Jump to content


Poll: Scientific consensus


Poll: Views on Scientific Consensus  

32 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Moiraine said:

knapp/Landord/whoever, in modern times, when people (and more specifically, scientists) use "GMO" they are not talking about selective breeding.

 

GMO is synonymous with modifying the genetic makeup. No one who researches the benefits/safety/possible dangers of GMOs is looking into cross-pollination, or things like that. They're talking about gene modification, splicing, etc. That's what it is by definition. We're not talking about mixing peanuts with grapes by planting them next to each other or asking bees to have sex between a peanut seed and a grape seed in order to make the perfect sandwich.

 

I'm assuming you both know this and are posting these things for the fun of it.

 

 

I'm mostly posting for the fun of it. But, big picture, gene editing/splicing and selective breeding are the same thing, just using new and different tools. Just being obnoxious based on technicalities. Feel free to ignore me :D

Link to comment

3 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Your first example of the milk weed isn't an example of more pesticides being used.  It's an example of one being developed to kill a certain weed.  The argument is, do we want that weed killed at the rate it's being killed.

 

Round-up is one of the safest and less damaging chemicals farmers have used in decades.  It really is amazing how much safer it is to people and the environment compared to other herbicides.  But..it's used so often as a boogie man in this debate.

 

Well, just because I was using Milkweed as an example doesn't mean I am only talking about Milkweed.  The article mentions Roundup not to pick on that chemical, but because it is the herbicide that is used in a vast majority of GM crops.  As you know, Roundup is a non-selective herbicide.

 

So increased use of Roundup-ready GM crops = increased use of Roundup = very clean fields and very dead weeds.  Unfortunately, the term "weeds" can apply to both invasive non-native noxious weeds, as well as native plants that provide habitat and food for native ecosystems.  So killing lots of milkweed (and many other critical native plants) is essentially destroying breeding habitat for the Monarch Butterfly, (and many other critical insects, like native bees that are critical for agriculture)

 

If there was a way to ensure that a certain amount of native habitat could persist alongside GM fields, I probably would have no problem with GM crops.  Because the CRP program is voluntary, and prices/subsidies were up, much of that has been tilled.  Even marginal land.  That has probably had as big an impact, and is a separate issue.  But the fact is that the tiny fraction of land in the midwest that harbors functioning native habitat is shrinking, and GM crops are a big part of that.

 

I'll take your word on the (relative) safety of Roundup, as an improvement over other herbicides.  and the decreased use of insecticides is definately a good thing.  Of course, this is relative, because virtually ALL pesticides are carcinogenic at some level of exposure.

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Kiyoat Husker said:

 

Well, just because I was using Milkweed as an example doesn't mean I am only talking about Milkweed.  The article mentions Roundup not to pick on that chemical, but because it is the herbicide that is used in a vast majority of GM crops.  As you know, Roundup is a non-selective herbicide.

 

So increased use of Roundup-ready GM crops = increased use of Roundup = very clean fields and very dead weeds.  Unfortunately, the term "weeds" can apply to both invasive non-native noxious weeds, as well as native plants that provide habitat and food for native ecosystems.  So killing lots of milkweed (and many other critical native plants) is essentially destroying breeding habitat for the Monarch Butterfly, (and many other critical insects, like native bees that are critical for agriculture)

 

If there was a way to ensure that a certain amount of native habitat could persist alongside GM fields, I probably would have no problem with GM crops.  Because the CRP program is voluntary, and prices/subsidies were up, much of that has been tilled.  Even marginal land.  That has probably had as big an impact, and is a separate issue.  But the fact is that the tiny fraction of land in the midwest that harbors functioning native habitat is shrinking, and GM crops are a big part of that.

 

I'll take your word on the (relative) safety of Roundup, as an improvement over other herbicides.  and the decreased use of insecticides is definately a good thing.  Of course, this is relative, because virtually ALL pesticides are carcinogenic at some level of exposure.

 

Well, one of the biggest selling points for roundup was that it greatly decreased the amount of herbicide that was needed.  You weren't spraying several times to kill various weeds.  You had one spray that killed everything but the crop.  That was a huge improvement over old practices for both the producer and environment.  Nothing is perfect and we need to keep improving.  Agriculture in the US is great at continual improvement and I am a firm believer that it will find a solution to this.  Believe it or not, farmers don't want to harm the environment and if it makes sense, they will do it.  After all, the healthier the environment they work in, the easier it is to farm.

