Coalition of the ignorant (1 Viewer)

[fugl]

But those same mosquitos also underpin a large part of the food supply for insectivorous birds: go ahead with the scheme, and goodbye to warblers, gnatcatchers, etc., etc.

Are mosquitos specifically really all that important to the survival of these little birds? There are lots of other insects out there after all to step into the breach. . ..

That being said, I do share your concern about the dangers of over-zealous "pest control" in general to the health of wild nature.

 

[Nutcracker]

Hard to know, but in some habitats at least, I'd suspect yes.

 

[CalvinFold]

Indeed--

This Is Why We Embrace Genetically Modified Bugs but Disdain Genetically Modified Food - Slate
https://apple.news/AoqfIGR8iTmWwQmxh1rRc2Q

Fugl,

This one was an interesting read, but seemed to leave-out a number of issues...or at least issues that stood out to me.

Many of these articles claim that the overwhelming majority of scientists say "GMO foods are safe." When they make statements like this, is it "safe for human consumption" or "safe for the environment" or do they mean both?

I ask because while I admit I haven't paid attention for a few years, I haven't seen any mention of my particular fears, and fears that scientists had at the outset of GMO fears:

1. What about the cross-contamination issue where the GMO plant cross-breeds with neighboring plants (like "weeds"), or other trans-gene issues? There was a real concern at one point that we'd create super-weeds accidentally, or other unintended cross-breeds.
2. What about the cross-contamination to neighboring crops? What if one farmer wants GMO but his neighbor doesn't? What happens when the non-GMO farmer ends-up with GMO cross-breeds?
3. The issue of the fact that GMO seeds are trademark protected can't be good for farmers long-term. They can't re-use previous year's seeds, they must re-buy constantly. Has this changed?
4. Farmers are usually locked-into using certain fertilizers and chemicals on the GMO crops. Has this changed?
5. If #3 and #4 are still true, this would make it more expensive for farmers in the long run. Also seems like it would be harsher on the soil
6. GMO seed seem counter-intuitive to the diversity of food crops we really need.

Now if these issues have been dealt with, then fine by me. But if not, I don't consider my fear of GMO crops unfounded or irrational. I actually think we're tinkering with things we can't predict and hoping for the best. Granted, politics has made us inured to that type thinking, but that doesn't make it the correct way to think about a problem.

As for the genetically modified mosquitos: until someone mentioned that getting rid of the little annoyances would possibly upset the food chain for birds and other insectivores, I couldn't see how "sterile mosquitos" was such a bad thing. But now? Now I would say until proper research was done on the effect on the entire food chain that it's not such a good idea to wipe-out mosquitos with complete disregard.

Also, there is always that chance that the end result will be a small number of surviving "super virile mosquitos" that will carry on giving us a bigger mess to deal with.

I think we should take a cue form natural relationships that reach equilibrium, instead of death to one side or the other. Take the common cold. Just virulent enough to spread, but generally not so virulent it kills the host. We need a solution to mosquitos, rats, pigeons, and other "pests" to humans more on that kind of reasoning.

"Wipe them all out" has rarely been a good plan and always leaves a deadly crutch in its wake. "Adapt" is generally a better long-term solution.

 

[King Edward]

One can understand why people want rid of disease-carrying mosquitos.

But those same mosquitos also underpin a large part of the food supply for insectivorous birds: go ahead with the scheme, and goodbye to warblers, gnatcatchers, etc., etc.

If the specific disease vectors could be eliminated/reduced by a targeted control programme, while leaving other species of mosquitoes etc unaffected then the impact on birds etc might be small. Less in any case than alternative, non-GMO control measures such as wetland drainage and insecticide spraying.

1. What about the cross-contamination issue where the GMO plant cross-breeds with neighboring plants (like "weeds"), or other trans-gene issues? There was a real concern at one point that we'd create super-weeds accidentally, or other unintended cross-breeds.
2. What about the cross-contamination to neighboring crops? What if one farmer wants GMO but his neighbor doesn't? What happens when the non-GMO farmer ends-up with GMO cross-breeds?
3. The issue of the fact that GMO seeds are trademark protected can't be good for farmers long-term. They can't re-use previous year's seeds, they must re-buy constantly. Has this changed?
4. Farmers are usually locked-into using certain fertilizers and chemicals on the GMO crops. Has this changed?
5. If #3 and #4 are still true, this would make it more expensive for farmers in the long run. Also seems like it would be harsher on the soil
6. GMO seed seem counter-intuitive to the diversity of food crops we really need.

Much of these concerns also apply to conventional agriculture and non-GM breeding, e.g. F1 hybrid seed which needs to be bought new for each crop. Traits such as weedkiller resistance can also be bred in by non-GM means (e.g. mutation breeding). You need to look at specific crops/traits/agricultural practices on an individual basis, rather than a blanket GM good/bad.

 

[CalvinFold]

Much of these concerns also apply to conventional agriculture and non-GM breeding, e.g. F1 hybrid seed which needs to be bought new for each crop. Traits such as weedkiller resistance can also be bred in by non-GM means (e.g. mutation breeding). You need to look at specific crops/traits/agricultural practices on an individual basis, rather than a blanket GM good/bad.

Not disagree'ing per se, but direct genetic tinkering to shortcut to a trait has usually resulted in more side-effects than controlled, slow breeding programs. Not always, granted. But a slow approach at least invites less disaster and less unintended consequences. We tend to spot-tweak to solve, nature tends to go after broader solutions.

