Global warming and G.M crops

[Bogwarrior]

Just after listening to a radio interview with all the main parties (in Fermanagh), and they were asked their views on genetically modified crops.
All of them, without hesitation leaped at the opportunity to attack this idea. I realise it's the coolest thing to hate these days, but are there any parties actually studying this issue before leaping.
Whilst listening, I thought, well bully for them, sitting amongst the green fields of Fermanagh, with the soft rain falling outside, but what of those living in the Third World.
If Mankind were able to derive plants that could resist the growing desertification of Africa and even Southern Europe, easing the threat of global warming and migration, should we reject this? Imagine the greening of the Sahara, or Kalahari.
Is G.M crops any different from growing hybrid crops? Should we at least be open to more research on this issue?

[SPN]

Just after listening to a radio interview with all the main parties (in Fermanagh), and they were asked their views on genetically modified crops.
All of them, without hesitation leaped at the opportunity to attack this idea. I realise it's the coolest thing to hate these days, but are there any parties actually studying this issue before leaping.

This issue was put to bed years ago, I'm surprised you are still trotting out the old, discredited, Burson Marstellar talking points.

It isn't that people are either trying "to be cool", or that they "hate" GM crops, it is that:

- GM crops are a dumb idea;
- they don't do what they are supposed to do;
- they haven't been tested to prove that they won't cause the problems the scientists suspect they may cause;
- and they are less profitable for farmers than normal crops.

Whilst listening, I thought, well bully for them, sitting amongst the green fields of Fermanagh, with the soft rain falling outside, but what of those living in the Third World.

What about them?

The "needs of people in the third world" are best solved by processes which look at the specific needs of a specific community and their own specific micro climate.

GM crops are all about massive monocultures, lots of chemicals, and big profits for the three companies who do most of it.

If Mankind were able to derive plants that could resist the growing desertification of Africa and even Southern Europe, easing the threat of global warming and migration, should we reject this? Imagine the greening of the Sahara, or Kalahari.

If my Aunt had a dick she'd be my Uncle.

Is G.M crops any different from growing hybrid crops? Should we at least be open to more research on this issue?

GM is totally different to hybrid crops! Hybridisation generally doesn't include adding genes from eColi bacteria or fish to cereal crops.


Who isn't open to research?


There is a big difference between doing research and releasing living organisms into the environment without testing for anticipated problems.

[ibis]

I see SPN is as incapable of rational debate on this subject as ever. Well, forewarned is forearmed...one cannot avoid him on this subject, so I'll comment on his points.

Some of SPN's points are applicable, certainly, to commercial GM varieties. Monsanto et al's interests are best served by locking farmers into using their products - GM is, in certain senses, the DRM of crops.

Some of what he says is uncertain. We don't know the effects of releasing (accidentally or deliberately) GM crops in the wild. Adequate research has not been done. To a fair extent we assume that GM crops are the same as hybrids, but we don't know. We don't know if the genes added to a crop genome are more liable to, say, 'come adrift' as mobile elements in the presence of bacteria or viruses. Life is very very complex, and the more we find out, the more we're sure it's still got some very large surprises up its sleeves.

Some of his points are frankly daft. If GM crops are 'less profitable for the farmer', there'd be no incentive for the farmer to use them.

Some of what he says is just mouth-foam. A 'fish gene' is a DNA sequence, just as a plant gene is. To make out that we are in some way dealing with some sort of chimerical abomination is frankly primitive. To think that the claim 'GM crops are dumb' is a valid part of a debate on them is pathetic. I'm fairly sure the genitalia of his relations is irrelevant to the debate, and I feel that the answer to "who isn't open to research" is "SPN".

Frankly, I don't think SPN cares whether GM crop release gets adequately tested or not - he hates them either way. I'm sure you can tell the level of rationality he brings to the subject by the level of vitriol you have received just for asking the question.


As to the actual debate, which SPN regards as 'closed' - GM crops will almost certainly form part of any further 'Green Revolution' for Africa (probably all the more necessary because Africa will be worst hit by global warming). The rabid hatred that people like SPN have for them, and the extent to which politicians are willing to simply kowtow to that hatred, means that any such effort is most likely to be left in the hands of commercial interests, to the detriment of those who need such crops.

[SPN]

I see SPN is as incapable of rational debate on this subject as ever. Well, forewarned is forearmed...one cannot avoid him on this subject, so I'll comment on his points.

Someone trotting out talking points crafted by Monsanto's PR Company does not constitute a debate.

Some of SPN's points are applicable, certainly, to commercial GM varieties. Monsanto et al's interests are best served by locking farmers into using their products - GM is, in certain senses, the DRM of crops.

