| The 'terminator' gene was the worst PR word choice in the last 20 years. I can understand the need to recoup some of the money invested in R&D but Monsanto really had no fucking clue about the world outside their boardroom. |
Guardian readers have no sense of irony. • Page 2
-
Khanivor 44,800 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years ago -
chopsen 21,958 posts
Seen 10 hours ago
Registered 16 years agoskuzzbag wrote:
Is it wise to go planting GM crops in the UK without waiting for the studies on the effects of GM crops on the environment which are not yet due to complete.
IMO it's fucking stupid. I'm not pro or against GM crops to be honest but the goverment have yet again ignored advice from research agencies to hold back on planting until they know for sure the environment will be safe.
Yeah. Weirdly, nobody seems to get that wound up by the environmental implications. Not too difficult to imagine how cross pollination from a pest killing plant would easily result in, ironically, a pest plant that could effect the survival organisms at the very bottom of the food chain. Fuck knows what reverberations that would have further up the ecosystem.
Loads of people seem to be fearful of what actually eating GM food does to them personally, which is a bit retarded really. -
skuzzbag 5,950 posts
Seen 5 years ago
Registered 17 years agoTerminator plant!
Shit... a plant that not only wants to kills you. It'll hunt you down across time and space to do it.
We're fucking doomed! -
Khanivor 44,800 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years agoNobody seems to get wound up by the environmental implications? Did they just move the rock yesterday? -
I think 'terminator' was coined (very successfully) by the anti-GM lobby. 'Sterile seed technology' was the seed industry's preferred term.
Their problem is that's it's very hard to present any acceptable upside for this stuff, outside of the financial context - they don't have to sterilise crops. -
chopsen 21,958 posts
Seen 10 hours ago
Registered 16 years agoI meant the doom mongering people that tend to get so vocal and vitriolic about it seem to be more arguing from an irrational "ooh, we're doomed, we're playing god" point of view and running around like headless chickens whenever it gets mentioned, rather than debating specific environment issues and questions that need to be answered. I didn't mean nobody when I said "nobody." Duh. -
Khanivor 44,800 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years agoBut they do have to make money. Which, ironically, they would have an easier time doing if there wasn't such a reactionary resistance to GM. So one could argue - for the fun of it - that those who are preventing GM crops from being sold everywhere are forcing the GM companies to use terminator genes and are thereby killing millions of poor Indian farmers. -
Metalfish 9,191 posts
Seen 1 year ago
Registered 16 years agoBremenacht wrote:
All experimental crops should ideally be sterile, ironically to appease those that are worried about contaminating the surrounding environment.
Their problem is that's it's very hard to present any acceptable upside for this stuff, outside of the financial context - they don't have to sterilise crops.
Though you are right, commercially it is more than a little dubious. -
chopsen 21,958 posts
Seen 10 hours ago
Registered 16 years agoThat's the kind of logic wife beaters and drug addicts use to justify their actions. "You made me do it!" -
Chopsen wrote:
I'm not really worried about what it may or may not do to me - I'm worried about how many arms, legs or eyes my ancestors may have. My concern doesn't just apply to GM though - there's all sorts of shit we've started to stick in our bodies in just the past 80 years or so, presenting a considerable change to a diet that's changed very little over the previous 1000's of years.
Loads of people seem to be fearful of what actually eating GM food does to them personally, which is a bit retarded really.
Think about it - humans have been eating food that's been subject to little change since we came out of the trees. Yet look at all the shit we now stick in ourselves. What effect will all these chemicals have in 10 or 20 generations time? Yet, permission to introduce so much stuff into the food chain is often granted after no more than a couple of years of research.
Thalidomide was a wonder-drug once upon a time. Asbestos was a boon to the construction industry. etc etc. GM may turn out to be the best thing to happen to food, but it'll take more than a few years research to be sure of that. -
Uh oh. Does stating "Think about it" mean I fail? I'm not very Internet-savvy. -
ElectroDiva 592 posts
Seen 6 years ago
Registered 13 years agoYou should have gone with "wake up people".....FAIL!! -
chopsen 21,958 posts
Seen 10 hours ago
Registered 16 years agoHmm. But how will GM food cause mutations? Why are you specifically worried about that? It is just taking a gene that already exists in the ecosystem and sticks it in another host, iirc. It's not creating some new chemical that may interact in some unknown way with your genes. It's the food that's genetically modified, not you .gif)
I can see where you're coming from, but you could argue the same against any technological advancement. We don't often know the full implications way down the line. Interesting you should mention a drug: all drugs come to market in the full knowledge that it's impossible to detect some side effects till their use is widespread enough to make the rarer ones manifest themselves.
