Monsanto cannabis yes or no? The DNA Protection Act of 2013

[Harrekin]

Me too. Party on, Garth!

Turns out this comes from one of his links regarding the EFSA.

"The EFSA concluded the findings did not stand up scientifically".

He's just SO bad at this.

 

[Doer]

But, not scientifically bad....as a person I mean.

 

[Old Mate Gorks]

You don't NEED to modify its genetics, at all. Why even bother? So that companies, scientists and corporations can cash in on the benefits perhaps?

Small shit like this throws the ecosystem out of sync even more so than it currently is.

Here's a plausible hypothetical scenario:

What if a bunch of genetically modified plants fucked up in one or more very important aspect, (lets say for example, it has something to a similar degree of the 'flat stem' plants in India) then this fucked up plant is introduced into the wild by accident... It spreads/or receives pollen, and starts to reproduce. Eventually mixing with and threatening the survival of the natural genetics in that area.

Think of it (Genetically modified plants in the wild) as a growing cancer, taking over and fucking up all the good shit in the local area. Or as a spreading mold.

And by the way, Harriken, my apologies for being so blunt but you've proven yourself to be quite a dickhead. Pull your head in please.

 

[cannabineer]

You don't NEED to modify its genetics, at all. Why even bother? So that companies, scientists and corporations can cash in on the benefits perhaps?

Small shit like this throws the ecosystem out of sync even more so than it currently is.

Here's a plausible hypothetical scenario:

What if a bunch of genetically modified plants fucked up in one or more very important aspect, (lets say for example, it has something to a similar degree of the 'flat stem' plants in India) then this fucked up plant is introduced into the wild by accident... It spreads/or receives pollen, and starts to reproduce. Eventually mixing with and threatening the survival of the natural genetics in that area.

Think of it (Genetically modified plants in the wild) as a growing cancer, taking over and fucking up all the good shit in the local area. Or as a spreading mold.

And by the way, Harriken, my apologies for being so blunt but you've proven yourself to be quite a dickhead. Pull your head in please.

Can you support the bolded without resorting to posting a blog? cn

 

[Dr Kynes]

You don't NEED to modify its genetics, at all. Why even bother? So that companies, scientists and corporations can cash in on the benefits perhaps?

Small shit like this throws the ecosystem out of sync even more so than it currently is.

Here's a plausible hypothetical scenario:

What if a bunch of genetically modified plants fucked up in one or more very important aspect, (lets say for example, it has something to a similar degree of the 'flat stem' plants in India) then this fucked up plant is introduced into the wild by accident... It spreads/or receives pollen, and starts to reproduce. Eventually mixing with and threatening the survival of the natural genetics in that area.

Think of it (Genetically modified plants in the wild) as a growing cancer, taking over and fucking up all the good shit in the local area. Or as a spreading mold.

And by the way, Harriken, my apologies for being so blunt but you've proven yourself to be quite a dickhead. Pull your head in please.

genetic modification is a tool.
back in the 50's the musician's union claimed multitrack recording would spell the end for musicians and musicianship.
back in the 70's they said that home tape recorders would ruin the recording industry.
in the 80's the VCR would doom the cinema
in the 90's home cd burners would ruin the music industrry
in the 2000's file sharing would ruin every industry
and now gmo's will destroy the planet.

GMO plants are domestic plants. domestic plants do not "spead like weeds" weeds snuff domestic plants easily. the claim that domestic plants would "get pollen" is ridiculous since domestic plants have NO NATURAL ANALOG which might pollenate or be pollenated by the domesticated plant. despite hundreds of years of intensive farming, the only way to get corn to grow in iowa is to PLANT IT YOURSELF. iowa's forests are not overrun with wild corn plants spreading inexorably deeper into the natural ecosphere pushing out the sycamore trees, willows and pine trees and replacing them with endless vistas of maize.

even persistent and hardy crops like Rye dont crowd out native plants. when was the last time you went out to your lawn and found a soya plant growing in your flowerbed?

why can you not see how silly this is?

