Do "unnatural" things exist?

[N35t0r]

There isn't a difference. One is just a lot more efficient.

Because we clearly understand genetics to such a degree that we can be sure about this This is also why there aren't any genetic diseases anymore. Oh wait.

[MikeH]

The only reason for being suspicious of genetically modified food is ignorance. Or stupidity. It's not like Monsanto is lacing it with Chemical X.

I am in the camp that thinks GM food is probably the way forward to feed our growing population, but to suggest there aren't valid concerns is ignorance. Or stupidity.

There may be a vast difference between what the valid sensible concerns are and the way that internet conspiracy nutters like to paint it, but genetically modifying stuff is something you want to treat carefully and consider the ethics of as you go along.

[snoopy369]

HC- you're just acting ignorant yourself here. What is Monsanto doing, do you think? They are, indeed, lacing the plant with chemical X. X happens to be a protein variant that is not vulnerable to an herbicide (Roundup Ready) or another protein that makes it inedible or poisonous to insects or fungi. The latter in particular is indeed a potential source of risk - something that kills fungi or insects may have an effect on human cells as well (DDT is a great example). It may not be immediately apparent, but it is a potential source of risk. It's also perhaps better than the pesticides and fungicides we use now. But simply saying "it is 100% safe" is pure ignorance, especially from someone without the training in the field to actually understand it.

[snoopy369]

Because we clearly understand genetics to such a degree that we can be sure about this This is also why there aren't any genetic diseases anymore. Oh wait.

Honestly it has little to nothing to do with "Genetics". It has mostly to do with the proteins we are inserting the instructions to make; the actual DNA changes are unlikely to have any bad effects, but the proteins in the plant are where some risk comes in. Selective breeding also has this effect (again, the potato example is a great one), but it is a fallacy to say 'selective breeding has risks too so GMOs are safe'. Both have risks, and GMO risks are much more likely to be lower profile (since they're making fairly small changes in the plant).

[Felch]

The great travesty of genetics is that they're not making really cool **** yet. There should be bioluminescent trees lining city streets, wheat should have a new protein to produce THC, and maybe we can even make Giant Pandas want to bang each other once in a while.

I blame the "genetically modifying stuff is something you want to treat carefully and consider the ethics of as you go along" crowd. You're holding us back!

[Felch]

Because we clearly understand genetics to such a degree that we can be sure about this This is also why there aren't any genetic diseases anymore. Oh wait.

Did the first humans to practice selective breeding have a perfect understanding of what they were doing?

[Hauldren Collider]

HC- you're just acting ignorant yourself here. What is Monsanto doing, do you think? They are, indeed, lacing the plant with chemical X. X happens to be a protein variant that is not vulnerable to an herbicide (Roundup Ready) or another protein that makes it inedible or poisonous to insects or fungi. The latter in particular is indeed a potential source of risk - something that kills fungi or insects may have an effect on human cells as well (DDT is a great example). It may not be immediately apparent, but it is a potential source of risk. It's also perhaps better than the pesticides and fungicides we use now. But simply saying "it is 100% safe" is pure ignorance, especially from someone without the training in the field to actually understand it.

Banning DDT was a horrible atrocity that killed millions of people

[Felch]

It seems to me like humans came about through natural causes, are natural and everything humans do is natural whether it's making plastic or blowing up other humans. DISCUSS.

Everything humans do is natural, in the sense that Dauphin described. When we restore CO2 to the atmosphere, where it belongs, we are at one with nature. When we exterminate species every day, we are at one with nature. When we eventually destroy ourselves in a sea of nuclear fire, we will be at one with nature. We are as natural as an asteroid or a flood basalt.

[loinburger]

When we turn into werewolves, we're behaving unnaturally, because werewolves are supernatural.

[Sava]

The problem with 'organic food' is that organic food is also manipulated by humans. Corn, apples, etc have all been genetically modified (just the old fashioned way--selective breeding). They are still cultivated by people and not gathered from naturally-occurring locations. It's completely meaningless. The whole concept is really retarded.

The whole "organic" thing seems to have more to do with the lack of pesticides and chemical fertilizers. But don't let facts stop you yet again.

[Sava]

BTW, I find the whole concept of "nature" and "natural" to be a completely artificial distinction.

[N35t0r]

Did the first humans to practice selective breeding have a perfect understanding of what they were doing?

No. They also weren't sure (AFAIK, at least ) that what they were doing was completely harmless.

[The Mad Monk]

I can point out a couple spots where natural fission reactors have been discovered.

[Sava]

I can point out a couple spots where natural fission reactors have been discovered.

Think of it this way... if you were traveling to some remote, undeveloped area, ripe with "natural" beauty... and you saw something like an ant colony or a beaver dam... would you consider it natural?

Where is the distinction between "natural" and "unnatural"? Is animal life natural? Are bird's nests natural? Humans are just animals.

If a bunch of alien tourists passing through our solar system stopped for a moment to examine the Earth, do you think they'd consider our buildings and impact on the environment to be natural? Even the fission reactors? To them, we probably just look like ants do to us.

This is why I say the distinction between "natural" and "unnatural" is artificial. It's something we made up in our minds.

That's not to say industrial pollution is acceptable because it's "natural". That stuff is harmful to our existence. Volcanoes are harmful to our existence. Are they natural?

If anything, I'm being critical of the whole hippie tree hugger movement in the way they talk about such issues. "Nature" is synonymous with "good" in their world. Unnatural is bad. But that simply isn't the case.

Nobody needs to agree with me. But does this make the least bit of sense?

[N35t0r]

Honestly it has little to nothing to do with "Genetics". It has mostly to do with the proteins we are inserting the instructions to make; the actual DNA changes are unlikely to have any bad effects, but the proteins in the plant are where some risk comes in.

Um, semantics? I'm understanding something akin to 'Getting shot has little to nothing to do with guns, it has mostly to do with the bullets that we are shooting with guns, the actual guns are unliekly to have any bad effects, but the bullets are where some risk comes in'.

Most genetic diseases are the result of the wrong proteins being made due to differences in the DNA, so I don't really understand how you can separate both things.

Selective breeding also has this effect (again, the potato example is a great one), but it is a fallacy to say 'selective breeding has risks too so GMOs are safe'. Both have risks, and GMO risks are much more likely to be lower profile (since they're making fairly small changes in the plant).

Hm? Selective breeding is selecting naturally occurring mutations, so I can't really see how the changes are 'bigger' than with GM crops?

Also, what do you mean with potatoes? I was under the impression that toxicity is found in at least some wild varieties as well?