Quote: (05-10-2015 08:44 PM)Darius Wrote:
Quote: (05-10-2015 08:25 PM)zigZag Wrote:Yet you yourself said before that technology could be used for good or evil. Which means that no technology is inherently good or evil. It's what it is used for that makes it so.
@Darius They might be who knows. However the overwhelming scientific evidence is that they are not. So i'm going to go with the science on this one.
The other point about natural breeding is true and thats why this technology is sooo ground breaking. It's a positive for me and for you it's a negative. I can't wait to see what amazing new traits can be produced for the benefit of mankind with this one. I also find it funny how people seem stuck on the GMO corn but no one seems to talk about the GMO papaya that saved Hawaiis papaya industry.
Openly accepting a technology just because it is new is foolhardy. Each and ever use should be judged on it's own merit.
Quote: (05-10-2015 08:25 PM)zigZag Wrote:They might not produce it on purpose but their could be economic reasons to downplay the side effects of eating certain GMO's. Just like I'm sure that cell phone companies wouldn't want to publicize that heavy cell phone use over the long term can lead to an increased risk of cancer. I'm also sure that vaccine producers don't want to admit publicly that a certain small percentage of recipients will experience adverse effects. That doesn't mean that these dangers don't exist and that we should hide them for their benefit.
Some GMOs Could be dangerous yes but no more or less dangerous than lots of other things. My point is that there is no commercial reason to develop a new trait spending hundreds of millions of dollars to develop a trait that is not economically viable but then again i'm not a conspiracy theorist.
Quote: (05-10-2015 08:25 PM)zigZag Wrote:
As i said before its the separate but equal type thing. Should Mexican picked foods be labeled differently than american picked foods? the foods are functionally the same thing, neither is more risky than the other. Labeling would cost money, create confusion and it puts in the mind of the consumer that GMOs are bad. Besides this is what Companies like monsanto
are up against so i agree that GMOs should not be labeled.
Though you admitted previously that they aren't equal. One can do things that the other would never be able to do. What would be wrong with admitting that one had a gene that enabled it to produce an insecticide?
I don't accept it because it is new. I accept it because it is leaps and bounds better than what we currently have. Maybe you should actually do more investigation into the technology, the processes and what is possible if we can make even more progress into this type of breeding.
Again more pseudo-science and conspiracy theories not backed up by scientific evidence. The minute your brought up vaccines as a causing problems for people is the minute you outed yourself as a conspiracy theorist.
Because functionally the plants are the same. Literally nothing is different. But you have to be specific to which trait you're against. BT Corn? Round Up ready corn? Virus resistant papayas? There is a lot of crops nowadays that are GMO each with a different trait that is beneficial to farmers. Since you mentioned the insecticide producing corn it is functionally the same as regular corn. In fact if you did research you'd see that the Insecticide the corn produces is actually used in organic gardening as well. http://www.bt.ucsd.edu/organic_farming.html This it the insecticide that is produced and that is how it is used in organic gardening. Please at least do more investigation into what you're against so you don't sound like the people in the video i linked to above.