What you know about GMO's

[Guest 50million]

i dont see how GMOs can cure world hunger. it takes money to genetically modify anything, and if we just take the seeds we already have, reusing crops, it would be better for our budget and our envoirnment.

[YouMad.GIF]

i dont see how GMOs can cure world hunger. it takes money to genetically modify anything, and if we just take the seeds we already have, reusing crops, it would be better for our budget and our envoirnment.

 

Oh

excuse me I won't try and argue with someone who is such an expert because she "talks a lot about it at work"

 

GMOs have VASTLY higher crop yields, lose less of the crop to insects, and can grow in much harsher environments than natural seeds. If you don't see the corelation between those factors and supplying more food for the hungry, then I don't think anyone can help you...

 

You watch too many hippie conspiracy YouTube videos so you and your grocery store cronies think the only reason they modify food is so they can controll the polination process and force poor farmers to repurchase seeds every season. Suprise suprise, there's a whole lot more to it...

[Guest 50million]

"lose less of the crop to insects"....like natural repelant, or even round up ready repleant? how natural could either of those things really be? if we cure world hunger by giving people unatural 'plastic' to eat, then we are going to have more problems then before.

[hotsauceinthedickholewastaken]

Half aligator, half shark, half man.

[shai]

GMOs are a quick fix to a long term problem (feeding everyone cheaply and effectively) that will inevitably raise new issues (plant sterility, genetic drift, profit, legal issues) over time...in fact, some of these problems are already beginning to come up. In thirty to fifty years this shit is going to either be a nightmare or it's all going to be sorted out, but sorting it out is going to cost a lot of money. So, back to problems three and four.

 

Plus I don't trust DuPont or Monsanto on GP.

[Guest 50million]

FUCK MONSANTO. i fucking hate them.

 

 

and i agree shai.

[CALIgula]

Although that is true, the two sides have similar cons.

 

Pesticides can render the food inedible and could kill other animals or humans.

That being said, pesticides still won't have as big an effect on the environment as genetically modifying plants.

My only point for this one because I know next to nothing about pesticides effects and I won't pretend to.

 

Like I said before, Creatures evolve and after that, they'll have no problem eating GMO enhanced plants and be even more efficient at eating non-GMO enhanced plants.

Sure it can take thousands of years but think about it, After the animals/insects have adapted to the new crop it now has the potential to destroy an ever bigger chunk of agriculture.

This creature/animal can now reproduce at a higher rate because of better health.

This will greatly affect the balance of the food chain.

 

I.e: Birds start feeding on these GMO crops and the vitamin enhanced plants give them better health and they reproduce even faster. Their population rises and they have to consume more food and they take all the crops. Whatever insect/animal else feeds on that crop starve and die off. The things that feed on said insect/animal will now die off or their population will become dangerously low and this chain keeps on going. The birds would also eat a lot of worms therefore making some land less fertile / infertile.

I'm not saying this is gonna happen and I know it's amazingly improbable but it's the most straight forward example I can think of.

 

CALI,

 

As much as I love seedless watermelons.

They can no longer produce more watermelons and one day the demand for them will be so high we'll just be making seedless watermelons and forget about seeded watermelons.

Seeded watermelons die off / get replaced by seedless ones, no more seeds to modify, no more watermelons AT ALL.

 

 

you make a good point.

 

i took an entomology class where pesticides were discussed...whether or not the professor was biased or not, i dont know.

 

i do however know of a local case here in northern california (about a 2 hour drive from where i live), where pesticides effected the food chain adversely.

 

in lake county (clear lake)...

 

i googled it...and heres what i found:

 

http://bioregion.ucdavis.edu/book/10_Clear_Lake/10_11_circ_cl_stpark.html

 

its about the DDT related pesticide thats still in the lake to this day even though it was dumped decades ago.

 

i dont think your bird analogy works because of population growth being limited by "carrying capacity"

 

 

...as for seedless watermelons, well, they cost more, and i think underdeveloped countries will always produce watermelons with seeds...even here in the U.S., the Hmong population sells watermelons with seeds at the sunday morning farmers market....i dont see seedless watermelons becoming the only kind of watermelon leading to an extinction of watermelons.

[eatso]

slow local food eaters!

fuck monsanto

I'm going to go listen to aus rotten now

and not smoke weed.

[CALIgula]

GMOs are one way for corporations to make more money.

 

 

this unfortunately is true.

 

however, the company that made the golden rice i was talking about did so without making much profit from it, even though they could have.

 

i think they did this because they knew the world was watching.

[itsallafarce]

thanks again to everyone posting. everything is turning out helpful. props to those that have not recieved yet.

[twonpoo]

 

 

or

 

 

[The Flowsmith]

[MOOGLE?]

[CalicoCakes]

is that dune?

[CALIgula]

 

 

haha..reminds me of the watermelon thread i made a while back!!

[Guest 50million]

 

these are just grown in a box.

[Spitfire15]

A tasty box.

[YouMad.GIF]

"lose less of the crop to insects"....like natural repelant, or even round up ready repleant? how natural could either of those things really be? if we cure world hunger by giving people unatural 'plastic' to eat, then we are going to have more problems then before.

 

Wait

"round up ready repellant?"

did you just suggest that the reason genetically modified crops are less effected by insects is because they found a way to modify the organism to somehow generate it's own internal 'round up'?

 

Please 50, explain how it is that GMO crops have less loss to insect damage... Is it because they modify the plant to generate it's own pestecide?

