Anserine anti-gm movement continues to fail, M&S, Co-operative and Sainsburys to sell chicken fed wi
80 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40793985]Dangerous precedent? You need to explain why it's bad in the first place instead of saying "this could potentially happen".
Secondly, a reason for the patents is because they keep producing new seed varieties all the time, and the patents also expire.[/QUOTE]
A dangerous precedent in two ways; one that's already happening, one that's a tad more sci-fi but could become relevant. One; the patents allow them to strongarm and coerce farmers into using their products and their products only, this has already lead to an effective monopoly in the US which only benefits monsanto. Secondly; the patenting of the genetic material of living organisms is morally questionable at best and is also very difficult to define due to the huge amount of variations and diversity in the gene pool (this was the case held by the US government until the 80s where a case was won to have an oil slick eating bacterium patented, setting the precedent).
Also I can't believe I have to explain this, but it's frankly retarded to allow these genetic patents to be used to enforce a monopoly on a business as big as the world agricultural industry, and downright lunacy to enforce genetic homogeneity the world over for the sake of one company's profit. This is where this kind of deregulation gets you.
[editline]27th May 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Killuah;40794708]Well maybe we try not to condemn a complete new tech and instead concentrate on using the benefits and preventing the dangers?
You know, the smart thing to do.
Of course Monsato-esque politics are shit but that is in no way fault of the GM tech.[/QUOTE]
but monsanto are 90% of the US market, they effectively ARE gm
I've got no problem with GM, but I do have a problem with this kind of unchecked business practice.
[QUOTE=Generic Monk;40795059]A dangerous precedent in two ways; one that's already happening, one that's a tad more sci-fi but could become relevant. One; the patents allow them to strongarm and coerce farmers into using their products and their products only, this has already lead to an effective monopoly in the US which only benefits monsanto.[/quote]
This is not a problem inherent to GM food, but more due to the agricultural policy in America being cocked up.
[quote]Secondly; the patenting of the genetic material of living organisms is morally questionable at best and is also very difficult to define due to the huge amount of variations and diversity in the gene pool (this was the case held by the US government until the 80s where a case was won to have an oil slick eating bacterium patented, setting the precedent).[/quote]
If you created it, I see no problem with patenting it.
[quote]Also I can't believe I have to explain this, but it's frankly retarded to allow these genetic patents to be used to enforce a monopoly on a business as big as the world agricultural industry, and downright lunacy to enforce genetic homogeneity the world over for the sake of one company's profit. This is where this kind of deregulation gets you.[/QUOTE]
This isn't deregulation, this is rent-seeking.
[editline]27th May 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Generic Monk;40795059]but monsanto are 90% of the US market, they effectively ARE gm[/QUOTE]
No they aren't.
I don't trust a few big corporations with zany "contracts" on using their products.
Makes the alarm bells go into overdrive mode, 1984 style.
[editline]27th May 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40794350]It's utterly bizarre how people whom see themselves as environmentalists push for progress in all areas, minus agriculture.[/QUOTE]
The core problem here is a few massively big and powerful corporations who controls it all.
If it were many small companies that competed against each others, then it would be all swell.
[QUOTE=Killuah;40794399]These are breeds we created in the first place.[/QUOTE]
yeah that's why I posted it
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40794350]It's utterly bizarre how people whom see themselves as environmentalists push for progress in all areas, minus agriculture.[/QUOTE]
It's utterly bizarre how ignorant you are in pretty much every aspect of life. You're in a clear run for the most naive facepunch poster ever.
So, if GM food is so harmless, and Monsanto is such a good company with such good intentions, why do they spend so much money in lobbying so that they can write legislature saying no one can ever sue them or take any legal repercussions against them? Hmm... It's like 2 clearly conflicting views on the matter and one of them is being spewed by a moron who has been proven to never ever fucking research anything he argues about, ever, so which do I trust?
[QUOTE=a203xi;40795490]It's utterly bizarre how ignorant you are in pretty much every aspect of life. You're in a clear run for the most naive facepunch poster ever.[/quote]
Nah, I just hate conspiracy theories.
