**official** Environmentalists Do The Dumbest Things Thread

[solderz 0]

LOL, this is so misinformed that I thought you were being sarcastic at first, until I read the rest of the post.Please tell me you were joking.

I thought the same thing. The method of placing genes from other plants into currently grown plants, for the benefit of a specific trait, does not pose risk to us or other plants or animals. Does the fact that wheat is more resistant to drought and rust threaten you or your children. Should we warn everyone of the dangers of cacti since they are also resistant to drought? The only reason anyone fears GM foods is ignorance.And without them and their ilk, we could not continue to feed the growing population of our planet. Its always someone that is well fed with no threat of starvation that argues against GM foods.

[hblask 1]

Maybe it's naive and uninformed, but at least I'm asking rather than taking an opinion and running with it or accepting what people tell me without asking.What exactly is your position on GM foods and what do you know about them?

Ok, fair enough.Generally speaking, GM foods are foods that take a gene that exists in nature, and transfers it to another plant or animal that exists in nature. The fear that it will turn plants into zombies or whatever because humans forced the transfer has no scientific basis. The gene already existed and already has the potential to do whatever it is that it does. The human body has no way of knowing, when it eats a particular gene, whether that gene was a random mutation from nature or one that was put there by humans. The genome of plants and animals are constantly undergoing mutations, and there is no particular reason to fear a human-induced one (unless it was put there maliciously with the intent to cause harm, of course).A gene that exists in swamp grass to help it endure swamp conditions is no more dangerous just because it was placed in corn that can now endure swampy conditions.As for my position, since it concerns a lot of people, I think it's fair that GM foods be labeled as such so that people can make an informed choice. I'll personally take the cheaper, tastier one, but if people are afraid of zombie tomatoes killing their children, they can stick with the more expensive natural variety.

[JOhnWaters 0]

We can talk about polluting or not polluting all we want, the planet will have the last laugh, it'll be around for a long, long, long time after we are gone. And the only thing we'll leave behind is a little bit of plastic, maybe.

please, the planet will not outlive us. neither will our sun or any of the planets around here.

[JOhnWaters 0]

Then there's the DDT outlawed to save the integrity of the bird's eggshells that has resulted in over 60 million people dying of malaria.Largest act of murder ever committed in human history, brough to you by the 'people who care'.

this is also very true and very sad

[vbnautilus 48]

I thought the same thing. The method of placing genes from other plants into currently grown plants, for the benefit of a specific trait, does not pose risk to us or other plants or animals. Does the fact that wheat is more resistant to drought and rust threaten you or your children. Should we warn everyone of the dangers of cacti since they are also resistant to drought? The only reason anyone fears GM foods is ignorance.And without them and their ilk, we could not continue to feed the growing population of our planet. Its always someone that is well fed with no threat of starvation that argues against GM foods.

I think this is too strongly argued. I think GM foods are probably relatively safe, but the fact that there is no *known* risk does not mean there is no risk. Genetics are complicated. It's certainly possible that placing the gene for drought resistance into wheat could interact somehow with wheat's existing genes to result in something unhealthy, which might not be discovered until people have been eating it for twenty years. Any new food carries risk, and when you are mass producing it and feeding the population with an untested food source its prudent to be suspicious.

[vbnautilus 48]

Then there's the DDT outlawed to save the integrity of the bird's eggshells that has resulted in over 60 million people dying of malaria.Largest act of murder ever committed in human history, brough to you by the 'people who care'.

Well that's a bit of a trade-off isn't it... malaria.... cancer... malaria... cancer. This might be harder than the taco/falafel decision.

[Balloon guy 158]

I think this is too strongly argued. I think GM foods are probably relatively safe, but the fact that there is no *known* risk does not mean there is no risk. Genetics are complicated. It's certainly possible that placing the gene for drought resistance into wheat could interact somehow with wheat's existing genes to result in something unhealthy, which might not be discovered until people have been eating it for twenty years. Any new food carries risk, and when you are mass producing it and feeding the population with an untested food source its prudent to be suspicious.

Come on.Random gene mutations have resulted in us having legs, breathing air, having two eyeballs, the sexual organs...How can you be against planned gene mutations?

[Mercury69 3]

I thought the same thing. The method of placing genes from other plants into currently grown plants, for the benefit of a specific trait, does not pose risk to us or other plants or animals. Does the fact that wheat is more resistant to drought and rust threaten you or your children. Should we warn everyone of the dangers of cacti since they are also resistant to drought? The only reason anyone fears GM foods is ignorance.And without them and their ilk, we could not continue to feed the growing population of our planet. Its always someone that is well fed with no threat of starvation that argues against GM foods.

