-
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!
Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Coalition of the ignorant (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter fugl
- Start date
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Where does the truth lie ???
Curiouser and curiouser ..... :cat: :cat:
https://m.facebook.com/DavidAvocado...515706511/10153276873141512/?type=3&source=48
Not making any comment on this other than its an interesting thought. Getting very hard to wade through the obfuscation these days without some serious research. Just as well I'm not a slave to the wacky :hippy: ..... otherwise this sort of deliberation would send the paranoid seriously around the bend ! :eek!: :bounce: :gn:
Chosun :gh:
Curiouser and curiouser ..... :cat: :cat:
https://m.facebook.com/DavidAvocado...515706511/10153276873141512/?type=3&source=48
Not making any comment on this other than its an interesting thought. Getting very hard to wade through the obfuscation these days without some serious research. Just as well I'm not a slave to the wacky :hippy: ..... otherwise this sort of deliberation would send the paranoid seriously around the bend ! :eek!: :bounce: :gn:
Chosun :gh:
A ray of hope for the coalition--
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/13/b...l?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/13/b...l?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share
Further ruminations on this contentious topic. Me, I'm not sure what to think. . ..
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/o...l?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/o...l?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share
Ignorant indeed
fugl, you entitled this thread 'Coalition of the ignorant' in what may have been a scornful manner (forgive me if not).
But yes, 'ignorant' is what we all are - of the consequences of releasing GMOs into the wild. IF it were possible to test these in a carefully controlled way, then much of the fears etc surrounding them might weaken. But it isn't, is it ?
(Some attempts to do this kind of testing in the UK have been disrupted by anti-GM campaigners, simply because they fear that 'careful control' simply isn't possible. On a similar line to what someone said earlier in this thread, the wind bloweth where it listeth).
fugl, you entitled this thread 'Coalition of the ignorant' in what may have been a scornful manner (forgive me if not).
But yes, 'ignorant' is what we all are - of the consequences of releasing GMOs into the wild. IF it were possible to test these in a carefully controlled way, then much of the fears etc surrounding them might weaken. But it isn't, is it ?
(Some attempts to do this kind of testing in the UK have been disrupted by anti-GM campaigners, simply because they fear that 'careful control' simply isn't possible. On a similar line to what someone said earlier in this thread, the wind bloweth where it listeth).
I skimmed through this, but wondered if anyone touched on this:
Most GMO crops are licensed, which means the farmer can't even sell seeds from their crops, and in some/many/most cases can't even use the seeds for next year and have to start with new seed. Basically the companies like Monsato "own" everything about the crop (and how it's used, which specific products to use alongside it, etc.) except whatever the yield (fruits, vegetables) is.
Additionally, anyone with a GMO field whose crops hybridize with nearby fields can cause the farmers who didn't even buy the GMO to get into trouble with the manufacturer for "stealing product." By that standard, GMOs should be identified as a weed, a pest, an invasive species.
So along with the biodiversity issues mentioned above (which are a problem with non-GMO crops, but worse with GMO crops...monoculture crops are really a mess), the whole GMO pipeline is non-renewable, expensive, and basically guaranteed to shut-down the last of the small farmers over time. Which then leads to the land exhaustion practices of large mega-farms.
Then, let's touch on the whole "GMOs cross-breed with neighboring fields with unintended hybrids with other pants." Yes, this happens naturally, but slowly. We're talking about accelerating past nature's own safeties.
Granted, I won't deny that I likely eat GMO-based foods, but if the USA actually labelled the stuff, I'd avoid it like the plague on ethical and environmental grounds alone.
I'm still dealing with how to afford to eat how my ethics want me to, but avoiding GMOs would be a no-brainer for me, if I was informed.
Most GMO crops are licensed, which means the farmer can't even sell seeds from their crops, and in some/many/most cases can't even use the seeds for next year and have to start with new seed. Basically the companies like Monsato "own" everything about the crop (and how it's used, which specific products to use alongside it, etc.) except whatever the yield (fruits, vegetables) is.
Additionally, anyone with a GMO field whose crops hybridize with nearby fields can cause the farmers who didn't even buy the GMO to get into trouble with the manufacturer for "stealing product." By that standard, GMOs should be identified as a weed, a pest, an invasive species.
So along with the biodiversity issues mentioned above (which are a problem with non-GMO crops, but worse with GMO crops...monoculture crops are really a mess), the whole GMO pipeline is non-renewable, expensive, and basically guaranteed to shut-down the last of the small farmers over time. Which then leads to the land exhaustion practices of large mega-farms.
Then, let's touch on the whole "GMOs cross-breed with neighboring fields with unintended hybrids with other pants." Yes, this happens naturally, but slowly. We're talking about accelerating past nature's own safeties.
Granted, I won't deny that I likely eat GMO-based foods, but if the USA actually labelled the stuff, I'd avoid it like the plague on ethical and environmental grounds alone.