 

[Old Mate Gorks]

I realise its a broad statement to make without footnotes or citations, and I'll try find some legit sources to back it up shortly.

Compared to the overall impact of humans on the earth over the last 200 or so years, which includes (amongst others) de-forestation, nuclear energy/waste, pollution, etc. it doesn't seem to be that big of a deal. But, when you look at the 'cause and effect' side of the situation (see definition on chaos theory below, same concept), it isn't hard to picture that a large scale effect is eventually inevitable, whether you or I will be around to witness it.

"Chaos theory is a field of study in mathematics, with applications in several disciplines including physics, engineering, economics, biology, and philosophy. Chaos theory studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions, an effect which is popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.[1] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[2] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[3][4] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos." - Wikipedia.

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=Genetically+modified+organisms+impact+on+environment&btnG=Submit&as_sdt=1,5&as_sdtp=

I've read a few articles from this page that shed some light on the topic, however there's too much information and articles for me to sit here and sift through in order to give you an in depth explanation, I'd be here for hours. Hope it helped clear things up at least a little though.

(edit) PS. Im here to learn about shit, by no means do I think I know it all, I acknowledge that there is a fuckload of information out there on this subject. Having said that, at this point in time these are my thoughts on GM plants.

 

[Dr Kynes]

I realise its a broad statement to make without footnotes or citations, and I'll try find some legit sources to back it up shortly.

Compared to the overall impact of humans on the earth over the last 200 or so years, which includes (amongst others) de-forestation, nuclear energy/waste, pollution, etc. it doesn't seem to be that big of a deal. But, when you look at the 'cause and effect' side of the situation (see definition on chaos theory below, same concept), it isn't hard to picture that a large scale effect is eventually inevitable, whether you or I will be around to witness it.

"Chaos theory is a field of study in mathematics, with applications in several disciplines including physics, engineering, economics, biology, and philosophy. Chaos theory studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions, an effect which is popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.[1] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[2] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[3][4] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos." - Wikipedia.

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=Genetically+modified+organisms+impact+on+environment&btnG=Submit&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=

I've read a few articles from this page that shed some light on the topic, however there's too much information and articles for me to sit here and sift through in order to give you an in depth explanation, I'd be here for hours. Hope it helped clear things up at least a little though.

so we should stop all genetic research because you heard about this thing called chaos theory and it sounded like if you do ANYTHING catastrophe will eventually result...

yeah... not so much.

throwing out references to chaos theory which are really just rehashings of the plot macguffins for Jurassic Park doesnt make your case. Chaos Theory is just an overly complicated attempt to restate the heisenberg uncertainty principle and the theories of quantum mechanics as a force at play in the newtonian universe.

that which occurs in the sub-atomic realm does not necessarily hold true in biology, or agriculture. heisenberg may not know where his electons are, but i do know exactly where my tomatoe plants and spring herbs are planted. barring some unforeseen difficulty with squirrels or raccoons, they will be there tomorrow, and the next day and the next. i dont need complex math games to figure out that they need water and sunlight, and i can be fairly certain they will not be invading my neighbor's yard or popping up paving stones in the street down the block, even if they are GMO's.

 

[Old Mate Gorks]

I'm against the idea of playing God.

 

[Dr Kynes]

I'm against the idea of playing God.

im sure that sounded profound in your head bro.

but this thread has put the arguments for and against gmo research through the wringer. the anti-gmo crowd has failed to make any case at all for banning genetic research.

if you got some evidence, bring it in, but im not gonna hold my breath.

 

[Harrekin]

You don't NEED to modify its genetics, at all. Why even bother? So that companies, scientists and corporations can cash in on the benefits perhaps?

Small shit like this throws the ecosystem out of sync even more so than it currently is.

