lokisnow Posted July 18, 2016 Share Posted July 18, 2016 Monsanto is nasty for so many reasons. That is separate from the individual healthiness of gmo. On the other hand, gmo is like gun violence, we're not even allowed to study it because of powerful lobbies blocking any information or research. I have no problem eating gmo, it's fine. My objection to gmo is that on a macro and long range SYSTEM scale: we are setting ourselves up for either Irish potato famine scenarios wiping out monocultures (which is obviously a risk for any monoculture, and ironically gmo skill sets should protect against this other than the obvious profit motive of companies with gmo skill sets to deliberately induce such supply shocks to drive up prices, Monsanto would totally do that eagerly) or far more worrying, we are allowing Monsanto to engineer all our food so it cannot reproduce. that could obviously devastate a system in the right scenarios, but this doesn't mean that gmos are bad, just that they are insufficiently regulated given the massive systemic risks they pose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice Queen Posted July 18, 2016 Share Posted July 18, 2016 We've been eating commercial GMOs since the 70's. The food and the technology aren't the problem--and we'd never be able to feed 7 billion people without it. There's not a shred of evidence to indicate that it's harmful. Monsanto is just evil. That's the problem. I think if farmers had had any inkling of what they were dealing with when the bought into the Roundup Ready crops, they would never have done it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted July 18, 2016 Share Posted July 18, 2016 Lokisnow, I keep waiting for the GMO's to figure out they can make more money by creating bugs that kill plants they don't produce and force the world to buy from them. Thank Paulo Bacagalupi for that image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted July 18, 2016 Share Posted July 18, 2016 Oh man: http://convention.gop/post/147558746375/2016-gop-convention-program-announced Looks like we're getting a lot of Benghazi tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cas Stark Posted July 18, 2016 Share Posted July 18, 2016 19 minutes ago, lokisnow said: Monsanto is nasty for so many reasons. That is separate from the individual healthiness of gmo. On the other hand, gmo is like gun violence, we're not even allowed to study it because of powerful lobbies blocking any information or research. I have no problem eating gmo, it's fine. My objection to gmo is that on a macro and long range SYSTEM scale: we are setting ourselves up for either Irish potato famine scenarios wiping out monocultures (which is obviously a risk for any monoculture, and ironically gmo skill sets should protect against this other than the obvious profit motive of companies with gmo skill sets to deliberately induce such supply shocks to drive up prices, Monsanto would totally do that eagerly) or far more worrying, we are allowing Monsanto to engineer all our food so it cannot reproduce. that could obviously devastate a system in the right scenarios, but this doesn't mean that gmos are bad, just that they are insufficiently regulated given the massive systemic risks they pose. But that's all bad. Very bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Walker Texas Ranger Posted July 18, 2016 Share Posted July 18, 2016 26 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Agreed to the first bit. Yes, the science in the early going was bad. No argument there. That said, you don't think companies like Monsanto haven't sought to suppress further studies? I understand your point that GMO labeling doesn't address the issue here, but I do believe that there is a dangerous relationship between organizations like the FDA and Big Agribusiness. In many ways we've handed over regulation of this industry over to the industry itself. I guess GMO labeling is a poor example of how to bring this incestuous relationship to light. Not sure what the answer here is. ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and Saudi Aramco have a ton more money than Monsanto and ADM. And they haven't been able to suppress studies on global warming. They've been able to suppress political action on global warming, but even then they hardly did it alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted July 18, 2016 Share Posted July 18, 2016 Quote Right. There is a relationship between GMO foods and environmental hazards. Take the California almond vs Bee issue, for example. And that is ALSO a bad thing! That has nothing to do with genetically modified organisms at all. If you want to solve that problem you don't tackle it by saying no more GMOs, because that only means farmers will use more pesticides to fight their crops blights. Quote On the other hand, gmo is like gun violence, we're not even allowed to study it because of powerful lobbies blocking any information or research. That's not remotely true. There are so many studies on GMO now. Well-funded, researched, independent, global studies. Quote Yes, the science in the early going was bad. No argument there. That said, you don't think companies like Monsanto haven't sought to suppress further studies? They might have! But until there's an actual scientific study linking some issue with Monsanto, I'm not going to think that all the other studies that are indicating that it is healthy are wrong. I'd happily support a label indicating that something is produced by sources that came from Monsanto. Alternately, simply stopping buying most processed food will do the trick. But I'm heavily against putting labels on things implying their health based on shoddy science and panicking politicians when that's not the real problem. If you have a problem with Monsanto's completely shitty business practices the solution is to go after that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted July 18, 2016 Share Posted July 18, 2016 28 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said: ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and Saudi Aramco have a ton more money than Monsanto and ADM. And they haven't been able to suppress studies on global warming. They've been able to suppress political action on global warming, but even then they hardly did it alone. Solid point. 