GM Debate
Apr 1st 2007, 5:22 pm
#1
Straw Man.
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2006
Location: That, there, that's not my post count... nothing to see here, move along.
Posts: 46,302
GM Debate
Right, this is a duplicate post I am aware, I hope its ok jdr, but I really need some opinions on the whole topic, there are some real people on here, who dont really have any problems expressing themselves and I know some wont post in TIO so come on, what are your views?
I for one dont see the fuss given the applications open to the use of GM and to a degree cloning.
I for one dont see the fuss given the applications open to the use of GM and to a degree cloning.
Apr 1st 2007, 5:36 pm
#2
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 10,551
Re: GM Debate
Right, this is a duplicate post I am aware, I hope its ok jdr, but I really need some opinions on the whole topic, there are some real people on here, who dont really have any problems expressing themselves and I know some wont post in TIO so come on, what are your views?
I for one dont see the fuss given the applications open to the use of GM and to a degree cloning.
I for one dont see the fuss given the applications open to the use of GM and to a degree cloning.
Apr 1st 2007, 5:38 pm
#3
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 10,551
Re: GM Debate
And i would get the clone geneticly modified so it didnt need hair cuts.
Apr 1st 2007, 6:33 pm
#4
Forum Regular
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 173
Re: GM Debate
Transgenic crops (where genes from one plant are implanted into another, unrelated, plant) are the primary dangers of a G.M. approach.
In regular plant breeding where two plants naturally conjoin the totality of genes seems to balance out, and that's how plant-breeding has generally progressed until G.M. came along as the new kid on the block.
When a single gene from an unrelated species is forcibly added to a plant there is no natural balancing, and as there is no way to perform theoretical modelling of the results (unlike in physical sciences) the only way to test it is 'live'.
In isolated environments (the lab) this is all well and good, but when it comes to farm-scale trials any damage to other species via cross-pollination cannot be undone once it has occurred (even if it is discovered), and due to the distances pollen can carry it is all but impossible to control the 'trial'.
I think a good analogy in the debate over G.M. is to think about antibiotics.
Antibiotics were once thought to be the miracle cure for many things but now we know that unnecessary treatments (especially routine dosing in animal feeds to counter the stresses of high-intensity farming methods) lead to a situation where organisms have developed immunity, in just a few decades, to many of the most powerful antibiotics, leading to poorer health outcomes and increasing problems in developing new, effective, antibiotics.
The same situation could be the long-term outcome of genetic modifications now, and as U.S.A. farmers are discovering, once you've allowed the modified seeds into widespread use other crops and plants are affected, and there is no way to undo the damage.
Where a G.M. strain is more vigorous than its natural cousins it will, because of survival of the fittest, become the dominant strain and once that happens we may lose the natural habitat.
A gene designed to improve the resistance of a commercial crop to 'pests' (in order to reduce the application of agri-chemicals) may, if it gets into other natural species, upset the natural balance of insects leading to reduced populations and a knock-on effect on the bird population as its food-source disappears. This is just one of the known effects.
The biggest issue is the affect on other farms miles from the site of a G.M. field. The pollen cannot be prevented from being carried (by wind, insects, birds, bees, etc.) and so it can damage the biological purity of other strains. This can have a major economic impact for Organically assured farmers who can, and have, lost their Organic certification due to the transfer of unwanted G.M attributes.
There is another economic downside too, and as farmers in places like India are discovering, its a big one. The cost of the G.M. seed (which needs to be purchased every year - you can't grow your own) means any gains from using less agri-chemicals is offset and indeed can make the crop more expensive to grow, especially if your plantings are liable to being destroyed by floods, drought, and other environmental affects.
For such a scientific advance, the way G.M. is tested is totally unscientific; the agri-businesses use the suck-it-and-see method. With something that has the potential to dramatically affect existing plant life with little chance of remedial removal, it simply isn't an acceptable approach.
In regular plant breeding where two plants naturally conjoin the totality of genes seems to balance out, and that's how plant-breeding has generally progressed until G.M. came along as the new kid on the block.