Ok, fair enough.Generally speaking, GM foods are foods that take a gene that exists in nature, and transfers it to another plant or animal that exists in nature. The fear that it will turn plants into zombies or whatever because humans forced the transfer has no scientific basis. The gene already existed and already has the potential to do whatever it is that it does. The human body has no way of knowing, when it eats a particular gene, whether that gene was a random mutation from nature or one that was put there by humans. The genome of plants and animals are constantly undergoing mutations, and there is no particular reason to fear a human-induced one (unless it was put there maliciously with the intent to cause harm, of course).A gene that exists in swamp grass to help it endure swamp conditions is no more dangerous just because it was placed in corn that can now endure swampy conditions.As for my position, since it concerns a lot of people, I think it's fair that GM foods be labeled as such so that people can make an informed choice. I'll personally take the cheaper, tastier one, but if people are afraid of zombie tomatoes killing their children, they can stick with the more expensive natural variety.

OK...I certainly agree GM foods are a valuable and much needed alternative to starving due to the decline in available arable land and increased aridity on our dying planet, but...

I think this is too strongly argued. I think GM foods are probably relatively safe, but the fact that there is no *known* risk does not mean there is no risk. Genetics are complicated. It's certainly possible that placing the gene for drought resistance into wheat could interact somehow with wheat's existing genes to result in something unhealthy, which might not be discovered until people have been eating it for twenty years. Any new food carries risk, and when you are mass producing it and feeding the population with an untested food source its prudent to be suspicious.

I also agree that we really don't know about long term (20+ years) potential effects of eating them...Should that be a reason to stop using them? Not if it causes millions of people to die. but, then again, who are we to change the DNA fabric of the universe? Perhaps all the drought and famine and disease is a way for the Earth to rebalance itself?Call me "for" GM foods, provided some controls are in place and people don't get complacent about the scientific aspects.

Well that's a bit of a trade-off isn't it... malaria.... cancer... malaria... cancer. This might be harder than the taco/falafel decision.

Are the tacos/falafel prepared with GM foods? Mmmm...super taco!And, no, I'm not skeered of the Zombie Tomato Apocalypse

[Balloon guy 158]

Well that's a bit of a trade-off isn't it... malaria.... cancer... malaria... cancer. This might be harder than the taco/falafel decision.

The fact that this is a difficult decision for you shows that you are on the side of killing 60 million people.murderer

[JOhnWaters 0]

Well that's a bit of a trade-off isn't it... malaria.... cancer... malaria... cancer. This might be harder than the taco/falafel decision.

dropping context as usual. the number of people that have died needlessly from malaria is well into the milllions. and when used responsibly ddt poses no serious health risks. let me see your source saying that ddt has caused millions of cancer deaths.

[Balloon guy 158]

OK...I certainly agree GM foods are a valuable and much needed alternative to starving due to the decline in available arable land and increased aridity on our dying planet, but...

Not for nothing, but I remember a study done in the late 70's to counter this overpopulation myth and the world not being able to feed it's people ect.At that time, they said the farming land in India alone can grow enough food to feed the world.I worked on a farm in the southern california desert, growing food is pretty scientific now, we get a lot of yeild out of the land.Now... water requirements, shipping of the mature food, and governmental intrusions..that can definately effect the ability of the world to feed itself.

[JOhnWaters 0]

but, then again, who are we to change the DNA fabric of the universe? Perhaps all the drought and famine and disease is a way for the Earth to rebalance itself?

who are we? were humans. why shouldnt we learn more about and then manipulate the universe to our advantage? should we have remained cave men gathering berries and living brutal short lives in nature? what a sick thing to suggest. but hey, at least then there would be no pollution. you people have no concept of net gain. i cant understand your irrational dislike for humans, the things that you are. ill say it again, put something above yourself and youll get what you want: that, and not your self.

[vbnautilus 48]

dropping context as usual. the number of people that have died needlessly from malaria is well into the milllions. and when used responsibly ddt poses no serious health risks. let me see your source saying that ddt has caused millions of cancer deaths.