Here's a plausible hypothetical scenario:

What if a bunch of genetically modified plants fucked up in one or more very important aspect, (lets say for example, it has something to a similar degree of the 'flat stem' plants in India) then this fucked up plant is introduced into the wild by accident... It spreads/or receives pollen, and starts to reproduce. Eventually mixing with and threatening the survival of the natural genetics in that area.

Think of it (Genetically modified plants in the wild) as a growing cancer, taking over and fucking up all the good shit in the local area. Or as a spreading mold.

And by the way, Harriken, my apologies for being so blunt but you've proven yourself to be quite a dickhead. Pull your head in please.

I'm a dickhead? Why, because what I post is true and you can't deal with it?

Reality is tough, Josephine.

 

[Old Mate Gorks]

Kynes, I'm not here to bicker or start an argument, I think you've misread my intentions. Maybe you can provide some evidence that supports there is no risk in intervention?

And Harreken I apologise for the name calling, I had a problem with your attitude until I realised mine was no better by slandering insults.

 

[Harrekin]

Kynes, I'm not here to bicker or start an argument, I think you've misread my intentions. Maybe you can provide some evidence that supports there is no risk in intervention?

And Harreken I apologise for the name calling, I had a problem with your attitude until I realised mine was no better by slandering insults.

It's ok, I can't debate irrational fear anyways, if you want to think the sky is falling, who am I to stop you?

I do have a problem with the attitude of people who blindly say "natural" is better when clearly these people just spent too long at the organic market and the smell of organic manure fried their brain.

Onus of proof is on the chicken making the claim, you claim GM is harmful, prove it.

 

[Ninjabowler]

I cant believe you guys are still kicking this dead horse. And your still probably defending the DNA butchers just because its impossible to publish against Monsanto without getting sued. You idiots are pathetic, i hope you get cancer for defending those creeps. You guys only keep dredgeing this thread up so you can jack each other off. Pathetic

 

[Harrekin]

I cant believe you guys are still kicking this dead horse. And your still probably defending the DNA butchers just because its impossible to publish against Monsanto without getting sued. You idiots are pathetic, i hope you get cancer for defending those creeps. You guys only keep dredgeing this thread up so you can jack each other off. Pathetic

Irrational fear or grounded in reality?

You're the former, unless you post something to the opposite effect?

 

[Ninjabowler]

Nobody care about this tread anymore. You suck

 

[echelon1k1]

Onus of proof is on the chicken making the claim, you claim GM is harmful, prove it.

Lucky multinationals and the like would never deceive the pubic or mislead regulators...

In this day and age of IP & Copyright laws, corporations hire security specialists recruited straight out of high level government jobs to minimise their vulnerability to industrial espionage, how is the general public able to get to access to data to prove beyond a resonable doubt they pose a danger to human health and that of the animals we ingest? Corporations are not bound by FOIA laws...

If monsanto had a safe product, free from defect or the potential to cause unwanted side effects in humans or animals and could prove this - independent scientific testing, review & verification shouldn't be a problem...................... But we all know they fight tooth and nail to ensure this does not happen.

GM tech is an area that needs gruelling scientific oversight and LONG TERM, independent studies that are transparent, in all forms and financially independent. It's not coming anytime soon and the consequences will be at our expense, but you all seem content just kicking the can down the road...

I do remember a similar situation many years ago with tobacco, at least smoking is a choice, kind of hard to make that choice with the food you eat if you don't know if it's GM or not, although some places required labelling many do not and regulators are no where to be found...

 

[Harrekin]

Lucky multinationals and the like would never deceive the pubic or mislead regulators...

In this day and age of IP & Copyright laws, corporations hire security specialists recruited straight out of high level government jobs to minimise their vulnerability to industrial espionage, how is the general public able to get to access to data to prove beyond a resonable doubt they pose a danger to human health and that of the animals we ingest? Corporations are not bound by FOIA laws...

If monsanto had a safe product, free from defect or the potential to cause unwanted side effects in humans or animals and could prove this - independent scientific testing, review & verification shouldn't be a problem...................... But we all know they fight tooth and nail to ensure this does not happen.