There are no non-commercial varieties! The whole purpose of GM is to create Commercial Advantage. GM brings the ability to patent crops and to demand royalty payments from people who grow them - even inadvertently.

Some of what he says is uncertain. We don't know the effects of releasing (accidentally or deliberately) GM crops in the wild. Adequate research has not been done. To a fair extent we assume that GM crops are the same as hybrids, but we don't know. We don't know if the genes added to a crop genome are more liable to, say, 'come adrift' as mobile elements in the presence of bacteria or viruses. Life is very very complex, and the more we find out, the more we're sure it's still got some very large surprises up its sleeves.

What I said was FACT. The uncertainty lies in the way the technology has been implemented.

We don't know what the ACTUAL effects will be, but we can model for them. What we need is for the research to be done BEFORE we release these living organisms into the wild. There is no way of putting the genie back in the bottle if we find a major problem afterwards.

You may assume that hybrids are the same as GM, but that is just plain silly. You may also assume that the Sun revolves around the Earth for all we know.

We DO know that implanted genes are more likely to come adrift because the method of implanting them is so clumsy and random.

Some of his points are frankly daft. If GM crops are 'less profitable for the farmer', there'd be no incentive for the farmer to use them.

That's what Marketing and PR are for!

Studies into the ACTUAL economics of GM have shown it to be a bad joke. What is worse is that a famer who has grown GM, or whose neighbour has grown GM, cannot grow a certified GM free crop for decades - thus making him unable to benefit from the premium prices conventional crops now obtain in the market.

Some of what he says is just mouth-foam. A 'fish gene' is a DNA sequence, just as a plant gene is. To make out that we are in some way dealing with some sort of chimerical abomination is frankly primitive. To think that the claim 'GM crops are dumb' is a valid part of a debate on them is pathetic. I'm fairly sure the genitalia of his relations is irrelevant to the debate, and I feel that the answer to "who isn't open to research" is "SPN".

If the fish gene sequence was beneficial to the plant, one would expect that evolution would have conferred it on the plant long ago.

GM crops ARE dumb! This is a fact. Since when is stating facts pathetic - oh yeah, when they contradict some PR hype you have been spoon fed.

My hypothesising was for the purpose of highlighting the stupidity of Bogwarrior's hypothesising. Do pay attention!

I am very open to research. You may "feel" that I am not, but I can categorically state that I am.

Frankly, I don't think SPN cares whether GM crop release gets adequately tested or not - he hates them either way. I'm sure you can tell the level of rationality he brings to the subject by the level of vitriol you have received just for asking the question.

What have I said which might rationally lead one to conclude, A) that I don't care about the lack of proper testing of GM crops, and B) that I hate GM crops. (The idea that I might "hate" an inanimate object is beyond ridiculous!)

As to the actual debate, which SPN regards as 'closed' - GM crops will almost certainly form part of any further 'Green Revolution' for Africa (probably all the more necessary because Africa will be worst hit by global warming). The rabid hatred that people like SPN have for them, and the extent to which politicians are willing to simply kowtow to that hatred, means that any such effort is most likely to be left in the hands of commercial interests, to the detriment of those who need such crops.

I never said the "debate was closed". I pointed out that the PR talking points trotted out by Burson Marstellar in 1997/1998, as faithfully regurgitated by Bogwarrior, had been debunked, and put to bed, a very long time ago.

GM comes a poor third to Energy hungry "Green Revolution" techniques, and location specific Organic techniques, under any comprehensive analysis of the future needs of people in third world countries.

Diverting crops for use as human food, instead of for animal feed, would provide a much more appropriate aproach.

But the biggest single factor that needs to be addressed is War.

Most of the starvation on the planet is caused by War.



:twisted: Rabid Hatred :twisted:

You really are a tw4t!

[ibis]

I see SPN is as incapable of rational debate on this subject as ever. Well, forewarned is forearmed...one cannot avoid him on this subject, so I'll comment on his points.

Someone trotting out talking points crafted by Monsanto's PR Company does not constitute a debate.

Some of SPN's points are applicable, certainly, to commercial GM varieties. Monsanto et al's interests are best served by locking farmers into using their products - GM is, in certain senses, the DRM of crops.

There are no non-commercial varieties! The whole purpose of GM is to create Commercial Advantage. GM brings the ability to patent crops and to demand royalty payments from people who grow them - even inadvertently.