Bolded is false. But more importantly your logic is off. The number of people who have died from DDT versus malaria is not a relevant statistic, especially since the widespread ban on DDT. Epidemiological studies have shown that DDT causes liver, pancreas, and breast cancer. Rogan WJ, Chen A (2005). "Health risks and benefits of bis(4-chlorophenyl)-1,1,1-trichloroethane (DDT)". Lancet 366 (9487): 763–73.Eskenazi, Brenda; Jonathan Chevrier, Lisa Goldman Rosas, Henry A. Anderson, Maria S. Bornman, Henk Bouwman, Aimin Chen, Barbara A. Cohn, Christiaan de Jager, et al. (May 4, 2009). ). "The Pine River Statement: Human Health Consequences of DDT Use".

[Balloon guy 158]

Bolded is false. But more importantly your logic is off. The number of people who have died from DDT versus malaria is not a relevant statistic, especially since the widespread ban on DDT. Epidemiological studies have shown that DDT causes liver, pancreas, and breast cancer. Rogan WJ, Chen A (2005). "Health risks and benefits of bis(4-chlorophenyl)-1,1,1-trichloroethane (DDT)". Lancet 366 (9487): 763–73.Eskenazi, Brenda; Jonathan Chevrier, Lisa Goldman Rosas, Henry A. Anderson, Maria S. Bornman, Henk Bouwman, Aimin Chen, Barbara A. Cohn, Christiaan de Jager, et al. (May 4, 2009). ). "The Pine River Statement: Human Health Consequences of DDT Use".

Scientist said peanut butter causes cancer.They did a study at Harvard...10 out of 10 people die.So spray the DDT, and stay up late and enjoy ice cream

[JOhnWaters 0]

Bolded is false. But more importantly your logic is off. The number of people who have died from DDT versus malaria is not a relevant statistic, especially since the widespread ban on DDT. Epidemiological studies have shown that DDT causes liver, pancreas, and breast cancer.

youre crazy. it doesnt matter the numbers killed by each??? so if ddt is saving millions of lives each year but kills one from cancer we should get rid of it???furthermore, no, the bolded was not false. a random quick internet search gave me this link:http://www.aei.org/article/21353

[hblask 1]

I think this is too strongly argued. I think GM foods are probably relatively safe, but the fact that there is no *known* risk does not mean there is no risk. Genetics are complicated. It's certainly possible that placing the gene for drought resistance into wheat could interact somehow with wheat's existing genes to result in something unhealthy, which might not be discovered until people have been eating it for twenty years. Any new food carries risk, and when you are mass producing it and feeding the population with an untested food source its prudent to be suspicious.

But since plants and animals are constantly undergoing mutations all the time anyway, should we ban all food, just in case one of those mutations happens to pose a danger to someone 20 years down the road? Is there any reason to believe that mutations controlled by humans for a specific, well-studied trait are more dangerous than random mutations that alter an unnoticed and unstudied trait?If anything, the "future risk" argument is an argument FOR GM foods, since we know what we are getting. It's those messy recombined and mutated natural ones that are scary.

[akoff 0]

Scientist said peanut butter causes cancer.They did a study at Harvard...10 out of 10 people die.So spray the DDT, and stay up late and enjoy ice cream

[Mercury69 3]

who are we? were humans. why shouldnt we learn more about and then manipulate the universe to our advantage? should we have remained cave men gathering berries and living brutal short lives in nature? what a sick thing to suggest. but hey, at least then there would be no pollution. you people have no concept of net gain. i cant understand your irrational dislike for humans, the things that you are. ill say it again, put something above yourself and youll get what you want: that, and not your self.

You're a funny guy. I don't hate humans, I hate what some humans have done.Take nuclear energy, for example. It could serve a hugely beneficial purpose, but the 50 years following it's development were some of the most paranoid and divisive years in history. Additionally, nuclear pwer was developed without realising or understanding prpoer disposal of it's waste. Humankind is predisposed to heaping accolades on the short-term benefits of new technology on an almost psychotic level without bothering to think of what lies in store in the future.Aside from that, you express yourself like a moron.

[akoff 0]

You're a funny guy. I don't hate humans, I hate what some humans have done.Take nuclear energy, for example. It could serve a hugely beneficial purpose, but the 50 years following it's development were some of the most paranoid and divisive years in history. Additionally, nuclear pwer was developed without realising or understanding prpoer disposal of it's waste. Humankind is predisposed to heaping accolades on the short-term benefits of new technology on an almost psychotic level without bothering to think of what lies in store in the future.Aside from that, you express yourself like a moron.

still the key to the future for the next 100 years. Of course it will take us another 20 years to learn that...

