flooding and has a high yield, producing a flood resistant strain of rice with a high yield.
The greatest risk seems to be producing something which either contaminates the food chain somehow or is so virulent it destroys other forms of life. The benefits are increased yields, reduced fertiliser and pesticides. If it's done in a responsible way so as to maximise the benefits and reduce the risk then I'm all for it.
I certainly wouldn't refuse to eat something on principle simply because it was genetically modified. |
 |
| Edited by - On fire for Christ on 08/06/2010 12:27:59 |
|
|
|
Farseeker
Skeptic Friend
Canada
76 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2010 : 15:45:21 [Permalink]
|
well, reasonable people can differ
in Europe, GMs are banned in many countries.
So, let us assume the risk is not zero.
How much is you health (and loved ones) worth to you?
If one plane in a thousand crashed, would you fly?
Everything material is about cost - benefit. How much benefit would it take for you to expose yourself to an unknown but plausible risk from GM food?
In any case, would object to labeling such foods? |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2010 : 09:25:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Farseeker
well, reasonable people can differ
in Europe, GMs are banned in many countries. |
which countries?
| So, let us assume the risk is not zero. |
That's a bit of a leap. A government banning something does not constitute proof of anything. Where's the scientific evidence?
| How much is you health (and loved ones) worth to you? |
That's one way of looking at it. The other is that there is a unproven possibility of a long term health/ecological risk Vs short term ability to feed millions of starving people.
| If one plane in a thousand crashed, would you fly? |
A pointless comment since we don't know the actual odds. There is always a possibility of planes crashing yet people still fly. So it's safe to say if the chances are low enough people will take almost any risk.
| Everything material is about cost - benefit. How much benefit would it take for you to expose yourself to an unknown but plausible risk from GM food? |
Again depends on the actual risks involved. Data would be helpful. GM foods have been around for about 20 years so we've probably all eaten them. It's like the hysteria surrounding vaccinations. Many people (wrongly) took the risk of the disease over the risk of the vaccine.
| In any case, would object to labeling such foods? |
I don't see why anyone would object to accurate labelling of products.
|
|
| Edited by - On fire for Christ on 08/08/2010 09:29:17 |
|
|
|
Farseeker
Skeptic Friend
Canada
76 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2010 : 15:17:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Farseeker
well, reasonable people can differ
in Europe, GMs are banned in many countries.
which countries? |
Austria, Hungary and possibly Ireland, to start.
Ask not who bans it, but rather who accepts GM foods, as that is the smaller list. Google will help you.
The EU primarily allows genetically modified corn, as far as I can see. Do they accept other GM crops?
One GM food is not the same as another, nor is the risk identical. GM soy is not the same as GM corn, or GM wheat. Japan is legislating against GM wheat, as per the references I have read.
| That's a bit of a leap. A government banning something does not constitute proof of anything. Where's the scientific evidence? |
True, as they could have many motives. But, they do have scientific panels. Reasonable people can differ, but to imply that all other governments (and their panels of scientists) are wrong is just... too simplistic and/or arrogant.
| That's one way of looking at it. The other is that there is a unproven possibility of a long term health/ecological risk Vs short term ability to feed millions of starving people. |
What has one thing to do with another? Are you saying that GM foods (the majority of which goes to animal feed) is the only solution to world hunger? Really?
I visited Japan. Everywhere I looked I saw personal rice patties around private houses. Where I grew up, there were "victory gardens" everywhere, especially in the back yards of my Italian neighbors. They grew lots of food.
The problem is not lack of GM food, it is lack of water. Give me clean water and a package of seeds and I will grow at least some food, reducing the burden on the environment. Multiply this by ... oh a billion people, and the food shortage might be less than it is.
In fact, my friends are amazed when I eat dandelions, plantain, lambs quarter, stinging nettle, choke cherries and such. With me, it is a hobby, but the point is, we can have enough food if we have enough clean water.
As for the ocean, it is loaded with edible seaweed. Food shortages are a man made problem...
by the way, is it true that GM foods only cover 3% of developed nation's farmed soils?
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2010 : 13:14:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Farseeker
Austria, Hungary and possibly Ireland, to start. |
Citation please...
Ask not who bans it, but rather who accepts GM foods, as that is the smaller list. Google will help you. |
It's not our job to provide your evidence. You make the claim, you back it up. Preferably with a link.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2010 : 16:19:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
I don't see why anyone would object to accurate labelling of products.
|
It adds barriers of entry to small and medium producers. Making accurate labels is incredibly expensive (the accuracy part). This would reduce competition to only those providers large enough to bear the extra costs. In economics almost all innovation comes from small players while large players add efficiency. So economic barriers to entry reduce variety and stifle creativity.
Also the amount of additional tax costs and government growth to police such a label is prohibitive, and thus they are not very well polices as it is. In that case it becomes political hand waving to an alleged threat to make everyone feel better, without knowing there is a threat or if any thing is actually made better. |
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2010 : 16:25:18 [Permalink]
|
It is a degree different. But we should all keep it clear the food we eat today does not exist naturally and was not available 10,000 years ago to anyone. We have bread so many plants and animals over so many generations to better suite our fat and sugar hungry brains that they can barely be connected to the original source. Maze can't be...or at least we are uncertain of it. Vegetables, Fruits, Animals have all changed significantly through our breeding programs over the thousands of years of planned agriculture. Most of the outcry over "franken-food" is naturalistic fallacy.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2010 : 17:27:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chefcrsh
But we should all keep it clear the food we eat today does not exist naturally and was not available 10,000 years ago to anyone. |
That is, of course, what makes Ray Comfort's "the banana is proof of God" argument so damn funny. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2010 : 17:35:13 [Permalink]
|
chef said:
| Most of the outcry over "franken-food" is naturalistic fallacy. |
Yep.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2010 : 17:35:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by chefcrsh
But we should all keep it clear the food we eat today does not exist naturally and was not available 10,000 years ago to anyone. |
That is, of course, what makes Ray Comfort's "the banana is proof of God" argument so damn funny.
|
Really I thought it was the whole phallic homoerotic nature of the bit. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2010 : 02:21:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chefcrsh
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by chefcrsh
But we should all keep it clear the food we eat today does not exist naturally and was not available 10,000 years ago to anyone. |
That is, of course, what makes Ray Comfort's "the banana is proof of God" argument so damn funny.
|
Really I thought it was the whole phallic homoerotic nature of the bit.
|
That would be a false dichotomy fallacy.
It's clearly both, not either-or.
 |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
Skeptically Speaking and GM Foods