When a single gene from an unrelated species is forcibly added to a plant there is no natural balancing, and as there is no way to perform theoretical modelling of the results (unlike in physical sciences) the only way to test it is 'live'.
In isolated environments (the lab) this is all well and good, but when it comes to farm-scale trials any damage to other species via cross-pollination cannot be undone once it has occurred (even if it is discovered), and due to the distances pollen can carry it is all but impossible to control the 'trial'.
I think a good analogy in the debate over G.M. is to think about antibiotics.
Antibiotics were once thought to be the miracle cure for many things but now we know that unnecessary treatments (especially routine dosing in animal feeds to counter the stresses of high-intensity farming methods) lead to a situation where organisms have developed immunity, in just a few decades, to many of the most powerful antibiotics, leading to poorer health outcomes and increasing problems in developing new, effective, antibiotics.
The same situation could be the long-term outcome of genetic modifications now, and as U.S.A. farmers are discovering, once you've allowed the modified seeds into widespread use other crops and plants are affected, and there is no way to undo the damage.
Where a G.M. strain is more vigorous than its natural cousins it will, because of survival of the fittest, become the dominant strain and once that happens we may lose the natural habitat.
A gene designed to improve the resistance of a commercial crop to 'pests' (in order to reduce the application of agri-chemicals) may, if it gets into other natural species, upset the natural balance of insects leading to reduced populations and a knock-on effect on the bird population as its food-source disappears. This is just one of the known effects.
The biggest issue is the affect on other farms miles from the site of a G.M. field. The pollen cannot be prevented from being carried (by wind, insects, birds, bees, etc.) and so it can damage the biological purity of other strains. This can have a major economic impact for Organically assured farmers who can, and have, lost their Organic certification due to the transfer of unwanted G.M attributes.
There is another economic downside too, and as farmers in places like India are discovering, its a big one. The cost of the G.M. seed (which needs to be purchased every year - you can't grow your own) means any gains from using less agri-chemicals is offset and indeed can make the crop more expensive to grow, especially if your plantings are liable to being destroyed by floods, drought, and other environmental affects.
For such a scientific advance, the way G.M. is tested is totally unscientific; the agri-businesses use the suck-it-and-see method. With something that has the potential to dramatically affect existing plant life with little chance of remedial removal, it simply isn't an acceptable approach.
Apr 1st 2007, 6:36 pm
#5
Straw Man.
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2006
Location: That, there, that's not my post count... nothing to see here, move along.
Posts: 46,302
Re: GM Debate
Transgenic crops (where genes from one plant are implanted into another, unrelated, plant) are the primary dangers of a G.M. approach.
In regular plant breeding where two plants naturally conjoin the totality of genes seems to balance out, and that's how plant-breeding has generally progressed until G.M. came along as the new kid on the block.
When a single gene from an unrelated species is forcibly added to a plant there is no natural balancing, and as there is no way to perform theoretical modelling of the results (unlike in physical sciences) the only way to test it is 'live'.
In isolated environments (the lab) this is all well and good, but when it comes to farm-scale trials any damage to other species via cross-pollination cannot be undone once it has occurred (even if it is discovered), and due to the distances pollen can carry it is all but impossible to control the 'trial'.
I think a good analogy in the debate over G.M. is to think about antibiotics.
Antibiotics were once thought to be the miracle cure for many things but now we know that unnecessary treatments (especially routine dosing in animal feeds to counter the stresses of high-intensity farming methods) lead to a situation where organisms have developed immunity, in just a few decades, to many of the most powerful antibiotics, leading to poorer health outcomes and increasing problems in developing new, effective, antibiotics.
The same situation could be the long-term outcome of genetic modifications now, and as U.S.A. farmers are discovering, once you've allowed the modified seeds into widespread use other crops and plants are affected, and there is no way to undo the damage.
Where a G.M. strain is more vigorous than its natural cousins it will, because of survival of the fittest, become the dominant strain and once that happens we may lose the natural habitat.
A gene designed to improve the resistance of a commercial crop to 'pests' (in order to reduce the application of agri-chemicals) may, if it gets into other natural species, upset the natural balance of insects leading to reduced populations and a knock-on effect on the bird population as its food-source disappears. This is just one of the known effects.