[quote]So, if GM food is so harmless, and Monsanto is such a good company with such good intentions, why do they spend so much money in lobbying so that they can write legislature saying no one can ever sue them or take any legal repercussions against them?[/QUOTE]
Well the agricultural subsidies are a bad thing of course, which is partly the reason why Monsanto is so monopolistic.
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;40792647]Seeing all the bullshit about people whining about fracking and that Keystone pipeline honestly I have to agree, the GMO thing sounds very similar to the kinds of things people say about those.[/QUOTE]
No. Concerns about that pipeline, or any other serious oil trade method are a serious, and very fucking real concern.
God damn that's a stupid thing to even think.
I hope its the kind of GM food that kills off all the annoying assholes who complained about GM food.
Although they would never eat it.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;40792700]Except fracking is known to cause problems and the keystone pipeline would be run by a company with an abysmal safety record[/QUOTE]
Whatever that fire sink propaganda is ridiculous and that's how irrational the concern looks like, meanwhile the cost of natural gas has plummeted and the US is switching away from coal, the worst source there is. The idea that this pipline shouldn't be allowed due to potential for leaks is also ridiculous, given that we allowed and still allow BP to do any business in this country at all, and that the worst that could happen from Keystone is 1% of the Gulf spill.
[editline]26th May 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;40797189]or any other serious oil trade method[/QUOTE]
But not nuclear
no
nuclear is a gift from the gods
We will never rely entirely upon renewable energy I'm not sure if that's what you're expecting but it sure sounds like it.
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;40797453]Whatever that fire sink propaganda is ridiculous and that's how irrational the concern looks like, meanwhile the cost of natural gas has plummeted and the US is switching away from coal, the worst source there is. The idea that this pipline shouldn't be allowed due to potential for leaks is also ridiculous, given that we allowed and still allow BP to do any business in this country at all, and that the worst that could happen from Keystone is 1% of the Gulf spill.[/QUOTE]
yeah, i mean, like who cares about the environment or people who live there
it's all a write off anyways.
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;40797453]Whatever that fire sink propaganda is ridiculous and that's how irrational the concern looks like, meanwhile the cost of natural gas has plummeted and the US is switching away from coal, the worst source there is. The idea that this pipline shouldn't be allowed due to potential for leaks is also ridiculous, given that we allowed and still allow BP to do any business in this country at all, and that the worst that could happen from Keystone is 1% of the Gulf spill.[/QUOTE]
Forget about the flaming drinking water thing if you want, fracking is known to cause earthquakes as well
Although I think flaming drinking water is pretty bad
And the pipeline should be allowed but only after stricter regulations are put in place so the oil companies can't keep getting away with gross negligence
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;40797453]
[editline]26th May 2013[/editline]
But not nuclear
no
nuclear is a gift from the gods
We will never rely entirely upon renewable energy I'm not sure if that's what you're expecting but it sure sounds like it.[/QUOTE]
yeah cause nuclear is perfect
right guys? wait
did anyone fucking say that
they didn't, so that was a waste of energy on your part
no. that's not what i'm expecting. i'm expecting that we've learned that transporting oil can cause huge damage to our planet and our lives and we'll be dealing with our fuck ups for the rest of our lives and stacking more potential fuck ups together is a bad idea.
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;40797453]
We will never rely entirely upon renewable energy[/QUOTE]
Well we aren't really going to have that choice, are we?
Go look up what non-renewable means
[QUOTE=Zeke129;40797497]Forget about the flaming drinking water thing if you want, fracking is known to cause earthquakes as well
Although I think flaming drinking water is pretty bad
And the pipeline should be allowed but only after stricter regulations are put in place so the oil companies can't keep getting away with gross negligence[/QUOTE]
So your sink lights on fire and earthquakes happen that obliterate everything.
