Minnesota!

[ejb3810]

erlibird, In case you have not read the article, I will tell you he is no fan of Monsanto. My opinion is that your response is emotional and not supported by any real scientific data or evidence.

 

[duluthralphie]

I would bet this guy got a big check from Monsanto.

Or and more likely he finally used logic.

Most anyone INHP wants to "outlaw" some scientific advancement they are freezing us in time, it is not the advancement but the "time" that is really under argument.

If we decide to go back to pre-Mendel we can, we would just not have most of the food we raise in our gardens now. We would have purple carrot like roots, grain like maize that would take acres and acres to feed one person.

I thought he made a good argument, I had my doubts with GMO's but he made good arguments why they are ok. I am willing to listen to those reason why we should not.

" I bet this guy got a big check from Monsanto" is not a good argument..

 

[Cebarmlds]

erlibird, In case you have not read the article, I will tell you he is no fan of Monsanto. My opinion is that your response is emotional and not supported by any real scientific data or evidence.

Yep, I just skimmed the article. I am strongly against GMO's and will not change my mind.

 

[BlackBrookPoultry]

Yep, I just skimmed the article. I am strongly against GMO's and will not change my mind.

Me too! Even if they somehow think the food produced in safe, how can anyone think that all those chemicals being sprayed aren't having a negative effect on the environment?

 

[Vashjir]

Yep, I just skimmed the article. I am strongly against GMO's and will not change my mind.

This is the definition of willful ignorance, a quality that looks good on no one.

Me too! Even if they somehow think the food produced in safe, how can anyone think that all those chemicals being sprayed aren't having a negative effect on the environment?

Here's the thing, many gmo's are made with built in resistances that can significantly reduce the amount of pesticides and herbicides that need to be used. "Round up ready" crops are only a very small portion of the gmo crops being created.

 

[duluthralphie]

I am curious why would you even enter a conversation on a subject if your mind is closed and you refuse to change it or become more educated on it?


An as Vashir said, GMO reduce the use of pesticides and chemicals.

If GMOs become advanced enough, no spray will ever be used anywhere and by eating a cob of corn you will get all the food value of radishes, tomatoes, potatoes red meat, dairy have two servings of fruit and become immune to rabies at the same time!

 

[ejb3810]

It seems strange to me that some are not interested in the actual facts? It does go as evidence in my opinion that it is easier to profess to be an expert on a topic when one is not troubled by knowing most of the related facts.

 

[Chickenchick11]

I'm strongly against GMOs. We are not supposed to mess with the DNA of plants or animals, have you seen what meat chickens look like? They're so big and fat they can't even walk. I think that should qualify as animal cruelty. Here's another thing, they have now started spraying or injecting seeds with pesticides, so you can't just wash the pesticides off anymore because they are inside the fruit/vegetable that your eating so your basically eating pesticides.

 

[duluthralphie]

I'm strongly against GMOs. We are not supposed to mess with the DNA of plants or animals, have you seen what meat chickens look like? They're so big and fat they can't even walk. I think that should qualify as animal cruelty. Here's another thing, they have now started spraying or injecting seeds with pesticides, so you can't just wash the pesticides off anymore because they are inside the fruit/vegetable that your eating so your basically eating pesticides.

You are actually making my point. I am neutral on GMO, I do admit I fail to see the harm in them, that does not mean it does not exist.

I do know we have been messing with DNA of plants and animals for thousands of years. We do it in our chickens even. We pick the strongest. prettiest, gaudiest or son of the best egg layer to father our next generations


IN ancient Egypt they picked the best plants to replant to give them the best yields, be most drought resistant, resist lodging or surviving disease. As I said in my first post carrots would not exist without DNA manipulation, neither would most the foods we eat today. We would not even have chickens without DNA manipulation, we would have jungle fowls, maybe.

Now if you mean you are against gene splicing I can see both sides of it and understand your worries, however, I do not have those same worries.

When you start down the road suggested about manipulation of DNA many things would be different. In vitro fertilization in humans is not natural, yet has helped millions have babies, it is gene manipulation as genes that would be excluded from the "nature" are now being included.

Any of the multitude of gene therapies used to save human lives are not natural or suppose to be, I support them all.

Should we proceed carefully as to not eliminate a species we need or modifying it to the point it is harmful, yes. But when stopping a clock on technology one has to decide on an arbitrary date and time to stop it, or to let it move on. Even the Amish have not been able to stop the clock, on the dates they wanted too, and they have hundreds of years of trying.

 

[Chickenchick11]

You are actually making my point. I am neutral on GMO, I do admit I fail to see the harm in them, that does not mean it does not exist.

I do know we have been messing with DNA of plants and animals for thousands of years.  We do it in our chickens even.  We pick the strongest. prettiest, gaudiest or son of the best egg layer to father our next generations


IN ancient Egypt they picked the best plants to replant to give them the best yields, be most drought resistant, resist lodging or surviving disease.  As I said in my first post carrots would not exist without DNA manipulation, neither would most the foods we eat today. We would not even have chickens without DNA manipulation, we would have jungle fowls, maybe.

Now if you mean you are against gene splicing I can see both sides of it and understand your worries, however, I do not have those same worries.

When you start down the road suggested about manipulation of DNA many things would be different.  In vitro  fertilization in humans is not natural, yet has helped millions have babies, it is gene manipulation as genes that would be excluded  from the "nature" are now being included. 

Any of the multitude of gene therapies used to save human lives are not natural or suppose to be, I support them all.

Should we proceed carefully as to not eliminate a species we need or modifying it to the point it is harmful, yes.  But when stopping a clock on technology one has to decide on an arbitrary date and time to stop it, or to let it move on.  Even the Amish have not been able to stop the clock, on the dates they wanted too, and they have hundreds of years of trying. 

I agree with you duluthralpie.