I also noticed that. Whats the cause of that? Is this primarily a $$ thing for need of funding, a privlege censorship issue, or is it an abuse of intellectual protection ?
Your thoughts on genetically modified Food ?
- Thread starter billy4479
- Start date
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I am not sure. I'd be guessing. If I still had my industry contacts, I'd be moved to ask. It''s a good question, and the answer might surprise.
I do think that in the longer term the salutary, wealth-and wisdom-building effects of free information would exceed the local increases of wealth to the gatekeepers and their clients. However this is a feeling and not a developed socioeconomic argument. Synopsis: Idunno. cn
<edit> i don't think it's about intellectual property. The patent machinery has that covered. I also am disinclined to believe in it being a privilege/censorship dealie. These services are used by academics and their opposite numbers in industry, who are by and large info-libertarians.
I opine that it isn't so much about a need for funding as an opportunity. If you had an idea for a service, would you not be inclined to make money off of it if you had a market? cn
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
You unfortunately put your own ethos ahead of common sense and reason. Let me know when someone designs a complicated computer program that's perfect and never breaks or does things that aren't intended.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
If you can show that I am incorrect, i will listen. Where am i imposing an ethos? I observed that many people imbue nature with the authority of spirit,and many of them don't properly realize it. I didn't evaluate that belief negatively, as far as i can tell. cn
cannawizard
Well-Known Member
Valid point, just because he worked with Monsanto, that does not imply he is actually pro-Monsanto concerning his position with the FDA..
It does leave him in a predicament, since most groups against GMs would simply state that he is part of the "revolving-door" politics concerning this issue.. I would still prefer if we selected individuals with zero ties or any history with the GM companies.. but thats just wishful thinking..
Anyone who denies the dangers of consuming genetically modified food, or from animals injected with antibiotics/growth hormones living in confined unsanitary environments... is in complete denial. And most likely because it's a big part of their diet and they don't want to hear the truth. If the head of the FDA is a former Monsanto employee, why would any government studies that proves GMO's are harmful be released to the public? They wouldn't. Why? Because not only would they lose millions/billions of dollars, but they would be held responsible for knowingly poisoning billions of people. I laugh at all of these idiots who only accept "government approved" studies and think those are the ONLY legitimate one's. I also cry a little too...
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Distinct issues. The lousy conditions of meat animals are hard to argue in favor. Conflating the two is unfair. cn
I included them together because "organic" beef is considered to be grass-fed and not injected with any hormones or antibiotics.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Yes, but "organic" and non-GM are also distinct. "Organic" is imo one of the manifestations of the unadmitted animism that i pointed out and for which OGE called me to task. cn
So what is your point exactly?
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
I'm more referring to your beliefs about GMOs.
Their necessity etc.
By the way, I do understand your point about organic vs inorganic, animism and the problem with definitions.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Have I argued that they are necessary? I don't think that they are as currently implemented. I do believe that in the very long term, performing direct genetic manipulation on our own genomes will become necessary. But that is very different from supporting the current state of the commercial art as applied to crops/stock. I hope i made those distinctions clearer than all that. cn
You mean you WANT/would like to see manipulation of genomes becoming necessary? Why would that be necessary at all? Eat healthy, exercise, don't get shots/vaccines/meds, and you'll be good to go. It'd be nice if we could all stop murdering eachother for oil when free-energy exists in a variety of forms, too. And if they'd stop trying to patent nature, only so they can make it illegal for you to benefit. If you're lucky, they'll give you the opportunity to pay them for it. Marijuana/hemp isn't the only natural medicinal the big pharma has tried to claim ownership of.
I would also like to add, connecting with nature and earthing are great as well. Grounding, or earthing is a great way to protect yourself from radiation and well-being.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
No. I do not WANT it, but consider our human nature. We must eventually re-engineer that or face extinction. (Jmo.)
Also notice i didn't argue the necessity of engineering crops/stock. I think the current conventionally-bred cultivars will do.
Nonetheless I don't think GM crops/stock are inherently evil either, which is to what the crypto-animist argument usually returns.
<add> why avoid vaccines/meds?
Meds like antidepressants can turn you psychotic and suicidal, in fact, the vast majority of mass-shootings are done by people who were on or previous took SSRI's. Vaccines have neurotoxic and carcinogenic substances in them.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Links to the latter? (Real ones, not blogs?) cn
see4
Well-Known Member
it will never happen. jtprin graduated from finshaggy university.
http://www.naturalnews.com/037653_vaccine_additives_thimerosal_formaldehyde.html
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/additives.htm - Read the reasons they're put in for a good laugh.
http://het.sagepub.com/content/31/10/1012.long
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
The first is a blog and a repackaging of the second.
Neither discusses either amount or incidence. To argue neuro-or oncotoxicity, you must mention dose.
The third has nowt to do with vaccine as causative factor ... it simply mentions two correlations between hospitalizations (cause unspecified) and vaccination and age. interestingly, the statistical fit was better for age than vaccination. The shocking conclusion is that being alive is dangerous, and becomes more so with age. cn
Neither discusses either amount or incidence. To argue neuro-or oncotoxicity, you must mention dose.
The third has nowt to do with vaccine as causative factor ... it simply mentions two correlations between hospitalizations (cause unspecified) and vaccination and age. interestingly, the statistical fit was better for age than vaccination. The shocking conclusion is that being alive is dangerous, and becomes more so with age. cn