As for the "F1 hybrid seeds" you mention, I won't argue with your reasoning at all...in fact, I'd just lump them in with the GMO problem. ;-p

Just because we "already do it dangerously/stupidly by some other means" doesn't mean doing it all in a bundled package called "GMO" makes it better or acceptable. Because one snuck under our noses, doesn't mean we can't try to stop the next one.

So yes, perils of thought already exist in agriculture, all the more reason to watch GMO more carefully and take our time far more than we do now. We're poisoning our air, let's not lay waste to the plant life too. Hyperbole? Maybe in the short term; it's the long game I worry about.

I'm resigned that GMO is here and we're stuck with it, to be honest; so this is just an intellectual and fact-finding discussion for me. It saddens me what we humans do to the air, the water, the land. My own contribution is inevitable, obviously...I'm part of that collective "we" despite efforts to distance myself from it.

 

[King Edward]

Just saw this on the Independent website: ‘Like it’s been nuked’: Millions of bees dead after South Carolina sprays for Zika mosquitoes. Sounds absolutely horrific. I don't see how a GM-based control programme for this one species of mosquito would cause anything like the same level of devastation as spraying with highly toxic organophosphate insecticides. Aedes aegypti is in any case non-native in the Americas so I can't see any environmental downside even in the unlikely case of its complete eradication.

 

[Nutcracker]

Be better if humans just leant to live with zika - it doesn't kill, all that's needed is that they stop breeding, which would have plenty of other benefits for the ecosystem.

 

[fugl]

Be better if humans just leant to live with zika - it doesn't kill, all that's needed is that they stop breeding, which would have plenty of other benefits for the ecosystem.

Or better yet, leave the mosquitos alone and develop a genetically modified strain of human males. . ..

 

[CalvinFold]

Just saw this on the Independent website: ‘Like it’s been nuked’: Millions of bees dead after South Carolina sprays for Zika mosquitoes.

Jeebus. Just...wow.

Reminds me of Medfly spraying in my youth, the aerial spraying anyway.

But the images of the fog-based household spraying reminded me of images of DDT spraying, along with the same reassurances.

But I like how "newspaper and Facebook" are enough notification. Most laws around here require notification by mail since (almost) everyone at least has that level of communication with the outside world.

Just. Insane.

 

[CalvinFold]

Or better yet, leave the mosquitos alone and develop a genetically modified strain of human males. . ..

:t::-O:clap:

 

[Nutcracker]

Or better yet, leave the mosquitos alone and develop a genetically modified strain of human males. . ..

Don't need to, just need to increase the membership base

 

[Nutcracker]

Jeebus. Just...wow.

Reminds me of Medfly spraying in my youth, the aerial spraying anyway.

But the images of the fog-based household spraying reminded me of images of DDT spraying, along with the same reassurances.

But I like how "newspaper and Facebook" are enough notification. Most laws around here require notification by mail since (almost) everyone at least has that level of communication with the outside world.

Just. Insane.

Hope they sue them, perhaps $10 per bee killed :storm:

 

[keith]

Be better if humans just leant to live with zika - it doesn't kill, all that's needed is that they stop breeding, which would have plenty of other benefits for the ecosystem.

The best quote I've seen on this, or any forum,

 

[fugl]

The best quote I've seen on this, or any forum,

But putting it in practice, there's the rub. . .. Personally, I don't see any way forward towards population control sans a universal rise in living standards, and that's where GM crops could play a role. But, I repeat myself (yet again!).

And one thing is certain, whining about what a bad species we are gets us nowhere at all.

 

[fugl]

A thoughtful summary of the pros and cons as currently understood--

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/b...l?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share

 

[MJB]

A thoughtful summary of the pros and cons as currently understood--

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/b...l?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share

It makes a huge difference when reporters are conversant with trend analysis and so understand how to make valid comparisons between data from the US and Europe.
MJB

 

[litebeam]

That being said, I do share your concern about the dangers of over-zealous "pest control" in general to the health of wild nature.

More Fuglian hypocrisy....I suggested that we start to address this "over-zealous pest control" by cleaning up the poisonous golf courses everywhere with their excessive pesticides and herbicides...

You told me to "grow up".... 'hit the links' or some such crap...... laughable...

 

[Sangahyando]

Be better if humans just leant to live with zika - it doesn't kill, all that's needed is that they stop breeding, which would have plenty of other benefits for the ecosystem.

Why do you guys have to be so extreme all the time? Granted, trying to (globally) exterminate other species is heinous, but wanting to exterminate one's own species is foolish, to put it very mildly.

 

[fugl]

More Fuglian hypocrisy....I suggested that we start to address this "over-zealous pest control" by cleaning up the poisonous golf courses everywhere with their excessive pesticides and herbicides...

You told me to "grow up".... 'hit the links' or some such crap...... laughable...

Yes, I believe I did tell you something like that but a long time ago and in a different thread. Sorry to hear it's been eating away at you all these weeks..

 

[litebeam]

Eating away...chuckle...um...riiiiight.
"Long time ago" and "different thread"...I didn't know your hypocrisy had a 30-40 day expiration date.
You are like every other progressive: Once something doesn't fit your narrative you attack the messenger and erect the straw man. Saul Alinsky would call you 'comrade.'

Zero credibility, just like the paid-for "peer-review" scientists who are under increased scrutiny for their corrupt follow-the-money AGW scam.