I'm still dealing with how to afford to eat how my ethics want me to, but avoiding GMOs would be a no-brainer for me, if I was informed.
To derail a bit for a moment:
MRSA, C. difficile, etc. are really a serious problem the public seems oblivious to as they demand the use of antibiotics for things they won't help, pump them into food animals, etc. Sure, where I work we're making money devising more clever ways to kill these "hospital borne" infections and I keep gainfully employed, but at some point I suspect we will lose to the germs.
Though I suppose it will be a boon to wildlife when our population collapses. |8.|
I can speak from some experience: I was treated for a serious ear infection with a broad-spectrum antibiotic and then was the (un)lucky winner of a free round of antibiotic-acquired Clostridium difficile, which then took a course of vancomycin to clear-up, and my ability to eat a wide range of foods has been impacted ever since (never, ever mess up your gut flora this badly, it's basically forever). And I didn't acquire it in a hospital like most people fear. Think about that for a second. :eek!:
Back on topic:
Now I see antibiotics and some other types of medicine as allowing poor genes to propagate as well as diseases that instead of getting used to them are simply getting stronger and just kill us. We do the same with our manufactured drugs. It's a big experiment and I think humanity loses, eventually, in the long term.
GMO and corporatized monoculture really is the same thing, only instead of doing it to ourselves, we're doing it to plants. Genetic engineering will do it to insects and animals. And frankly, if my lifespan was longer, I'd place a bet we screw-up using both these advancements up too.
Not because there might not be a way to be safe about it, no. But because our world is run by greed. Greed is impatient and willing to take shortcuts. And those shortcuts are where the problems lie. I'd be all for most of this if humanity was patient, had no profit motive, had no selfish imperatives, and always had the greater good in mind no matter how much hardship that caused in the short- and even medium-term.
I get to hear about this quite often, as I work for a consumer packaged goods company that has branched out into medical disinfection because of synergies in our product lines.
MRSA, C. difficile, etc. are really a serious problem the public seems oblivious to as they demand the use of antibiotics for things they won't help, pump them into food animals, etc. Sure, where I work we're making money devising more clever ways to kill these "hospital borne" infections and I keep gainfully employed, but at some point I suspect we will lose to the germs.
Though I suppose it will be a boon to wildlife when our population collapses. |8.|
I can speak from some experience: I was treated for a serious ear infection with a broad-spectrum antibiotic and then was the (un)lucky winner of a free round of antibiotic-acquired Clostridium difficile, which then took a course of vancomycin to clear-up, and my ability to eat a wide range of foods has been impacted ever since (never, ever mess up your gut flora this badly, it's basically forever). And I didn't acquire it in a hospital like most people fear. Think about that for a second. :eek!:
Back on topic:
Now I see antibiotics and some other types of medicine as allowing poor genes to propagate as well as diseases that instead of getting used to them are simply getting stronger and just kill us. We do the same with our manufactured drugs. It's a big experiment and I think humanity loses, eventually, in the long term.
GMO and corporatized monoculture really is the same thing, only instead of doing it to ourselves, we're doing it to plants. Genetic engineering will do it to insects and animals. And frankly, if my lifespan was longer, I'd place a bet we screw-up using both these advancements up too.
Not because there might not be a way to be safe about it, no. But because our world is run by greed. Greed is impatient and willing to take shortcuts. And those shortcuts are where the problems lie. I'd be all for most of this if humanity was patient, had no profit motive, had no selfish imperatives, and always had the greater good in mind no matter how much hardship that caused in the short- and even medium-term.
Last edited:
Trystan
Well-known member
I really take issue with the sentiment that these mosquitos deserve to be obliterated because of their impact on humans.
Our arrogance knows no bounds and technology like this in the hands of incredibly arrogant people in a bad thing. Leave the mosquitos to help keep our population in check as best they can I say.
Our arrogance knows no bounds and technology like this in the hands of incredibly arrogant people in a bad thing. Leave the mosquitos to help keep our population in check as best they can I say.
Trystan
Well-known member
You're a hard man, Trystan. . ..
I just try to take the longer view. It's not that I have no sympathy but right now mass murderers are doing more for our planet than decent people and that is a paradox of our own making.
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
This reminds of the fantastic Michael Crichton novel "Prey" of 2002 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prey_(novel)
In much the same way that the term "Army Intelligence" is often lampooned, surely "Controlled GM Experiment" falls into the same boat?!
Chosun :gh:
Really, even the kind that take refuge in jungles and live off bushmeat?
Trystan
Well-known member
I really couldn't say, seems like a straw man
The point is that taking a human life is a terrible thing but since we do nothing to manage our population - or our consumption we are the scourge of the planet so personal feelings aside and looking at the situation holistically, anything which reduces our number is a good thing and anyone using GM or any technology to drive another species into extinction is hypocritical, arrogant, short sighted, selfish and dangerous.