[quote:294dve4s]Some of what he says is uncertain. We don't know the effects of releasing (accidentally or deliberately) GM crops in the wild. Adequate research has not been done. To a fair extent we assume that GM crops are the same as hybrids, but we don't know. We don't know if the genes added to a crop genome are more liable to, say, 'come adrift' as mobile elements in the presence of bacteria or viruses. Life is very very complex, and the more we find out, the more we're sure it's still got some very large surprises up its sleeves.

What I said was FACT. The uncertainty lies in the way the technology has been implemented.

We don't know what the ACTUAL effects will be, but we can model for them. What we need is for the research to be done BEFORE we release these living organisms into the wild. There is no way of putting the genie back in the bottle if we find a major problem afterwards.

You may assume that hybrids are the same as GM, but that is just plain silly. You may also assume that the Sun revolves around the Earth for all we know.

We DO know that implanted genes are more likely to come adrift because the method of implanting them is so clumsy and random.

Some of his points are frankly daft. If GM crops are 'less profitable for the farmer', there'd be no incentive for the farmer to use them.

That's what Marketing and PR are for!

Studies into the ACTUAL economics of GM have shown it to be a bad joke. What is worse is that a famer who has grown GM, or whose neighbour has grown GM, cannot grow a certified GM free crop for decades - thus making him unable to benefit from the premium prices conventional crops now obtain in the market.

Some of what he says is just mouth-foam. A 'fish gene' is a DNA sequence, just as a plant gene is. To make out that we are in some way dealing with some sort of chimerical abomination is frankly primitive. To think that the claim 'GM crops are dumb' is a valid part of a debate on them is pathetic. I'm fairly sure the genitalia of his relations is irrelevant to the debate, and I feel that the answer to "who isn't open to research" is "SPN".

If the fish gene sequence was beneficial to the plant, one would expect that evolution would have conferred it on the plant long ago.

GM crops ARE dumb! This is a fact. Since when is stating facts pathetic - oh yeah, when they contradict some PR hype you have been spoon fed.

My hypothesising was for the purpose of highlighting the stupidity of Bogwarrior's hypothesising. Do pay attention!

I am very open to research. You may "feel" that I am not, but I can categorically state that I am.

Frankly, I don't think SPN cares whether GM crop release gets adequately tested or not - he hates them either way. I'm sure you can tell the level of rationality he brings to the subject by the level of vitriol you have received just for asking the question.

What have I said which might rationally lead one to conclude, A) that I don't care about the lack of proper testing of GM crops, and B) that I hate GM crops. (The idea that I might "hate" an inanimate object is beyond ridiculous!)

As to the actual debate, which SPN regards as 'closed' - GM crops will almost certainly form part of any further 'Green Revolution' for Africa (probably all the more necessary because Africa will be worst hit by global warming). The rabid hatred that people like SPN have for them, and the extent to which politicians are willing to simply kowtow to that hatred, means that any such effort is most likely to be left in the hands of commercial interests, to the detriment of those who need such crops.

I never said the "debate was closed". I pointed out that the PR talking points trotted out by Burson Marstellar in 1997/1998, as faithfully regurgitated by Bogwarrior, had been debunked, and put to bed, a very long time ago.

GM comes a poor third to Energy hungry "Green Revolution" techniques, and location specific Organic techniques, under any comprehensive analysis of the future needs of people in third world countries.

Diverting crops for use as human food, instead of for animal feed, would provide a much more appropriate aproach.

But the biggest single factor that needs to be addressed is War.

Most of the starvation on the planet is caused by War.

:twisted: Rabid Hatred :twisted:

You really are a tw4t! :roll:[/quote:294dve4s]

Well, that's roughly what I was expecting.

SPN, you have a particular interest in this subject, but I've yet to see you provide anything but insults, wild claims, and accusations that everyone else has been taken in by Monsanto PR except you.

Clearly, you are able to say something about the economics and the biology of GM, but it seems you'd rather just yell.

Let's take it for a moment that I'm actually interested in why GM crops are bad, and that, frankly, the yelling doesn't impress me at all (and I doubt it impresses anyone else).

Can you persuade me GM crops are actually bad, or is it just something I should wear a tinfoil hat for?

[SPN]

Well, that's roughly what I was expecting.

You were expecting that I would totally rebut the falsehoods you presented, and ridicule your attempts at character assasination.

No bother sham!

SPN, you have a particular interest in this subject, but I've yet to see you provide anything but insults, wild claims, and accusations that everyone else has been taken in by Monsanto PR except you.