The biggest issue is the affect on other farms miles from the site of a G.M. field. The pollen cannot be prevented from being carried (by wind, insects, birds, bees, etc.) and so it can damage the biological purity of other strains. This can have a major economic impact for Organically assured farmers who can, and have, lost their Organic certification due to the transfer of unwanted G.M attributes.
There is another economic downside too, and as farmers in places like India are discovering, its a big one. The cost of the G.M. seed (which needs to be purchased every year - you can't grow your own) means any gains from using less agri-chemicals is offset and indeed can make the crop more expensive to grow, especially if your plantings are liable to being destroyed by floods, drought, and other environmental affects.
For such a scientific advance, the way G.M. is tested is totally unscientific; the agri-businesses use the suck-it-and-see method. With something that has the potential to dramatically affect existing plant life with little chance of remedial removal, it simply isn't an acceptable approach.
In regular plant breeding where two plants naturally conjoin the totality of genes seems to balance out, and that's how plant-breeding has generally progressed until G.M. came along as the new kid on the block.
When a single gene from an unrelated species is forcibly added to a plant there is no natural balancing, and as there is no way to perform theoretical modelling of the results (unlike in physical sciences) the only way to test it is 'live'.
In isolated environments (the lab) this is all well and good, but when it comes to farm-scale trials any damage to other species via cross-pollination cannot be undone once it has occurred (even if it is discovered), and due to the distances pollen can carry it is all but impossible to control the 'trial'.
I think a good analogy in the debate over G.M. is to think about antibiotics.
Antibiotics were once thought to be the miracle cure for many things but now we know that unnecessary treatments (especially routine dosing in animal feeds to counter the stresses of high-intensity farming methods) lead to a situation where organisms have developed immunity, in just a few decades, to many of the most powerful antibiotics, leading to poorer health outcomes and increasing problems in developing new, effective, antibiotics.
The same situation could be the long-term outcome of genetic modifications now, and as U.S.A. farmers are discovering, once you've allowed the modified seeds into widespread use other crops and plants are affected, and there is no way to undo the damage.
Where a G.M. strain is more vigorous than its natural cousins it will, because of survival of the fittest, become the dominant strain and once that happens we may lose the natural habitat.
A gene designed to improve the resistance of a commercial crop to 'pests' (in order to reduce the application of agri-chemicals) may, if it gets into other natural species, upset the natural balance of insects leading to reduced populations and a knock-on effect on the bird population as its food-source disappears. This is just one of the known effects.
The biggest issue is the affect on other farms miles from the site of a G.M. field. The pollen cannot be prevented from being carried (by wind, insects, birds, bees, etc.) and so it can damage the biological purity of other strains. This can have a major economic impact for Organically assured farmers who can, and have, lost their Organic certification due to the transfer of unwanted G.M attributes.
There is another economic downside too, and as farmers in places like India are discovering, its a big one. The cost of the G.M. seed (which needs to be purchased every year - you can't grow your own) means any gains from using less agri-chemicals is offset and indeed can make the crop more expensive to grow, especially if your plantings are liable to being destroyed by floods, drought, and other environmental affects.
For such a scientific advance, the way G.M. is tested is totally unscientific; the agri-businesses use the suck-it-and-see method. With something that has the potential to dramatically affect existing plant life with little chance of remedial removal, it simply isn't an acceptable approach.
Thats brilliant, please dont take this the wrong way but did you C&P any of that?
Apr 1st 2007, 6:43 pm
#6
Banned
Joined: Feb 2007
Location: Hoping to get away from UK to Spain
Posts: 1,826
Re: GM Debate
Dont dabble with nature is my view , Things can get mixed up and could ruin the food chain ,with dire consequences 
Apr 1st 2007, 6:47 pm
#7
Straw Man.
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2006
Location: That, there, that's not my post count... nothing to see here, move along.
Posts: 46,302
Apr 1st 2007, 6:49 pm
#8
Banned
Joined: Feb 2007
Location: Hoping to get away from UK to Spain
Posts: 1,826
Apr 1st 2007, 6:54 pm
#9
Forum Regular
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 173
Re: GM Debate
As you may have seen elsewhere I'm a farm-boy; grown up on intensive agri-chemical based farms and seen the very real damage the agri-chemicals do to the associated plant and wildlife, and the ground-water.