That's how overly sensationalist anti-fracking sounds, even though it's replacing [I]coal[/I]. The fire sink looks like an obvious hoax. If they don't disclose the chemicals they use that's one thing but the "concerns" people have are on the same level as "concerns" about Obama's Kenyan heritage.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;40797478]yeah, i mean, like who cares about the environment or people who live there
it's all a write off anyways.[/QUOTE] Yeah those poor people living in that 2 square miles of land out in the middle of nowhere. Sure is going to be tough on their tourism and...
give me a break. The doomsday scenario people have about this pipeline is no better than the paranoia people have about any other source. Considering all of the terrible spills and leaks, the potential leaks caused by this one are very minor.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;40797498]yeah cause nuclear is perfect
right guys? wait
did anyone fucking say that
they didn't, so that was a waste of energy on your part
no. that's not what i'm expecting. i'm expecting that we've learned that transporting oil can cause huge damage to our planet and our lives and we'll be dealing with our fuck ups for the rest of our lives and stacking more potential fuck ups together is a bad idea.[/QUOTE]I don't know but people in sh tend to be very partial about their energy sources even though they all have their drawbacks and the fear over an oil pipeline is silly because as far as I can tell the serious issues with oil have been pump stations, tankers, and oil rigs, but not the actual pipelines themselves. That sounds an awful lot like this fear of GMO's.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;40797505]Well we aren't really going to have that choice, are we?
Go look up what non-renewable means[/QUOTE]
HAR HAR we'll either have gotten more non-renewable sources or will end up in a catastrophic energy crisis
The energy crisis is kind of exaggerated.
Unless production of oil remained constant (which it won't), heavy inflation would move prices up over time and force people (whenever they liked it or not) to switch to renewables.
I have no worry of an energy crisis, but I am worried about the effect of climate change induced by the widespread use of these fuels and removal of carbon sinks.
Fracking pollutes the soil and groundwater by injecting it with various chemical solvents. It's not very hard to understand why this is bad. The practice threatens our land, there's no way around that.
Natural gas is also a nightmare to transport because it has to be expensively converted into liquid form.
That kind of pessimism toward the development of renewable resources is what's going to eventually fuck us over.
[QUOTE=joes33431;40793855]I'm not against GMO foods, but that's a rash generalization to make. There are still concerns about horizontal gene transfer from GM crops to gut bacteria.[/QUOTE]
What are these concerns based off of? Could these concerns perhaps be irrational?
[QUOTE=joes33431;40793855]
The FDA is a corrupt organization that accepts tests from biased corporate-funded research organizations that test said over-the-counter drugs with faulty clinical trials. Once again, not against GMO food, but the FDA is by no means an organization that you can trust with 100% full faith and confidence.
[/QUOTE]
Sooo, you don't use any over the counter drugs? Like I said, anti-corporation and conspiracy crap. I understand not trusting the government, but use FACTS and not made up speculation.
[QUOTE=joes33431;40793855]
And you do?
[/QUOTE]
Nope! But I'm not jumping to conclusions and scaring people, which leads me to your next quote:
[QUOTE=joes33431;40793855]
Tell that to the anti-GM protesters in Africa.[/QUOTE]
You mean the anti-GM protesters in Africa that were given misinformation? When you literally lie and tell someone that GM food is [B]poison[/B], that's going to leave a bad taste in their mouth. Those African people are now suffering because a bunch of privileged scaremongers spat out propaganda and convinced people who don't know any better that perfectly safe food is actually poison.
[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;40798430]What are these concerns based off of? Could these concerns perhaps be irrational?[/QUOTE]
I re-read over some articles and changed my position.
I was wrong.
I'm sorry.
[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;40798430]Sooo, you don't use any over the counter drugs? Like I said, anti-corporation and conspiracy crap. I understand not trusting the government, but use FACTS and not made up speculation. [/QUOTE]
I do, but it's a known fact that many clinical trials are flawed by design and are biased to support the company producing the drug, because they're funded by that company. This, I still stand by.
[QUOTE=joes33431;40799303]
I do, but it's a known fact that many clinical trials are flawed by design and are biased to support the company producing the drug, because they're funded by that company. This, I still stand by.[/QUOTE]
Examples? Sources? Proof? Please oh please don't link me to a conspiracy website, I'm begging you.
[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;40799515]Examples? Sources? Proof? Please oh please don't link me to a conspiracy website, I'm begging you.[/QUOTE]
Its called funding Bias. It's a thing, its not up there with lizardmen, calm down.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_bias[/url]
[url]http://www.livescience.com/8365-dark-side-medical-research-widespread-bias-omissions.html[/url]
[url]http://theamericanscholar.org/flacking-for-big-pharma/#.UaMe30BwqO4[/url]
ever heard of double blind trials or
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.