Instead of waffling on about fictitious "insults, wild claims and accusations", why don't you specify what you are referring to? You are the one who keeps taking this discussion off into generalities, hype and name calling. (Rabid Hatred anyone? )

I can assure you that I haven't been taken in by Burson Marstellar's easily debunked PR. Anybody with a reasonable understanding of the English language should also be able to see through their obvious attempts at misrepresenting the facts in such a way as to benefit the commercial objectives of their client, Monsanto.

Clearly, you are able to say something about the economics and the biology of GM, but it seems you'd rather just yell.

What have I "yelled" precisely?

Let's take it for a moment that I'm actually interested in why GM crops are bad, and that, frankly, the yelling doesn't impress me at all (and I doubt it impresses anyone else).

What "yelling" precisely?

Can you persuade me GM crops are actually bad, or is it just something I should wear a tinfoil hat for?

Again, where are you going with the word "bad"?

The scientists are telling us that the technology isn't yet ready for release into the wild, while the Companys who want to commercialise their products tell us that everything is okay and that we shouldn't worry.

I know who I believe - even without a tinfoil hat!

[ibis]

Well, that's roughly what I was expecting.

You were expecting that I would totally rebut the falsehoods you presented, and ridicule your attempts at character assasination.

No bother sham!

No, I was expecting that rather than actually tell me anything, you would rant and rave....

SPN, you have a particular interest in this subject, but I've yet to see you provide anything but insults, wild claims, and accusations that everyone else has been taken in by Monsanto PR except you.

Instead of waffling on about fictitious "insults, wild claims and accusations", why don't you specify what you are referring to? You are the one who keeps taking this discussion off into generalities, hype and name calling. (Rabid Hatred anyone? )

Well, this kind of thing:

GM crops ARE dumb! This is a fact. Since when is stating facts pathetic - oh yeah, when they contradict some PR hype you have been spoon fed.

My hypothesising was for the purpose of highlighting the stupidity of Bogwarrior's hypothesising. Do pay attention!

You don't have any evidence that anyone has been 'spoon-fed' anything, except the irrational assumption that anyone who disagrees necessarily has been. Where am I supposed to have got this spoon-fed information from? I haven't even heard of 'Burson Marstellar' - I assume they are a PR agency?

Why is Bogwarrior 'stupid' for asking questions?

I can assure you that I haven't been taken in by Burson Marstellar's easily debunked PR. Anybody with a reasonable understanding of the English language should also be able to see through their obvious attempts at misrepresenting the facts in such a way as to benefit the commercial objectives of their client, Monsanto.

I'm very happy to hear it. Unfortunately, you assume that anyone who doesn't simply parrot your line has been "taken in", and you attack them.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that there isn't PR, spin, misinformation, and lies coming out of Monsanto for their commercial benefit. I'm saying that you (SPN) are so utterly irrational on the subject that they seem reasonable by comparison, which is a pity.

You may be right about GM crops, but until you actually explain why, you're just asking people to accept it on your word. Now, nothing personal, but I won't take your unsupported word for things any more than Monsanto's. It's clear you have strong feelings about GM crops, but that isn't sufficient to prove you right.

Clearly, you are able to say something about the economics and the biology of GM, but it seems you'd rather just yell.

What have I "yelled" precisely?
[quote:fpd4jpq4]Let's take it for a moment that I'm actually interested in why GM crops are bad, and that, frankly, the yelling doesn't impress me at all (and I doubt it impresses anyone else).

What "yelling" precisely?
[/quote:fpd4jpq4]

See above - also, check the level of capitalisation in your posts.

Can you persuade me GM crops are actually bad, or is it just something I should wear a tinfoil hat for?

Again, where are you going with the word "bad"?

The scientists are telling us that the technology isn't yet ready for release into the wild, while the Companys who want to commercialise their products tell us that everything is okay and that we shouldn't worry.

I know who I believe - even without a tinfoil hat!

Fine and good. I accept that. My minor is in Botany, and I have an MSc in Environmental Resource Management, so it's hardly surprising that I would be on the side of the science rather than the commerce.

But (and it's a big but, as they say) - you don't point to any science. You don't point to any research. You just tell me "scientists say". That's not science - it's PR. Where's the research?

Again, you are assuming that because I haven't simply agreed that you're totally right, I must be a dupe of Monsanto. Bogwarrior gets it in the neck for just asking the question.

Really, you're your own worst enemy (well, barring Monsanto).

[SPN]

LOL!

[ibis]

LOL!

:roll:

Thank you for your contribution to the GM debate. Next time Monsanto are trying to spoon-feed us lies, we can tell them "SPN sez LOL!", and I'm sure that will sort them out sharpish.

Keep wearing the tinfoil.

[SPN]

Don't forget my Rabid Hatred!

LOL!