We used to pump water from a well but when the local council took over responsibility for testing a few years ago they told us our well was so contaminated with pesticides and herbicides we had to immediately have mains water connected - that entailed a few miles of new pipe.
G.M. is, to me, just another round in the ongoing battle between scientific advance and common-sense. Farmers used to be renowned for an earthly common-sense - being in-touch with nature is one way of describing it.
Now, with most farmers led by the nose by agri-consultants from the factories and supermarkets (usually young recently-qualified science graduates that come dressed up to the nines with a pair of wellies in the boot of their car) who tell farmers when to plant, when to apply chemical fertilisers, herbicides, pesticides, and even when to harvest, its hard to find farmers who truly have a sense of nature anymore.
In a generation we've wiped out centuries of knowledge, and even though the Organic movement is growing its going to take a long time to return to what I prefer to call sustainable, natural, farming (Organic is still intensive, and requires high inputs to maintain yield).
One of the reasons I want to move to Spain is to experience a different style of farming in vastly different conditions.
Last edited by IntuitiveNipple; Apr 1st 2007 at 7:05 pm.
Apr 1st 2007, 6:54 pm
#10
Straw Man.
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2006
Location: That, there, that's not my post count... nothing to see here, move along.
Posts: 46,302
Re: GM Debate
In fact without cloning for example we would have almost no fruit industry in Europe and much of the world.
I'm not saying you are right or wrong, it is an opinion and thats what I need.
Oh and believe me, the DVD's of the Lake District are safe!
Apr 1st 2007, 7:03 pm
#11
Forum Regular
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 173
Re: GM Debate
I think that, within useful parameters, the method of plant breeding that has existed until G.M. came along is sufficient for farming purposes.
The real problem, and one that politicians and others seem scared to address, is one that we all know instinctively - planet Earth is over-populated.
The only solution for a long-term sustainable standard of living for everyone on this planet is to reduce the population back to around 3 billions (from the current ~ 6 billions).
Within a few decades we are going to see wars and disputes based on scarce resources (energy, minerals, raw materials, food, water). Science has a lot to contribute in making our use of raw materials sustainable and finding new ways to use renewable resources (e.g. peanut-shell car brake pads and potato-based tyres).
Should we be trying to force nature to over-achieve, just because the human species (and the male in particular) refuses to wear a condom ?
The real problem, and one that politicians and others seem scared to address, is one that we all know instinctively - planet Earth is over-populated.
The only solution for a long-term sustainable standard of living for everyone on this planet is to reduce the population back to around 3 billions (from the current ~ 6 billions).
Within a few decades we are going to see wars and disputes based on scarce resources (energy, minerals, raw materials, food, water). Science has a lot to contribute in making our use of raw materials sustainable and finding new ways to use renewable resources (e.g. peanut-shell car brake pads and potato-based tyres).
Should we be trying to force nature to over-achieve, just because the human species (and the male in particular) refuses to wear a condom ?
Apr 1st 2007, 7:16 pm
#13
Straw Man.
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2006
Location: That, there, that's not my post count... nothing to see here, move along.
Posts: 46,302
Re: GM Debate
I think that, within useful parameters, the method of plant breeding that has existed until G.M. came along is sufficient for farming purposes.
The real problem, and one that politicians and others seem scared to address, is one that we all know instinctively - planet Earth is over-populated.
The only solution for a long-term sustainable standard of living for everyone on this planet is to reduce the population back to around 3 billions (from the current ~ 6 billions).
Within a few decades we are going to see wars and disputes based on scarce resources (energy, minerals, raw materials, food, water). Science has a lot to contribute in making our use of raw materials sustainable and finding new ways to use renewable resources (e.g. peanut-shell car brake pads and potato-based tyres).
Should we be trying to force nature to over-achieve, just because the human species (and the male in particular) refuses to wear a condom ?
The real problem, and one that politicians and others seem scared to address, is one that we all know instinctively - planet Earth is over-populated.