Generally, technological advancement happens out of necessity. If we wound the clock back to the middle ages, most of us would die. To sustain our current growth, we need to innovate further. The debate is, is the risk is worth taking? For most people most of the time, the answer is yes. -
I read the Guardian and have a sense of irony, so bugger off/
Khanivor wrote:
Yay for food containing carbon!
Ban GM, let's all go organic!!!
/Hates the term 'organic' -
chopsen 21,958 posts
Seen 10 hours ago
Registered 16 years agoI'd buy organic meat, if only it usually means the animal had a less miserable time while alive. Obviously I don't care enough abut their welfare enough not to eat meat in the 1st place...... -
Metalfish 9,191 posts
Seen 1 year ago
Registered 16 years agoBremenacht, I mean no insult when I say you're a bit ignorant on the subject, mutagens =/= genetic modification by recombination.
Oh and current testing would have picked up thalidomide's teratogenic effects years before it even thought about being on the market. Contrary to the views of the more cynical members of the forum: human beings do occasionally learn from their mistakes. -
Chopsen - I was trying to be a bit humourous with the arms and legs
We've got no idea what might happen generations down the line - not just with GM (and I take your point about the food) but with a lot of other stuff we either consume or stick on our head or whatever. I certainly don't think we should stop developing new technology. I do think we should spend a lot longer checking the long-term effects of chemicals on humans.
Thalidomide and asbestos and loads of other things (fags!) have been found to have have a life-threatening or congenital effect within just a few generations of their introduction. Maybe some man-made materials only have effects over multiple generations - maye subtly genetic or chromosonal. Is this sort of matter researched when developing products? Is it even required by law? I don't think it is.
Maybe they considered this sort of thing when they first made beer? I'm glad they got that one right.
Anyway - L4D time -
Metalfish wrote:
Way to misrepresent the debate and miss the point.
It's the constant bleating of "Monsanto! Monsanto! They're like the devil spawn of the dark lord Sauron and Dr Evil!" that gets me. Yes, that's reasoned debate right there. -
The irony is that you're doing exactly what you accuse the other side of doing.
Oh way, "I have no sense of irony"...
:roll eyes: -
Metalfish wrote:
I'm sure I am, and I'm sure that what you've described is a reason why many products are regarded as being safe for use. Do we know that genetic modification does not occur over many generations though? Are rats and mice good enough proof?
Bremenacht, I mean no insult when I say you're a bit ignorant on the subject, mutagens =/= genetic modification by recombination.
-
Sod organic, I want metallic chickens.
Then they'd have a sense of irony themselves! -
Metalfish 9,191 posts
Seen 1 year ago
Registered 16 years agoBremenacht wrote:
/minor chemist cringe
I do think we should spend a lot longer checking the long-term effects of chemicals on humans.
maye subtly genetic or chromosonal.
/minor biochemist twitch
Maybe they considered this sort of thing when they first made beer? I'm glad they got that one right.
Ah, so you know it's fairly widely accepted that alcoholic beverages would be very unlikely to pass certification were they invented today and were not part of our culture
@otto, Come on man, it's not like I'm saying that represents the entirety of the opposition. Maybe it needed a smiley or something. There are some very good points against certain parts of GM development. Ad homiem vilification of the producers is not helpful.
EDIT:
otto wrote:
Am I? I've stated my bias. The "dark-lord-Sauron+Dr.Evil" bit was an attempt at humour, not a blanket dismissal of all and any who may tarnish the good name of my beloved frankencrops.
The irony is that you're doing exactly what you accuse the other side of doing.
