How can you oppose GMO's while believing in climate change?

Orbit v2

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
12,092
Interesting article in the Wapo.

Are you anti-GMO? Then you’re anti-science, too.

I've always been luke-warm on both questions. I accept the scientific consensus on global warming; the one issue I have is its lack of 'falsifiability'. In other words there are no easy ways to test the theories of global warming. That's unavoidable of course, but it means in my case, if evidence comes along to contradict the current consensus, I won't be long changing my mind.

GMO's are trickier. I really didn't like what some of them are about, eg engineering seeds that have pesticides built in. But after reading the above, I'm finding it harder to sustain that argument. So long as farmers aren't being forced to use them against their own interests, I have to concede that GMO's are a good thing.

Of course, the tldr; point of the article is, if you don't think too much about either issue, and prefer to trust science, then it should be even harder to oppose GMOs while believing in climate change. Opinions?
 


gleeful

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2016
Messages
7,520
Im not anti-medicine but I do support very strict rules on the testing of new drugs.

GMO is a broad and powerful new tech. It should be regulated as strictly as medical tech.

GMO is heading towards its own thalidomide.
 

making waves

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
19,412
GMOs are not the solution to anything - they are a mechanism for rich pharma to control and manipulate food supply and make massive profits.
 

paulp

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
7,303
Problem I see with GMO is the idea that a corporation can own the rights on every potato grown in the world.

Let's say a GMO potato turns out tho be the tastiest, easiest grown must beautiful potatoe known to man. And a license fee must be paid to the company for every potatoe grown.
 

gleeful

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2016
Messages
7,520
Problem I see with GMO is the idea that a corporation can own the rights on every potato grown in the world.

Let's say a GMO potato turns out tho be the tastiest, easiest grown must beautiful potatoe known to man. And a license fee must be paid to the company for every potatoe grown.
GMO is a tool. Like any tool it can be used for good or it can be used for the opposite.
 

Trainwreck

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Messages
26,416
Im not anti-medicine but I do support very strict rules on the testing of new drugs.

GMO is a broad and powerful new tech. It should be regulated as strictly as medical tech.

GMO is heading towards its own thalidomide.
They are completely different things.
 

Trainwreck

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Messages
26,416
This is one of those times when the numpties who have bought into the Climate Catastrophe nonsense, who tell themselves and others "I believe in science", confront their cognitive dissonance and try to rationalise their rejection of science.

Strangely, in this case it is empirically testable and replicable science (i.e. actual science), not 100 year hand waving predictions (not real science).
 

CatullusV

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
5,465
Problem I see with GMO is the idea that a corporation can own the rights on every potato grown in the world.

Let's say a GMO potato turns out tho be the tastiest, easiest grown must beautiful potatoe known to man. And a license fee must be paid to the company for every potatoe grown.
Not only that, but if your GMO crop naturally spreads onto my land you own it.
 

Orbit v2

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
12,092
I don't get the general anti-pharma argument. How are GMOs different from other pharmaceutical products?

Also, they are only patenting specific strains of plants. The traditional varieties should still be available on current terms presumably.
Presumably also, after patents expire, the IP effectively becomes free then....

Not only that, but if your GMO crop naturally spreads onto my land you own it.
I think it's the owner of the seed technology who can come looking for license fees, rather than the neighbour etc. My view on that would be any natural, or unavoidable spreading shouldn't be liable, but you can't really expect to hoard them and start building up your own stock.

These arguments sound a bit like the people who think it's okay to intercept the Sky satellite signal without paying on the basis that the signal is just arriving on your door-step uninvited.
 

Trainwreck

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Messages
26,416
I think it's the owner of the seed technology who can come looking for license fees, rather than the neighbour etc. My view on that would be any natural, or unavoidable spreading shouldn't be liable, but you can't really expect to hoard them and start building up your own stock.

These arguments sound a bit like the people who think it's okay to intercept the Sky satellite signal without paying on the basis that the signal is just arriving on your door-step uninvited.
That entire story is a myth and lie. [actually it is the other way around, there is a litany of cases of farmers trying to sue companies for "contaminating" their fields with GMO drifting seeds etc. ]


There was a Canadian farmer who was growing a patented strain of wheat, but had no evidence he ever bought it. Monsanto sued him:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeiser


It is no different from Microsoft discovering you set up 1000 PCs on a single use licence of Windows.
 