The only solution for a long-term sustainable standard of living for everyone on this planet is to reduce the population back to around 3 billions (from the current ~ 6 billions).
Within a few decades we are going to see wars and disputes based on scarce resources (energy, minerals, raw materials, food, water). Science has a lot to contribute in making our use of raw materials sustainable and finding new ways to use renewable resources (e.g. peanut-shell car brake pads and potato-based tyres).
Should we be trying to force nature to over-achieve, just because the human species (and the male in particular) refuses to wear a condom ?
Its interesting that Insulin is made from GM micro-organisms.
Apr 1st 2007, 7:20 pm
#14
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 10,551
Re: GM Debate
I think that, within useful parameters, the method of plant breeding that has existed until G.M. came along is sufficient for farming purposes.
The real problem, and one that politicians and others seem scared to address, is one that we all know instinctively - planet Earth is over-populated.
The only solution for a long-term sustainable standard of living for everyone on this planet is to reduce the population back to around 3 billions (from the current ~ 6 billions).
Within a few decades we are going to see wars and disputes based on scarce resources (energy, minerals, raw materials, food, water). Science has a lot to contribute in making our use of raw materials sustainable and finding new ways to use renewable resources (e.g. peanut-shell car brake pads and potato-based tyres).
Should we be trying to force nature to over-achieve, just because the human species (and the male in particular) refuses to wear a condom ?
The real problem, and one that politicians and others seem scared to address, is one that we all know instinctively - planet Earth is over-populated.
The only solution for a long-term sustainable standard of living for everyone on this planet is to reduce the population back to around 3 billions (from the current ~ 6 billions).
Within a few decades we are going to see wars and disputes based on scarce resources (energy, minerals, raw materials, food, water). Science has a lot to contribute in making our use of raw materials sustainable and finding new ways to use renewable resources (e.g. peanut-shell car brake pads and potato-based tyres).
Should we be trying to force nature to over-achieve, just because the human species (and the male in particular) refuses to wear a condom ?
There is a reason that the well off countries dont really help africa they are hoping for some new real estate to devolop for there own nations.
France and the uk have similar populations despite the fact that france is full of french people whos better off.
I think we will see before we die is the licensing of birth. need to get a permit to have a child. To sustain the current population level of the globe gm and cloning is currently needed or a population cull is in order. based on a unit value. the question is what are you worth.
And they can all ready grow meat on trees of a sort. i wonder how long it will be before dead people are recycled into the food chain. you will be down the supermarket with the OH and she will say shall we have jacks spare ribs tonight dear.
Apr 1st 2007, 7:23 pm
#15
Straw Man.
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2006
Location: That, there, that's not my post count... nothing to see here, move along.
Posts: 46,302
Re: GM Debate
All the current dilemmas that we face is evolutions way of correcting the balance. As one good film points out we are closer to a virus in our mannerisms and our approach to the fragile environment that houses us. I can remember when the water board tried to take control of our spring when i was growing up they wanted to charge us for our own water my dad told them to sod off.
There is a reason that the well off countries dont really help africa they are hoping for some new real estate to devolop for there own nations.
France and the uk have similar populations despite the fact that france is full of french people whos better off.
I think we will see before we die is the licensing of birth. need to get a permit to have a child. To sustain the current population level of the globe gm and cloning is currently needed or a population cull is in order. based on a unit value. the question is what are you worth.
And they can all ready grow meat on trees of a sort. i wonder how long it will be before dead people are recycled into the food chain. you will be down the supermarket with the OH and she will say shall we have jacks spare ribs tonight dear.
There is a reason that the well off countries dont really help africa they are hoping for some new real estate to devolop for there own nations.
France and the uk have similar populations despite the fact that france is full of french people whos better off.
I think we will see before we die is the licensing of birth. need to get a permit to have a child. To sustain the current population level of the globe gm and cloning is currently needed or a population cull is in order. based on a unit value. the question is what are you worth.
And they can all ready grow meat on trees of a sort. i wonder how long it will be before dead people are recycled into the food chain. you will be down the supermarket with the OH and she will say shall we have jacks spare ribs tonight dear.