Why isn't this piracy?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by child of Thor
my irrational fear of GM is about as well founded as most of the 'love GM' brigade here

Uh, no it isn't.

PWN3D!

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
do i count as a right-winger now?

edit......

are you changing your position now? because this new position of yours, or at least, what seems like a new position, i don't mind so much, and can agree with. retarding the rate of research isn't the best of all outcomes, but it's better than the no research you seemed to be suggesting.

No not unless you support Bush(and or Hitler/Stalin etc)

And I guess in the face of the backdoor method the bio-tech companies have been trying to get GM into the market place, i've taken a very anti stance. They dont want to give the science more time to mature, they want us to use GM now.
So in reaction/protest to this tactic i refuse to buy/support it now.

If they were willing to really do proper field studies BEFORE trying to reap the comercial benefits i could live with it,+ depending on the outcome of the results with all the correct data in place we could all make beter choices.

As it is this rush to use it without proper safe guards just 'smells' like someone has something to hide?

And Kucinich, i'm embarrased to say i dont know what all this PWND stuff means but i guess its not good

[Aeson]

Some of the better things about GM:

It can make crops more resistant to pests. Which reduces the need for pesticides, which we know are harmful.

The research that goes into GM can be used to help negate the problems that could conceivably come from it. It also opens up avenues to develope plants specifically to address environmental problems that already exist.

Yeilds from a certain amount of land can be increased, reducing the amount of land we need to utilize to get our food.

Certainly "playing God" should be monitored closely. The "could be" argument works both ways though. We could be (and likely are) doing more damage to the environment using more land and pesticides than necessary to grow our food.

[Provost Harrison]

Arrrrr, there be whaleblubber on that ship, matey!

[child of Thor]

GM whaleblubber? if so please keep it off my land

[Kuciwalker]

No GM whalebluber in my backyard!

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Aeson

Certainly "playing God" should be monitored closely. The "could be" argument works both ways though. We could be (and likely are) doing more damage to the environment using more land and pesticides than necessary to grow our food.

Unless you're also an advocate for vegetarianism, in which case you get the best of both worlds. Less land needed and less environmental damage, and no messing about in things we oughtn't be.

[Kuciwalker]

I love meat. It tastes good.

[Aeson]

Unless you're also an advocate for vegetarianism, in which case you get the best of both worlds. Less land needed and less environmental damage, and no messing about in things we oughtn't be.

Still applies though. If all those veggies could be grown on less land, with less pesticides, then GM still helps out.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kucinich

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
But the more fundamental question is "Why do we need GM food?"

Because it makes growing food cheaper?

No it doesn't. What gave you that idea?

First of all, farmers in developed countries don't need it. They are producing an excess already.

Secondly, farmers in underdeveloped countries can't afford to pay for the seeds every year.

It's the agricultural subsidies that are killing the farmers in Third World Countries, not because they can't grow enough food or anything else.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
granted, it's a problem. we're still here, aren't we? no matter how much rigorous testing something goes through, you'll still have unintended consequences.

I agree. Thus, the greater the chance of a major disaster, the more thorough the testing is required. If there's anything we learnt from the DDT and CFC fiascos, it is short and limited testings are far from enough to find out if there are any real impacts on things that interact with the environment on a grand scale.

It's not like WAP phones or ASP portals. If these fail -- as they had -- the only impact is a loss of investments. But once you start messing about with things that get into the environment and goes who knows where, you have to be exceptionally careful.

Originally posted by Q Cubed
you can't keep science locked up in a lab somewhere; if you publish any scientific work, somebody else will take it, and whether you like it or not, they might just release it to the world.

I don't understand. Genetics and genetic engineering are very different things.

Originally posted by Q Cubed
that's like saying even without stem cell research, we can still acquire new knowledge in genetics and human biology.

sure, we can, but why shun a potential avenue of research just because you're squeamish about its possibilities?

That's not the same thing. GM food is not a "potential avenue of research," it is a product paddled by large biotech companies. It is much more similar to, say, AIDS drugs than stem cell research.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Aeson
It can make crops more resistant to pests. Which reduces the need for pesticides, which we know are harmful.

There are other ways to deal with pests. Such as cotton wevils can be controlled by the use of parasitic wasps, which is a whole lot safer. Another example, a lot of wild species are resistant to pests. Crossing domestic species with their pest resistant cousins in the wild will result in more pest resistant strains. A lot of the problems are caused by large scale cultivation of a single crop. Simple changes in agrarian practices will go a long way in combating the pest problem.

Originally posted by Aeson
The research that goes into GM can be used to help negate the problems that could conceivably come from it.

That's possible. Don't realise this stuff publicly until the problems are fixed, though.

Originally posted by Aeson
It also opens up avenues to develope plants specifically to address environmental problems that already exist.

It's not that easy. Genetics is a lot more complicated than splicing a gene here and there.

Originally posted by Aeson
Yeilds from a certain amount of land can be increased, reducing the amount of land we need to utilize to get our food.

We don't have an overall shortage of food. Farmers in Third World Countries are being killed by subsidies in the developed countries. A simple change in policies is much more effective here.

Originally posted by Aeson
We could be (and likely are) doing more damage to the environment using more land and pesticides than necessary to grow our food.

If we eat less meat and more plants, a lot more can be fed.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
There are other ways to deal with pests. Such as cotton wevils can be controlled by the use of parasitic wasps, which is a whole lot safer. Another example, a lot of wild species are resistant to pests. Crossing domestic species with their pest resistant cousins in the wild will result in more pest resistant strains. A lot of the problems are caused by large scale cultivation of a single crop. Simple changes in agrarian practices will go a long way in combating the pest problem.

I know there are natural ways to help control pests. The problem is there are a lot of pests, and it is much more expensive and work intensive to use 'natural' pest control... and even 'natural' pest control is messing with the environment by using non-native or overpopulations of pest predators (which sometimes turn out to be a problem themselves).

My Dad managed an apple orchard/produce farm with 'natural' pest control for a few years, and still consults for them. They have had a lot of problems with their approach (which included a lot of fertilizers and pesticides to deal with problems there was no natural solution for), and just recently decided to cut down all their trees because they couldn't turn a profit. Part of that is economic, as the apple industry has really taken a hit the past decade, but other orchards he manages/consults for are still in business.

That's possible. Don't realise this stuff publicly until the problems are fixed, though.

What problems specifically?

It's not that easy. Genetics is a lot more complicated than splicing a gene here and there.

And your point is? I didn't say it's easy, but genetic mutation of plants does hold the potential to help our environment out, and can already do so in some cases (helping to limit the need for pesticides and land use).

We don't have an overall shortage of food. Farmers in Third World Countries are being killed by subsidies in the developed countries. A simple change in policies is much more effective here.

Farming has an environmental impact on the land that is farmed. The less farmland needed to grow the crops we need, the less environmental impact. While lower yield crops can feed us, it does so requiring more farmland than higher yield crops.

If we eat less meat and more plants, a lot more can be fed.

Same thing. You can still use less farmland to produce the same amount of food by using higher yield crops. In fact that is essentially what you are suggesting here, as meat is 'low yield' in compared to what is required as feed.

Reducing environmental impact by addressing one factor doesn't negate the additional reduction that can be made by other factors.