[vbnautilus 48]

But since plants and animals are constantly undergoing mutations all the time anyway, should we ban all food, just in case one of those mutations happens to pose a danger to someone 20 years down the road? Is there any reason to believe that mutations controlled by humans for a specific, well-studied trait are more dangerous than random mutations that alter an unnoticed and unstudied trait?If anything, the "future risk" argument is an argument FOR GM foods, since we know what we are getting. It's those messy recombined and mutated natural ones that are scary.

A small mutation that happen by chance is not the same as introducing an entirely novel segment of DNA into the plant, so it's certainly plausible that one could cause problems while the other don't. Also, some natural mutations are harmful. I kind of doubt that the seed business has relied on messy combined natural mutations for some time now, though, they probably sell well-known strains.

[hblask 1]

A small mutation that happen by chance is not the same as introducing an entirely novel segment of DNA into the plant, so it's certainly plausible that one could cause problems while the other don't. Also, some natural mutations are harmful. I kind of doubt that the seed business has relied on messy combined natural mutations for some time now, though, they probably sell well-known strains.

Mostly your final sentence is true, but those strains were probably developed through selection of those strains due to random genetic mutations that causes a specific trait that made it more desirable than plants without that mutation. In other words, the history of food production has been about selecting plants and animals that have random genetic changes that have measurably altered the chemistry of the plant/animal.Now we've reached a point where we can specifically induce a well-studied mutation, instead of waiting for nature to drop one on us that also may happen to have a dozen other invisible ones along with it. The process of gene recombination in the wild is not well-understood, but it appears possible that entire segments of DNA from other species are getting combined into plants all the time. In GM plants, we know what that change is. In the old breed-and-hope method, we don't.

[vbnautilus 48]

youre crazy.

I'm CRRRAAAAzzzZYYY!!!

it doesnt matter the numbers killed by each???

The total number of people killed by malaria compared to the total number of people killed by DDT does not tell you about the relative risk of the two killers. Can you see why?

furthermore, no, the bolded was not false. a random quick internet search gave me this link:http://www.aei.org/article/21353

If you'd like to review the newer article which I cited on the relationship between DDT and cancer I can get it for you. I'm not saying it should never be used for malaria control (and indeed this is the remaining legal usage of it), but BG's original comment deserved some counterpoint. We didn't ban DDT without good reason.

[Mercury69 3]

John Waters is playing ATC

[solderz 0]

I think this is too strongly argued. I think GM foods are probably relatively safe, but the fact that there is no *known* risk does not mean there is no risk. Genetics are complicated. It's certainly possible that placing the gene for drought resistance into wheat could interact somehow with wheat's existing genes to result in something unhealthy, which might not be discovered until people have been eating it for twenty years. Any new food carries risk, and when you are mass producing it and feeding the population with an untested food source its prudent to be suspicious.

Yes, genetics are complicated. The most common result of a gene modification is the death of the plant and/or its reproducive capabilities. I want to repeat: GM foods in the U.S., which is where the majority of them come from, go through the most rigorous testing of any crop on the planet before they are allowed out of the laboratory. When we get a successful modification where the plant survives and carries the desired trait, it then undergoes tests through multiple generations to a variety of lab animals. There is no evidence for negative long-term results with gm foods. Just because it might happen, doesn't mean it will. This, to me, is nothing but superstition and should be squashed. Especially when that superstition may cause the people who need it most (who, btw, are the most superstitious) to refuse it.

[vbnautilus 48]

There is no evidence for negative long-term results with gm foods.

But there couldn't be, because no one has been eating them long enough. It's a basic scientific principle that you cannot affirm a null result. There are plenty of drugs for example, which made it through the rigorous FDA process, were given to people, and eventually turned out to have negative health consequences.We simply don't have enough experience feeding this stuff to humans to conclude as strongly as you have that they are safe.

Just because it might happen, doesn't mean it will.

Nor does it mean that it won't.

This, to me, is nothing but superstition and should be squashed. Especially when that superstition may cause the people who need it most (who, btw, are the most superstitious) to refuse it.

I agree if people need the food to survive they should have it. But I also think we should remain cautious. I"m not suggesting we ban GM foods or anything. I'm just saying we should continue to monitor the situation with a healthy dose of skepticism. When we get too cocky about these things, we get into trouble.