GMOs

I am doing a debate on GMOs, I am pro-GMO. If you can please give me websites that would support my stance, and maybe some points that would be effective. Thank you very much; also some sci debate on GMOs would be welcomed..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How can you be pro-GMO if you don't know the sticking points?

Anyways, I've been through this. Everyone knows the basic things, so if you want to do well, brainstorm some unconventional idea's about how modern civilization *needs* GMO's to survive, and the only reason they exist in the first place is to balance the ecosystem.

For example, GMO's are being used in India and other third world countries to save people from famine and prevent blindness.

'GMO's are a natural part of human evolution' --say that.

Its the anti-GMO's that are going against nature.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How can you be pro-GMO if you don't know the sticking points?

I know my points, I just need some websites. From trade, to higher crop yields. I am not an idiot...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I wasn't implying you were, but I can offer you one really good link:

<a href="http://www.google.com">Google</a>

 

Xerxes

No shit sherlock! Obviously I tried google... I found some good sites, but I was wondering if there are stats, and websites that ppl can give to help out.

 

Please somebody tell me what GMO. I am not that educated in the Earth Science section.

 

Genetically Modified Organism.

 

Does anyone have stats? Please that would really help out. For instance how much more food could be created in states? I know the world bank said 25%, but I was wondering if anyone has more specific stats.

Thank you.

 

I am not pro anything without reservations and that especially goes for GMOs.

They were and are designed for the profit making potential of a few companies, not the welfare of humanity.

They are now tainting old native genotypes which may be quite difficult to recover. They are also spreading uncontrolled and subsequently being honored in courts as patent violations by farmers who did not even realize their seed crops had been contaminated. The regulations thought wise and passed to control them have been transgressed with no fines or repercussions and potential harm has been noticed to endangered species. Though the company in that instance agreed to abide they did not and it can be argued that they couldn't.

If us humans do tame the information explosion for the benefit of humanity most of the population will choose to live off planet because it offers more freedom and potential longevity. That is when we will and should develop GMOs where we can contain them. This planet will be the conservation zone of the species we will use to seed the colonies we build and we need it to sustain the highest diversity index possible, a real measure of wealth, more than any amount of money.

A major goal of some GMOs has been to foster pesticide use, the Roundup ready plants. The consequences are damaging to many other crops, plants and animals including humans.

You can argue that GMOs are just an extension of humanity's long standing selective breeding for desired traits but when accelerated this way, the possibility to test the repercussions become ever more difficult.

BTW, how come we get biology subjects in the Earth science section?

 

Here is one stereotype from the green litany, when referring to GM crops:

“They were and are designed for the profit making potential of a few companies, not the welfare of humanity.”

As almost anything on Earth does. From cars, airplanes, home appliances, computers, TV, even medicines, foods, beverages, clothes, toys, cosmetics - you name it – was the idea of someone getting richer, not to contribute to mankind welfare. Many people think as Bernard Shaw did: "What have the future generations done in my behalf, for me to care about them?" Bernard Shaw was an inspiration to the green movement. He was known to say: "The more I know man, the more I love my dog" - the sad part is Shaw hated dogs and little kids, so you can imagine how much he loved his fellow men...

Only some very few benefactors of humanity have devised techniques, methods or processes intended solely for mankind benefit. Pasteur was one that comes to mind immediately, or Fleming, Dr. Salk, Dr. Sabin, or Dra. Inés Allende, discoverer of the Papanicolao test for cervical cancer.

But most noticeable is Dr. Bruce Ames, who devised the Ames Test (salmonella in Petri dishes) for determining teratogenic, mutagenic and/or carcinogenic effects of any chemical substance, but I guess most persons in the forum know about the Ames test and Dr. Ames.

But I wonder if everybody knew that instead of getting a patent on the test, Dr. Ames donated it to mankind, as one of the most useful thing ever devised for improving public health. As the test is used daily all over the world by millions of factories, labs, universities, labs, etc, Dr. Ames could have been now richer than Bill Gates.