 

 

 

Why don't you ask your other source, your grandmother that worked in the ag sci department of your local state school 30 years ago

I'm sure she's up to date

[YouMad.GIF]

this unfortunately is true.

 

however, the company that made the golden rice i was talking about did so without making much profit from it, even though they could have.

 

i think they did this because they knew the world was watching.

 

Is it really that hard to believe that some people in the scientific community want to make the world a better place?

Being a lawyer pays more than being a research scientist... Some of them are genuinely good peoe

[YouMad.GIF]

GMOs are a quick fix to a long term problem (feeding everyone cheaply and effectively) that will inevitably raise new issues (plant sterility, genetic drift, profit, legal issues) over time...in fact, some of these problems are already beginning to come up. In thirty to fifty years this shit is going to either be a nightmare or it's all going to be sorted out, but sorting it out is going to cost a lot of money. So, back to problems three and four.

 

Plus I don't trust DuPont or Monsanto on GP.

 

 

 

 

Genetic drift is seriously the scariest thing about GMO foilage

that's the main issue, making all natural crops extinct

[CALIgula]

No, it isn't that hard to believe that many scientists do want to make the world a better place.

 

But a majority of researchers, especially those who can put a patent on something are in it for some type of financial gain.

 

as for research, every professor at my school is doing research, and its all about getting that grant money to pay the bills...not necessarily make a great contribution.

[CALIgula]

...kinda like doctors...many are in it to help people and do good.

 

 

....but many more are in it for the money.

 

 

at least thats my opinion.

[Smart]

A tasty box.

 

Plenty of room here for 'box lunch' jokes but on the real, those square melons have been environmentally modified, they aren't genetically any different from round melons. What I was pointing out in my first post is what 50 hinted at from the corporate side and Shai mentioned directly. Combine these two angles and you get to the jist of my beef.

 

Sure, we COULD solve the world hunger problems by producing drought, disease, and pest resistant strains, focusing nutrient uptake to preserve the soil and reduce the need for crop rotation, increasing the nutrient output vs. nutrient input ratio...

 

OR... (as has historically been the case)

 

We could buy every field and every seed of 'crop x'... then we make this shit taste yummy, not worry about decreasing health benefits and sterilize the stock so that we can corner the world supply of the crop. We could also produce invase strains or strains that are dominant AND detremental to other crops.

 

It's already "CORN by DuPont! The Indians called it 'maize' but we call it a global monopoly."

[YouMad.GIF]

Dude

the money you get from grants is nothing compared to the private sector

of course they want grant money- that's where almost all of scientific funding comes from

if they don't get a grant, NOBODY researches anything

 

fact is- people motivated by money go into corporate law or business masters or private sector high dollar contract work

 

research scientists do it for discovery... And if they don't get a meazly govt grant they are just going to teach intro to astro 102 another year

[CALIgula]

yeah...most get funding from the NIH....i know how the process works....i do scientific research at the university...matter of fact im working tomorrow.

 

maybe im wrong on this, but i just dont see the principle investigators i talk to very passionate about their work.

 

they are required to do research if they want to work at the university, and if they arent bringing in the grant money, which the university takes about 30% of, they could lose their job.

 

so for them it becomes more about trying to do research to make keep employment rather than for the discovery.

 

im sure the discovery is a perk though...having your name published on scientific research must be nice...the principle investigator i work for has hundreds of studies published in lots of journals.

 

but i remember a biochemistry lab instructor i had that was just teaching for that session to make some extra cash to pay his bills until his grant money, that was already approved, came through.

[Smart]

Wait

"round up ready repellant?"

did you just suggest that the reason genetically modified crops are less effected by insects is because they found a way to modify the organism to somehow generate it's own internal 'round up'?

 

'round up' is weed killer, it's an herbicide, not an insecticide.

 

That said, there have been definite advances in the creation of pest resistant strains of various fruit producing plants through simple cross breeding of various strains. No genetic modification required. Well, no actual lab required. I mean simple fertilization from similar plant types to create stronger strains.

 

It's important to recognize that my GMO arguments focus on molecular level modifications in strictly controled environments. Otherwise we're back to the relatively harmless Hoek style experiments. I say 'relatively harmless' because that was just the first phase of the pandora's box that is un-natural selection. It wasn't very fancy stuff that got DuPont where they are, mostly money.

 

I think it's important to mention that for millions of years before Hoek this stuff happened naturally. So, it's not like happenstance and environment haven't colluded for centuries to create GMOs but... I know a BUNCH of humans and they seem like walking billboards for natural selection, but it's mostly the stuff that needs to be weeded out...

 

The kid a McDicks can't even get my order right 3 times out of 5.

[YouMad.GIF]

That doesn't sound like a dude who is seriously motivated by profits...

[CALIgula]

yeah...the individual researchers arent motivated by profits...but the companies sure as hell are.

[CALIgula]

example:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta

 

Syngenta AG is a large global agribusiness which markets seeds and pesticides. Syngenta is involved in biotechnology and genomic research. The company is a leader in crop protection, and ranks third in total sales in the commercial agricultural seeds market. Sales in 2008 were approximately US$ 11.6 billion. Syngenta employs over 24,000 people in over 90 countries. Syngenta is listed on the Swiss stock exchange and in New York.

[Smart]

The idea that the stand outs in this field are somehow attracted to university research is patently myopic.

 

There are certainly some altruistic examples but the vast majority of researchers in this field (as most others) are privately employed w/ significantly larger incomes than those at the university level.