 

The milkweed/monarch issue is one that needs to be looked at.  However, I don't think the fix is to just allow milkweed to grow in all crop fields unhindered.  

 

As a pheasant hunter, I would love to have way more CRP land in Nebraska.  But, farmers aren't going to do that without being compensated and paying farmers for things like this is looked down upon by lots of people.

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Well, one of the biggest selling points for roundup was that it greatly decreased the amount of herbicide that was needed.  You weren't spraying several times to kill various weeds.  You had one spray that killed everything but the crop.  That was a huge improvement over old practices for both the producer and environment.  Nothing is perfect and we need to keep improving.  Agriculture in the US is great at continual improvement and I am a firm believer that it will find a solution to this.  Believe it or not, farmers don't want to harm the environment and if it makes sense, they will do it.  After all, the healthier the environment they work in, the easier it is to farm.

 

The milkweed/monarch issue is one that needs to be looked at.  However, I don't think the fix is to just allow milkweed to grow in all crop fields unhindered.  

 

As a pheasant hunter, I would love to have way more CRP land in Nebraska.  But, farmers aren't going to do that without being compensated and paying farmers for things like this is looked down upon by lots of people.

 

Fair points.  I'll try to take the long view on Roundup.

 

As a tangent to this tangent..... What do you think about reversing the CRP policy of basing payments on the value of the land (which is based on production value)?  I get it that part of the goal is to allow even prime farmland to "rest" and be fallow for a few years.  It's a soil conservation thing.

 

OTOH, the "marginal" lands for farming are actually some of the most productive lands for biologically diverse habitat (wetlands, wetland-upland edge, dry sandy upland, etc.).  So if the CRP payment for those marginal lands were even slightly increased, it would greatly incentive-ize NOT cultivating prime habitat.  Overall, the government would be spending less, and the farmer would be making more, AND there would be way more bang for your buck in terms of native habitat.  Just a thought.

Edited by Kiyoat Husker
Link to comment

I'm kind of in the middle on the whole "natural organic farming" vs mass produced food spectrum.

 

I think food in its most natural state is the healthiest, and I like to support local farmers instead of commercial farmers.

 

However, we're going through climate change. We need scientists who can help farmers make food that can grow during a drought, and we need food that will grow FAST, for when we have shorter growing periods, and also just to feed the growing population. You absolutely cannot feed all the people on this planet with locally grown food. It's not possible. I don't know if you can even sustain have the earth's population today that way. There just isn't enough arable land. We have to have mass produced food in order to not starve to death.

Edited by Moiraine
Link to comment
20 hours ago, RedDenver said:

Neither of the bolded things are GMO. Those were accomplished with regular plant breeding techniques that humans have employed for thousands of years.

 

Also, I'm against GMO's because of how they can be patented and the legal issues around harvesting your own GMO seeds, not because of their safety. I try not to buy GMO in a tiny attempt to put those companies out of business.

 

Maybe I am parsing words here, but if you're selectively breeding to get a desired result, isn't that a form of genetic modification?  

Link to comment
38 minutes ago, Making Chimichangas said:

 

Maybe I am parsing words here, but if you're selectively breeding to get a desired result, isn't that a form of genetic modification?  

 

 

It's not what they mean by GMO. The term is specific. Maybe the term was ill conceived, since ya, you're probably right. But that's not what GMO means. Maybe they should have used DNAMO. DyNAMO!

I think I was wrong with what I stated earlier though, that a GMO can't be created through breeding.

 

Quote

The difference between GMOs and their selectively bred predecessors is that with selective breeding, all the traits of the desirable animal or plant are passed on to the new offspring. With genetic engineering, it is possible to isolate and introduce into another organism only those traits that one wants to pass on to that organism’s offspring.

 

To extend the wheat example, when farmers crossed different kinds of grass to produce grasses that grew quickly and prolifically, they had to accept that these grasses also grew very tall, and their stalks often broke before they were cultivated. With selective breeding, farmers have to accept undesirable traits along with desirable ones.

 

In addition, selective breeding only works with different organisms of the same or similar species, limiting the sorts of combinations that can be produced. The same limitation does not apply with GMOs. In one example, human DNA sequences were introduced into mouse DNA, creating mice that produced components for human blood that are needed in medicine. This sort of interaction is impossible with normal selective breeding.  

