Honestly can't see the relationship between the post and the source provided. There are few (if any) evils in modern agriculture that are specific to genetically modified crops. Examine any evil, and in reality it's an issue for conventional agriculture generally. Indeed, some of these evils are actually reduced by GMO plantations.
People complain about the amount of pesticides/herbicides being used on GMO crops without really comparing it to what was being used prior. Now, *volume* measurements are a blunt instrument (more on that below), but even if you compare the amount of agricultural poisons being dumped on produce prior to GMO, there's a pretty stark difference (and it's the opposite of what people assume).
Ignoring the blunt instruments for a moment, the more important consideration is the type of poison we're talking about. And let's be honest, when discussing GMOs we're all really talking about Roundup.
The relative danger of substances are graded by the "median lethal dose" rating, or LD50. Essentially it's the amount of the substance per kilo, that kills 50% of the tested subjects. For some reason we mostly use mice, despite there being plenty of Drum 'n Bass or Breaks enthusiasts available to help advance scientific discovery.
Sources are all below, but essentially the LD50 factor of glyphosate is *huge*. Drinking a little of it might make DnB dude really sick, but if he kept ingesting, he'd fair better in the long run than if he was shovelling mouthfuls of sodium chloride.
But let's not pretend Roundup is a panacea. The amount needed is increasing exponentially; for some reason Evil Nature just won't give up! Damn you, natural world! If only there was a commitment to producing better, safer, cheaper alternatives? But not from those despicable biotechnology companies. Why don't we all use copper sulphate instead? I mean sure, it's more poisonous to humans, the environment and less effective generally, but it's ing *organic*, bitches!
In my (thoroughly armchair quarterback) opinion, the environmental impacts of conventional agriculture can and should be improved. But I don't see why we can't mix-and-match different processes to get the best results. What's wrong with an organic focus on soil health combined with artificially-improved seed?
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
For some reason we mostly use mice, despite there being plenty of Drum 'n Bass or Breaks enthusiasts available to help advance scientific discovery.
Having worked in biomedical research for years, I think I can shed some light on this. The reason is that you need a model organism that is comparable to humans, otherwise your results are not transferable and tell you nothing about how the same stimulus would affect a person. That being said you can surely understand that comparing a healthy, normal human to a D'n'B listener makes no sense.
Coincidentally, researchers established the exact point when someone's taste is so ty that it becomes preferable to use a mouse to emulate human behavior. That point is called the Deadmau5 barrier.
Lira
Sorry, did you guys say something about drum'n'bass, breaks, and veggies? I'm trying to follow the discussion, but I'm too busy watching Skeletor learn how to twerk:
:p
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by Meat187
Having worked in biomedical research for years, I think I can shed some light on this. The reason is that you need a model organism that is comparable to humans, otherwise your results are not transferable and tell you nothing about how the same stimulus would affect a person. That being said you can surely understand that comparing a healthy, normal human to a D'n'B listener makes no sense.
Coincidentally, researchers established the exact point when someone's taste is so ty that it becomes preferable to use a mouse to emulate human behavior. That point is called the Deadmau5 barrier.
:stongue::stongue: that's ing gold. yeah, eat a dick lira!
Lira
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
eat a dick lira!
For goodness' sake, you know I can't, I'm a vegetarian! :mad:
:(
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by Lira
For goodness' sake, you know I can't, I'm a vegetarian! :mad:
:(
AND oppose abortion. you're all kinds of ed up.
KiNeTiC ENeRgY
This thread has now turned into
Lira
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
AND oppose abortion. you're all kinds of ed up.
Hey, if eating dicks is what leads to abortion in Tassie, I'm afraid I'm not the one this charge should be levelled against :p
(for the record, I oppose abortion in principle but, should there be a referendum, I'd vote for it)
Jon_Snow
Lira why is there a black hole on the left ass cheek of the woman on the far right?
Lira
I'm sure there's a very Russian explanation for that.
Alex
quote:
Originally posted by Lira
I'm sure there's a very Russian explanation for that.
Russians have certain genetic makeup that engineers them to be at LEAST 200% sketchier than the rest of humanity. You aren't Russian if you aren't really, really sketchy.
On topic:
My mom works for a company that builds commercial drones, and a certain leader in agriculture that has, in the past, had a very questionable sense of morality just ordered a few million dollars worth of drones to supervise their crops. Quite a few hippies work at her company, and they had objections, but by using drones this agriculture company (that shall remain nameless) will be able to reduce the amount of bull they spray on their crops by a ton, because instead of carpet bombing their crops as is standard, they can use a drone to swoop down and inspect individual plants and identify potential bad crops way more easily for a more targeted solution to whatever the problem is.
Also, seeing as how hundreds of millions of people around the world starve, I can't really have any moral objections to GMOs right now because I feel that starvation is worse than possible future health consequences from big ass corn.
Lira
Oh, yeah, we strayed so far away from the topic I forgot what we were talking about in the first place :p
I find anti-GMO movements fascinating. Thanks to the green revolution from the previous century, people from developing countries (hi there!) have had more access to food than ever before, and pesticides have saved crops that would've otherwise been lost ruining farmers, and they're pretty much the backbone of civilisation. Yet, there's this idea that "genetically modified organisms" are evil by default, in spite of the fact we've been selectively breeding plants and animals since we first realised we didn't have to be hunter-gatherers until the end of time.
Weirder still, while we usually say the right is conservative (and they clearly don't like science when it comes to evolution and climate change), these Luddite impulses come from a more tech-savvy left. On the left I posted an image from a Pew Research's public and scientists’ views on science and society, and it's incredible that the largest difference is... regarding the safety to eat genetically-modified foods! Not even climate change shows a wider gap!
Being married to someone who grew up in a farm, I've long heard my wife talk about how difficult it is to grow organic food - and how dangerous it can be if you don't follow very strict guidelines. Not that it boosts production or anything. It's just because people think food shouldn't be affected by human impulses to change everything... The fact that corn nowadays looks nothing like its ancestors notwithstanding.
I'd keep posting text to fill the post and reach the end of the image, but I'm busy and I've got stuff to do, so I'll just leave it hanging on the left :p
Oh, yeah, we strayed so far away from the topic I forgot what we were talking about in the first place :p