GM tech is an area that needs gruelling scientific oversight and LONG TERM, independent studies that are transparent, in all forms and financially independent. It's not coming anytime soon and the consequences will be at our expense, but you all seem content just kicking the can down the road...

I do remember a similar situation many years ago with tobacco, at least smoking is a choice, kind of hard to make that choice with the food you eat if you don't know if it's GM or not, although some places required labelling many do not and regulators are no where to be found...

If Monsanto GM's a product which is harmful they'll get sued to kingdom come, the free market is awesome like that.

Theyve already started their fall from grace now that people are discovering their GM crops don't infact pwn normal crops.

People seem to think pro-GM mean pro-Monsanto which is entirely untrue, Im pro GM and "couldntgiveafuck" about Monsanto, the same as I don't give a shit about Nike or Pepsi...they're just companies that make products I don't buy.

 

[Doer]

You don't NEED to modify its genetics, at all. Why even bother? So that companies, scientists and corporations can cash in on the benefits perhaps?

Small shit like this throws the ecosystem out of sync even more so than it currently is.

Here's a plausible hypothetical scenario:

What if a bunch of genetically modified plants fucked up in one or more very important aspect, (lets say for example, it has something to a similar degree of the 'flat stem' plants in India) then this fucked up plant is introduced into the wild by accident... It spreads/or receives pollen, and starts to reproduce. Eventually mixing with and threatening the survival of the natural genetics in that area.

Think of it (Genetically modified plants in the wild) as a growing cancer, taking over and fucking up all the good shit in the local area. Or as a spreading mold.

And by the way, Harriken, my apologies for being so blunt but you've proven yourself to be quite a dickhead. Pull your head in please.

And in 8 posts, what have you managed to prove?

 

[Doer]

Kynes, I'm not here to bicker or start an argument, I think you've misread my intentions. Maybe you can provide some evidence that supports there is no risk in intervention?

And Harreken I apologise for the name calling, I had a problem with your attitude until I realised mine was no better by slandering insults.

If you want no risk then you must be wanting death. That's the only no-risk state for humans.

Glad you are coming around, mate. Lot of things to discuss. If I want mudslinging, I can chase my dogs though mud.

 

[cannabineer]

I realise its a broad statement to make without footnotes or citations, and I'll try find some legit sources to back it up shortly.

Compared to the overall impact of humans on the earth over the last 200 or so years, which includes (amongst others) de-forestation, nuclear energy/waste, pollution, etc. it doesn't seem to be that big of a deal. But, when you look at the 'cause and effect' side of the situation (see definition on chaos theory below, same concept), it isn't hard to picture that a large scale effect is eventually inevitable, whether you or I will be around to witness it.

"Chaos theory is a field of study in mathematics, with applications in several disciplines including physics, engineering, economics, biology, and philosophy. Chaos theory studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions, an effect which is popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.[1] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[2] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[3][4] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos." - Wikipedia.

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=Genetically+modified+organisms+impact+on+environment&btnG=Submit&as_sdt=1,5&as_sdtp=

I've read a few articles from this page that shed some light on the topic, however there's too much information and articles for me to sit here and sift through in order to give you an in depth explanation, I'd be here for hours. Hope it helped clear things up at least a little though.

(edit) PS. Im here to learn about shit, by no means do I think I know it all, I acknowledge that there is a fuckload of information out there on this subject. Having said that, at this point in time these are my thoughts on GM plants.

I would have to opine that you addressed "can throw" in the original bolded but not "does throw". I know there is an f-load of info out there, and it is the contradictory nature of that info that leaves me feeling frustrated. I dislike blogs because they place an ideological filter first, then cherrypick from the f-load whatever works for them. it's a fundamentally dishonest process, and it gets in the way of folks like me who would begin by saying "define the problem; provide upper&lower limits and establish the median" ... cn