CatullusV

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
5,465
I don't get the general anti-pharma argument. How are GMOs different from other pharmaceutical products?

Also, they are only patenting specific strains of plants. The traditional varieties should still be available on current terms presumably.
Presumably also, after patents expire, the IP effectively becomes free then....


I think it's the owner of the seed technology who can come looking for license fees, rather than the neighbour etc. My view on that would be any natural, or unavoidable spreading shouldn't be liable, but you can't really expect to hoard them and start building up your own stock.

These arguments sound a bit like the people who think it's okay to intercept the Sky satellite signal without paying on the basis that the signal is just arriving on your door-step uninvited.
I appreciate the distinction, but it remains the case that if my crops become in effect some form of hybrid GMO I could have potential liability.

I'm not a luddite in these issues; the entirety of agriculture has been based on selective breeding, which is in itself a passive form of GMO. Once it moved to the lab it became a more active enterprise.
 

Orbit v2

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
12,092
I think there is a really curious thing going on here though on the high level point.

A lot of people (on the left) will believe the science behind climate change, but reject it on GMOs.

A lot of people (on the right) will reject the science behind climate change, but accept it on GMOs.
 

Trainwreck

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Messages
26,416
I appreciate the distinction, but it remains the case that if my crops become in effect some form of hybrid GMO I could have potential liability.

I'm not a luddite in these issues; the entirety of agriculture has been based on selective breeding, which is in itself a passive form of GMO. Once it moved to the lab it became a more active enterprise.

Firstly, that risk exist already. If you are replanting harvested seeds, cross pollination is already occurring. If you sell your entire grain harvest and buy seed each year, it isn't an issue to begin with.

Secondly, there already exists, by virtue of the anti-science "organic" lobby (is there any more anti-science concept than "organic food FFS?) controls and regulations that would prevent, say, certain proprietary strains ("GMO) of wheat crop to be planted close to other properties.


The premise of this thread is the OP having a partial crack in his cognitive dissonance, to realise that he isn't as committed to scientific method as he always tells himself. Yet, in response we have post after post based on myth, lie and ignorance.
 

paulp

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
7,303
I don't get the general anti-pharma argument. How are GMOs different from other pharmaceutical products?

Also, they are only patenting specific strains of plants. The traditional varieties should still be available on current terms presumably.
Presumably also, after patents expire, the IP effectively becomes free then....


I think it's the owner of the seed technology who can come looking for license fees, rather than the neighbour etc. My view on that would be any natural, or unavoidable spreading shouldn't be liable, but you can't really expect to hoard them and start building up your own stock.

These arguments sound a bit like the people who think it's okay to intercept the Sky satellite signal without paying on the basis that the signal is just arriving on your door-step uninvited.
Didn't the court rule exactly that. That it is ok to intercept and decode sky signal.
 

SPN

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
16,845
It is irrational, hence it anti-science.
The many problems with GMOs are based on science.

Two main problems are at the core.

1) These are living organisms which can breed, can evolve in unpredictable ways, and can outcross in unpredictable ways.

2) There is an assumption of "Substantial Equivalence" which is not scientifically credible and which enables the avoidance of testing for novel proteins.

This is just another attempt by the morkeshing departments at some toxic chemical companies to influence public opinion in order to boost sales.

It has nothing to do with science.
 

paulp

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
7,303
GMO is a tool. Like any tool it can be used for good or it can be used for the opposite.
Fully agree.
And tbh i know little about the topic.
But what I have read to date looks more like a corporation could have the potential to demand license fee on growing all the crops in the world. That's a bit scary.
 

Trainwreck

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Messages
26,416
I think there is a really curious thing going on here though on the high level point.

A lot of people (on the left) will believe the science behind climate change, but reject it on GMOs.

A lot of people (on the right) will reject the science behind climate change, but accept it on GMOs.
The science behind climate is not very convincing or robust.

The science behind GMOs is far more convincing and robust.




From where I sit, someone who "accepts the science behind climate change" [which needs to be read as "catastrophic man-mad climate change"] and rejects it for GMOs is anti science all the way:

They accept a lack of science (because of emotion and ideology) and then reject robust science (because of emotion and ideology) .
 


Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top