 

http://www.globalization101.org/genetically-modified-organisms/

 


Another way to put it (I think) is GMOs can't be created by chance. DNA sequences have to be modified by a scientist. Whereas with old methods, it might've been extremely unlikely to happen by chance but it was still possible in nature.

"In genetic engineering, scientists use tools of DNA technology to directly manipulate a genome."

 

 

Quote

Genetically modified food would include almost all the food we eat. Several different way plant genomes are altered “conventionally” and via genetic engineering are described here. Genetically engineering is the direct manipulation of an organism’s genome using biotechnology.

 

Edited by Moiraine
  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
12 hours ago, Kiyoat Husker said:

 

Chimi, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with your links.  The first one just talks about Mars, and doesn't even reference Earth.  The second link is a site that debunks the pseudo-science behind climate skepticism/denial.....  So you just debunked your own stance.  I was planning on providing a rebuttal, but you did that yourself. :blink:

 

I posted those links to show my confusion on this topic.  Not knowing which sites or data you can trust.

 

One site says Mars has global warming.  The other says it's bunk and not happening.  Who should I believe?  I'm not a scientist, I'm just a regular person who's, when it comes to climate change/global warming, I'm not entirely sure what is factual and what is bunk.

Link to comment

21 minutes ago, Making Chimichangas said:

 

I posted those links to show my confusion on this topic.  Not knowing which sites or data you can trust.

 

One site says Mars has global warming.  The other says it's bunk and not happening.  Who should I believe?  I'm not a scientist, I'm just a regular person who's, when it comes to climate change/global warming, I'm not entirely sure what is factual and what is bunk.

 

 

All you have to do is decide whether to trust scientists or Republican politicians. That should be easy for you.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Making Chimichangas said:

 

I posted those links to show my confusion on this topic.  Not knowing which sites or data you can trust.

 

One site says Mars has global warming.  The other says it's bunk and not happening.  Who should I believe?  I'm not a scientist, I'm just a regular person who's, when it comes to climate change/global warming, I'm not entirely sure what is factual and what is bunk.

 

I guess I would recommend reading about science from respected sources rather than random websites that are biased at best, and propaganda at worst.

 

good sources for science news, off the top of my head, ... Smithsonian Mag, National Geographic, Nature,   Popular Science, Scientific American, Discover, etc.

 

Being a skeptic is GOOD in science!  That's how scientists approach their own research, and how they debate each other's research.  That's how you protect yourself from the propaganda-peddling and B.S.

 

 Be skeptical when politicians or talk shows or news agencies make assertions without referencing data or academic research.  Be skeptical of "experts" that have never actually done research, or been published in peer-reviewed journals, or that have taken money from special interest groups.

 

it takes a little extra effort to identify misleading information these days, but it's worth the effort.  

Link to comment

 

7 hours ago, Landlord said:

 

 

I'm mostly posting for the fun of it. But, big picture, gene editing/splicing and selective breeding are the same thing, just using new and different tools. Just being obnoxious based on technicalities. Feel free to ignore me :D

The bolded part isn't true. As some other posts mentioned, gene editing/splicing can do things that aren't possible in breeding like combined genes across species.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Moiraine said:

I'm kind of in the middle on the whole "natural organic farming" vs mass produced food spectrum.

 

I think food in its most natural state is the healthiest, and I like to support local farmers instead of commercial farmers.

 

However, we're going through climate change. We need scientists who can help farmers make food that can grow during a drought, and we need food that will grow FAST, for when we have shorter growing periods, and also just to feed the growing population. You absolutely cannot feed all the people on this planet with locally grown food. It's not possible. I don't know if you can even sustain have the earth's population today that way. There just isn't enough arable land. We have to have mass produced food in order to not starve to death.

 

I agree with all of your points except the lack of enough land.  Right now farming techniques and technology are so efficient in this country that we could easily feed the entire world.  We are also blessed with a huge amount of the richest soils in the world.  The problem is more in food distribution.

 

Also, consider that a lot of acres are devoted to animal feed crops.  If we needed to increase the number of humans we feed per acre, just converting some percentage of that to direct human consumption crops would exponentially increase that number.

 

A resource that powerful should be protected from soil loss with sustainable practices, IMO

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

 

The bolded part isn't true. As some other posts mentioned, gene editing/splicing can do things that aren't possible in breeding like combined genes across species.

 

 

Aren't species essentially just made up human labels of categorization? 

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...