But even terrible things devised for wrong uses as the atomic bomb, have developed into useful uses as nuclear medicine, electric generation, and other industrial processes. Technologies born for destruction eventually became useful tools and benefited enormously people all ovr the world. But I am sure there are different opinions on this matter.

 

"stereotype from the green litany" and then you go about agreeing though intoning that it is not necessarily a bad thing.

I am a human being. I do not have green skin. I have no afilliation with Green Peace or the green party.

I find you to be quite rude. Why not just stick to the subject rather than bring in these wide sweeping grandiose philosophical rantings?

I must share that I am not totally against GMOs. Perhaps such could be used to fight the spread of Calerpa taxifolia and I believe I have heard of genetically altered sterile mosquitos that can aid in mosquito abatement. RoundUp ready GMOs I find to be an atrocious abuse of the technique and messing with other common food crops begs the question of how to test the repercussions without using the biosphere as the stage.

Are you claiming GMOs are all good in every context? I am willing to alter my first post here with the idea that they may not be all bad as I share some possible exceptions in this post. In general though, I do think it is quite powerful stuff and would like to see a great deal of wisdom utilized for their release into the environs, more wisdom perhaps than the profit motive alone can allow.

 

A major goal of some GMOs has been to foster pesticide use, the Roundup ready plants. The consequences are damaging to many other crops, plants and animals including humans.

Roundup ready plants, when used appropiately, result in an overall reduction in the amount of chemicals sprayed on a crop. Yes, Montsano designed them to foster pesticide use, but at the expense of pesticides produced by other manufacturers. This system can benefit the environment by reducing the amounts of chemicals introduced into it by the farmer and can benefit the farmer by reducing the amount of chemicals they have to first purchase and then spend time applying.

I have yet to see any conclusive evidence that Roundup ready plants are damaging to anything. Any real evidence (not hypotheses and hunches) I would like to see.

 

I hate to do this but.......

I am against GMO's, but this is not the thread to debate. I'll give you something to work with that 'may' help, it has stumped me when I've debated this topic with the pro-GMO crowd.

I always take the position that modifying genetics is unnatural and therefore possibly unsafe or damaging to our natural environment i.e. monsanto has produced certain types of grain that will not germinate therefore threatening natural crops in the same way an invasive species threatens domestic species. This is a valid point but as i've said we're not debating here. Anyhow, I always get stumped when it's pointed out to me that nature has 'repaired' this 'perceived' threat - a perception of the anti gmo crowd - as time passes i.e. how Splake - a gmo - have begun to reproduce amongst their own 'species' and that preliminary studies show that this 'natural' reproduction is increasing with time.

Again, I don't know if that's the sort of thing you're looking for but hey, just trying to help.. But beware, there is a rebuttal to that argument as well..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Keep in mind, I neither favour nor disagree with the use of GMOs at the moment.

You're right, Roundup is a pesticide (herbicide to be more specific). It's Roundup that damages other plants, not the Roundup ready organisms.

I'm very sorry to hear that, but I doubt the pesticide being handled was Roundup. Pesticides are noxious chemicals. The reason Roundup is better is because it doesn't cause any toxic effects to humans.

Mr. Chips, keeping in mind I don't necessarily disagree with you, why do you feel this way?

 

Besides the profit motive being formost in Monsanto's eyes, http://www.percyschmeiser.com/ there is virually no way to assure the plants will not cross pollinate resulting in what is called a loss in identity preservation. There is a link at the bottom right concerning a study of the potentials for not being able to keep roundup ready genes out of the general population of similar plants. Does this mean that Monsanto now has patent violation claims to make ad infinitum? So far, according to the Canadian Supreme Court, they do as evident in the link shared in this post.

In general, I am aware that there are many means for controlling weeds and pests. In general I believe fostering a dependence on one chemical predisposes one to use other chemicals. In general I find it wise to foster and help people grow things without dependence on chemicals especially from one specific company as well as seed stock (from that one company again) that leads to contamination of the gene pool of that species.

 

Yes, but from my understanding, it acts on a pathway that is used by plants only.

http://www.inchem.org/documents/pds/pds/pest91_e.htm#1.3