15 minutes ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said: I'd happily support a label indicating that something is produced by sources that came from Monsanto. Alternately, simply stopping buying most processed food will do the trick. But I'm heavily against putting labels on things implying their health based on shoddy science and panicking politicians when that's not the real problem. If you have a problem with Monsanto's completely shitty business practices the solution is to go after that. Fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted July 18, 2016 Share Posted July 18, 2016 [mod hat] Ahem. American elections topics please. [/mod hat] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted July 18, 2016 Share Posted July 18, 2016 I think a lot of the anti gmo nonsense is really just a heuristic for anti Monsanto positions. any gmo is fine and healthy to eat on the individual level, on the collective, system level they pose what I think of as unacceptable systemic risk to our food supply. But it's important to reiterate that our food supply is only capable of supporting six billion humans because of industrial agriculture techniques, modern economic social safety nets to offset outlier harvest outcomes, and gmo advancements that enable further elaboration of those advancements. Gmo is the reason there isn't global starvation, it also could easily become a cause of same in future if and when it fails (or is failed by typical human behavior) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted July 18, 2016 Share Posted July 18, 2016 9 minutes ago, TerraPrime said: [mod hat] Ahem. American elections topics please. [/mod hat] Seriously. The Republican National Convention begins tonight and nothing has been said about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted July 18, 2016 Share Posted July 18, 2016 3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: Seriously. The Republican National Convention begins tonight and nothing has been said about it. Actually it began this afternoon, and its off to a roaring start. Quote The Republican National Committee ignored an outcry from a significant mass of angry delegates and adopted the convention's rules by voice vote, rebuffing shouts by those looking to mount a last-ditch effort to sink the nomination of Donald Trump. The move prompted moments of chaos on the convention floor, as the crowd erupted in chants of "roll-call vote" and yelling "point of order." Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) spoke out in favor of the push by delegates in a conversation with reporters on the floor. "What I want is a roll-call vote, which is our right as delegates," he said. Lee, an ally of Trump's main primary rival, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), also expressed shock at how the push for a roll-call vote on the convention's rules. “I have never seen anything like this,” he said. “There is no precedent for this. After a brief recess, Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.) returned to the podium to call for another voice vote, again eschewing the calls for a voice vote. He ruled a second time in favor of skipping a roll-call vote and moving on, which threw the floor into further chaos. A few moments later, Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) came to the convention stage to begin speaking about the party platform. The story actually understates what happened. There's a lot better firsthand accounts on twitter, stuff like people shouting about brownshirts and fascists and some delegates walking off the floor (although it seems like that was only temporary). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted July 18, 2016 Share Posted July 18, 2016 10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: Seriously. The Republican National Convention begins tonight and nothing has been said about it. BENGHAZI! /There, ya happy? //Looking forward to Colbert tonight...http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/jon-stewart-return-late-show-rnc-coverage-article-1.2712766 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodRider Posted July 18, 2016 Share Posted July 18, 2016 2 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: GMO is a bogus issue? Can't say I agree with that. Can we take this elsewhere before it consumes the whole thread. As is it's wont. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted July 18, 2016 Share Posted July 18, 2016 7 minutes ago, Fez said: Actually it began this afternoon, and its off to a roaring start. 7 minutes ago, Fez said: The story actually understates what happened. There's a lot better firsthand accounts on twitter, stuff like people shouting about brownshirts and fascists and some delegates walking off the floor (although it seems like that was only temporary). There was also this oddity: http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/07/18/breaking.-rnc-convention-secretary-literally-hiding-dump-trump-petitioners/ 7 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: BENGHAZI! /There, ya happy? //Looking forward to Colbert tonight...http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/jon-stewart-return-late-show-rnc-coverage-article-1.2712766 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted July 18, 2016 Share Posted July 18, 2016 Apparently the Colorado delegation walked out of the RNC entirely. But otherwise things aren't nearly as bleak as they sound. Quote And then Womack dropped the bomb. Nine state delegations had submitted signatures requesting a full roll call vote on the rules, he said — but then three of them withdrewthose requests. (It’s still not clear why this actually happened or even which delegations withdrew.) So, since anti-Trump forces fell short of the eight state delegations they needed, there would be no roll call vote. "The chair has found insufficient support for the request for the vote," Womack said. And that was that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxom 1974 Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 Curious if anyone knows this answer: Trump's wife, his THIRD wife, speaks here tonight...has there ever been a President who's been divorced and married again in the White House? Let alone someone who's on his third wife? Nothing jumps out that I can think of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 29 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said: Curious if anyone knows this answer: Trump's wife, his THIRD wife, speaks here tonight...has there ever been a President who's been divorced and married again in the White House? Let alone someone who's on his third wife? Nothing jumps out that I can think of. Ronald Reagan was divorced and had remarried. I don't think there has been any with three wives or more. However, I don't think even Trump can top marrying a woman who was still married at the time, marrying her again when she was officially divorced and then killing a man in a duel because he criticized this in a newspaper column. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxom 1974 Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 22 minutes ago, Altherion said: Ronald Reagan was divorced and had remarried. I don't think there has been any with three wives or more. However, I don't think even Trump can top marrying a woman who was still married at the time, marrying her again when she was officially divorced and then killing a man in a duel because he criticized this in a newspaper column. Ah. Reagan. Forgot about that. His first marriage to Jane Wyman had been over so long and he'd been married to Nancy long enough that it isn't hard to miss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyKC Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 Of all the conservative, former 80s TV stars, and they pick Scott Baio? I mean, c'mon, for keepers sake! (Sorry for the vulgarity, but...) lol, looks like someone was looking out and kept me from swearing after all winky smiley! Thanks autocorrect Jesus! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.022a4ba4f4aa53526e0290eedde6f808.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.