I may have been a bit brazen and not given the indication that I do care about the possibility of negative effect, but that's no excuse to waltz into the thread and dismiss my position as narrow-minded without contributing anything. -
Metalfish 9,191 posts
Seen 1 year ago
Registered 16 years agoBremenacht wrote:
I'm sure how to respond to this. Genetic modification does occur over generations, it's the reason why evolution happens.
I'm sure I am, and I'm sure that what you've described is a reason why many products are regarded as being safe for use. Do we know that genetic modification does not occur over many generations though? Are rats and mice good enough proof?
Ok, I'm being facetious.
I'm assuming you would like to know if eating GM crops could alter our DNA/epigentic factors over a long period of time? Obviously it would be stupid to outright deny that as a possibility, but I wouldn't class it as particularly plausible. Or at least any more or less likely than a similar effect from any other change in our diets due to technological advance. We're not creating new genetic material, we're copying bits from one source to another, so it's not a completely unknown quantity.
And pride becomes before an epic fail and all that, but I'd say mice and rats are doing us pretty proud at the moment, proof-wise. A case-by-case basis is probably the sensible way forward, as some GMOs have already been proven to be not as great as we hoped they'd be (or downright dangerous in some cases) while others have exceeded expectations. -
Metalfish 9,191 posts
Seen 1 year ago
Registered 16 years agoOh and just for one final bit of me talking to myself before I get some sleep: I read the guardian, ironolols! -
Genji 19,682 posts
Seen 10 years ago
Registered 17 years agoThe EG forum should start its own newspaper, to provide a middle ground between Guardian fail and Daily Fail.
I'm sure we're all perfectly reasonable, balanced people here.
Aren't we?
/glances around nervously -
presh 1,221 posts
Seen 8 years ago
Registered 19 years agoGenji wrote:
The EG forum should start its own newspaper, to provide a middle ground between Guardian fail and Daily Fail.
I'm sure we're all perfectly reasonable, balanced people here.
Aren't we?
/glances around nervously
Well for one thing, the comments threads would be much funnier -
marilena 8,238 posts
Seen 2 weeks ago
Registered 18 years agoI wouldn't hate GM food if they wouldn't have removed the taste from them. I'm sometimes glad I live in a backward country, I still have access to food that doesn't taste like plastic. -
skuzzbag 5,950 posts
Seen 5 years ago
Registered 17 years agoChopsen wrote:
Generally, technological advancement happens out of necessity. If we wound the clock back to the middle ages, most of us would die. To sustain our current growth, we need to innovate further. The debate is, is the risk is worth taking? For most people most of the time, the answer is yes.
Again.. one of the main arguments is that because we don't know is it wise to allow so many GM crops out into the wild as it were.
some info
It's not a case of the scientists not knowing what the implications are. This isn't a case of "who knows what will happen" it's a case of "this might happen". There is a difference there in that we should be very careful indeed about what is allowed and what isn't
The bloke in link in the OP has just gone off and ignored all this for his own selfish means.
He's a twat basically. -
skuzzbag 5,950 posts
Seen 5 years ago
Registered 17 years agomarilena wrote:
I wouldn't hate GM food if they wouldn't have removed the taste from them. I'm sometimes glad I live in a backward country, I still have access to food that doesn't taste like plastic.
Yes we do too it's called organic and it's a growing industry that is strictly controlled so that each farmer producing gets their organic certification. They don't have to do much to be put out of business such as the wrong fertiliser or ground contamination.
Someone planting GM crops in the area will fuck things up for a lot of people.
I'd imagine this bloke will now become the target for eco terrorrists. -
skuzzbag wrote:
Again.. one of the main arguments is that because we don't know is it wise to allow so many GM crops out into the wild as it were.
some info
It's not a case of the scientists not knowing what the implications are. This isn't a case of "who knows what will happen" it's a case of "this might happen". There is a difference there in that we should be very careful indeed about what is allowed and what isn't
Yeah, I know, I said that I felt the environmental issues are the most important (and under-represented) aspect of the GM debate in this very thread Much more so than the "OMG it's genetically modified! That's like mutants and cancer and stuff!" type argument you seem to see more often.
Because there are theoretical risks should not be blanket barrier to research. (/Glances at greenpeace)
Lack of research should be a barrier to something being more widely implemented, however.
.gif)
Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.