Does it? What about mass starvation, deformed babies, death from agonizing disease, also "straw men"? Nothing we personally have much to worry about, of course, but then we're first-worlders.
Trystan
Well-known member
I think most of us can expect death from agonising disease but yes I still say they are straw men.
I would like to see a world where every decent person lives a rich and happy life but that's not possible for 7+ billion people. It's possible for 3 billion people perhaps so the how do we get from 7 billion to 3 billion, certainly not by helping everyone to survive and breed.
Better to invest in education, contraception and sterilisation than some kind of GM magic bullet with uncertain results and at the expense of biodiversity.
Everything not in accord with your prejudices is a "straw man" for you I see. Because of the greater availability of modern medical technology in the West, far fewer people die in agony here than in the rest of the world.
Of course, we need to reduce the human population but to think this can be accomplished by sterilisation, contraception and (God help us!) "education" is a pipe dream. Barring some exogenous catastrophe, population decline will only occur after 3rd-world levels of prosperity and governance are raised to current 1st-world standards, and in that endeavor GMOs can play a constructive role. Much will be lost along the way. . .but that, unfortunately, is how the world works.
Trystan
Well-known member
Which prejudices are you referring to? I'm not saying that the points you've raised are not cause for concern but in a thread about the use of GM technology they are surely straw men, I do not want to get side tracked.
You are happy to provide third world countries with first world technology but providing them with first world education is a pipe dream - this is not a consistent approach is it?
Let's for argument sake roll out your GM scenario and it works how you hope, modern medicine for all, food for 7 billion people.
Compare population densities in developed countries versus developing countries - the next step on this journey is another population explosion and a new problem. How do we feed 12 billion people? How do we provide medical care for another whole planets worth of people living on this planet.
You are not looking at the root cause of the problem and your solution may delay the apocalypse but as you already admit, much will be lost along the way and ultimately we will be back to square one.
So unfortunately, lots of people need to die. That's the bottom line, it can happen in a controlled way with global population management or we can mutate our food chain, cover the desert with solar panels, build 100 story apartment blocks but whats the point if we don't address the real issue?
"Educate" third-worlders to have smaller families, how exactly do you propose to do that? Leaflets from airplanes? New technology with its immediate and obvious material benefits is generally much more readily adopted by recipient societies than changes in fundamental cultural attitudes and behavior: social relations, family size and structure, religion etc. Witness the current hi-tech slaughter in the Middle East as an obvious example.
The crisis is real and urgent and the goal is a worthy one but the solutions you propose--sterilization, contraception, "education"--are ludicrously inadequate while your dark mutterings about lots of people having to die would be scary if they weren't just silly.
As I keep saying, population size has been falling for years now in the developed world, and there's no reason to think the same won't happen elsewhere with the attainment of comparable standards of living. GMOs can help take us there (maybe). In the meantime--as I also keep saying--world population will continue to grow and there will huge environmental losses, including to biodiversity. Sad, but as I've already said, that's the world we live in, like it or not.
Last edited:
Trystan
Well-known member
Honestly don't see where you are coming from with GMOs will help get us there. Your example of the middle east serves to demonstrate that the first world will happily make a profit selling technology without any thought to the consequences. Population growth within Europe are increasing now mostly through immigration and 2nd generation families of immigrants - a relatively slow increase but an increase nontheless. A quick look on wikipedia however suggests that the USA (3rd most populous country on the planet and also one of the highest consumers) is expected to increase it's population by 31% by 2050.
In the mean time developing countries will continue to grow our population peaking at around 11 billion.
Why stop at 11 billion - if we can house people by turning our forests into cities, if we can feed people by turning fertile land into GM super crops, if we can get the developing nations to have the same sense of entitlement as those in the first world who are happy to make a species extinct in the name of progress or arm the middle east in the name of profit, then maybe we can just keep filling the planet for a little longer.
To revert to education - the closest I can come to a practical solution was seeing education in Sri Lanka where smaller families were being encouraged in school by citing the problems of poverty in neighbouring India but it's not just about directly speaking about population, it's about access to education, especially for women and in order to empower women.
Higher levels of education also help to reduce the brainwashing effect of religious dogma which then goes hand in hand with the availability of contraception. It may well be inadequate in the face of our current problems and should have been addressed decades ago but it's a first step in the right direction.
Humans managing the ecosystem by tweaking a gene here and a gene there, well we can't manage our own society very well so why do you think we'll be any better at that? Progress determined by the ruling elite for maximum profit to the ruling elite at the expense of the environment and all those people you are so keen to help is the more likely result.
Enough from me anyway, I think the title of the thread shows where your own prejudice lies and there are plenty of well educated people have posted in opposition to your views which I think belie it.
Last edited:
