Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wired)   Life finds a way: Worm evolves to eat corn genetically engineered to kill it   (wired.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, corn, ecological damage, genetic modifications, biotechnology company, Bacillus thuringiensis, insecticides, agricultural science, National Academy of Sciences  
•       •       •

7562 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Mar 2014 at 5:31 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



257 Comments   (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2014-03-18 12:07:05 AM  
obivous tag was broken?
rofl
 
2014-03-18 12:20:07 AM  
Ha! Suck it, Syngenta!
 
2014-03-18 12:20:46 AM  
Also: creationists can suck it, too.
 
2014-03-18 12:44:49 AM  
How strict are Irish immigration policies? ;p
 
2014-03-18 12:51:14 AM  
Why do I get the feeling this is only going to lead to larger agricultural subsidies?
 
2014-03-18 01:41:26 AM  
So, call Muad'Dib?
 
2014-03-18 03:57:57 AM  
We're genetically engineering ourselves into a famine, polluting ourselves into a nasty weather feedback cycle, while simultaneously telling people that only the people who deserve to be poor are the ones starving and coughing in the streets.

The next 100 years is going to be very interesting.
 
2014-03-18 05:39:18 AM  

Peki: We're genetically engineering ourselves into a famine, polluting ourselves into a nasty weather feedback cycle, while simultaneously telling people that only the people who deserve to be poor are the ones starving and coughing in the streets.

The next 100 years is going to be very interesting.


I think I have a solution.

i1.ytimg.com
 
2014-03-18 05:41:04 AM  
Peki:.
The next 100 years is going to be very interesting.
i'm a babyboomer and i'm pretty damn sure i'm going to be dead by then. i don't know how old you are but they better work harder on those cancer pills, reverse ageing chambers, and throwaway body parts for you if your logan's run crystal hasn't turned red.
 
2014-03-18 05:46:58 AM  
Up your corn hole, Monsanto!
 
2014-03-18 05:47:20 AM  
Next 100 years....who the fark cares? Every one of us will be long dead by then. I'm pretty sure the most of fark has a little money and even less pigmentaton.
 
2014-03-18 05:48:04 AM  

Peki: The next 100 years is going to be very interesting.


I somehow doubt I'll live that long, but there is no doubt that they will be interesting.

If you look back 100 years ago, you will see great technological advancements, but you will also see fools.  In 100 years, people will look back on us and also see fools.

But hey, you've got a smart phone, right?  iTunes?  All is good?
 
2014-03-18 05:48:19 AM  

namatad: obivous tag was broken?
rofl


Well at least there is one person rolling on the floor laughing.

The hilarity is elusive.
 
2014-03-18 05:52:22 AM  

namatad: obivous tag was broken?
rofl


I know: Let's widely plant these GMOs without adequate testing, contaminate natural strains of crops so there's no heirloom stock left to save our butts, and then sue the organic farmers into bankruptcy for stealing our shiat.
 
2014-03-18 05:52:41 AM  
Well, at least it wasn't the other way around. That's when I'll start worrying.
 
2014-03-18 05:54:21 AM  

starlost: Peki:.
The next 100 years is going to be very interesting.
i'm a babyboomer and i'm pretty damn sure i'm going to be dead by then. i don't know how old you are but they better work harder on those cancer pills, reverse ageing chambers, and throwaway body parts for you if your logan's run crystal hasn't turned red.


This. Almost 50 years later "hope I die before I get old" still stands, altho we've moved that finish line forward a bit. ;-)
 
2014-03-18 05:56:05 AM  

Sid_6.7: So, call Muad'Dib?


Heh. I can just picture the little tiny Fremen army riding the little tiny worms on the final assault of the Bt mother root ball.

Eventually we'll learn that we can't just "there, I fixed it" once and expect life to throw up its hands and say "Woah, I'm out".
 
2014-03-18 05:56:08 AM  


img2.wikia.nocookie.net
"Toldja so!"

 
2014-03-18 05:57:22 AM  

Peki: We're genetically engineering ourselves into a famine, polluting ourselves into a nasty weather feedback cycle, while simultaneously telling people that only the people who deserve to be poor are the ones starving and coughing in the streets.

The next 100 years is going to be very interesting.


Read: The Windup Girl by Paolo Bacigalupi. The story takes place after several generations of that.

All the super rich have done is earn themselves to be the last to starve when things go to shiat. They cause the problems, then blame the people affected by those problems for suffering the effects the problems they created. They would happily murder 2/3 of the human race rather than admit they're farking the world up.
 
2014-03-18 06:09:13 AM  
Checkmate, evolution-deniers.
 
2014-03-18 06:11:32 AM  

Deathfrogg: Peki: We're genetically engineering ourselves into a famine, polluting ourselves into a nasty weather feedback cycle, while simultaneously telling people that only the people who deserve to be poor are the ones starving and coughing in the streets.

The next 100 years is going to be very interesting.

Read: The Windup Girl by Paolo Bacigalupi. The story takes place after several generations of that.

All the super rich have done is earn themselves to be the last to starve when things go to shiat. They cause the problems, then blame the people affected by those problems for suffering the effects the problems they created. They would happily murder 2/3 of the human race rather than admit they're farking the world up.


If they did, would that not solve a lot of problems?
 
2014-03-18 06:11:43 AM  

fusillade762: Also: creationists can suck it, too.


Shaking fist at you!!

/If only I hadn't been off watching third-worlders spectating tsunami waves and flash floods and getting washed away
//someone needs to build them a goddamn amusement park
 
2014-03-18 06:12:12 AM  
And thus surprising no ecologist, ever.
 
2014-03-18 06:12:50 AM  
This is exactly why GMO shiat should be outlawed.  The things (bugs, worms, etc) that they are developing it for will become resistant to it, because that's what evolution does over multiple generations.  In the meantime, we are eating this crap without it actually being proven to be 100% safe because reasons.But, you know, as long as Monsanto is making lots of money...
 
2014-03-18 06:13:03 AM  

Cerebral Ballsy: Checkmate, evolution-deniers.


Also slow evolution proponants. Life will find a way quickly...
 
2014-03-18 06:13:04 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: namatad: obivous tag was broken?
rofl

I know: Let's widely plant these GMOs without adequate testing, contaminate natural strains of crops so there's no heirloom stock left to save our butts, and then sue the organic farmers into bankruptcy for stealing our shiat.


Only ogranic farming would would leave massive famine. With modern hybrids and chemical fertilizer a 1/3 of the world would starve.
 
2014-03-18 06:21:42 AM  

Farkage: This is exactly why GMO shiat should be outlawed.  The things (bugs, worms, etc) that they are developing it for will become resistant to it, because that's what evolution does over multiple generations.  In the meantime, we are eating this crap without it actually being proven to be 100% safe because reasons.But, you know, as long as Monsanto is making lots of money...


Protest scientific progress despite lack of scientific knowledge because reasons.
 
2014-03-18 06:25:04 AM  

Farkage: This is exactly why GMO shiat should be outlawed.  The things (bugs, worms, etc) that they are developing it for will become resistant to it, because that's what evolution does over multiple generations.  In the meantime, we are eating this crap without it actually being proven to be 100% safe because reasons.But, you know, as long as Monsanto is making lots of money...


Well, to be fair, the article does outline the ways in which this could have been prevented. The true problem with GMOs is that while they could be used wisely, the odds of them actually being used wisely and with proper regulatory enforcement are about as slim as a unicorn spontaneously jumping out my butt this very second. And if they aren't used the way that is safest and suggested by scientists, it could fark a whole bunch of things up down the road. It's not that they have to be bad, it's that we know from experience with just about every other thing that could fark us up if we don't regulate it, we won't to the most ideal degree, and whatever the crappy result of failure to do so is, we'll be experiencing it to one degree or another soon enough. So I can understand why some people feel with GMOs it's going to be an everything goes or nothing does situation and banning them is the only way to stop this.
 
2014-03-18 06:26:55 AM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: demaL-demaL-yeH: namatad: obivous tag was broken?
rofl

I know: Let's widely plant these GMOs without adequate testing, contaminate natural strains of crops so there's no heirloom stock left to save our butts, and then sue the organic farmers into bankruptcy for stealing our shiat.

Only ogranic farming would would leave massive famine. With modern hybrids and chemical fertilizer a 1/3 of the world would starve.


Spring sale on humanity!! 1/3 off!!!
 
2014-03-18 06:28:42 AM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: demaL-demaL-yeH: namatad: obivous tag was broken?
rofl

I know: Let's widely plant these GMOs without adequate testing, contaminate natural strains of crops so there's no heirloom stock left to save our butts, and then sue the organic farmers into bankruptcy for stealing our shiat.

Only ogranic farming would would leave massive famine. With modern hybrids and chemical fertilizer a 1/3 of the world would starve.


Those chemical fertilizers are made from petroleum. That "third of the world" is going to starve eventually anyway, when that petroleum runs out. It would actually be more like 2/3 of the world, and we would still have these GMO foodstuffs in the system. It is unsustainable, and only benefits the people who own the patents. There is no measurable long-term benefit from growing crops that require petroleum-derived chemicals to survive.
 
2014-03-18 06:29:03 AM  
Not a creationist, but I never found genetic modification to be a strong argument for evolution. Even creationists acknowledge that you can radically modify genetic traits, either the old fashioned way by breeding for them, or more recently in the lab.

The idea creationists have a problem wrapping their heads around is speciation. That's why the dog breed example doesn't hold much water with them. Sure a poodle and a german shephard look nothing like each other, but they're still the same species.
 
2014-03-18 06:30:58 AM  
Inject the worms with Gonorrhea and let them kill each other off http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/12/5500246/gonorrhea-is-about-to-becom e -impossible-to-treat
 
2014-03-18 06:31:16 AM  

Peki: We're genetically engineering ourselves into a famine,


Not really.  We're very, very easily staying ahead of actual reductions in output, the only potential thing we're in danger of falling short of is keeping up with increased demand.

So... go convince people to stop having more than one child per capita for us, will ya?

demaL-demaL-yeH: I know: Let's widely plant these GMOs without adequate testing, contaminate natural strains of crops so there's no heirloom stock left to save our butts, and then sue the organic farmers into bankruptcy for stealing our shiat.


1. There are 0 verified cases of cross contamination.  Not "almost zero", not "we project basically zero".  Literally not a single plant that has been planted with GM seed has expressed a modified gene without us intentionally setting it up to in the entire history of modern agriculture.

If you're going to base policy on shiat that only exists in your imagination, make sure you include some sort of regulatory framework so I don't accidentally run people over with my rainbow-pooping flying unicorn.

2. GM may potentially become less viable to some extent a few centuries in the future.  Organic farming literally is not even slightly viable  already, switching to organics would starve 80% of the world to death within a month if you go with the  forgiving estimate of comparative crop yields, more like 90% if you consider reduced calorie content by mass.

Farkage: This is exactly why GMO shiat should be outlawed.  The things (bugs, worms, etc) that they are developing it for will become resistant to it, because that's what evolution does over multiple generations.  In the meantime, we are eating this crap without it actually being proven to be 100% safe because reasons.But, you know, as long as Monsanto is making lots of money...


Nutritionally speaking, GM food is typically healthier than non-GM food, that's one of the two things that it's usually modified for.  Further, GM food has actually been tested to establish that it's healthy/safe.  Non-GM food has not.  You're actually taking  moreof a health risk eating non-GM food.

As for things adapting to our farming techniques... you do realize that pests have been adapting rapidly to our farming techniques for between 12000 and 14000 years, depending how long your region of the world has had agriculture, right?  Historically, we haven't found staying ahead terribly insurmountable as problems go.  If you really think it's a "GM" problem, for christ's sake go take some sort of remedial GED biology class or something.
 
2014-03-18 06:32:33 AM  

Farkage: This is exactly why GMO shiat should be outlawed.  The things (bugs, worms, etc) that they are developing it for will become resistant to it, because that's what evolution does over multiple generations.  In the meantime, we are eating this crap without it actually being proven to be 100% safe because reasons.But, you know, as long as Monsanto is making lots of money...


Next you can tell me about chemtrails and fluoride mind control.
 
2014-03-18 06:35:38 AM  

Farkage: This is exactly why GMO shiat should be outlawed.  The things (bugs, worms, etc) that they are developing it for will become resistant to it, because that's what evolution does over multiple generations.  In the meantime, we are eating this crap without it actually being proven to be 100% safe because reasons.But, you know, as long as Monsanto is making lots of money...


9/11 was an inside job
 
2014-03-18 06:43:02 AM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: Why do I get the feeling this is only going to lead to larger agricultural subsidies?


You don't expect Monsanto to engineer a solution for they problem they created for free do you?
 
2014-03-18 06:43:07 AM  

ambercat: Farkage: This is exactly why GMO shiat should be outlawed.  The things (bugs, worms, etc) that they are developing it for will become resistant to it, because that's what evolution does over multiple generations.  In the meantime, we are eating this crap without it actually being proven to be 100% safe because reasons.But, you know, as long as Monsanto is making lots of money...

Well, to be fair, the article does outline the ways in which this could have been prevented. The true problem with GMOs is that while they could be used wisely, the odds of them actually being used wisely and with proper regulatory enforcement are about as slim as a unicorn spontaneously jumping out my butt this very second. And if they aren't used the way that is safest and suggested by scientists, it could fark a whole bunch of things up down the road. It's not that they have to be bad, it's that we know from experience with just about every other thing that could fark us up if we don't regulate it, we won't to the most ideal degree, and whatever the crappy result of failure to do so is, we'll be experiencing it to one degree or another soon enough. So I can understand why some people feel with GMOs it's going to be an everything goes or nothing does situation and banning them is the only way to stop this.


Here lies the problem: technology that is mismanaged and created with a poor understanding of genetics. BT corn was created based on an outdated and no longer used understanding of genes. Coupled with mismanagement and questionable testing of safety (largely a profit based initiative of the developer hoping to pawn its merchandise off regardless of the consequences), we get problems. Genetically altering things is not an inherently evil process, but it isn't exactly something you want to get wrong. Typically it has proved easiest to just crossbreed plants for their  positive traits, which UF proved can be done much easier in a lab without fundamentally introducing foreign genes. The high lycopene tomatoes fromt Tasti-lee are proof of that.

Deathfrogg: Mid_mo_mad_man: demaL-demaL-yeH: namatad: obivous tag was broken?
rofl

I know: Let's widely plant these GMOs without adequate testing, contaminate natural strains of crops so there's no heirloom stock left to save our butts, and then sue the organic farmers into bankruptcy for stealing our shiat.

Only ogranic farming would would leave massive famine. With modern hybrids and chemical fertilizer a 1/3 of the world would starve.

Those chemical fertilizers are made from petroleum. That "third of the world" is going to starve eventually anyway, when that petroleum runs out. It would actually be more like 2/3 of the world, and we would still have these GMO foodstuffs in the system. It is unsustainable, and only benefits the people who own the patents. There is no measurable long-term benefit from growing crops that require petroleum-derived chemicals to survive.


There are also plenty of alternatives to questionable chemical fertilizers. Huge strides have been made in the world of hydro and aquaponic farming, allowing us to grow food virtually anywhere and to produce some really big crops to boot. The big issue with mainstream or "conventional" farming is that it is not only unsustainable in the sense that the resources being used to make it possible are finite, but it also leads to all kinds of environmental problems when you get to spraying all sorts of poisons that leech into the earth and into consumers who eat said foods. GMOs (in this case, BT corn) have not actually stopped the use of pesticides; in many cases, pesticide use has actually drastically increased (for some fun research, read up on Argentina, who switched to BT corn and has seen insane increases of pesticide use since the switch).

Make no mistake, our population is already nearly unsustainable at its current level of excess. We need less people, not more food: one of the best solutions is an increase in wealth and prosperity. Statistically speaking, more "successful" countries have lower birth rates. The big change needed is on our end as humans. I'm also of the opinion that law should require anyone who owns or operates property be required by law to grow some form of food on said property, whether it be lemons, bananas, or what have you: some form of tree, vine, or plant that can be eaten.

Fun new fact: Monsanto is working on developing new hybrid plants via crossbreeding in a lab. These new efforts do not involve the creation of GMOs with genes taken from unrelated organisms. Seems like their recent shareholder meeting might have shaken things up a bit.

/money talks
 
2014-03-18 07:03:14 AM  
masternorris.com
 
2014-03-18 07:04:08 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Peki: We're genetically engineering ourselves into a famine,

Not really.  We're very, very easily staying ahead of actual reductions in output, the only potential thing we're in danger of falling short of is keeping up with increased demand.

So... go convince people to stop having more than one child per capita for us, will ya?

demaL-demaL-yeH: I know: Let's widely plant these GMOs without adequate testing, contaminate natural strains of crops so there's no heirloom stock left to save our butts, and then sue the organic farmers into bankruptcy for stealing our shiat.

1. There are 0 verified cases of cross contamination.  Not "almost zero", not "we project basically zero".  Literally not a single plant that has been planted with GM seed has expressed a modified gene without us intentionally setting it up to in the entire history of modern agriculture.


What? Are you saying that no GMO corn has ever contaminated other corn crops through pollination? Because that is simply not true. It's VERY hard for farmers or seed companies to be able to certify corn as non-GMO these days, because if they are honest about testing their corn, they keep finding that it is contaminated, even when grown in the remote regions of the US.
 
2014-03-18 07:05:38 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: contaminate natural strains of crops


Where are these natural strains of crops to contaminate? Do you mean the mutant strains that humans have genetically engineered (via selective breeding) for thousands of years, so for example with wheat it can't naturally spread its seed and has to be manually or machine planted or it would rapidly die out?
 
2014-03-18 07:08:18 AM  
I never knew Fark had so many farmers.
 
2014-03-18 07:08:48 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Peki: We're genetically engineering ourselves into a famine,

Not really.  We're very, very easily staying ahead of actual reductions in output, the only potential thing we're in danger of falling short of is keeping up with increased demand.

So... go convince people to stop having more than one child per capita for us, will ya?

demaL-demaL-yeH: I know: Let's widely plant these GMOs without adequate testing, contaminate natural strains of crops so there's no heirloom stock left to save our butts, and then sue the organic farmers into bankruptcy for stealing our shiat.

1. There are 0 verified cases of cross contamination.  Not "almost zero", not "we project basically zero".  Literally not a single plant that has been planted with GM seed has expressed a modified gene without us intentionally setting it up to in the entire history of modern agriculture.

If you're going to base policy on shiat that only exists in your imagination, make sure you include some sort of regulatory framework so I don't accidentally run people over with my rainbow-pooping flying unicorn.

2. GM may potentially become less viable to some extent a few centuries in the future.  Organic farming literally is not even slightly viable  already, switching to organics would starve 80% of the world to death within a month if you go with the  forgiving estimate of comparative crop yields, more like 90% if you consider reduced calorie content by mass.

Farkage: This is exactly why GMO shiat should be outlawed.  The things (bugs, worms, etc) that they are developing it for will become resistant to it, because that's what evolution does over multiple generations.  In the meantime, we are eating this crap without it actually being proven to be 100% safe because reasons.But, you know, as long as Monsanto is making lots of money...

Nutritionally speaking, GM food is typically healthier than non-GM food, that's one of the two things that it's usually modified for.  Further, GM food has actually been tested to establish that it's healthy/safe.  Non-GM food has not.  You're actually taking  moreof a health risk eating non-GM food.

As for things adapting to our farming techniques... you do realize that pests have been adapting rapidly to our farming techniques for between 12000 and 14000 years, depending how long your region of the world has had agriculture, right?  Historically, we haven't found staying ahead terribly insurmountable as problems go.  If you really think it's a "GM" problem, for christ's sake go take some sort of remedial GED biology class or something.


Wow, you really went full retard there, didn't you? So you're telling me that corn genetically engineered to produce bt toxin is safer and healthier than corn that isn't? Because that was what my point was.

My one and only point.

Yes, things have been evolving as long as life has been around. Anyone with a half a brain knows that. My issue is engineering food to produce more and different kinds of toxin to keep bugs from eating it because it'll kill them, but saying it's okay for us to eat it because they tested it a little and pinky swear that it's okay.
 
2014-03-18 07:11:10 AM  
Mmmmm, tasty worm-meal.
 
2014-03-18 07:16:56 AM  

Farkage: My issue is engineering food to produce more and different kinds of toxin to keep bugs from eating it because it'll kill them, but saying it's okay for us to eat it because they tested it a little and pinky swear that it's okay.


who exactly is "they"? because you understand that anyone can test they stuff to determine if it is safe or not.

Your comment would be like saying "My issue is engineering vaccines to produce more and different kinds of toxin to keep diseases from your body it because it'll kill them, but saying it's okay for us because they tested it a little and pinky swear that it's okay. "
 
2014-03-18 07:19:59 AM  

log_jammin: Farkage: My issue is engineering food to produce more and different kinds of toxin to keep bugs from eating it because it'll kill them, but saying it's okay for us to eat it because they tested it a little and pinky swear that it's okay.

who exactly is "they"? because you understand that anyone can test they stuff to determine if it is safe or not.

Your comment would be like saying "My issue is engineering vaccines to produce more and different kinds of toxin to keep diseases from your body it because it'll kill them, but saying it's okay for us because they tested it a little and pinky swear that it's okay. "


Go learn how vaccines work and rethink your post mkay? Not remotely the same.
Now tell me the long term health consequences of ingesting bt toxin. Show your work.
We'll wait.
 
2014-03-18 07:24:38 AM  
Two decades ago, my genetics professor predicted this, but he believed that it would probably take four decades after it was released to the public before nature had an answer. I find it encouraging that nature responds even faster than off hand science predictions. He had worked for Monsanto and other companies working on plant genetics in the sixties and said they fully understood it was a very limited solution that nature would undo in less than a century.
 
2014-03-18 07:26:56 AM  

Farkage: Go learn how vaccines work and rethink your post mkay? Not remotely the same.


I didn't say, or imply they work the same way.

what I was saying, is that you are using the exact same fear mongering tactics used by anti-vaccers.

Farkage: Now tell me the long term health consequences of ingesting bt toxin. Show your work.
We'll wait.


as I said, anyone is free to test that. no one is forced to take Monsanto's word on their "pinky swear"

now, do you have a peer reviewed study that shows the long term health consequences of ingesting Bacillus thuringiensis? Because I never claimed to have that information, but you seem pretty sure of it, so lets have it.
 
2014-03-18 07:28:45 AM  

log_jammin: Farkage: My issue is engineering food to produce more and different kinds of toxin to keep bugs from eating it because it'll kill them, but saying it's okay for us to eat it because they tested it a little and pinky swear that it's okay.

who exactly is "they"? because you understand that anyone can test they stuff to determine if it is safe or not.

Your comment would be like saying "My issue is engineering vaccines to produce more and different kinds of toxin to keep diseases from your body it because it'll kill them, but saying it's okay for us because they tested it a little and pinky swear that it's okay. "


Except that the toxins those GMO plants produce kill as many beneficial insects as harmful ones. Not to mention the fact that engineering plants to produce the same toxins used to clear the forests in Vietnam during the 1960s really doesn't seem like a good idea, considering the health effects that are still being seen more than thirty years after the fact. Children are still being born with massive birth defects, and people are still getting a hundred different types of cancers they weren't getting before the American War there.
 
2014-03-18 07:29:12 AM  
I was looking for a key poiont that we, as humans seems to have a stigmatism about (because we KEEP doing it).

FTFA:

"a cautionary tale of how short-sighted mismanagement can squander the benefits"

and

"There needs to be a fundamental change in how the technology is used"


It is truely amazing how we can make brilliant technological breakthru's and then apply them in the most assinine ways.................
 
2014-03-18 07:33:12 AM  

log_jammin: Farkage: Go learn how vaccines work and rethink your post mkay? Not remotely the same.

I didn't say, or imply they work the same way.

what I was saying, is that you are using the exact same fear mongering tactics used by anti-vaccers.

Farkage: Now tell me the long term health consequences of ingesting bt toxin. Show your work.
We'll wait.

as I said, anyone is free to test that. no one is forced to take Monsanto's word on their "pinky swear"

now, do you have a peer reviewed study that shows the long term health consequences of ingesting Bacillus thuringiensis? Because I never claimed to have that information, but you seem pretty sure of it, so lets have it.


No, I don't and I freely admit that. I prefer to err on the side of caution when it comes to engineering our food to become more toxic though. Glad to see you are so complacent on the issue.
Food genetically engineered to produce more vitamins isn't a concern of mine, just the ones that are done to express things like bt toxin, as nature rapidly evolves so the bugs are resistant to that. That leads to wonderful ideas about making it more toxic to keep ahead, or it doesn't work. Do you even remotely see what I'm getting at?
 
2014-03-18 07:33:47 AM  

Deathfrogg: Except that the toxins those GMO plants produce kill as many beneficial insects as harmful ones. Not to mention the fact that engineering plants to produce the same toxins used to clear the forests in Vietnam during the 1960s really doesn't seem like a good idea, considering the health effects that are still being seen more than thirty years after the fact. Children are still being born with massive birth defects, and people are still getting a hundred different types of cancers they weren't getting before the American War there.


more fear mongering and zero substance.
 
2014-03-18 07:34:57 AM  

log_jammin: Deathfrogg: Except that the toxins those GMO plants produce kill as many beneficial insects as harmful ones. Not to mention the fact that engineering plants to produce the same toxins used to clear the forests in Vietnam during the 1960s really doesn't seem like a good idea, considering the health effects that are still being seen more than thirty years after the fact. Children are still being born with massive birth defects, and people are still getting a hundred different types of cancers they weren't getting before the American War there.

more fear mongering and zero substance.


I don't see much substance on your end either...
 
2014-03-18 07:35:52 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Peki: We're genetically engineering ourselves into a famine,

Not really.  We're very, very easily staying ahead of actual reductions in output, the only potential thing we're in danger of falling short of is keeping up with increased demand.

So... go convince people to stop having more than one child per capita for us, will ya?

demaL-demaL-yeH: I know: Let's widely plant these GMOs without adequate testing, contaminate natural strains of crops so there's no heirloom stock left to save our butts, and then sue the organic farmers into bankruptcy for stealing our shiat.

1. There are 0 verified cases of cross contamination. Not "almost zero", not "we project basically zero".  Literally not a single plant that has been planted with GM seed has expressed a modified gene without us intentionally setting it up to in the entire history of modern agriculture.



Wrong.   Sorry, buddy, gonna have to code you as a GM shill now.  You're deliberately phrasing your response to avoid the OUTFLOW of gmo genes, which has occurred.

Basically, non-GMO farmers already have to consider legal and insurance defenses, since the "all GMO good, all the time" crowd has, unsurprisingly, ass-farked them:

http://www.flaginc.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/GMOthreats.pdf

Full disclosure:  As an investor, I make money from GMO crops.

Like fracking, though, I just don't see the need to pretend it's all sweetness and light, all the time.

It ain't.
 
2014-03-18 07:39:10 AM  

log_jammin: Deathfrogg: Except that the toxins those GMO plants produce kill as many beneficial insects as harmful ones. Not to mention the fact that engineering plants to produce the same toxins used to clear the forests in Vietnam during the 1960s really doesn't seem like a good idea, considering the health effects that are still being seen more than thirty years after the fact. Children are still being born with massive birth defects, and people are still getting a hundred different types of cancers they weren't getting before the American War there.

more fear mongering and zero substance.


Also, genetically engineered food causes erectile dysfunction.
 
2014-03-18 07:41:03 AM  

Farkage: Glad to see you are so complacent on the issue.


I'm not complacent . I just recognize that I'm not a scientist with expertise in this field. My opinion is 100% irrelevant on the subject of the long term effects of Bacillus thuringiensis on the human body.

Farkage: Food genetically engineered to produce more vitamins isn't a concern of mine, just the ones that are done to express things like bt toxin, as nature rapidly evolves so the bugs are resistant to that. That leads to wonderful ideas about making it more toxic to keep ahead, or it doesn't work. Do you even remotely see what I'm getting at?


yes I do see what you're getting at. unfortunately your opinion on a highly complex topic, involving different branches of science that you have no experience in, is irrelevant. You're just another ranting fear monger clouding the issue.

Much like creationists, anti-vaccers, and 9/11 truthers, you seem to thank that just by being alive you opinion holds weight. It doesn't. just like 99% of the population, you knowledge on the topic is nil, and your opinion means jack shiat.
 
2014-03-18 07:41:07 AM  
Nothing brings out the luddites quite like a GMO thread.
 
2014-03-18 07:42:25 AM  

Farkage: I don't see much substance on your end either...


"hurr durr no u!"

Molavian: Also, genetically engineered food causes erectile dysfunction.


that doesn't seem like a good idea.
 
2014-03-18 07:44:55 AM  

Cataholic: Nothing brings out the luddites quite like a GMO thread.


And nothing stops GMO shills from throwing around the word "luddite" instead of refuting claims with links.

It's almost like they have nothing but ad hominem attacks...
 
2014-03-18 07:45:48 AM  

PunGent: GMO shills


lol!
 
2014-03-18 07:46:27 AM  

Farkage: This is exactly why GMO shiat should be outlawed.


You are a moron. I could spend an hour rebutting you and pointing out the flaws in your logic, but alas, I am not a moron and have determined that no one will benefit from the exchange and I have better things to do.
 
2014-03-18 07:49:41 AM  

log_jammin: Farkage: Glad to see you are so complacent on the issue.

I'm not complacent . I just recognize that I'm not a scientist with expertise in this field. My opinion is 100% irrelevant on the subject of the long term effects of Bacillus thuringiensis on the human body.

Farkage: Food genetically engineered to produce more vitamins isn't a concern of mine, just the ones that are done to express things like bt toxin, as nature rapidly evolves so the bugs are resistant to that. That leads to wonderful ideas about making it more toxic to keep ahead, or it doesn't work. Do you even remotely see what I'm getting at?

yes I do see what you're getting at. unfortunately your opinion on a highly complex topic, involving different branches of science that you have no experience in, is irrelevant. You're just another ranting fear monger clouding the issue.

Much like creationists, anti-vaccers, and 9/11 truthers, you seem to thank that just by being alive you opinion holds weight. It doesn't. just like 99% of the population, you knowledge on the topic is nil, and your opinion means jack shiat.


Wow, project much?
 
2014-03-18 07:50:06 AM  

Strik3r: I was looking for a key poiont that we, as humans seems to have a stigmatism about (because we KEEP doing it).

FTFA:

"a cautionary tale of how short-sighted mismanagement can squander the benefits"

and

"There needs to be a fundamental change in how the technology is used"


It is truely amazing how we can make brilliant technological breakthru's and then apply them in the most assinine ways.................


It's pretty much "this".

It's like the nuclear power guys, who insist that the underlying process is safe, and new reactors won't be dangerous.

Well, sure, the underlying process might well be safe; they just neglect to account for fundamental human nature in their calculations.

People cut corners, make mistakes, and, in some cases, act maliciously.  Corporations are made up of people, and so corporations are subject to all the same errors.

If you're an engineer, and your systems analysis doesn't account for that, it's LESS useful than that of the most ignorant shrieking luddite, because your credentials mean you might be taken seriously...and you've made a fundamental error in them.
 
2014-03-18 07:50:49 AM  

Farkage: Wow, project much?


aaaaand you got nothing....
 
2014-03-18 07:51:09 AM  

TwistedFark: Farkage: This is exactly why GMO shiat should be outlawed.

You are a moron. I could spend an hour rebutting you and pointing out the flaws in your logic, but alas, I am not a moron and have determined that no one will benefit from the exchange and I have better things to do.


AKA, you've got nothing to add.
 
2014-03-18 07:51:24 AM  

Farkage: This is exactly why GMO shiat should be outlawed.  The things (bugs, worms, etc) that they are developing it for will become resistant to it, because that's what evolution does over multiple generations.  In the meantime, we are eating this crap without it actually being proven to be 100% safe because reasons.But, you know, as long as Monsanto is making lots of money...


Eh, there's WAY too much money behind to outlaw it.

Best you can hope for now is some sensible regulation, but I wouldn't hold my breath on that.

Cross your fingers and carry on; that genie's out of the bottle.
 
2014-03-18 07:57:26 AM  
static1.dallasblack.com
 
2014-03-18 08:00:14 AM  

fusillade762: Also: creationists can suck it, too.


Also: organic farmers and consumers can suck it, too. These transgenic crops protect themselves from insects by bathing themselves in bt, the organic pesticide that organic farmers have until now been able to use to fight infestations. That was a tool available to all of mankind, and the biotech folks have, apparently, ruined it in a decade and a half. Thanks, FDA.
 
2014-03-18 08:05:59 AM  

Molavian: log_jammin: Deathfrogg: Except that the toxins those GMO plants produce kill as many beneficial insects as harmful ones. Not to mention the fact that engineering plants to produce the same toxins used to clear the forests in Vietnam during the 1960s really doesn't seem like a good idea, considering the health effects that are still being seen more than thirty years after the fact. Children are still being born with massive birth defects, and people are still getting a hundred different types of cancers they weren't getting before the American War there.

more fear mongering and zero substance.

Also, genetically engineered food causes erectile dysfunction.


This must be the answer. Thirty years ago when I was twetny there were no problems and no GMO foods. Now look. ;D
 
2014-03-18 08:06:11 AM  
Another pop-sci evolution article.

The worm did not evolve to eat the corn, some of the worms stopped dying when they tried.  It's different.
 
2014-03-18 08:06:39 AM  

Jim_Callahan: 1. There are 0 verified cases of cross contamination.  Not "almost zero", not "we project basically zero".  Literally not a single plant that has been planted with GM seed has expressed a modified gene without us intentionally setting it up to in the entire history of modern agriculture.


Given that the seeds aren't sterile there's an absurdly low chance that there has never been any cross contamination.
 
2014-03-18 08:06:56 AM  
Maybe I could spell when I was twenty also.
 
2014-03-18 08:09:35 AM  

mutterfark: Maybe I could spell when I was twenty also.


Proof that GMO foods also cause spelling errors.
 
2014-03-18 08:12:18 AM  

Molavian: mutterfark: Maybe I could spell when I was twenty also.

Proof that GMO foods also cause spelling errors.


Nothing my homeopathic chiropractor can't sublax. Where's my enzyte? Crap, GMOs cause Alzheimer's too, don't they?
 
2014-03-18 08:12:29 AM  

MemeSlave: Another pop-sci evolution article.

The worm did not evolve to eat the corn, some of the worms stopped dying when they tried.  It's different.


And those worms bred baby worms that didn't die either.

See? Evolution.
 
2014-03-18 08:14:24 AM  

Target Builder: Jim_Callahan: 1. There are 0 verified cases of cross contamination.  Not "almost zero", not "we project basically zero".  Literally not a single plant that has been planted with GM seed has expressed a modified gene without us intentionally setting it up to in the entire history of modern agriculture.

Given that the seeds aren't sterile there's an absurdly low chance that there has never been any cross contamination.


You know how I know your not a gardener or farmer? Unless they are planting gmo and non gmo next to each they can cross. Corn pollen is spread by wind. It actually has to be fairly close to spread from plants. Twenty feet between strands of it is usally enough
 
2014-03-18 08:24:06 AM  
What I take away from the story is that farmers are greedy and thrifty; the proper management technique, alternating fields of Bt and non-Bt corn, would have reduced their profit per acre by some fraction, while adding some cost for buying more than one kind of seed, and perhaps having to buy and apply some conventional pesticides.  They're mostly cash-renters, not owners, on the land they farm, so they don't have the same tie to the land as a farmer that's had that property in the family for generations. They look at the field as just another kind of factory. And Monsanto lobbied the government to keep the refuge percentage guidelines low and unenforced. So, near-term profit overrides long-term common sense and care.

Yet again.
 
2014-03-18 08:25:40 AM  
Thanks, Obama.
 
2014-03-18 08:28:49 AM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: Target Builder: Jim_Callahan: 1. There are 0 verified cases of cross contamination.  Not "almost zero", not "we project basically zero".  Literally not a single plant that has been planted with GM seed has expressed a modified gene without us intentionally setting it up to in the entire history of modern agriculture.

Given that the seeds aren't sterile there's an absurdly low chance that there has never been any cross contamination.

You know how I know your not a gardener or farmer? Unless they are planting gmo and non gmo next to each they can cross. Corn pollen is spread by wind. It actually has to be fairly close to spread from plants. Twenty feet between strands of it is usally enough


So you are stating, as fact, that no GM-corn has ever been grown within pollinating distance of non-GM corn on neighboring farms? Which going by this article appears to be up to 150 meters

You are also stating, as fact, that no bee has ever visited a GM-soybean plant and then stopped by a non-GM soybean plant on its way back to its hive?
 
2014-03-18 08:29:01 AM  

Any Pie Left: What I take away from the story is that farmers are greedy and thrifty; the proper management technique, alternating fields of Bt and non-Bt corn, would have reduced their profit per acre by some fraction, while adding some cost for buying more than one kind of seed, and perhaps having to buy and apply some conventional pesticides.  They're mostly cash-renters, not owners, on the land they farm, so they don't have the same tie to the land as a farmer that's had that property in the family for generations. They look at the field as just another kind of factory. And Monsanto lobbied the government to keep the refuge percentage guidelines low and unenforced. So, near-term profit overrides long-term common sense and care.

Yet again.


While I liked your post you read the article...

3.bp.blogspot.com

Burn him!
 
2014-03-18 08:30:41 AM  

dready zim: Deathfrogg: Peki: We're genetically engineering ourselves into a famine, polluting ourselves into a nasty weather feedback cycle, while simultaneously telling people that only the people who deserve to be poor are the ones starving and coughing in the streets.

The next 100 years is going to be very interesting.

Read: The Windup Girl by Paolo Bacigalupi. The story takes place after several generations of that.

All the super rich have done is earn themselves to be the last to starve when things go to shiat. They cause the problems, then blame the people affected by those problems for suffering the effects the problems they created. They would happily murder 2/3 of the human race rather than admit they're farking the world up.

If they did, would that not solve a lot of problems?


Actually something very similar happened about 800 years ago. The Black Plague wiped out 50% or more of the population in Europe. The rich at the time, who were relatively more sanitary, and thus less exposed to the rats carrying the fleas that transmitted the plague were the ones who were more likely to survive. When all was said and done, there was a significant amount of work that needed done and not nearly as many laborers as there had been before. Thus wages went up, guilds (forerunner of unions) developed and groups like the Freemasons came together to push wages and standards of living higher.
 
2014-03-18 08:30:48 AM  

MemeSlave: The worm did not evolve to eat the corn, some of the worms stopped dying when they tried. It's different.


Well.. yes... in the sense that what you apparently imagine evolution to be and what evolution really is are quite different things....
 
2014-03-18 08:31:59 AM  

Any Pie Left: What I take away from the story is that farmers are greedy and thrifty; the proper management technique, alternating fields of Bt and non-Bt corn, would have reduced their profit per acre by some fraction, while adding some cost for buying more than one kind of seed, and perhaps having to buy and apply some conventional pesticides.  They're mostly cash-renters, not owners, on the land they farm, so they don't have the same tie to the land as a farmer that's had that property in the family for generations. They look at the field as just another kind of factory. And Monsanto lobbied the government to keep the refuge percentage guidelines low and unenforced. So, near-term profit overrides long-term common sense and care.

Yet again.


If Free Market Capitalism has a fatal flaw, it is this.
 
2014-03-18 08:35:27 AM  
Wow, this thread is doing a great job of drawing out the anti-GMO idiots.  Genetically engineered crops are one of the most significant scientific advances of the last couple decades (aside from the genetic selection that was performed for thousands of years before we understood genetics). No advancement is going to be without its problems, but you would be a fool to deny the benefit that GM foods bring to humanity.

/Monsanto sucks, but their products do not
 
2014-03-18 08:36:42 AM  

Any Pie Left: What I take away from the story is that farmers are greedy and thrifty; the proper management technique, alternating fields of Bt and non-Bt corn, would have reduced their profit per acre by some fraction, while adding some cost for buying more than one kind of seed, and perhaps having to buy and apply some conventional pesticides.  They're mostly cash-renters, not owners, on the land they farm, so they don't have the same tie to the land as a farmer that's had that property in the family for generations. They look at the field as just another kind of factory. And Monsanto lobbied the government to keep the refuge percentage guidelines low and unenforced. So, near-term profit overrides long-term common sense and care.

Yet again.


Also this, the problem is not with the GM food, ITS WITH THE FARMERS BEING IRRESPONSIBLE WHEN THEY GROW THE FOOD
 
2014-03-18 08:39:32 AM  
www.seriessub.com
minus
www.biography.com
equals
topliners.eloqua.com
 
2014-03-18 08:45:56 AM  

Target Builder: Mid_mo_mad_man: Target Builder: Jim_Callahan: 1. There are 0 verified cases of cross contamination.  Not "almost zero", not "we project basically zero".  Literally not a single plant that has been planted with GM seed has expressed a modified gene without us intentionally setting it up to in the entire history of modern agriculture.

Given that the seeds aren't sterile there's an absurdly low chance that there has never been any cross contamination.

You know how I know your not a gardener or farmer? Unless they are planting gmo and non gmo next to each they can cross. Corn pollen is spread by wind. It actually has to be fairly close to spread from plants. Twenty feet between strands of it is usally enough

So you are stating, as fact, that no GM-corn has ever been grown within pollinating distance of non-GM corn on neighboring farms? Which going by this article appears to be up to 150 meters

You are also stating, as fact, that no bee has ever visited a GM-soybean plant and then stopped by a non-GM soybean plant on its way back to its hive?


I never mentioned soybeans. Anybody who knows corn that you don't plant different strains near each other.
 
2014-03-18 08:47:00 AM  

PunGent: Strik3r: I was looking for a key poiont that we, as humans seems to have a stigmatism about (because we KEEP doing it).

FTFA:

"a cautionary tale of how short-sighted mismanagement can squander the benefits"

and

"There needs to be a fundamental change in how the technology is used"


It is truely amazing how we can make brilliant technological breakthru's and then apply them in the most assinine ways.................

It's pretty much "this".

It's like the nuclear power guys, who insist that the underlying process is safe, and new reactors won't be dangerous.

Well, sure, the underlying process might well be safe; they just neglect to account for fundamental human nature in their calculations.

People cut corners, make mistakes, and, in some cases, act maliciously.  Corporations are made up of people, and so corporations are subject to all the same errors.

If you're an engineer, and your systems analysis doesn't account for that, it's LESS useful than that of the most ignorant shrieking luddite, because your credentials mean you might be taken seriously...and you've made a fundamental error in them.


So basically: Humans aren't perfect so keep burning coal for power and keep slashing and burning rain forests for more and more agricultural acreage.  That's not exactly a great plan.
 
2014-03-18 08:48:12 AM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: Target Builder: Mid_mo_mad_man: Target Builder: Jim_Callahan: 1. There are 0 verified cases of cross contamination.  Not "almost zero", not "we project basically zero".  Literally not a single plant that has been planted with GM seed has expressed a modified gene without us intentionally setting it up to in the entire history of modern agriculture.

Given that the seeds aren't sterile there's an absurdly low chance that there has never been any cross contamination.

You know how I know your not a gardener or farmer? Unless they are planting gmo and non gmo next to each they can cross. Corn pollen is spread by wind. It actually has to be fairly close to spread from plants. Twenty feet between strands of it is usally enough

So you are stating, as fact, that no GM-corn has ever been grown within pollinating distance of non-GM corn on neighboring farms? Which going by this article appears to be up to 150 meters

You are also stating, as fact, that no bee has ever visited a GM-soybean plant and then stopped by a non-GM soybean plant on its way back to its hive?

I never mentioned soybeans. Anybody who knows corn that you don't plant different strains near each other.


Anybody who knows corn knows
 
2014-03-18 08:49:59 AM  

MemeSlave: Another pop-sci evolution article.

The worm did not evolve to eat the corn, some of the worms stopped dying when they tried.  It's different.


It's almost as though the worms that were most fit to handle the change in their environment survived and reproduced while those that were less fit withered and died. Totally different.
 
2014-03-18 08:52:50 AM  

robohobo: Next 100 years....who the fark cares? Every one of us will be long dead by then. I'm pretty sure the most of fark has a little money and even less pigmentaton.


The idea isn't "after" 100 years, but "for the duration of" 100 years. So, unless we're mourning your passing, you and I and lots of the rest of us are merely at the beginning of the next 100 years.

But I don't think things will be interesting. Grinding poverty isn't interesting.
 
2014-03-18 08:54:24 AM  
Go worm!
 
2014-03-18 08:55:21 AM  

fusillade762: Ha! Suck it, Syngenta!


As a former Syngenta employee, you have no idea how hard they can suck it. Although I will admit, the company treated me well, our managers, however, were incompetent to put it politely.
 
2014-03-18 08:56:00 AM  

Deathfrogg: Peki: We're genetically engineering ourselves into a famine, polluting ourselves into a nasty weather feedback cycle, while simultaneously telling people that only the people who deserve to be poor are the ones starving and coughing in the streets.

The next 100 years is going to be very interesting.

Read: The Windup Girl by Paolo Bacigalupi. The story takes place after several generations of that.

All the super rich have done is earn themselves to be the last to starve when things go to shiat. They cause the problems, then blame the people affected by those problems for suffering the effects the problems they created. They would happily murder 2/3 of the human race rather than admit they're farking the world up.


I tried. I got a few chapters in but frankly it was deadly boring and the science of energy storage was so hilariously wrong I couldn't get into it. When the entire premise hinges in basic science that is wrong, and rather stupid, I can't read it. No, I don't care about the justification, we are not going to lose the ability to generate electricity. Even in the book hooking up a damn generator to the 'mainspring winding' mechanics she details would result in electricity generation at useable levels. And they obviously have chemical and mechanical storage methods.

Plus the writing was boring.
 
2014-03-18 08:56:15 AM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: Target Builder: Mid_mo_mad_man: Target Builder: Jim_Callahan: 1. There are 0 verified cases of cross contamination.  Not "almost zero", not "we project basically zero".  Literally not a single plant that has been planted with GM seed has expressed a modified gene without us intentionally setting it up to in the entire history of modern agriculture.

Given that the seeds aren't sterile there's an absurdly low chance that there has never been any cross contamination.

You know how I know your not a gardener or farmer? Unless they are planting gmo and non gmo next to each they can cross. Corn pollen is spread by wind. It actually has to be fairly close to spread from plants. Twenty feet between strands of it is usally enough

So you are stating, as fact, that no GM-corn has ever been grown within pollinating distance of non-GM corn on neighboring farms? Which going by this article appears to be up to 150 meters

You are also stating, as fact, that no bee has ever visited a GM-soybean plant and then stopped by a non-GM soybean plant on its way back to its hive?

I never mentioned soybeans. Anybody who knows corn that you don't plant different strains near each other.


So what was your original objection to my non-species specific comment that there's an absurdly low chance that a GM plant has never pollinated a non-GM plant?

As to corn growing - I'm not a farmer but to me it seems unlikely that neighboring farmers who both grow corn would each give up 75 meters around the perimeter of their farm. AFAIK cross-pollination does not affect the crop, just the offspring if you save the seeds. Most farmers don't save seeds, they buy them from suppliers - so would they really care about cross-pollination enough to maintain buffer zones? I'll be happy to be corrected on this if I'm wrong.
 
2014-03-18 08:56:35 AM  
Apparently, the case study of how to fark up antibiotics in five decades didn't make it into the executive summary.
 
2014-03-18 08:57:15 AM  

Farkage: So you're telling me that corn genetically engineered to produce bt toxin is safer and healthier than corn that isn't?


Why, it is indeed.
You do realize that Bt is a natural pesticide, approved in organic farming? Bt bacteira is a very common soil bacteria, and you've probably inhaled/digested quite a bit on your lifetime.
The 'pesticide' part of the bacteria is a protein, and it is the gene from that bacteria that is transferred to the corn.

Oh, I should add this (quote from biofortified.org):
"
Ironically, crops expressing Bt have reduced toxin exposure all over the world. Corn expressing Bt has dramatically reduced incidence of fungal infection and of potentially deadly mycotoxins (toxins produced by fungus). Why? The Bt corn has fewer insect bite marks, which is how the fungus enters the kernels to colonize the ear. There are other ways to prevent fungus growth, but none are better than Bt, especially in tropical and sub-tropical areas such as southern Africa and Central America where maize aka corn is a staple. In addition, use of Bt has allowed farmers to use fewer broad spectrum insecticides, letting more non-pest insects live and reducing exposure to farmers and neighbors during pesticide application. Finally, because Bt protects corn from insect damage, Bt corn has higher yields so less land is needed to grow the same amount of food."

As for that fearmongering that OMG GENES ARE TRANSFERRED FROM ONE SPECIES TO ANOTHER, whoa, settle down. This happens in nature all the time, and has been happening for millions of years. It's called lateral gene transfer. Usually via bacteria that are really good at inserting genes into their new host's genome. As a matter of fact, a popular technique used in biotech is harnessing those bacteria that naturally do these cross-species (up to even cross-kingdom) to do the oh-so-evil gene transfer.

So to sum up: Bt bacteria is natural and all over the place. Gene transfer is natural and has been going on since time immemorial, with or without man.
 
2014-03-18 09:03:32 AM  

Target Builder: Mid_mo_mad_man: Target Builder: Mid_mo_mad_man: Target Builder: Jim_Callahan: 1. There are 0 verified cases of cross contamination.  Not "almost zero", not "we project basically zero".  Literally not a single plant that has been planted with GM seed has expressed a modified gene without us intentionally setting it up to in the entire history of modern agriculture.

Given that the seeds aren't sterile there's an absurdly low chance that there has never been any cross contamination.

You know how I know your not a gardener or farmer? Unless they are planting gmo and non gmo next to each they can cross. Corn pollen is spread by wind. It actually has to be fairly close to spread from plants. Twenty feet between strands of it is usally enough

So you are stating, as fact, that no GM-corn has ever been grown within pollinating distance of non-GM corn on neighboring farms? Which going by this article appears to be up to 150 meters

You are also stating, as fact, that no bee has ever visited a GM-soybean plant and then stopped by a non-GM soybean plant on its way back to its hive?

I never mentioned soybeans. Anybody who knows corn that you don't plant different strains near each other.

So what was your original objection to my non-species specific comment that there's an absurdly low chance that a GM plant has never pollinated a non-GM plant?

As to corn growing - I'm not a farmer but to me it seems unlikely that neighboring farmers who both grow corn would each give up 75 meters around the perimeter of their farm. AFAIK cross-pollination does not affect the crop, just the offspring if you save the seeds. Most farmers don't save seeds, they buy them from suppliers - so would they really care about cross-pollination enough to maintain buffer zones? I'll be happy to be corrected on this if I'm wrong.


The product you sell from corn is the seed. It could become feed,seed or whatever. It all starts as a seed. It is also standard to isolate corn that you don't want crossed.
 
2014-03-18 09:16:35 AM  
An excellent, scientific overview of Bt here:
http://web.expasy.org/spotlight/snapshots/014/

"
Bacillus thuringiensis has been used commercially - in the form of dried spores and crystal toxins - in agriculture since the 1930s. Its use increased in the 1980s when it was clear that insects were becoming resistant to synthetic insecticides which were harmful to the environment anyway. Bt is organic and affects only specific insects. With biotechnology flourishing, it was not long before specific Bt endotoxin genes were integrated into plant genomes and genetically modified crops were created: the 'Bt crops' which now include 'Bt corn', 'Bt potato', 'Bt cotton' and 'Bt soybean'.
The advantage here is that farmers do not have to spray crops with Bt and that only the insects which harm the crops are attacked; even those which have a go at the plants' roots. No harm can come to humans or other mammals either, since not only are toxins ineffective in mammalian physiological pH but they do not have receptors for the toxins anyway. "
 
2014-03-18 09:18:29 AM  
One might say the worm has turned.

The thread is full of hobby horse riders.

Of Hovercrafts and Eels.
 
2014-03-18 09:20:33 AM  

Egoy3k: PunGent: Strik3r: I was looking for a key poiont that we, as humans seems to have a stigmatism about (because we KEEP doing it).

FTFA:

"a cautionary tale of how short-sighted mismanagement can squander the benefits"

and

"There needs to be a fundamental change in how the technology is used"


It is truely amazing how we can make brilliant technological breakthru's and then apply them in the most assinine ways.................

It's pretty much "this".

It's like the nuclear power guys, who insist that the underlying process is safe, and new reactors won't be dangerous.

Well, sure, the underlying process might well be safe; they just neglect to account for fundamental human nature in their calculations.

People cut corners, make mistakes, and, in some cases, act maliciously.  Corporations are made up of people, and so corporations are subject to all the same errors.

If you're an engineer, and your systems analysis doesn't account for that, it's LESS useful than that of the most ignorant shrieking luddite, because your credentials mean you might be taken seriously...and you've made a fundamental error in them.

So basically: Humans aren't perfect so keep burning coal for power and keep slashing and burning rain forests for more and more agricultural acreage.  That's not exactly a great plan.


Don 't be an idiot.....

Let's try adding some common sense, do more extensive testing before deploying into the wild and introducing safeguards whereever possible.

Our problem is that these greeedy bastards are in a MAJOR hurry to make a serious cash and they don't give a rats ass if they  wipe out most of the planet in the process (they probably do, but I'm guessing most don't think that far ahead)...


/FORWARD thinking - how DOES it work?
 
2014-03-18 09:23:16 AM  

AlanSmithee: An excellent, scientific overview of Bt here:
http://web.expasy.org/spotlight/snapshots/014/

"
Bacillus thuringiensis has been used commercially - in the form of dried spores and crystal toxins - in agriculture since the 1930s. Its use increased in the 1980s when it was clear that insects were becoming resistant to synthetic insecticides which were harmful to the environment anyway. Bt is organic and affects only specific insects. With biotechnology flourishing, it was not long before specific Bt endotoxin genes were integrated into plant genomes and genetically modified crops were created: the 'Bt crops' which now include 'Bt corn', 'Bt potato', 'Bt cotton' and 'Bt soybean'.
The advantage here is that farmers do not have to spray crops with Bt and that only the insects which harm the crops are attacked; even those which have a go at the plants' roots. No harm can come to humans or other mammals either, since not only are toxins ineffective in mammalian physiological pH but they do not have receptors for the toxins anyway. "


I have no concerns about Bt itself.  We bought and used some on our apple tree as an eco-friendly way of dealing with a caterpillar infestation.

But Monsanto, as a corporation, is farking psycopathic.
 
2014-03-18 09:24:58 AM  

Target Builder: Mid_mo_mad_man: Target Builder: Mid_mo_mad_man: Target Builder: Jim_Callahan: 1. There are 0 verified cases of cross contamination.  Not "almost zero", not "we project basically zero".  Literally not a single plant that has been planted with GM seed has expressed a modified gene without us intentionally setting it up to in the entire history of modern agriculture.

Given that the seeds aren't sterile there's an absurdly low chance that there has never been any cross contamination.

You know how I know your not a gardener or farmer? Unless they are planting gmo and non gmo next to each they can cross. Corn pollen is spread by wind. It actually has to be fairly close to spread from plants. Twenty feet between strands of it is usally enough

So you are stating, as fact, that no GM-corn has ever been grown within pollinating distance of non-GM corn on neighboring farms? Which going by this article appears to be up to 150 meters

You are also stating, as fact, that no bee has ever visited a GM-soybean plant and then stopped by a non-GM soybean plant on its way back to its hive?

I never mentioned soybeans. Anybody who knows corn that you don't plant different strains near each other.

So what was your original objection to my non-species specific comment that there's an absurdly low chance that a GM plant has never pollinated a non-GM plant?

As to corn growing - I'm not a farmer but to me it seems unlikely that neighboring farmers who both grow corn would each give up 75 meters around the perimeter of their farm. AFAIK cross-pollination does not affect the crop, just the offspring if you save the seeds. Most farmers don't save seeds, they buy them from suppliers - so would they really care about cross-pollination enough to maintain buffer zones? I'll be happy to be corrected on this if I'm wrong.


Bees can fly up to 5 miles in their normal routes looking for flowers to pollinate.  I don't think anyone is making barriers that big
 
2014-03-18 09:28:39 AM  

Slam Bradley: Target Builder: Mid_mo_mad_man: Target Builder: Mid_mo_mad_man: Target Builder: Jim_Callahan: 1. There are 0 verified cases of cross contamination.  Not "almost zero", not "we project basically zero".  Literally not a single plant that has been planted with GM seed has expressed a modified gene without us intentionally setting it up to in the entire history of modern agriculture.

Given that the seeds aren't sterile there's an absurdly low chance that there has never been any cross contamination.

You know how I know your not a gardener or farmer? Unless they are planting gmo and non gmo next to each they can cross. Corn pollen is spread by wind. It actually has to be fairly close to spread from plants. Twenty feet between strands of it is usally enough

So you are stating, as fact, that no GM-corn has ever been grown within pollinating distance of non-GM corn on neighboring farms? Which going by this article appears to be up to 150 meters

You are also stating, as fact, that no bee has ever visited a GM-soybean plant and then stopped by a non-GM soybean plant on its way back to its hive?

I never mentioned soybeans. Anybody who knows corn that you don't plant different strains near each other.

So what was your original objection to my non-species specific comment that there's an absurdly low chance that a GM plant has never pollinated a non-GM plant?

As to corn growing - I'm not a farmer but to me it seems unlikely that neighboring farmers who both grow corn would each give up 75 meters around the perimeter of their farm. AFAIK cross-pollination does not affect the crop, just the offspring if you save the seeds. Most farmers don't save seeds, they buy them from suppliers - so would they really care about cross-pollination enough to maintain buffer zones? I'll be happy to be corrected on this if I'm wrong.

Bees can fly up to 5 miles in their normal routes looking for flowers to pollinate.  I don't think anyone is making barriers that big


Corn is wind pollinated. No bees are needed.
 
2014-03-18 09:29:39 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Peki: We're genetically engineering ourselves into a famine,

Not really.  We're very, very easily staying ahead of actual reductions in output, the only potential thing we're in danger of falling short of is keeping up with increased demand.

So... go convince people to stop having more than one child per capita for us, will ya?

demaL-demaL-yeH: I know: Let's widely plant these GMOs without adequate testing, contaminate natural strains of crops so there's no heirloom stock left to save our butts, and then sue the organic farmers into bankruptcy for stealing our shiat.

1. There are 0 verified cases of cross contamination.  Not "almost zero", not "we project basically zero".  Literally not a single plant that has been planted with GM seed has expressed a modified gene without us intentionally setting it up to in the entire history of modern agriculture.

If you're going to base policy on shiat that only exists in your imagination, make sure you include some sort of regulatory framework so I don't accidentally run people over with my rainbow-pooping flying unicorn.

2. GM may potentially become less viable to some extent a few centuries in the future.  Organic farming literally is not even slightly viable  already, switching to organics would starve 80% of the world to death within a month if you go with the  forgiving estimate of comparative crop yields, more like 90% if you consider reduced calorie content by mass.

Farkage: This is exactly why GMO shiat should be outlawed.  The things (bugs, worms, etc) that they are developing it for will become resistant to it, because that's what evolution does over multiple generations.  In the meantime, we are eating this crap without it actually being proven to be 100% safe because reasons.But, you know, as long as Monsanto is making lots of money...

Nutritionally speaking, GM food is typically healthier than non-GM food, that's one of the two things that it's usually modified for.  Further, GM food has actually been teste ...


Dude - you NEVER go full retard.
 
2014-03-18 09:30:37 AM  
Nothing wrong with genetically modified crops.

We should probably stop buying them from lex luthor though.
 
2014-03-18 09:31:33 AM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: Bees can fly up to 5 miles in their normal routes looking for flowers to pollinate. I don't think anyone is making barriers that big


Corn is wind pollinated. No bees are needed


I'd like to also mention that the pesticides used by organic farmers are scarily toxic to bees.
 
2014-03-18 09:33:51 AM  

AlanSmithee: Farkage: So you're telling me that corn genetically engineered to produce bt toxin is safer and healthier than corn that isn't?

Why, it is indeed.
You do realize that Bt is a natural pesticide, approved in organic farming? Bt bacteira is a very common soil bacteria, and you've probably inhaled/digested quite a bit on your lifetime.
The 'pesticide' part of the bacteria is a protein, and it is the gene from that bacteria that is transferred to the corn.

Oh, I should add this (quote from biofortified.org):
"
Ironically, crops expressing Bt have reduced toxin exposure all over the world. Corn expressing Bt has dramatically reduced incidence of fungal infection and of potentially deadly mycotoxins (toxins produced by fungus). Why? The Bt corn has fewer insect bite marks, which is how the fungus enters the kernels to colonize the ear. There are other ways to prevent fungus growth, but none are better than Bt, especially in tropical and sub-tropical areas such as southern Africa and Central America where maize aka corn is a staple. In addition, use of Bt has allowed farmers to use fewer broad spectrum insecticides, letting more non-pest insects live and reducing exposure to farmers and neighbors during pesticide application. Finally, because Bt protects corn from insect damage, Bt corn has higher yields so less land is needed to grow the same amount of food."

As for that fearmongering that OMG GENES ARE TRANSFERRED FROM ONE SPECIES TO ANOTHER, whoa, settle down. This happens in nature all the time, and has been happening for millions of years. It's called lateral gene transfer. Usually via bacteria that are really good at inserting genes into their new host's genome. As a matter of fact, a popular technique used in biotech is harnessing those bacteria that naturally do these cross-species (up to even cross-kingdom) to do the oh-so-evil gene transfer.

So to sum up: Bt bacteria is natural and all over the place. Gene transfer is natural and has been going on since time i ...


It is one thing to apply BT (or any other pesticide natural or otherwise) to a play when needed to repel certain problem insects when they arise, and it is a completely different thing to engineer the plant to contain BT (or roundup, you know, whatever), because eventually the insects and bacteria and fungi that are meant to be repelled will become resistant or immune to the effects through constant exposure.  Technically, antibiotics are natural and occur all over the place in nature, but it should be obvious and common knowledge that their overuse in both humans and livestock has begun to create bacteria superbugs completely immune to their effects.

Now, I'm no hippy, but our current methods of agriculture are completely unsustainable, degrading topsoil and polluting waterways.  Careless agriculture lead to the dust bowl in Oklahoma (well that and a record drought), and we're heading in that direction but on a much larger scarier scale.  Perhaps organic methods aren't an easy solution either due to the increase in labor and cost necessary, but maybe those are the things that should be getting federal subsidies instead of big Ag.  And regardless, big Ag needs to move towards (or be forced to) more organic and sustainable practices or we're all gonna be screwed in about 50 years.
 
2014-03-18 09:41:01 AM  

Deathfrogg: Peki: We're genetically engineering ourselves into a famine, polluting ourselves into a nasty weather feedback cycle, while simultaneously telling people that only the people who deserve to be poor are the ones starving and coughing in the streets.

The next 100 years is going to be very interesting.

Read: The Windup Girl by Paolo Bacigalupi. The story takes place after several generations of that.

All the super rich have done is earn themselves to be the last to starve when things go to shiat. They cause the problems, then blame the people affected by those problems for suffering the effects the problems they created. They would happily murder 2/3 of the human race rather than admit they're farking the world up.


Ha! Good one! Rich people starving. That's a knee-slapper! Could a lack of diversity in food crops lead to large-scale famine? Absolutely. That doesn't mean that everything edible on the planet will disappear. There will always be food for those who can afford it. What the rich have earned themselves is the right to continue feasting as the world starves around them. Even the effects on the general population of the US are likely to be fairly minimal compared to what will be seen in poor, over-populated, third-world countries. Most of the starving to death will happen in places that already suck. People in the US will biatch because the price of eggs doubles and they can't afford to eat out anymore. Hell, we'll probably get even fatter as we start to rely even more on cheaper, processed foods.
 
2014-03-18 09:44:46 AM  
Sorry subby, you lie... I have it on good authority that evolution is a lie. God just upgraded this worm, that's all.
 
2014-03-18 09:47:14 AM  

Target Builder: As to corn growing - I'm not a farmer but to me it seems unlikely that neighboring farmers who both grow corn would each give up 75 meters around the perimeter of their farm. AFAIK cross-pollination does not affect the crop, just the offspring if you save the seeds. Most farmers don't save seeds, they buy them from suppliers - so would they really care about cross-pollination enough to maintain buffer zones? I'll be happy to be corrected on this if I'm wrong.


The only part of a seed that is affected by the cross polination is the germ.  The rest of the seed represents the parent plants genetics.  If you sell all your crop for use then cross polination is not a concern whatsoever.  If you are planing on growning seed stock you are going to have to sell the perimeter plants for use while keeping the center seedstock.
 
2014-03-18 09:50:20 AM  
This f up is pretty bad, but I am way more concerned about a second wave of bee die offs. That would have a much worse impact overall.
 
2014-03-18 09:51:28 AM  

Carn: It is one thing to apply BT (or any other pesticide natural or otherwise) to a play when needed to repel certain problem insects when they arise, and it is a completely different thing to engineer the plant to contain BT (or roundup, you know, whatever), because eventually the insects and bacteria and fungi that are meant to be repelled will become resistant or immune to the effects through constant exposure. Technically, antibiotics are natural and occur all over the place in nature, but it should be obvious and common knowledge that their overuse in both humans and livestock has begun to create bacteria superbugs completely immune to their effects.Now, I'm no hippy, but our current methods of agriculture are completely unsustainable, degrading topsoil and polluting waterways. Careless agriculture lead to the dust bowl in Oklahoma (well that and a record drought), and we're heading in that direction but on a much larger scarier scale. Perhaps organic methods aren't an easy solution either due to the increase in labor and cost necessary, but maybe those are the things that should be getting federal subsidies instead of big Ag. And regardless, big Ag needs to move towards (or be forced to) more organic and sustainable practices or we're all gonna be screwed in about 50 years.


It sounds like you're in favor of organic farming, and that's a fine choice. Just to be clear, my problem with organic farming is when the shills of organic farm corporations completely misrepresent the results of scientific research in order to malign their main business competitors.

Your links indicate that soil degradation and pollusted waterways are problems, but don't specifically link them to GMOs.
Which method do you think pollutes waterways more: organic farming, GMO, or non-organic/non-GMO agriculture?  All three pollute (yes, even organic).

How much of the soil degradation is simply due to scale? I.e. Is there any reason to believe that organic farming would produce less soil degradation when performed on a large enough scale to feed the world?
 
2014-03-18 09:53:40 AM  

draypresct: Carn: It is one thing to apply BT (or any other pesticide natural or otherwise) to a play when needed to repel certain problem insects when they arise, and it is a completely different thing to engineer the plant to contain BT (or roundup, you know, whatever), because eventually the insects and bacteria and fungi that are meant to be repelled will become resistant or immune to the effects through constant exposure. Technically, antibiotics are natural and occur all over the place in nature, but it should be obvious and common knowledge that their overuse in both humans and livestock has begun to create bacteria superbugs completely immune to their effects.Now, I'm no hippy, but our current methods of agriculture are completely unsustainable, degrading topsoil and polluting waterways. Careless agriculture lead to the dust bowl in Oklahoma (well that and a record drought), and we're heading in that direction but on a much larger scarier scale. Perhaps organic methods aren't an easy solution either due to the increase in labor and cost necessary, but maybe those are the things that should be getting federal subsidies instead of big Ag. And regardless, big Ag needs to move towards (or be forced to) more organic and sustainable practices or we're all gonna be screwed in about 50 years.

It sounds like you're in favor of organic farming, and that's a fine choice. Just to be clear, my problem with organic farming is when the shills of organic farm corporations completely misrepresent the results of scientific research in order to malign their main business competitors.

Your links indicate that soil degradation and pollusted waterways are problems, but don't specifically link them to GMOs.
Which method do you think pollutes waterways more: organic farming, GMO, or non-organic/non-GMO agriculture?  All three pollute (yes, even organic).

How much of the soil degradation is simply due to scale? I.e. Is there any reason to believe that organic farming would produce less soil degradation when performed on a large enough scale to feed the world?


Gmo with it's no till possibility would. be best.
 
2014-03-18 09:53:49 AM  
Do you want Spice? Because this is how you get Spice.
 
2014-03-18 10:15:34 AM  
Anyone who knows corn knows the vast majority of corn seed is hybridized seed produced on specialty farms where pollination is strictly controlled.
 
2014-03-18 10:22:11 AM  

draypresct: Carn: It is one thing to apply BT (or any other pesticide natural or otherwise) to a play when needed to repel certain problem insects when they arise, and it is a completely different thing to engineer the plant to contain BT (or roundup, you know, whatever), because eventually the insects and bacteria and fungi that are meant to be repelled will become resistant or immune to the effects through constant exposure. Technically, antibiotics are natural and occur all over the place in nature, but it should be obvious and common knowledge that their overuse in both humans and livestock has begun to create bacteria superbugs completely immune to their effects.Now, I'm no hippy, but our current methods of agriculture are completely unsustainable, degrading topsoil and polluting waterways. Careless agriculture lead to the dust bowl in Oklahoma (well that and a record drought), and we're heading in that direction but on a much larger scarier scale. Perhaps organic methods aren't an easy solution either due to the increase in labor and cost necessary, but maybe those are the things that should be getting federal subsidies instead of big Ag. And regardless, big Ag needs to move towards (or be forced to) more organic and sustainable practices or we're all gonna be screwed in about 50 years.

It sounds like you're in favor of organic farming, and that's a fine choice. Just to be clear, my problem with organic farming is when the shills of organic farm corporations completely misrepresent the results of scientific research in order to malign their main business competitors.

Your links indicate that soil degradation and pollusted waterways are problems, but don't specifically link them to GMOs.
Which method do you think pollutes waterways more: organic farming, GMO, or non-organic/non-GMO agriculture?  All three pollute (yes, even organic).

How much of the soil degradation is simply due to scale? I.e. Is there any reason to believe that organic farming would produce less soil ...


These are excellent points. As to the last point, don't some GMO crops reduce the need for tillage? And thus contribute less to soil degradation?
 
2014-03-18 10:23:26 AM  
m1.behance.net

/Woot! GMO Threat!
//Grabs popcorn
///Oh noes! GMO poison popcorn! Gack!
 
2014-03-18 10:25:56 AM  

Deathfrogg: log_jammin: Farkage: My issue is engineering food to produce more and different kinds of toxin to keep bugs from eating it because it'll kill them, but saying it's okay for us to eat it because they tested it a little and pinky swear that it's okay.

who exactly is "they"? because you understand that anyone can test they stuff to determine if it is safe or not.

Your comment would be like saying "My issue is engineering vaccines to produce more and different kinds of toxin to keep diseases from your body it because it'll kill them, but saying it's okay for us because they tested it a little and pinky swear that it's okay. "

Except that the toxins those GMO plants produce kill as many beneficial insects as harmful ones. Not to mention the fact that engineering plants to produce the same toxins used to clear the forests in Vietnam during the 1960s really doesn't seem like a good idea, considering the health effects that are still being seen more than thirty years after the fact. Children are still being born with massive birth defects, and people are still getting a hundred different types of cancers they weren't getting before the American War there.


Derp.

Btk is not farking Agent Orange.

And it only activates in certain gut chemistries. Gut chemistries that people do not possess.

Herp de derp.
 
2014-03-18 10:40:48 AM  

ambercat: Farkage: This is exactly why GMO shiat should be outlawed.  The things (bugs, worms, etc) that they are developing it for will become resistant to it, because that's what evolution does over multiple generations.  In the meantime, we are eating this crap without it actually being proven to be 100% safe because reasons.But, you know, as long as Monsanto is making lots of money...

Well, to be fair, the article does outline the ways in which this could have been prevented. The true problem with GMOs is that while they could be used wisely, the odds of them actually being used wisely and with proper regulatory enforcement are about as slim as a unicorn spontaneously jumping out my butt this very second. And if they aren't used the way that is safest and suggested by scientists, it could fark a whole bunch of things up down the road. It's not that they have to be bad, it's that we know from experience with just about every other thing that could fark us up if we don't regulate it, we won't to the most ideal degree, and whatever the crappy result of failure to do so is, we'll be experiencing it to one degree or another soon enough. So I can understand why some people feel with GMOs it's going to be an everything goes or nothing does situation and banning them is the only way to stop this.


Shhh, don't confuse the Anti-Anti GMO crowd in their quest to make other people think the same way. All GMOs are safe because it's same as nature does brah. You hating science?

/not anti-GMO per se, but I'd rather not risk it for my own consumption where I can
 
2014-03-18 10:43:19 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Peki: We're genetically engineering ourselves into a famine,

Not really.  We're very, very easily staying ahead of actual reductions in output, the only potential thing we're in danger of falling short of is keeping up with increased demand.

So... go convince people to stop having more than one child per capita for us, will ya?

demaL-demaL-yeH: I know: Let's widely plant these GMOs without adequate testing, contaminate natural strains of crops so there's no heirloom stock left to save our butts, and then sue the organic farmers into bankruptcy for stealing our shiat.

1. There are 0 verified cases of cross contamination.  Not "almost zero", not "we project basically zero".  Literally not a single plant that has been planted with GM seed has expressed a modified gene without us intentionally setting it up to in the entire history of modern agriculture.

If you're going to base policy on shiat that only exists in your imagination, make sure you include some sort of regulatory framework so I don't accidentally run people over with my rainbow-pooping flying unicorn.

2. GM may potentially become less viable to some extent a few centuries in the future.  Organic farming literally is not even slightly viable  already, switching to organics would starve 80% of the world to death within a month if you go with the  forgiving estimate of comparative crop yields, more like 90% if you consider reduced calorie content by mass.

Farkage: This is exactly why GMO shiat should be outlawed.  The things (bugs, worms, etc) that they are developing it for will become resistant to it, because that's what evolution does over multiple generations.  In the meantime, we are eating this crap without it actually being proven to be 100% safe because reasons.But, you know, as long as Monsanto is making lots of money...

Nutritionally speaking, GM food is typically healthier than non-GM food, that's one of the two things that it's usually modified for.  Further, GM food has actually been teste ...


This was great. 8.90/10. Just....very good. polished.professional. Your letter of Commendation on Guild stationary is on it';s way. Please return $19.95  in the enclosed envelope for a coupon for framing and presenting the letter.
 
2014-03-18 10:43:49 AM  
So how do the worms taste? If they are at least as nutritious as corn an elegant solution may present itself.
 
2014-03-18 10:49:40 AM  

draypresct: It sounds like you're in favor of organic farming, and that's a fine choice. Just to be clear, my problem with organic farming is when the shills of organic farm corporations completely misrepresent the results of scientific research in order to malign their main business competitors.

Your links indicate that soil degradation and pollusted waterways are problems, but don't specifically link them to GMOs.
Which method do you think pollutes waterways more: organic farming, GMO, or non-organic/non-GMO agriculture?  All three pollute (yes, even organic).

How much of the soil degradation is simply due to scale? I.e. Is there any reason to believe that organic farming would produce less soil degradation when performed on a large enough scale to feed the world?


You're right, pollution and degradation aren't specifically linked to GMOs and are matters of scale.  By definition, organic farming should pollute less, because it requires less (or no) fertilizers and fewer pesticides.  There could still be water pollution from runoff if animals were kept too near waterways.

Organic farming is based on the idea of building the soil, not tearing it down, so soil degradation should be minimized in comparison.  Composting, crop rotation, and green manure (using cover crops that rebuild the soil and protect from erosion in the winter) are just a few of the ways it does this.  Feasible large scale?  Probably not without some major advances, however I'd love to see the government investing in research and subsidies along these lines instead of encouraging big Ag to invent new strains of crops which lead to super insects.  Don't get me wrong, I think certain kinds of genetic modification should be encouraged.  Speeding up the cross breeding process, encouraging natural disease and pest resistance, growth rate and production are all fine ideas, but these should be done in a controlled manner and new varieties should be tested before they become ok'd.
 
2014-03-18 11:03:38 AM  

Carn: By definition, organic farming should pollute less, because it requires less (or no) fertilizers and fewer pesticides


As it stands, organic farming uses a lot of pesticides, many far more toxic than synthetics. Just because it's organic doesn't mean it is good. Eg, copper sulfate, rotenone, etc..
To do without those would wipe out the organic farm industry overnight.
 
2014-03-18 11:12:29 AM  

log_jammin: Farkage: This is exactly why GMO shiat should be outlawed.  The things (bugs, worms, etc) that they are developing it for will become resistant to it, because that's what evolution does over multiple generations.  In the meantime, we are eating this crap without it actually being proven to be 100% safe because reasons.But, you know, as long as Monsanto is making lots of money...

9/11 was an inside job


crab66:   Next you can tell me about chemtrails and fluoride mind control.

Okay, there's now way concern about GMOs is anywhere near the level of stupidity of calling 9/11 an inside job or fluoride is a method for mind control.

AlanSmithee: As for that fearmongering that OMG GENES ARE TRANSFERRED FROM ONE SPECIES TO ANOTHER, whoa, settle down. This happens in nature all the time, and has been happening for millions of years. It's called lateral gene transfer. Usually via bacteria that are really good at inserting genes into their new host's genome. As a matter of fact, a popular technique used in biotech is harnessing those bacteria that naturally do these cross-species (up to even cross-kingdom) to do the oh-so-evil gene transfer.


Yes, it happens all the time but not at the speed which we do it using molecular biology techniques.  And the speed matters.  In lateral gene transfer, conceptually a single plant obtains the gene.  It then grows up and presumably is selected for in the long-term eventually growing to a large population.  Meanwhile, the rest of the ecosystem has time to adapt.  The way humans do it, one day the plant doesn't exist and the next day, poof we have fields full of the stuff.  Your sole focus seems to be on humans in the short term.  This article is about how GMOs effect ecosystems.

I'm all for GMOs, I actually make GMOs myself (for research purposes only) but there are a lot of considerations here.  It's not just no big deal.  We're farking with life and nature, it's kinda a big deal.
 
2014-03-18 11:23:44 AM  

AlanSmithee: Carn: By definition, organic farming should pollute less, because it requires less (or no) fertilizers and fewer pesticides

As it stands, organic farming uses a lot of pesticides, many far more toxic than synthetics. Just because it's organic doesn't mean it is good. Eg, copper sulfate, rotenone, etc..
To do without those would wipe out the organic farm industry overnight.


Fair enough, but on the topic of soil degradation, organic should be superior.  Also, it may be a matter of scale, lack of research, etc.  Maybe we just have not figured out the perfect combination of companion planting, rotation, etc. to minimize pest and disease issues.
 
2014-03-18 11:34:04 AM  

robohobo: Next 100 years....who the fark cares? Every one of us will be long dead by then. I'm pretty sure the most of fark has a little money and even less pigmentaton.


I'm likely to be alive for 50 of those next 100, so it does kinda bother me. I don't have very much money (as in almost none) but you're right that I'm white.

Seriously, the next 50 years is going to be a huge challenge. Not much I can do but watch the show.
 
2014-03-18 11:35:21 AM  
It's nice to see Fark come back to sanity after fellating Monsanto and GMO for so long.
 
2014-03-18 11:49:33 AM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: Gmo with it's no till possibility would. be best.


AlanSmithee: As to the last point, don't some GMO crops reduce the need for tillage? And thus contribute less to soil degradation?


This is why I Fark. Because of these comments, I've  read more about tillage than I ever would have been motivated to otherwise. Thanks!

I'm guessing your points were that Round-Up-resistant strains wouldn't need as much of the weed-killing benefit from tillage, so GMOs would need tillage less?
Wouldn't all the other benefits of tillage (aeration, mixing organics through the soil, etc.) still apply to GMOs? Because of this, I'm guessing that tillage is an issue largely separate from the GMO/no-GMO/organic debate, but please let me know if I'm being naïve (again).

It also appears that most US farming has used conservation tillage since 1997, so this may be less of an issue than has been implied through the thread.
 
2014-03-18 11:56:36 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Nutritionally speaking, GM food is typically healthier than non-GM food, that's one of the two things that it's usually modified for.


50 years of USDA study says you're wrong, and our food nutritional content is actually dropping.

Journal of the American College of Nutrition, Changes in USDA Food Composition Data for 43 Garden Crops, 1950 to 1999,Vol. 23, No. 6, 669-682 (2004). - Actual Source

http://www.riordanclinic.org/research/articles/89024122_pub.pdf  - source link

But hey, I just happen to do this kind of stuff for a living, what do you do?
 
2014-03-18 11:59:40 AM  

Carn: Fair enough, but on the topic of soil degradation, organic should be superior.


Everything has a half-life. Soil degrades no matter what you do, it's just thermodynamics in effect.
 
2014-03-18 12:00:37 PM  

lennavan: Yes, it happens all the time but not at the speed which we do it using molecular biology techniques. And the speed matters. In lateral gene transfer, conceptually a single plant obtains the gene. It then grows up and presumably is selected for in the long-term eventually growing to a large population. Meanwhile, the rest of the ecosystem has time to adapt. The way humans do it, one day the plant doesn't exist and the next day, poof we have fields full of the stuff. Your sole focus seems to be on humans in the short term. This article is about how GMOs effect ecosystems.I'm all for GMOs, I actually make GMOs myself (for research purposes only) but there are a lot of considerations here. It's not just no big deal. We're farking with life and nature, it's kinda a big deal.


Nothing (except bacterial evolution, dammit) in nature happens at the speed humans can introduce change. Genetic manipulation is only one of the ways we introduce that change. Non-GMO farming uses strains created by hybridization, induced mutation (yes, even organic farming uses these), and just plain old artificial selection. Each of these is tested less than the GMO strains, and each has produced unintended consequences.

I'm not advocating relaxing the current standards on GMOs; however, the concept that we should get rid of GMOs (and only GMOs) because of their potential dangers seems to be a plan that would hurt a lot of people just to benefit the finances of Monsanto's business competitors.
 
2014-03-18 12:05:58 PM  

Jim_Callahan: 1. There are 0 verified cases of cross contamination.  Not "almost zero", not "we project basically zero".   Literally not a single plant that has been planted with GM seed has expressed a modified gene without us intentionally setting it up to in the entire history of modern agriculture.


Yeah. Right. Zero. Cases. I crossed out your goalpost move, skippy.

Jim_Callahan: 2. GM may potentially become less viable to some extent a few centuries in the future.


Op. cit. TFA.

Jim_Callahan: Nutritionally speaking, GM food is typically healthier than non-GM food, that's one of the two things that it's usually modified for.  Further, GM food has actually been tested to establish that it's healthy/safe.  Non-GM food has not.  You're actually taking  moreof a health risk eating non-GM food.


Let's address this mess a tad more meaningfully.
Healthier? Unsubstantiated claim. Also an asinine claim, given TFA is about corn that's been modified to produce TOXINS.
Tested? Like that rice that has contaminated the world's supply, cited above?
Non-modified foods are unsafe? Only if six million or so years of hominids eating them does not qualify as the longest longitudinal food safety study. Ever.
 
2014-03-18 12:07:57 PM  

khyberkitsune: Jim_Callahan: Nutritionally speaking, GM food is typically healthier than non-GM food, that's one of the two things that it's usually modified for.

50 years of USDA study says you're wrong, and our food nutritional content is actually dropping.

Journal of the American College of Nutrition, Changes in USDA Food Composition Data for 43 Garden Crops, 1950 to 1999,Vol. 23, No. 6, 669-682 (2004). - Actual Source

http://www.riordanclinic.org/research/articles/89024122_pub.pdf  - source link

But hey, I just happen to do this kind of stuff for a living, what do you do?


This study looked at two time points: 1950 and 1999.

Because you do this for a living, you're aware that the FDA only passed the nutrition labeling and education act in 1990, right? This act standardized the reporting of nutritional panel information.

Now, before standardization, if you're marketing a food, would you A) report all nutritional information, including the nutritional areas your food is low in, or B) report the nutritional information that makes your food look good?

Non-reporting bias . . . it's what's for dinner.
 
2014-03-18 12:11:08 PM  

khyberkitsune: 50 years of USDA study says you're wrong, and our food nutritional content is actually dropping.


Is that true?  Wow, that's news to me.  I mean, the very first GMO created with the goal of improving nutrition was golden rice, published in 2000.  Here it is - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10634784

What evidence do you have that nutrition declined after that?

khyberkitsune: Journal of the American College of Nutrition, Changes in USDA Food Composition Data for 43 Garden Crops, 1950 to 1999


Oh my dear lord, what a stupid study to cite if you're attempting to rebut the claim that GMOs improve nutrition.  You're comparing years before nutritionally improved GMOs even existed.  That's okay though, you don't have any reason to know any better.

khyberkitsune: But hey, I just happen to do this kind of stuff for a living, what do you do?


Oh my dear lord.  Don't show your employer this thread.
 
2014-03-18 12:11:16 PM  

Darth Macho: So how do the worms taste? If they are at least as nutritious as corn an elegant solution may present itself.


Oh they'd be quite a bit more nutritious than corn.  Corn and it's products like HFCS and Corn Oil are really unhealthy for human consumption.

Flavor? shrug, most taste nutty.
 
2014-03-18 12:14:35 PM  

khyberkitsune: Carn: Fair enough, but on the topic of soil degradation, organic should be superior.

Everything has a half-life. Soil degrades no matter what you do, it's just thermodynamics in effect.


Yes, which is why organic farming utilizes composting and replenishing the soil with healthy organic material, not just the nutrients that are used by the plants but microbes, worms and other living things.  Organic matter (humus) is superior for water retention and erosion resistance too.  Soil is alive, or should be.
 
2014-03-18 12:24:23 PM  

Carn: Yes, which is why organic farming utilizes composting and replenishing the soil with healthy organic material, not just the nutrients that are used by the plants but microbes, worms and other living things


What's the connection to GMOs? Composting can be used regardless of the type of crop.  Or have we moved the goalpost to criticizing large-scale agriculture?
 
2014-03-18 12:27:03 PM  

draypresct: Nothing (except bacterial evolution, dammit) in nature happens at the speed humans can introduce change


Viruses are quicker.  The flu virus mutates quickly enabling it to evade vaccinated immune systems, which is why we have to get another flu shot every year.  HIV mutates even faster, we'd have to get vaccinated daily to keep up with its mutation rate.

draypresct: I'm not advocating relaxing the current standards on GMOs; however, the concept that we should get rid of GMOs (and only GMOs) because of their potential dangers seems to be a plan that would hurt a lot of people just to benefit the finances of Monsanto's business competitors.


I'm not arguing we should get rid of GMOs.  People, yourself here included, seem to be arguing "these things happen naturally, so it's no big deal."  By your definition of natural, everything is natural.  You take a bunch of natural chemicals, put them together using natural processes and poof you get a natural product like Styrofoam.  It's not natural, we are exploiting a natural process for non-natural purposes.  I get it, you want to argue it's natural to take away the scariness.  You and I can go beyond that, I'm not afraid of it -- I have made dozens of GMOs myself.  But there's no way in hell the process or the end result is natural.

Google Alba the GFP bunny.  I can explain to you using only natural processes how it is possible GFP might be transferred from jellyfish to bunnies.  There's no farking way you're going to tell me a GFP bunny is natural.
 
2014-03-18 12:27:20 PM  

lennavan: I actually make GMOs myself (for research purposes only) but there are a lot of considerations here. It's not just no big deal.


Could you transfer some smart gene's into me.

/I want to be a GMO
 
2014-03-18 12:39:53 PM  

lennavan: draypresct: Nothing (except bacterial evolution, dammit) in nature happens at the speed humans can introduce changeViruses are quicker. The flu virus mutates quickly enabling it to evade vaccinated immune systems, which is why we have to get another flu shot every year. HIV mutates even faster, we'd have to get vaccinated daily to keep up with its mutation rate.


True. Thanks for the correction.

lennavan: draypresct: I'm not advocating relaxing the current standards on GMOs; however, the concept that we should get rid of GMOs (and only GMOs) because of their potential dangers seems to be a plan that would hurt a lot of people just to benefit the finances of Monsanto's business competitors.
I'm not arguing we should get rid of GMOs. People, yourself here included, seem to be arguing "these things happen naturally, so it's no big deal." By your definition of natural, everything is natural. You take a bunch of natural chemicals, put them together using natural processes and poof you get a natural product like Styrofoam. It's not natural, we are exploiting a natural process for non-natural purposes. I get it, you want to argue it's natural to take away the scariness. You and I can go beyond that, I'm not afraid of it -- I have made dozens of GMOs myself. But there's no way in hell the process or the end result is natural.
Google Alba the GFP bunny. I can explain to you using only natural processes how it is possible GFP might be transferred from jellyfish to bunnies. There's no farking way you're going to tell me a GFP bunny is natural.


I think we're both coming to this from discussions with different focuses. I'm used to arguing with people who are pushing for the banning of GMOs, which you weren't doing, so that part of my post was irrelevant to the topic we were discussing.

I'm also certainly not arguing that GMOs are "natural therefore safe" (neither of which is true). I'm arguing that, under the current level of scrutiny, GMOs that pass the testing process are (probably) safer than a number of other agricultural products that are not tested, including some products produced by hybridization, induced mutation, and yes, even artificial selection. Each of these methods are completely unnatural and can produce harmful effects (cyanide grass, anyone?), but we as a society have decided that these risks are generally low enough to live with.
 
2014-03-18 12:44:18 PM  
Oh noes! Ag-science is kicked al the way back to ... 1995!!1!

Get a grip.
 
2014-03-18 12:45:03 PM  

draypresct: khyberkitsune: Jim_Callahan: Nutritionally speaking, GM food is typically healthier than non-GM food, that's one of the two things that it's usually modified for.

50 years of USDA study says you're wrong, and our food nutritional content is actually dropping.

Journal of the American College of Nutrition, Changes in USDA Food Composition Data for 43 Garden Crops, 1950 to 1999,Vol. 23, No. 6, 669-682 (2004). - Actual Source

http://www.riordanclinic.org/research/articles/89024122_pub.pdf  - source link

But hey, I just happen to do this kind of stuff for a living, what do you do?

This study looked at two time points: 1950 and 1999.

Because you do this for a living, you're aware that the FDA only passed the nutrition labeling and education act in 1990, right? This act standardized the reporting of nutritional panel information.

Now, before standardization, if you're marketing a food, would you A) report all nutritional information, including the nutritional areas your food is low in, or B) report the nutritional information that makes your food look good?

Non-reporting bias . . . it's what's for dinner.


Way to move your goalposts around by moving away from the subject. To quote the study:

Conclusions:
We suggest that any real declines are generally most easily explained by changes in cultivated
varieties between 1950 and 1999, in which there may be trade-offs between yield and nutrient content


Plenty of GMO been around since the dawn of agriculture. Even selective breeding for phenotype is genetic modification.
 
2014-03-18 12:50:42 PM  

AlanSmithee: Carn: Yes, which is why organic farming utilizes composting and replenishing the soil with healthy organic material, not just the nutrients that are used by the plants but microbes, worms and other living things

What's the connection to GMOs? Composting can be used regardless of the type of crop.  Or have we moved the goalpost to criticizing large-scale agriculture?


Connection to GMOs?  I've been talking in more general terms in this thread but specifically regarding GMOs I've been thinking about corn.  Is there any large scale farm producer in the US that does not grow GMO corn?   These guys say roughly 88% of corn is GMO.  You might choose to dismiss them because they're probably a bunch of dirty hippies but there it is. Roundup corn specifically strikes me as one of the worst ideas come up with in modern agriculture.
 
2014-03-18 12:50:53 PM  

lennavan: What evidence do you have that nutrition declined after that?


Oh, plenty. Which would you prefer? A direct tour through my research facility where we can grow plants WITH ZERO LIGHT and still get better nutritional quality versus the same crop under light using regular conditions? Perhaps you'd like a lab test results page where our non-GMO lettuce generally held higher nutrient quality versus the Guideline GMO of the same variety when grown under the same conditions? Yea let's post that one first.

http://imgur.com/868kcVj

Hmm, what else should I bring out?

lennavan: Oh my dear lord. Don't show your employer this thread.


Guess who provided that nutritional content image out of our records (that I don't have access to) just for this thread?

My direct boss, and investor.
 
2014-03-18 12:52:55 PM  

draypresct: I'm also certainly not arguing that GMOs are "natural therefore safe" (neither of which is true). I'm arguing that, under the current level of scrutiny, GMOs that pass the testing process are (probably) safer than a number of other agricultural products that are not tested, including some products produced by hybridization, induced mutation, and yes, even artificial selection. Each of these methods are completely unnatural and can produce harmful effects (cyanide grass, anyone?), but we as a society have decided that these risks are generally low enough to live with.


Sure but that focus seems mostly on humans in the short term.  With appropriate testing, I'm perfectly fine with the safety of GMOs.  I'm more worried about the effects on nature in the long term.  Here, in the article, a worm evolved to eat a toxin.  What happens to the organism that eats the worm?  What happens if this gene escapes from the corn population through any number of mechanisms and gets into other plants?

If this had happened naturally, we'd start with a single stalk of corn expressing the toxin to resist the worm.  The corn would slowly grow in numbers, while the worms slowly become resistant, so whatever eats them slowly adapts and so on.  But with GMOs, instead in evolutionary timescales, it's pretty much just "poof" all corn expresses the toxin.  Then "poof" worms become resistant.  Worms can adapt that quickly because they have short lifespans and large numbers of babies.  But as you move up the food chain, eventually you'll hit an organism that can't adapt that quickly and may go extinct.  An alternative possibility is the worms may have become resistant by evolving an enzyme that can metabolize the toxin.  What happens when that metabolite works it way up the food chain to our dinner plates, much like mercury does?

That's the message that needs to get out to these assholes:

But the scientists' own recommendations - an advisory panel convened in 2002 by the EPA suggested that a full 50 percent of each corn farmer's fields be devoted to these non-Bt refuges - were resisted by seed companies and eventually the EPA itself, which set voluntary refuge guidelines at between 5 and 20 percent. Many farmers didn't even follow those recommendations
 
2014-03-18 12:59:16 PM  

Deathfrogg: Except that the toxins those GMO plants produce kill as many beneficial insects as harmful ones. Not to mention the fact that engineering plants to produce the same toxins used to clear the forests in Vietnam during the 1960s really doesn't seem like a good idea, considering the health effects that are still being seen more than thirty years after the fact. Children are still being born with massive birth defects, and people are still getting a hundred different types of cancers they weren't getting before the American War there.



If it's eating the corn crop, it isn't a beneficial insect.
Bt-toxin has absolutely nothing to do with any kind of defoliant, or the dioxin contaminants in the defoliants that caused all those health problems.

Bt-toxin has been used in spray-on pesticides since the 1920s, and is still in use today. As a matter of fact, the Bt-toxin is used on organic farms.
 
2014-03-18 01:02:48 PM  
khyberkitsune:  Draypresct:
This study looked at two time points: 1950 and 1999.
Because you do this for a living, you're aware that the FDA only passed the nutrition labeling and education act in 1990, right?
This act standardized the reporting of nutritional panel information. Now, before standardization, if you're marketing a food, would you A) report all nutritional information, including the nutritional areas your food is low in, or B) report the nutritional information that makes your food look good?
Non-reporting bias . . . it's what's for dinner.

Way to move your goalposts around by moving away from the subject. To quote the study: Conclusions: We suggest that any real declines are generally most easily explained by changes in cultivated varieties between 1950 and 1999, in which there may be trade-offs between yield and nutrient content
Plenty of GMO been around since the dawn of agriculture. Even selective breeding for phenotype is genetic modification.


Your response (and the study you quote) did not address the issue with non-reporting bias in early (pre-standardization) nutritional labels. Did you not read my post, or do you need to review some  basic statistical concepts?
 
2014-03-18 01:10:58 PM  

khyberkitsune: lennavan: What evidence do you have that nutrition declined after that?

Oh, plenty.

  But you're right, the evidence I posted previously had fark all to do with GMO nutrition because you were right, it only went up to 1999 and GMOs intended to improve nutrition were not created until 2000Do you mind if I replace that evidence with new evidence and pretend it never happened?

Hey, I won't tell anyone.  I doubt anyone will notice.

khyberkitsune: Perhaps you'd like a lab test results page where our non-GMO lettuce generally held higher nutrient quality versus the Guideline GMO of the same variety when grown under the same conditions? Yea let's post that one first


Your nutrient analysis only focuses on elements and only some of them.  I see that your lettuce has more Nitrogen, Potassium and Phosphorous.  The only real way to get Nitrogen, Potassium or Phosphorous deficiency is by not eating anything.  Alternatively, chronic alcoholics have issues with phosphorous.  So congrats, you have a form of lettuce that might help chronic alcoholics?

From a purely business standpoint, you might not want to use this example as evidence ever again.
 
2014-03-18 01:20:41 PM  
Old news is old.

Stupid farking corn speculators.

Goddamnit so much.
 
2014-03-18 01:20:57 PM  

AntonChigger: Wow, this thread is doing a great job of drawing out the anti-GMO idiots.  Genetically engineered crops are one of the most significant scientific advances of the last couple decades (aside from the genetic selection that was performed for thousands of years before we understood genetics). No advancement is going to be without its problems, but you would be a fool to deny the benefit that GM foods bring to humanity.

/Monsanto sucks, but their products do not


Bolded for truth
 
2014-03-18 01:22:43 PM  

Ned Stark: Nothing wrong with genetically modified crops.

We should probably stop buying them from lex luthor though.


This.

The original patent on Roundup Ready soy expires next year or so, so expect to see generic Roundup Ready soybeans flood the market, taking a big wet bite out of Monsanto's profits.
 
2014-03-18 01:24:47 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Peki: We're genetically engineering ourselves into a famine,

Not really.  We're very, very easily staying ahead of actual reductions in output, the only potential thing we're in danger of falling short of is keeping up with increased demand.

So... go convince people to stop having more than one child per capita for us, will ya?

demaL-demaL-yeH: I know: Let's widely plant these GMOs without adequate testing, contaminate natural strains of crops so there's no heirloom stock left to save our butts, and then sue the organic farmers into bankruptcy for stealing our shiat.

1. There are 0 verified cases of cross contamination.  Not "almost zero", not "we project basically zero".  Literally not a single plant that has been planted with GM seed has expressed a modified gene without us intentionally setting it up to in the entire history of modern agriculture.

If you're going to base policy on shiat that only exists in your imagination, make sure you include some sort of regulatory framework so I don't accidentally run people over with my rainbow-pooping flying unicorn.

2. GM may potentially become less viable to some extent a few centuries in the future.  Organic farming literally is not even slightly viable  already, switching to organics would starve 80% of the world to death within a month if you go with the  forgiving estimate of comparative crop yields, more like 90% if you consider reduced calorie content by mass.

Farkage: This is exactly why GMO shiat should be outlawed.  The things (bugs, worms, etc) that they are developing it for will become resistant to it, because that's what evolution does over multiple generations.  In the meantime, we are eating this crap without it actually being proven to be 100% safe because reasons.But, you know, as long as Monsanto is making lots of money...

Nutritionally speaking, GM food is typically healthier than non-GM food, that's one of the two things that it's usually modified for.  Further, GM food has actually been teste ...


Then please explain how the world rice supply got contaminated. They also mention that this has occurred with wheat and flax as well.

GMO is the future, whether we like it or not, it is pretty much the only way we will be able to feed ourselves, in aggregate. However, we need to do a lot more to test it long term effects across populations, as allergenic and carcinogenic effects can be brought about from the new chemical markers and proteins expressed, both intentionally and unintentionally in the food.
 
2014-03-18 01:24:58 PM  

lennavan: Sure but that focus seems mostly on humans in the short term. With appropriate testing, I'm perfectly fine with the safety of GMOs. I'm more worried about the effects on nature in the long term. Here, in the article, a worm evolved to eat a toxin. What happens to the organism that eats the worm? What happens if this gene escapes from the corn population through any number of mechanisms and gets into other plants?
If this had happened naturally, we'd start with a single stalk of corn expressing the toxin to resist the worm. The corn would slowly grow in numbers, while the worms slowly become resistant, so whatever eats them slowly adapts and so on. But with GMOs, instead in evolutionary timescales, it's pretty much just "poof" all corn expresses the toxin. Then "poof" worms become resistant. Worms can adapt that quickly because they have short lifespans and large numbers of babies. But as you move up the food chain, eventually you'll hit an organism that can't adapt that quickly and may go extinct. An alternative possibility is the worms may have become resistant by evolving an enzyme that can metabolize the toxin. What happens when that metabolite works it way up the food chain to our dinner plates, much like mercury does?
That's the message that needs to get out to these assholes:But the scientists' own recommendations - an advisory panel convened in 2002 by the EPA suggested that ...


You raise an interesting point. Sounds like a tragedy of the commons situation. Is there an economist in the house who could fix this?
 
2014-03-18 01:25:10 PM  

draypresct: khyberkitsune:  Draypresct:
This study looked at two time points: 1950 and 1999.
Because you do this for a living, you're aware that the FDA only passed the nutrition labeling and education act in 1990, right?
This act standardized the reporting of nutritional panel information. Now, before standardization, if you're marketing a food, would you A) report all nutritional information, including the nutritional areas your food is low in, or B) report the nutritional information that makes your food look good?
Non-reporting bias . . . it's what's for dinner.

Way to move your goalposts around by moving away from the subject. To quote the study: Conclusions: We suggest that any real declines are generally most easily explained by changes in cultivated varieties between 1950 and 1999, in which there may be trade-offs between yield and nutrient content
Plenty of GMO been around since the dawn of agriculture. Even selective breeding for phenotype is genetic modification.

Your response (and the study you quote) did not address the issue with non-reporting bias in early (pre-standardization) nutritional labels. Did you not read my post, or do you need to review some  basic statistical concepts?


Are you totally incompetent at understanding scientific studies?

Seems so. Statistics is crap for the most part, and is a soft science for most.

50 years ahead of everyone else is my current place. I have zero-light tech for growing plants with far, FAR better nutritional content versus other similar systems

Best part, most GMOs wont work with my zero-light production system. The genetic modifications done for any increase in yield get negated by a lowered ability to absorb non-photonic energy (as many plants have been demonstrated to utilize. In fact, despite a study done overseas on wifi radiation affecting germination growth rates, many species of plant thrive in such conditions, preferring that radiation to just pure natural light.)

Silly fools, focusing only on visible and far-range light.
 
2014-03-18 01:31:22 PM  

MechTard: Jim_Callahan: Peki: We're genetically engineering ourselves into a famine,

Not really.  We're very, very easily staying ahead of actual reductions in output, the only potential thing we're in danger of falling short of is keeping up with increased demand.

So... go convince people to stop having more than one child per capita for us, will ya?

demaL-demaL-yeH: I know: Let's widely plant these GMOs without adequate testing, contaminate natural strains of crops so there's no heirloom stock left to save our butts, and then sue the organic farmers into bankruptcy for stealing our shiat.

1. There are 0 verified cases of cross contamination.  Not "almost zero", not "we project basically zero".  Literally not a single plant that has been planted with GM seed has expressed a modified gene without us intentionally setting it up to in the entire history of modern agriculture.

If you're going to base policy on shiat that only exists in your imagination, make sure you include some sort of regulatory framework so I don't accidentally run people over with my rainbow-pooping flying unicorn.

2. GM may potentially become less viable to some extent a few centuries in the future.  Organic farming literally is not even slightly viable  already, switching to organics would starve 80% of the world to death within a month if you go with the  forgiving estimate of comparative crop yields, more like 90% if you consider reduced calorie content by mass.

Farkage: This is exactly why GMO shiat should be outlawed.  The things (bugs, worms, etc) that they are developing it for will become resistant to it, because that's what evolution does over multiple generations.  In the meantime, we are eating this crap without it actually being proven to be 100% safe because reasons.But, you know, as long as Monsanto is making lots of money...

Nutritionally speaking, GM food is typically healthier than non-GM food, that's one of the two things that it's usually modified for.  Further, GM food has actua ...


He also neglects to mention they have seen GM canola cross with wild radishes.  The wild radish/gm cross was quickly out competed though by non gm wild radish, because the genes that we selected for during domestication are really shiatty for surviving in the wild.

Also GM food is safe, and in most cases has been tested more thoroughly than our existing crops, because everyone just assumes the existing stuff was ok to eat since we've been eating it forever.
 
2014-03-18 01:31:25 PM  

khyberkitsune: Seems so. Statistics is crap for the most part, and is a soft science for most.

50 years ahead of everyone else is my current place. I have zero-light tech for growing plants with far, FAR better nutritional content versus other similar systems


How do you know, without using statistics?

Discuss your experimental setup with a professional statistician, and ask them to look at your data. 


/Re: understanding scientific studies: Read the Wikipedia article on response bias. Then re-read my responses.
 
2014-03-18 01:38:41 PM  

khyberkitsune: draypresct: khyberkitsune:  Draypresct:
This study looked at two time points: 1950 and 1999.
Because you do this for a living, you're aware that the FDA only passed the nutrition labeling and education act in 1990, right?
This act standardized the reporting of nutritional panel information. Now, before standardization, if you're marketing a food, would you A) report all nutritional information, including the nutritional areas your food is low in, or B) report the nutritional information that makes your food look good?
Non-reporting bias . . . it's what's for dinner.

Way to move your goalposts around by moving away from the subject. To quote the study: Conclusions: We suggest that any real declines are generally most easily explained by changes in cultivated varieties between 1950 and 1999, in which there may be trade-offs between yield and nutrient content
Plenty of GMO been around since the dawn of agriculture. Even selective breeding for phenotype is genetic modification.

Your response (and the study you quote) did not address the issue with non-reporting bias in early (pre-standardization) nutritional labels. Did you not read my post, or do you need to review some  basic statistical concepts?

Are you totally incompetent at understanding scientific studies?

Seems so. Statistics is crap for the most part, and is a soft science for most.

50 years ahead of everyone else is my current place. I have zero-light tech for growing plants with far, FAR better nutritional content versus other similar systems

Best part, most GMOs wont work with my zero-light production system. The genetic modifications done for any increase in yield get negated by a lowered ability to absorb non-photonic energy (as many plants have been demonstrated to utilize. In fact, despite a study done overseas on wifi radiation affecting germination growth rates, many species of plant thrive in such conditions, preferring that radiation to just pure natural light.)

Silly fools, focusing only on v ...


WTF are you even talking about? I can't even tell if you are pro GMO or not. It sounds like not, but you work for an ag company producing.. something that has not been explained.

Are you trying to tell me you have a non-GMO crop that grows without sunlight? Aside from mushrooms? Because that image seems to be for a lettuce leaf, but I can't really see how you would grow a leafy green without any form of input radiation. I could see growing some plants using solely energy found in the soil, but that is some crazy fertilizer.
 
2014-03-18 01:39:43 PM  

draypresct: Read the Wikipedia article on response bias. Then re-read my responses.


WIKI = What I Know Is. LMFAO. Wikipedia is at least a decade behind current research.

Wales is too busy whoring himself to vested interests to keep his site afloat. That's pretty much proven in the political areas of his site.

Your source is shiat, son. Gimme real sources from real vetted science communities.

Oh, you can't, because it seems you're that ignorant.

Here, lemme start with debunking LED red:blue bullshiat.

http://pcp.oxfordjournals.org/content/50/4/684.full

Go the hell home you fake scientist. You don't even know what the fark you're talking about.
 
2014-03-18 01:41:13 PM  

khyberkitsune: Are you totally incompetent at understanding scientific studies?

Seems so. Statistics is crap for the most part, and is a soft science for most.


Aw fark me.  You were farking with us all along.  Goddamn I was hooked good.  Where the hell did you get that lettuce nutrition thing, that one really sold me that you were being serious.

Take notes people, this is how you do it.
 
2014-03-18 01:42:32 PM  

Sid_6.7: So, call Muad'Dib?


The worm IS the corn.  The corn IS the worm!
 
2014-03-18 01:48:43 PM  

ciberido: Sid_6.7: So, call Muad'Dib?

The worm IS the corn.  The corn IS the worm!


A lot of people would do better if they remembered that "Fear is the mind killer".

//Please for the love of all that is good in this world, do not make decisions based on and in fear.
 
2014-03-18 01:49:20 PM  

MechTard: I can't even tell if you are pro GMO or not.


Sounds like you need to quit focusing on science until you understand the actual terms, then.

lennavan: Where the hell did you get that lettuce nutrition thing, that one really sold me that you were being serious.


You don't understand, do you? That's a real study.

http://imgur.com/etdVie3

One I was directly involved in. There's your photo proof (back when I had hippie hair.)

Oh, wait, need more?

http://imgur.com/1LOWJFa

Oh, wait, need more?

http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=14ujcqc&s=5

Oh, wait, you still need even more proof?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZTikdxj8AI  - Hey we're on the BBC, which tends to do REAL fact checking!

Wait, need even yet MORE PROOF?

http://imgur.com/9hMyoK4

There's me getting my happy ass into suit for building the LED and non-LED side of things, as I'm the head EE and biology major of the group.

Wait, need even more proof?

http://imgur.com/QzdqG0c

Hey, look, there's Adam Jensen from BBC Countryfile, in my facility making a video! Picture taken from my remote monitoring robot.

What were you saying again? Looks like I just nailed you to the cross harder than Jesus might have advocated for those being crucified.
 
2014-03-18 01:50:43 PM  

lennavan: khyberkitsune: Are you totally incompetent at understanding scientific studies?

Seems so. Statistics is crap for the most part, and is a soft science for most.

Aw fark me.  You were farking with us all along.  Goddamn I was hooked good.  Where the hell did you get that lettuce nutrition thing, that one really sold me that you were being serious.

Take notes people, this is how you do it.


I don't know . . . Is there a Poe's law equivalent on pure scientific ignorance?

khyberkitsune: draypresct: Read the Wikipedia article on response bias. Then re-read my responses.
WIKI = What I Know Is. LMFAO. Wikipedia is at least a decade behind current research.


Never mind.

/In case anyone is curious, response bias is a basic concept in statistics. Claiming Wikipedia is a decade behind the definition of this concept is like claiming Wikipedia is a decade behind current research into the number three.
 
2014-03-18 01:58:12 PM  

khyberkitsune: You don't understand, do you? That's a real study.http://imgur.com/etdVie3One I was directly involved in. There's your photo proof (back when I had hippie hair.)Oh, wait, need more?


What, no pictures of your Canadian girlfriend?

/Hint: Real scientists use basic statistical concepts. Real scientists also read, understand, and publish papers in peer-review journals.
 
2014-03-18 02:03:05 PM  

draypresct: khyberkitsune: You don't understand, do you? That's a real study.http://imgur.com/etdVie3One I was directly involved in. There's your photo proof (back when I had hippie hair.)Oh, wait, need more?

What, no pictures of your Canadian girlfriend?

/Hint: Real scientists use basic statistical concepts. Real scientists also read, understand, and publish papers in peer-review journals.


I am kinda curious what he's attempting to do, because that looks a hell of a lot more energy intensive and expensive then planting a seed in the ground and letting nature do its work.
 
2014-03-18 02:04:37 PM  

draypresct: Real scientists also read, understand, and publish papers in peer-review journals.


Doesn't understand that many peer-reviewed journals are biased as hell.

Only twenty or so non-biased and capable-of-testing journals exist.

Not one of them can prove or disprove my results, and they've tried.

Because they're 50 years behind.

Learn about electronic optics with regards to biological mechanisms.

/ladies and gnetlemen, you can tell this fool has not even a bachelor's degree in science of any sort.
 
2014-03-18 02:05:11 PM  

MechTard: Are you trying to tell me you have a non-GMO crop that grows without sunlight? Aside from mushrooms?


Asparagus
 
2014-03-18 02:11:43 PM  

Saiga410: MechTard: Are you trying to tell me you have a non-GMO crop that grows without sunlight? Aside from mushrooms?

Asparagus


Farkin' ditch weed. Had to mow that stinky crap every farking day in the spring. Never understood its appeal.
 
2014-03-18 02:12:32 PM  

khyberkitsune: 50 years ahead of everyone else is my current place. I have zero-light tech for growing plants with far, FAR better nutritional content versus other similar systems.


This is a giant farking lie.
 
2014-03-18 02:12:44 PM  

meat0918: draypresct: khyberkitsune: You don't understand, do you? That's a real study.http://imgur.com/etdVie3One I was directly involved in. There's your photo proof (back when I had hippie hair.)Oh, wait, need more?

What, no pictures of your Canadian girlfriend?

/Hint: Real scientists use basic statistical concepts. Real scientists also read, understand, and publish papers in peer-review journals.

I am kinda curious what he's attempting to do, because that looks a hell of a lot more energy intensive and expensive then planting a seed in the ground and letting nature do its work.


It looks like a research greenhouse. They might have the plants indoors to keep the specific line from interbreeding with an outside strain. It's clear this wouldn't be the setup used for production.

It could be anything - trying to breed a specific type of resistance, trying to test a new fertilizer, etc.

/Someone tell the PI that the gardener is posting pictures of the research facility on Fark.
 
2014-03-18 02:13:01 PM  

meat0918: I am kinda curious what he's attempting to do, because that looks a hell of a lot more energy intensive and expensive then planting a seed in the ground and letting nature do its work.


Plants are only roughly 5-10% efficient in conversion of light to biomatter.

I've done better simulating the effects via direct electrochemical stimulation.

Which is why you see the grass growing in my links all nice and green, instead of sickly yellow like other 'zero-light' technologies. We get about 30% efficiency. And with the LED testing we're doing, we're hitting that 10% mark and pushing it some by directly targeting actual lighting systems per wavelength. Look at a plant like a solar-electrical system, but change solid state parts for organic ones.

Chlorophyll = capacitors, right down to the pile stack design.
Caps need proper voltage to work.
Biological responses require a certain eV to work.
Certain plant functions require certain eVs to work, overall.

Real science. Just like people say with LED "No green light needed!" except green light has higher quantum efficiency as shown in - http://pcp.oxfordjournals.org/content/50/4/684.full

Back to school for most of you.
 
2014-03-18 02:13:40 PM  

Saiga410: MechTard: Are you trying to tell me you have a non-GMO crop that grows without sunlight? Aside from mushrooms?

Asparagus


Asparagus look like the earth has a multitude of erections.

livethelive.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-03-18 02:16:11 PM  

give me doughnuts: khyberkitsune: 50 years ahead of everyone else is my current place. I have zero-light tech for growing plants with far, FAR better nutritional content versus other similar systems.

This is a giant farking lie.


Agreed. khyberkitsune tried to imitate a scientist on-line. He doesn't seem to understand that movie scientist dialogue isn't going to fool anyone.

It's too bad. If he'd tried reading & discussing the topic, he might have learned something.
 
2014-03-18 02:16:38 PM  

khyberkitsune: meat0918: I am kinda curious what he's attempting to do, because that looks a hell of a lot more energy intensive and expensive then planting a seed in the ground and letting nature do its work.

Plants are only roughly 5-10% efficient in conversion of light to biomatter.

I've done better simulating the effects via direct electrochemical stimulation.

Which is why you see the grass growing in my links all nice and green, instead of sickly yellow like other 'zero-light' technologies. We get about 30% efficiency. And with the LED testing we're doing, we're hitting that 10% mark and pushing it some by directly targeting actual lighting systems per wavelength. Look at a plant like a solar-electrical system, but change solid state parts for organic ones.

Chlorophyll = capacitors, right down to the pile stack design.
Caps need proper voltage to work.
Biological responses require a certain eV to work.
Certain plant functions require certain eVs to work, overall.

Real science. Just like people say with LED "No green light needed!" except green light has higher quantum efficiency as shown in - http://pcp.oxfordjournals.org/content/50/4/684.full

Back to school for most of you.


It still looks hella energy intensive and costly

Will it be viable for mass production of inexpensive fresh produce, i.e. cheaper than current methods of cultivation?
 
2014-03-18 02:18:03 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Saiga410: MechTard: Are you trying to tell me you have a non-GMO crop that grows without sunlight? Aside from mushrooms?

Asparagus

Farkin' ditch weed. Had to mow that stinky crap every farking day in the spring. Never understood its appeal.


Drench it in olive oil.  Place on grill, blacken the edges some.   Add salt. Soooo Good.
 
2014-03-18 02:18:09 PM  

khyberkitsune: You don't understand, do you? That's a real study.


That's not a study.  That's an analysis on a single leaf of lettuce.  Read your "Please Note" section at the bottom of it.  I don't think you understand, I jokingly suggested you were trolling.  The reason I jokingly suggested that was because the alternative is you actually believe the things you post.

khyberkitsune: many peer-reviewed journals are biased as hell.
Only twenty or so non-biased and capable-of-testing journals exist.


khyberkitsune: Statistics is crap for the most part, and is a soft science for most.


I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess those "biased as hell" journals didn't publish your results because you didn't do statistical analysis on them.  But you don't need statistics, that's a "soft science" amirite?
 
2014-03-18 02:18:13 PM  

meat0918: It still looks hella energy intensive and costly

Will it be viable for mass production of inexpensive fresh produce, i.e. cheaper than current methods of cultivation?


*sees what you did there*

/"Cheaper than dirt" indeed.
 
2014-03-18 02:19:08 PM  

Saiga410: demaL-demaL-yeH: Saiga410: MechTard: Are you trying to tell me you have a non-GMO crop that grows without sunlight? Aside from mushrooms?

Asparagus

Farkin' ditch weed. Had to mow that stinky crap every farking day in the spring. Never understood its appeal.

Drench it in olive oil.  Place on grill, blacken the edges some.   Add salt. Soooo Good.


Nasty weed. Makes people smell nasty, too.
 
2014-03-18 02:22:03 PM  

give me doughnuts: This is a giant farking lie.


Yea, which is why the BBC came in, took samples before the show, proved us right, and decided to do a show on us.

Keep trying and digging.

draypresct: /Someone tell the PI that the gardener is posting pictures of the research facility on Fark.


Too bad the PI is giving the information to me to post on Fark. He's already aware.

draypresct: If he'd tried reading & discussing the topic, he might have learned something.


I already did. It's you idiots trying to derail the conversation.
Learn to follow conversation.

meat0918: It still looks hella energy intensive and costly

Will it be viable for mass production of inexpensive fresh produce, i.e. cheaper than current methods of cultivation?


It's less costly versus any traditional land/outdoor grow, also more efficient. We can harvest the sun energy in a given area, convert to red/blue/green light of specific avelengths, and make it work, or we can emulate said wavelengths by making wavepulses of extremely high electron-voltages through the nutrient medium, and with roughly 200% higher efficiency get the same results in 7 days versus 14, with equivalent nutritional content with half the biomass. We also utilize 90% less water and nearly 70% less in nutrients.
Payback time: 6 months. Everyone else: 5 years.
 
2014-03-18 02:22:11 PM  

khyberkitsune: Plants are only roughly 5-10% efficient in conversion of light to biomatter.


Plants convert light (energy) to biomatter? Let's see . . . E = mc^2 . . . the amount of biomatter produced should be just about a single electron over the lifespan of a tree.

Actually, plants convert light energy into chemical energy. They don't convert light into matter. They obtain matter from the air (carbon) and the ground.

Please stop pretending to be a scientist.
 
2014-03-18 02:29:50 PM  

khyberkitsune: give me doughnuts: This is a giant farking lie.

Yea, which is why the BBC came in, took samples before the show, proved us right, and decided to do a show on us.

Keep trying and digging.



There's a show on TV called "Ancient Aliens." It's about as legit as your claims of growing plants without any source of light.
 
2014-03-18 02:30:29 PM  

lennavan: That's an analysis on a single leaf of lettuce


Try analysis on a full kilogram of leaf lettuce.

lennavan: The reason I jokingly suggested that was because the alternative is you actually believe the things you post.


Yet I've got the proof before you in photos and video, yet you still refuse to believe. Yay cognitive dissonance.

draypresct: Plants convert light (energy) to biomatter?


Uh, yea. Plants are photosynthetic systems. Do you not understand this? In general, without light they're useless. But we have systems that can emulate light and still make the plants grow. My BBC video shows this. Why do you ignore real science? The BBC isn't known for following bullshiat science and is in fact known for fact checking.

draypresct: Let's see . . . E = mc^2


That's the argument I use against idiots in weed forums saying "One gram per watt!" Uh, no, it's grams per kilowatt-hour, because any gram of matter has more than a watt of energy invested in it. And if you wanna get picky, I can convert from kWh to micromole if you give me the LED types you're using.

Keep digging, man.

draypresct: Actually, plants convert light energy into chemical energy.


It's like you totally forgot about thermodynamics.

draypresct: They don't convert light into matter. They obtain matter from the air (carbon) and the ground.


Yep, you forgot about thermodynamics. Energy = mass = matter. Without the light, there's no energy source to convert from nor obtain and fix matter to.

Still waiting for you to beat horticultural knowledge taught in high school since 1996. We had one of the best programs in the entire country.
 
2014-03-18 02:32:32 PM  

khyberkitsune: Yea, which is why the BBC came in, took samples before the show, proved us right, and decided to do a show on us.

Keep trying and digging.

draypresct: /Someone tell the PI that the gardener is posting pictures of the research facility on Fark.

Too bad the PI is giving the information to me to post on Fark. He's already aware.


Let's be clear, thus far your "proof" is pictures and a video of you growing stuff.  You have conclusively demonstrated that you are a gardener.  People here are questioning the validity of your scientific claims.  To prove that, you should cite your own published studies so we can see the data actually backing up your claims.  A picture of you smiling next to some green shiat doesn't prove you can grow plants without any light whatsoever.
 
2014-03-18 02:36:29 PM  

khyberkitsune: lennavan: That's an analysis on a single leaf of lettuce

Try analysis on a full kilogram of leaf lettuce.


Read the disclaimer on your own goddamn form dude.  It's not a study.

khyberkitsune: Yet I've got the proof before you in photos and video


You have photos of you next to plants.  I believe that you garden plants.

khyberkitsune: My BBC video shows this. Why do you ignore real science?


BBC is not science.  Post your peer-reviewed published scientific study with your results.
 
2014-03-18 02:38:27 PM  

lennavan: thus far your "proof" is pictures and a video of you growing stuff.


And have you done anything similar to disprove? No? Then you aren't even qualified to contest.

My studies stand and nobody is challenging them because they're rock solid without bias. My goal is to prove every biased idiot wrong, and my studies do so.

Everyone says "This light is needed!" "No, THIS light is needed!"

No, no light is needed you ignorant farks. Pay attention to physics and learn how analogue systems work like digital ones.

Like the navy analog gear-driven aiming devices for 50+mm shells that could land within 50 meters of a target (of which those targets were far larger than that, and could easily sustain damage, granted, but from 30 miles away? Yea, real science, not your proposed 'wind projections' like you ballistical idiots claim on forums.)
 
2014-03-18 02:40:23 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Peki: We're genetically engineering ourselves into a famine,

Not really.  We're very, very easily staying ahead of actual reductions in output, the only potential thing we're in danger of falling short of is keeping up with increased demand.

So... go convince people to stop having more than one child per capita for us, will ya?


The best way to get women to have fewer children is to simply educate them.  If overpopulation is your concern, then your top priority should be to provide girls and young women with a complete education.
 
2014-03-18 02:41:19 PM  

khyberkitsune: It's less costly versus any traditional land/outdoor grow, also more efficient. We can harvest the sun energy in a given area, convert to red/blue/green light of specific avelengths, and make it work, or we can emulate said wavelengths by making wavepulses of extremely high electron-voltages through the nutrient medium, and with roughly 200% higher efficiency get the same results in 7 days versus 14, with equivalent nutritional content with half the biomass. We also utilize 90% less water and nearly 70% less in nutrients.
Payback time: 6 months. Everyone else: 5 years.


Sounds magical.

Post your peer reviewed science, please.

Thanks in advance.

Otherwise, I'll just chalk you up as another in a long line of "Green" snake oil salesman.
 
2014-03-18 02:41:32 PM  

khyberkitsune: lennavan: thus far your "proof" is pictures and a video of you growing stuff.

And have you done anything similar to disprove? No? Then you aren't even qualified to contest.

My studies stand and nobody is challenging them because they're rock solid without bias. My goal is to prove every biased idiot wrong, and my studies do so.

Everyone says "This light is needed!" "No, THIS light is needed!"

No, no light is needed you ignorant farks. Pay attention to physics and learn how analogue systems work like digital ones.

Like the navy analog gear-driven aiming devices for 50+mm shells that could land within 50 meters of a target (of which those targets were far larger than that, and could easily sustain damage, granted, but from 30 miles away? Yea, real science, not your proposed 'wind projections' like you ballistical idiots claim on forums.)


YOU ARE FULL OF shiat

 
2014-03-18 02:42:56 PM  

lennavan: Read the disclaimer on your own goddamn form dude. It's not a study.


For them, no. It is not. For us, who can understand the results, yes, for our company it is a true study with a backing hypothesis and a backing conclusion from those results. They disavow because they were not included in the results except as a reference for testing.

It's like you don't know how international testing works.

We tested against other countries claiming better values. Easily proven wrong with the top nutritional claim for a specific GMO crop pretty much gets 25% lower than what we have for nutritional content on the same crop.

Hell, I have 'SuperAngryGuy' on reddit doing the same thing, getting closer than me to the same results.

And he's more of a legit scientist than me. How about you go bother him, so you an get your ass owned by someone with a Master's degree and you're just a farking pleb in comparison?
 
2014-03-18 02:45:39 PM  

khyberkitsune: My studies stand and nobody is challenging them because they're rock solid without bias


Nobody is challenging your studies because you haven't posted any of them.  You posted some pictures of you standing next to some plants dude.

khyberkitsune: My goal is to prove every biased idiot wrong, and my studies do so.


Your imaginary, non-existent studies?  Because at this point, they may as well be.
 
2014-03-18 02:46:32 PM  

khyberkitsune: lennavan: Read the disclaimer on your own goddamn form dude. It's not a study.

For them, no. It is not. For us, who can understand the results, yes, for our company it is a true study with a backing hypothesis and a backing conclusion from those results. They disavow because they were not included in the results except as a reference for testing.

It's like you don't know how international testing works.

We tested against other countries claiming better values. Easily proven wrong with the top nutritional claim for a specific GMO crop pretty much gets 25% lower than what we have for nutritional content on the same crop.

Hell, I have 'SuperAngryGuy' on reddit doing the same thing, getting closer than me to the same results.

And he's more of a legit scientist than me. How about you go bother him, so you an get your ass owned by someone with a Master's degree and you're just a farking pleb in comparison?


So you have no peer reviewed studies of your methods you can point too?

This might be appropriate to post now

The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments:

Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts
Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").
Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.
Quantify, wherever possible.
If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.
"Occam's razor" - if there are two hypothesis that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.
Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, is isttestable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?
Additional issues are
Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments where the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects.
Check for confounding factors - separate the variables.
Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric
Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
Argument from "authority".
Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).
Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).
Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).
Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)
Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").
Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.
Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).
Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
Confusion of correlation and causation.
Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack..
Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"
 
2014-03-18 02:49:21 PM  

khyberkitsune: And he's more of a legit scientist than me. How about you go bother him, so you an get your ass owned by someone with a Master's degree and you're just a farking pleb in comparison?


In Biology, a Masters Degree means you either failed out of a PhD program, or you wanted to boost your resumé to get into medical school.

khyberkitsune: For them, no. It is not. For us, who can understand the results, yes, for our company it is a true study with a backing hypothesis and a backing conclusion from those results. They disavow because they were not included in the results except as a reference for testing.


Read the "Please Note" at the bottom dude.  Pay close attention to the "and is representative only of that sample."

i.imgur.com
 
2014-03-18 02:49:54 PM  
On the off-chance that khyberkitsune has actually fooled an investor in real life into thinking he's a scientist, here's a brief summary of a few of the idiotic things he's said in just this thread:

khyberkitsune: Everything has a half-life. Soil degrades no matter what you do, it's just thermodynamics in effect.
No. Half-life is a concept in radioactive decay with applications in population research. Not everything has a half-life (iron doesn't), and thermodynamics is a different concept entirely. This is an argument taken from Creationist attempts to attack evolution. Short version of the answer: the Earth is not a closed system, so the second law of thermodynamics does not apply.

khyberkitsune: Only twenty or so non-biased and capable-of-testing journals exist.Not one of them can prove or disprove my results, and they've tried.


There are tens of thousands of journals out there. No one has done a survey determining the precise number of "non-biased" journals; it's a very difficult claim to evaluate, since there are so many possible sources of bias (publication bias is just one).
Journals don't try to disprove anything. Authors submit papers to journals. Reviewers provide feedback. The journal isn't doing independent work. khyberkitsune does not understand how scientific publishing works.

khyberkitsune: draypresct: Read the Wikipedia article on response bias. Then re-read my responses.
WIKI = What I Know Is. LMFAO. Wikipedia is at least a decade behind current research.....Your source is shiat, son. Gimme real sources from real vetted science communities.


As I indicated earlier in this thread, response bias is a basic statistical concept. While there is research into the concept, the definition is not "a decade behind current research." That's like saying that the definition of the number 3 is a decade behind current research.

Personal opinion: Anyone who does not understand response bias should not be allowed to publish in a scientific journal.

khyberkitsune: Seems so. Statistics is crap for the most part, and is a soft science for most.


Statistics is pretty much the only way an actual scientist knows he's got a result. It might be simple statistics (we compared the mean response of the two groups, and the mean response was zero in the non-intervention group and several thousand plus or minus 2 in the intervention group), but any time you're using data (e.g. any time you're doing science), you need statistics.

khyberkitsune: 50 years ahead of everyone else is my current place.


People used to project the state of science 50 years into the future back in the 30s and 40s. We've basically stopped - progress is too fast now, and things change radically. Look how recently the first internet-capable phone came out . . .

khyberkitsune: Plants are only roughly 5-10% efficient in conversion of light to biomatter.


No plant or animal converts matter to energy or vice versa. Plants convert light energy to chemical energy. This chemical energy is used by the plants to grow, incorporating matter from their environment.

khyberkitsune: Yea, which is why the BBC came in, took samples before the show, proved us right, and decided to do a show on us.


If he's given an interview on the BBC, that's nice, but the BBC is not a peer-review publication, and they do not validate scientific claims themselves. Claiming that the BBC has validated your research is as silly as claiming that a journal is trying to disprove it. If anything, the BBC has been criticized for being too inclusive of fringe theories in its science reporting.


Short version: If someone claims that the scientific journals are out to get him, but the BBC has "proved him right", and mis-uses basic scientific concepts and terms in his field, he is not a scientist. He's a con artist. Don't waste your time or money.
 
2014-03-18 02:51:03 PM  

khyberkitsune: lennavan: Read the disclaimer on your own goddamn form dude. It's not a study.

For them, no. It is not. For us, who can understand the results, yes, for our company it is a true study with a backing hypothesis and a backing conclusion from those results. They disavow because they were not included in the results except as a reference for testing.

It's like you don't know how international testing works.

We tested against other countries claiming better values. Easily proven wrong with the top nutritional claim for a specific GMO crop pretty much gets 25% lower than what we have for nutritional content on the same crop.

Hell, I have 'SuperAngryGuy' on reddit doing the same thing, getting closer than me to the same results.

And he's more of a legit scientist than me. How about you go bother him, so you an get your ass owned by someone with a Master's degree and you're just a farking pleb in comparison?


So you don't even have a master's degree and you're smearing whatever this is all over the thread?  Why don't you show us your peer-reviewed study explaining exactly what you did, what statistical analysis you did to show that your results are statistically significant, with your discussion of what you think the impact is.  Then we can have a scholarly discussion.  If you haven't done this, you have the credibility of some dude with a grow light in his basement.
 
2014-03-18 02:52:04 PM  

draypresct: Personal opinion: Anyone who does not understand response bias should not be allowed to publish in submit to a scientific journal.


FTFM
 
2014-03-18 02:52:40 PM  

Farkage: log_jammin: Farkage: Go learn how vaccines work and rethink your post mkay? Not remotely the same.

I didn't say, or imply they work the same way.

what I was saying, is that you are using the exact same fear mongering tactics used by anti-vaccers.

Farkage: Now tell me the long term health consequences of ingesting bt toxin. Show your work.
We'll wait.

as I said, anyone is free to test that. no one is forced to take Monsanto's word on their "pinky swear"

now, do you have a peer reviewed study that shows the long term health consequences of ingesting Bacillus thuringiensis? Because I never claimed to have that information, but you seem pretty sure of it, so lets have it.

No, I don't and I freely admit that. I prefer to err on the side of caution when it comes to engineering our food to become more toxic though. Glad to see you are so complacent on the issue.



As an exercise, could you try posting something that doesn't mock or belittle the person to whom you're speaking?
 
2014-03-18 02:52:48 PM  
lennavan:

In Biology, a Masters Degree means you either failed out of a PhD program, or you wanted to boost your resumé to get into medical school.

Also,  this.
 
2014-03-18 02:53:59 PM  
Evidence against kyberkitsune: Every photosynthesizing organism that has ever existed on this planet.

Evidence for khyberkitsune: bupkis
 
2014-03-18 02:55:21 PM  

khyberkitsune: draypresct: Actually, plants convert light energy into chemical energy.It's like you totally forgot about thermodynamics.draypresct: They don't convert light into matter. They obtain matter from the air (carbon) and the ground.
Yep, you forgot about thermodynamics. Energy = mass = matter. Without the light, there's no energy source to convert from nor obtain and fix matter to.


Thermodynamics =/= "E = mc^2".

Thermodynamics. Is. Not. Relativity.

When you burn a log, do you really think you're converting mass to energy?

/the stupid, it burns.
 
2014-03-18 02:57:42 PM  

lennavan: draypresct: Personal opinion: Anyone who does not understand response bias should not be allowed to publish in submit to a scientific journal.

FTFM


I personally agree with your correction (although it's easier to enforce the "not be allowed to publish" rule).
 
2014-03-18 02:57:50 PM  

meat0918: Post your peer reviewed science, please.

Thanks in advance.


BBC already proved it for us.

Any other questions, or do you have a budget that can top the BBC and was spent on disproving my article?
 
2014-03-18 02:59:16 PM  

draypresct: Thermodynamics. Is. Not. Relativity.


Umm, are you ignoring the theory of everything, which is so much closer to fruition now?

We just proved the big bang. That makes the theory of eveythign much more feasible.

Please learn your basic first year college concepts.
 
2014-03-18 02:59:56 PM  

khyberkitsune: meat0918: Post your peer reviewed science, please.

Thanks in advance.

BBC already proved it for us.

Any other questions, or do you have a budget that can top the BBC and was spent on disproving my article?


Please post where BBC states it has tested and proven your scientific claims. Just because they report a scientific claim does not mean they've gone out and proven it to be true (this would be a tad impractical).
 
2014-03-18 03:00:23 PM  

give me doughnuts: Evidence against kyberkitsune: Every photosynthesizing organism that has ever existed on this planet.

Evidence for khyberkitsune: bupkis


Ignoring true evidence and tested theories which can't be disproven yet.

Not counting these theories with evidence as truth until proven otherwise with new radical theories that make sense.

Go home, child. What are you, 13?
 
2014-03-18 03:00:33 PM  

khyberkitsune: meat0918: Post your peer reviewed science, please.

Thanks in advance.

BBC already proved it for us.

Any other questions, or do you have a budget that can top the BBC and was spent on disproving my article?


I'm cloning astro-unicorns in my basement, AND YOU CAN'T PROVE I'M NOT!
And my results are in just as many peer-reviewed scientific journals as yours.
 
2014-03-18 03:02:23 PM  

give me doughnuts: Evidence against kyberkitsune: Every photosynthesizing organism that has ever existed on this planet.

Evidence for khyberkitsune: bupkis


I'm willing to entertain the hypothesis that if you can feed a plant the energy it needs to photosynthesize, you can grow it without light.  I think it would be a novel thing to demonstrate, but as economies of scale figure in, I have my doubts if it is actually a sustainable method of agriculture.

But until he provides his methodology and how to reproduce it so others can verify, he's just a hack; and may as well said he invented a perpetual motion machine.
 
2014-03-18 03:02:48 PM  

khyberkitsune: give me doughnuts: Evidence against kyberkitsune: Every photosynthesizing organism that has ever existed on this planet.

Evidence for khyberkitsune: bupkis

Ignoring true evidence and tested theories which can't be disproven yet.

Not counting these theories with evidence as truth until proven otherwise with new radical theories that make sense.

Go home, child. What are you, 13?


Like I said: bupkis.
 
2014-03-18 03:03:36 PM  
If only there were a natural predator available. I imagine a field full of chickens could help out tremendously.
 
2014-03-18 03:03:44 PM  

khyberkitsune: meat0918: Post your peer reviewed science, please.

Thanks in advance.

BBC already proved it for us.

Any other questions, or do you have a budget that can top the BBC and was spent on disproving my article?


The BBC is not proof you've had this peer reviewed and reproduced in an independent lab.
 
2014-03-18 03:06:36 PM  

khyberkitsune: draypresct: Thermodynamics. Is. Not. Relativity.

Umm, are you ignoring the theory of everything, which is so much closer to fruition now?

We just proved the big bang. That makes the theory of eveythign much more feasible.

Please learn your basic first year college concepts.


Thermodynamics =/= relativity.
Chemical energy =/= matter.
This thread = you exposing yourself as willfully scientifically ignorant to a wide audience.
 
2014-03-18 03:09:17 PM  
At least I've got proof of the astro-unicorns:

halfriesen.com
 
2014-03-18 03:13:35 PM  

meat0918: khyberkitsune: meat0918: Post your peer reviewed science, please.

Thanks in advance.

BBC already proved it for us.

Any other questions, or do you have a budget that can top the BBC and was spent on disproving my article?

The BBC is not proof you've had this peer reviewed and reproduced in an independent lab.


Ok, I think we have two different things.

The BBC thing is fodder, and very well might be green after 7 days.  That was a pretty damn pale green.

The lettuce things...  Lettuce needs light to germinate.
 
2014-03-18 03:20:47 PM  

khyberkitsune: meat0918: Post your peer reviewed science, please.

Thanks in advance.

BBC already proved it for us.


I can't help but think there's a reason you refuse to post a published science article detailing your results and rather stick with pictures of you next to some plants and a video of the BBC looking at your facility as "proof."  I bet I know what that reason is!
 
2014-03-18 03:27:24 PM  

neversubmit: One might say the worm has turned.

The thread is full of hobby horse riders.

Of Hovercrafts and Eels.


Do you v---Do you vant to come back to my place?  Bouncy, bouncy?
 
2014-03-18 03:48:00 PM  
Yep people without degrees in horticulture talk about horticulture as if they had license to do so.

Go figure.

This is why California is currently suffering from a drought they need not suffer from. People like you make me not want to share my tech, and I know that even if I do share the tech, you 'debunk' it to your own detriment.

Good job. I don't even have to troll. You do it for yourselves.
 
2014-03-18 03:55:37 PM  

khyberkitsune: Yep people without degrees in horticulture talk about horticulture as if they had license to do so.


You actually said your degree was in biology, not horticulture.  I actually have two undergraduate Biology degrees - one in Genetics and another in Biochemistry.

khyberkitsune: This is why California is currently suffering from a drought they need not suffer from.


Your plant that doesn't require light prevents drought?  Wow, that is some amazing plant you've got there.

khyberkitsune: People like you make me not want to share my tech, and I know that even if I do share the tech, you 'debunk' it to your own detriment.


So you've got a plant that you totally say doesn't require light and also it is higher in nutrients such as Nitrogen.  Gee, I guess people will have to find another way to obtain Nitrogen in their diet, like say eating perhaps anything.
 
2014-03-18 03:57:07 PM  
And the worm turns...
 
2014-03-18 03:59:20 PM  

khyberkitsune: Yep people without degrees in horticulture talk about horticulture as if they had license to do so.

Go figure.

This is why California is currently suffering from a drought they need not suffer from. People like you make me not want to share my tech, and I know that even if I do share the tech, you 'debunk' it to your own detriment.

Good job. I don't even have to troll. You do it for yourselves.


You clearly believe in your position. Since you've already posted an outside link that identifies the company you claim to work for, why not post the full name of the company in this thread? How about the name of the specific agricultural product you're researching as well?

This way, people searching for information on your company can more easily find this thread you've so completely dominated.
 
2014-03-18 03:59:29 PM  

meat0918: The BBC thing is fodder, and very well might be green after 7 days. That was a pretty damn pale green.


Pale green? Is your monitor calibrated? That stuff was as green as the lettuce.

Other fodder systems are almost yellow-white in their product.

lennavan: I can't help but think there's a reason you refuse to post a published science article detailing your results


I posted a direct picture of lab-tested lettuce results. Are you ignoring proof or just being ignorant?
 
2014-03-18 04:00:13 PM  

khyberkitsune: People like you make me not want to share my tech,


img2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-03-18 04:05:11 PM  

lennavan: Your plant that doesn't require light prevents drought?


Yes, lower energy requirements = lower heat = lower water amounts. Depending upon crop, up to 90% less water, and up to 60% less nutrient supplementation.

lennavan: So you've got a plant that you totally say doesn't require light


You can't read. Not arguing any further with a high school failure.

draypresct: Since you've already posted an outside link that identifies the company you claim to work for


They're clients, I don't work for them, they licensed my tech. EcogroLED is the running tech company, and we shut down our internet store front because we're making more money from private companies. Until the public gets smart, we keep in the commercial sector, not consumer sector. That was a mistake to touch that area.

draypresct: How about the name of the specific agricultural product you're researching as well?


We do research per crop type. That's impossible as we've got 90+ crops under our belt. Did you fail to understand this from my stated objectives in prior comments and rebuttals?
 
2014-03-18 04:06:14 PM  

skozlaw: khyberkitsune: People like you make me not want to share my tech,

[img2.wikia.nocookie.net image 640x480]


You cared enough to reply. Your argument holds no water or worth.
 
2014-03-18 04:09:29 PM  

khyberkitsune: MechTard: I can't even tell if you are pro GMO or not.

Sounds like you need to quit focusing on science until you understand the actual terms, then.

lennavan: Where the hell did you get that lettuce nutrition thing, that one really sold me that you were being serious.

You don't understand, do you? That's a real study.

http://imgur.com/etdVie3

One I was directly involved in. There's your photo proof (back when I had hippie hair.)

Oh, wait, need more?

http://imgur.com/1LOWJFa

Oh, wait, need more?

http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=14ujcqc&s=5

Oh, wait, you still need even more proof?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZTikdxj8AI  - Hey we're on the BBC, which tends to do REAL fact checking!

Wait, need even yet MORE PROOF?

http://imgur.com/9hMyoK4

There's me getting my happy ass into suit for building the LED and non-LED side of things, as I'm the head EE and biology major of the group.

Wait, need even more proof?

http://imgur.com/QzdqG0c

Hey, look, there's Adam Jensen from BBC Countryfile, in my facility making a video! Picture taken from my remote monitoring robot.

What were you saying again? Looks like I just nailed you to the cross harder than Jesus might have advocated for those being crucified.


Ok, so you work for a hydroponics outfit. Thanks for finally explaining that. You test LEDs for their growth efficiency. Thanks for explaining that bit too. NOW I have some idea what the fark you are talking about - you were all over the damn place, leading to much of the confusion you are now having to defend.

So what is this about "growing without light"? Growing with LEDs is still light, just not natural light - and it isn't anything new. You are refining the process it sounds like, but it still isn't growing in the dark.
 
2014-03-18 04:09:30 PM  

ciberido: neversubmit: One might say the worm has turned.

The thread is full of hobby horse riders.

Of Hovercrafts and Eels.

Do you v---Do you vant to come back to my place?  Bouncy, bouncy?


Yes but Chile is so far way. And I'm 48 are you into old dudes?
 
2014-03-18 04:12:14 PM  

Darth Macho: So how do the worms taste? If they are at least as nutritious as corn an elegant solution may present itself.


ecx.images-amazon.com
 
2014-03-18 04:13:14 PM  

khyberkitsune: lennavan: That's an analysis on a single leaf of lettuce

Try analysis on a full kilogram of leaf lettuce.

lennavan: The reason I jokingly suggested that was because the alternative is you actually believe the things you post.

Yet I've got the proof before you in photos and video, yet you still refuse to believe. Yay cognitive dissonance.

draypresct: Plants convert light (energy) to biomatter?

Uh, yea. Plants are photosynthetic systems. Do you not understand this? In general, without light they're useless. But we have systems that can emulate light and still make the plants grow. My BBC video shows this. Why do you ignore real science? The BBC isn't known for following bullshiat science and is in fact known for fact checking.

draypresct: Let's see . . . E = mc^2

That's the argument I use against idiots in weed forums saying "One gram per watt!" Uh, no, it's grams per kilowatt-hour, because any gram of matter has more than a watt of energy invested in it. And if you wanna get picky, I can convert from kWh to micromole if you give me the LED types you're using.

Keep digging, man.

draypresct: Actually, plants convert light energy into chemical energy.

It's like you totally forgot about thermodynamics.

draypresct: They don't convert light into matter. They obtain matter from the air (carbon) and the ground.

Yep, you forgot about thermodynamics. Energy = mass = matter. Without the light, there's no energy source to convert from nor obtain and fix matter to.

Still waiting for you to beat horticultural knowledge taught in high school since 1996. We had one of the best programs in the entire country.


Plants do not convert light into matter. They use the energy from light to build chemicals, which have stored potential energy. If you are trying to call us all un-scientific half-wits, you ought to try to avoid sounding like an idiot yourself.
 
2014-03-18 04:16:14 PM  

khyberkitsune: meat0918: The BBC thing is fodder, and very well might be green after 7 days. That was a pretty damn pale green.

Pale green? Is your monitor calibrated? That stuff was as green as the lettuce.

Other fodder systems are almost yellow-white in their product.


Which I noticed in your pictures has light.

And there was a lot of ambient light in your BBC video too.

If you can indeed produce fodder with an 80,000 pound (132584.00 US Dollar) system, more power too you.

I still saw a lot of light in what you have shown.
 
2014-03-18 04:18:30 PM  

khyberkitsune: lennavan: thus far your "proof" is pictures and a video of you growing stuff.

And have you done anything similar to disprove? No? Then you aren't even qualified to contest.

My studies stand and nobody is challenging them because they're rock solid without bias. My goal is to prove every biased idiot wrong, and my studies do so.

Everyone says "This light is needed!" "No, THIS light is needed!"

No, no light is needed you ignorant farks. Pay attention to physics and learn how analogue systems work like digital ones.

Like the navy analog gear-driven aiming devices for 50+mm shells that could land within 50 meters of a target (of which those targets were far larger than that, and could easily sustain damage, granted, but from 30 miles away? Yea, real science, not your proposed 'wind projections' like you ballistical idiots claim on forums.)


Again, as lennavan said, that isn't a study, it is a sample. Groups of samples are studies. Learn the difference between data and information.

No one is arguing about the sort of light involved, just that light has to be there. I know that chloroplasts use different wavelengths to different degrees, and so optimizing LEDs to produce those wavelengths makes sense. It is still light though, you are not growing in the dark.

What the fark does ballistics have to do with anything? You are coming off as a crazy person.
 
2014-03-18 04:20:17 PM  
First his amazing plants don't need light, and now they make it rain.

IT'S A MIRACLE!
 
2014-03-18 04:25:10 PM  

khyberkitsune: lennavan: Read the disclaimer on your own goddamn form dude. It's not a study.

For them, no. It is not. For us, who can understand the results, yes, for our company it is a true study with a backing hypothesis and a backing conclusion from those results. They disavow because they were not included in the results except as a reference for testing.

It's like you don't know how international testing works.

We tested against other countries claiming better values. Easily proven wrong with the top nutritional claim for a specific GMO crop pretty much gets 25% lower than what we have for nutritional content on the same crop.

Hell, I have 'SuperAngryGuy' on reddit doing the same thing, getting closer than me to the same results.

And he's more of a legit scientist than me. How about you go bother him, so you an get your ass owned by someone with a Master's degree and you're just a farking pleb in comparison?


And its almost like you don't know what the fark you are talking about. It is not a study - is a data point.

Well yes, hydroponics is a much more controlled environment so I fully expect it to have better values than GMO grown outdoors. GMO is rarely about nutrition in any case, usually it is about insecticide, herbicide, and control of the seeds. Only a few GMO crops were optimized for nutrition, like Golden Rice. Most are about selling farmers easy ways to increase yields.

Not interested in 'SuperAngryGuy' or reddit. I have my own Master's degree, I don't need his.
 
2014-03-18 04:25:27 PM  

khyberkitsune: lennavan: I can't help but think there's a reason you refuse to post a published science article detailing your results

I posted a direct picture of lab-tested lettuce results. Are you ignoring proof or just being ignorant?


That's not a study, that's a single test.  You don't know the difference, do you?  Let me try to explain:

Did you do that more than once?
Did you get the same result?
What methods did you use?
What were the exact conditions you used?
Did you try this with other plants?
Did you compare a wild-type leaf to another wild-type leaf in order to get an idea of how variable your testing methodology is?

For all I know you took a single leaf off a head of lettuce and compared it to another single leaf from a different head of lettuce and found slightly more but only because your method is so inaccurate.
 
2014-03-18 04:28:03 PM  

khyberkitsune: give me doughnuts: Evidence against kyberkitsune: Every photosynthesizing organism that has ever existed on this planet.

Evidence for khyberkitsune: bupkis

Ignoring true evidence and tested theories which can't be disproven yet.

Not counting these theories with evidence as truth until proven otherwise with new radical theories that make sense.

Go home, child. What are you, 13?


And an Ad Hominem. Classy. What IS your theory, anyway? That part was never explained, and may be the root of much of our conflict.
 
2014-03-18 04:29:35 PM  
I  have another question.

Where do you get your seed?  It's a small matter, as to my knowledge growers of fodder and food do not typically grow their own seed, and rely on someone else to grow it for them, but if you cannot grow it to maturity for seed with no light, it is unsustainable.

Can you grow this barley to full seed maturity, or is the 7 or so days mentioned in the BBC vid the usual amount of time to harvest for the fodder (which amounts to this on a larger scale)?
 
2014-03-18 04:33:02 PM  
I actually wanted to talk about the article.

Farmers are only partially to blame.  Speculators driving corn prices higher is more to blame.

And the seed companies know how to slow and somewhat avoid this, so did the USDA.
 
2014-03-18 04:36:36 PM  

khyberkitsune: meat0918: Post your peer reviewed science, please.

Thanks in advance.

BBC already proved it for us.

Any other questions, or do you have a budget that can top the BBC and was spent on disproving my article?


It is a television station. I hate to break it to you, but you should not believe everything you see on TV. Or read on the Internet for that matter, which is why we are all here trying to understand your fantastic claims. You have been unable to convince us, and claiming that because your company was on TV your claims are proved isn't helping your case at all. Top Gear is on the BBC too, but is what they do completely factual? I rather think not. Entertaining,yes; factual, not often.
 
2014-03-18 04:43:28 PM  

log_jammin: I never knew Fark had so many farmers.


4th generation farmer here on my moms side.  Dad's side 2nd.   Mainly poultry; and beef and corn.   Unholy practices abound, if I knew how to fix it it I would. But can't.  all I can say is the bio farming is not setting well with the Ag community like my Uncle Clyde.

/ask me about the 4 legged chicken sometime :)
 
2014-03-18 04:44:42 PM  

khyberkitsune: Yep people without degrees in horticulture talk about horticulture as if they had license to do so.

Go figure.

This is why California is currently suffering from a drought they need not suffer from. People like you make me not want to share my tech, and I know that even if I do share the tech, you 'debunk' it to your own detriment.

Good job. I don't even have to troll. You do it for yourselves.


California is suffering from a draught because it is largely desert. Always has been. I live here. Your magical no-light plants will not help the lack of water, moron. We have plenty of light. Get me seeds that grow without water and this becomes relevant.

You are a hydroponics outfit. It is a fantastic way to grow things in places that can't otherwise grow stuff. Most of the rest of the time, it is more efficient to grow things outdoors, and let mother nature do most of the work, up until the point in time where that doesn't work, such as a draught. I think that is the point you are trying to make. However, your hydroponics setup cannot replace Salinas, or the Central Valley, or anywhere else for the matter. The sheer scale of agriculture in California is MIND BOGGLING. We grow most of the fresh produce for the entire United States. You can't do that with a hydroponics kit, the scale just isn't there, and it would cost way, way too damn much.
 
2014-03-18 04:47:12 PM  

khyberkitsune: meat0918: The BBC thing is fodder, and very well might be green after 7 days. That was a pretty damn pale green.

Pale green? Is your monitor calibrated? That stuff was as green as the lettuce.

Other fodder systems are almost yellow-white in their product.

lennavan: I can't help but think there's a reason you refuse to post a published science article detailing your results

I posted a direct picture of lab-tested lettuce results. Are you ignoring proof or just being ignorant?


It was pale green, but I figured it was because they were shoots. Most shoots are a pale green, as they haven't developed all their chlorophyll yet.
 
2014-03-18 04:48:23 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: namatad: obivous tag was broken?
rofl

I know: Let's widely plant these GMOs without adequate testing, contaminate natural strains of crops so there's no heirloom stock left to save our butts, and then sue the organic farmers into bankruptcy for stealing our shiat.


wait, i've been reassured here on fark that GMO's are the bestest ever & only a hippy anti vax fool would think otherwise
 
2014-03-18 04:51:27 PM  

khyberkitsune: lennavan: Your plant that doesn't require light prevents drought?

Yes, lower energy requirements = lower heat = lower water amounts. Depending upon crop, up to 90% less water, and up to 60% less nutrient supplementation.

lennavan: So you've got a plant that you totally say doesn't require light

You can't read. Not arguing any further with a high school failure.

draypresct: Since you've already posted an outside link that identifies the company you claim to work for

They're clients, I don't work for them, they licensed my tech. EcogroLED is the running tech company, and we shut down our internet store front because we're making more money from private companies. Until the public gets smart, we keep in the commercial sector, not consumer sector. That was a mistake to touch that area.

draypresct: How about the name of the specific agricultural product you're researching as well?

We do research per crop type. That's impossible as we've got 90+ crops under our belt. Did you fail to understand this from my stated objectives in prior comments and rebuttals?



I'm sorry, who is the high school dropout? You said zero light, right here:


Are you totally incompetent at understanding scientific studies?

Seems so. Statistics is crap for the most part, and is a soft science for most.

50 years ahead of everyone else is my current place. I have zero-light tech for growing plants with far, FAR better nutritional content versus other similar systems

Best part, most GMOs wont work with my zero-light production system. The genetic modifications done for any increase in yield get negated by a lowered ability to absorb non-photonic energy (as many plants have been demonstrated to utilize. In fact, despite a study done overseas on wifi radiation affecting germination growth rates, many species of plant thrive in such conditions, preferring that radiation to just pure natural light.)

Silly fools, focusing only on v ...
 
2014-03-18 05:28:00 PM  

specialkae: log_jammin: I never knew Fark had so many farmers.

4th generation farmer here on my moms side.  Dad's side 2nd.   Mainly poultry; and beef and corn.   Unholy practices abound, if I knew how to fix it it I would. But can't.  all I can say is the bio farming is not setting well with the Ag community like my Uncle Clyde.

/ask me about the 4 legged chicken sometime :)


My dad was the last farmer in the family, 3rd generation.

What's bio farming?

Biodynamic or Organic.

I laughed off the first because well, it's got a whole lot of woo wrapped up in it and makes a lot of unsubstantiated claims, and the later has quickly shown, in my experience on the home garden scale, to be "let nature magic the pests away, but if that fails, just pick the bugs off your plants, and we also have a whole lot of expensive pesticides approved for organic use".

I've yet to figure out how the organic cabbage and broccoli growers manage cabbage moth and aphids without pesticides.  Oh wait... they don't (rotenone is especially nasty if it gets in the water).  Also nicotine sprays, which are so damn toxic to non target species (i.e. humans and other mammals) we developed neonictonoids as a less toxic alternative.

The saving grace of organic methods is what it does for the soil.
 
2014-03-18 05:37:41 PM  

BetterMetalSnake: Do you want Spice? Because this is how you get Spice.


The Spice must flow.
 
2014-03-18 06:46:36 PM  

meat0918: ciberido: Sid_6.7: So, call Muad'Dib?

The worm IS the corn.  The corn IS the worm!

A lot of people would do better if they remembered that "Fear is the mind killer".


You are transparent.  I see many things.  I see plans within plans ....
 
2014-03-18 06:50:26 PM  

neversubmit: ciberido: neversubmit: One might say the worm has turned.

The thread is full of hobby horse riders.

Of Hovercrafts and Eels.

Do you v---Do you vant to come back to my place?  Bouncy, bouncy?

Yes but Chile is so far way. And I'm 48 are you into old dudes?


If I said you had a beautiful body, would you hold it against me? I am no longer infected.
 
2014-03-18 06:57:36 PM  

ciberido: meat0918: ciberido: Sid_6.7: So, call Muad'Dib?

The worm IS the corn.  The corn IS the worm!

A lot of people would do better if they remembered that "Fear is the mind killer".

You are transparent.  I see many things.  I see plans within plans ....


And I see that the guild navigator has a vagina for a mouth.
 
2014-03-18 07:10:04 PM  

meat0918: ciberido: meat0918: ciberido: Sid_6.7: So, call Muad'Dib?

The worm IS the corn.  The corn IS the worm!

A lot of people would do better if they remembered that "Fear is the mind killer".

You are transparent.  I see many things.  I see plans within plans ....

And I see that the guild navigator has a vagina for a mouth.


Seriously, WTF was with that? I know the first navigator was a woman, but DAMN.
 
2014-03-18 07:13:17 PM  

MechTard: meat0918: ciberido: meat0918: ciberido: Sid_6.7: So, call Muad'Dib?

The worm IS the corn.  The corn IS the worm!

A lot of people would do better if they remembered that "Fear is the mind killer".

You are transparent.  I see many things.  I see plans within plans ....

And I see that the guild navigator has a vagina for a mouth.

Seriously, WTF was with that? I know the first navigator was a woman, but DAMN.


Blame Lynch and his creative team, not Herbert's son for that one.
 
2014-03-18 07:35:34 PM  

specialkae: log_jammin: I never knew Fark had so many farmers.

4th generation farmer here on my moms side.  Dad's side 2nd.   Mainly poultry; and beef and corn.   Unholy practices abound, if I knew how to fix it it I would. But can't.  all I can say is the bio farming is not setting well with the Ag community like my Uncle Clyde.

/ask me about the 4 legged chicken sometime :)


Your family owns Chernobyl Farms!
/Do you need less garlic with the strontium?
 
2014-03-19 12:17:30 AM  

log_jammin: as I said, anyone is free to test that. no one is forced to take Monsanto's word on their "pinky swear"


Don't worry.  Everyone is already testing it.

You know.  Unofficially.

But I'm sure it will be okay.
 
2014-03-19 06:25:14 AM  

knobmaker: Don't worry.  Everyone is already testing it.

You know.  Unofficially.

But I'm sure it will be okay.


oooh...that sounds scary. I guess that makes your claim correct.
 
2014-03-19 09:01:45 AM  

meat0918: MechTard: meat0918: ciberido: meat0918: ciberido: Sid_6.7: So, call Muad'Dib?

The worm IS the corn.  The corn IS the worm!

A lot of people would do better if they remembered that "Fear is the mind killer".

You are transparent.  I see many things.  I see plans within plans ....

And I see that the guild navigator has a vagina for a mouth.

Seriously, WTF was with that? I know the first navigator was a woman, but DAMN.

Blame Lynch and his creative team, not Herbert's son for that one.


Well, what in this universe is more scary than a vagina?
 
2014-03-19 09:43:28 AM  

khyberkitsune: Your argument holds no water


Well that's because you won't share your alchemical horticultural technology with me.
 
2014-03-19 01:11:05 PM  
Wow!  Saw this thread yesterday and signed up for an account so I could chime in (been lurking around here for years).  Having to wait the 6 hours before I could post kind of sucked since now the thread is a bit off the rails and my comments were aimed at the original conversation going on.  Thanks a lot Mr. "I grow plants without light guy."  Regardless:

Re: pest overcoming resistance.  This happens with traditionally bred crops as well.  There is a nematode that I've been breeding resistance to for years.  The natural resistance I was using in my crosses came from some wild-type species.  We released a bunch of new varieties with resistance to the pest.  About 7-8 years later, we started to see these resistant plants with nematodes on them.  It was determined that these nematodes were different from the original ones and now we are breeding resistance to race 2 of the nematode.  Nature finds a way means job security for me.

Re: GMO.  Two things to consider.  Recently my boss went to Indonesia.  While there, he took a picture of some workers dusting seed with a highly toxic, systemic insecticide before planting (used to protect against a virus the insects vector).  No face masks, no gloves, no ventilation.  To say he was disturbed with this is an understatement.  We could very simply, make a GMO version that is resistant to the virus the insects spread, hence no longer the need for these workers to expose themselves to these conditions.  The hard part would be getting Indonesia to allow trials of these GMO's, since the Sierra Club (and I'm sure others) have spent millions in the far-East educating the general public of these countries that all GMO = bad.  Hence lots and lots of regulations.

Second, suppose instead of inserting new genes into an organism, we simply silence a gene that is already there and do nothing else.  An example: We know there is a gene, that codes for a cell wall protein, that allows a certain bacteria to transfer from cell to cell within the plant effectively allowing the disease to spread within the plant and kill it.  We have the ability to silence this one gene.  Should we?   There is already a new buzzword around this process:  "intra-genic modification"  I could make thousands of crosses in my greenhouse, and evaluate the millions of individuals resulting from those crosses and maybe find one someday that has naturally mututated to have a silenced version of this gene.  Or we could do it in about a week, with a very simple process.

However, after saying all this, last week we had a meeting with a R&D rep. from a company that specializes in the crops we work with.  He was going on and on about how they just developed some new "intra-genic" breeding lines that are resistant to a specific virus.  They spent millions on this and it's going to revolutionize the industry.  While they were spending their money and time in the lab, I was making crosses in the greenhouse and doing virus screens.  I identified some wild types that had a natural resistance to the same virus, did the crosses and now have some really good advanced breeding lines to look at.  He was not pleased that we basically beat them to the punch, and with traditional breeding methods at that.

/public potato breeder
// no more bashing potatoes
/// mashing still OK
 
2014-03-19 02:01:16 PM  

Thom Joad: Wow!  Saw this thread yesterday and signed up for an account so I could chime in (been lurking around here for years).  Having to wait the 6 hours before I could post kind of sucked since now the thread is a bit off the rails and my comments were aimed at the original conversation going on.  Thanks a lot Mr. "I grow plants without light guy."  Regardless:

Re: pest overcoming resistance.  This happens with traditionally bred crops as well.  There is a nematode that I've been breeding resistance to for years.  The natural resistance I was using in my crosses came from some wild-type species.  We released a bunch of new varieties with resistance to the pest.  About 7-8 years later, we started to see these resistant plants with nematodes on them.  It was determined that these nematodes were different from the original ones and now we are breeding resistance to race 2 of the nematode.  Nature finds a way means job security for me.

Re: GMO.  Two things to consider.  Recently my boss went to Indonesia.  While there, he took a picture of some workers dusting seed with a highly toxic, systemic insecticide before planting (used to protect against a virus the insects vector).  No face masks, no gloves, no ventilation.  To say he was disturbed with this is an understatement.  We could very simply, make a GMO version that is resistant to the virus the insects spread, hence no longer the need for these workers to expose themselves to these conditions.  The hard part would be getting Indonesia to allow trials of these GMO's, since the Sierra Club (and I'm sure others) have spent millions in the far-East educating the general public of these countries that all GMO = bad.  Hence lots and lots of regulations.

Second, suppose instead of inserting new genes into an organism, we simply silence a gene that is already there and do nothing else.  An example: We know there is a gene, that codes for a cell wall protein, that allows a certain bacteria to transfer from cell to cell within t ...


Do you get to work with many of the South American cultivars?

What I wouldn't give to get some of those to play with.  Not breed, just to grow for fun.
 
2014-03-19 03:25:49 PM  
I've grown and crossed with Papa Cacho, Papa Amarillo and Yema de Huevo

One of our varieties (Red Magic) is doing really well in S. America.  So well in fact that I just bought a new flatbed truck with some of the royalties.

The main problem with some of these S. American lines is season length.  A few years ago I grew ~ 800 clones from a cross with one of my own varieties and Papa Cacho.  After applying diquat 3 times to the plot and waiting 3 weeks, I was able to select maybe a dozen that actually had dead vines.  The rest of them were perfectly green, 3-5 feet tall and wanted to go for another 2-3 months.  Out of the dozen or so that I selected, 3 or 4 had very immature tubers that did not want to separate from the vines and another one had fingerling tubers the length of my arm.  Out of those original 800, I'm now left with 3 that seem to be adapted to the growing conditions around here.
 
2014-03-19 04:32:38 PM  

Thom Joad: No face masks, no gloves, no ventilation. To say he was disturbed with this is an understatement. We could very simply, make a GMO version that is resistant to the virus the insects spread, hence no longer the need for these workers to expose themselves to these conditions.


Welcome to the conversation! You made some really good points, and I especially liked this one.

Thom Joad: While they were spending their money and time in the lab, I was making crosses in the greenhouse and doing virus screens. I identified some wild types that had a natural resistance to the same virus, did the crosses and now have some really good advanced breeding lines to look at. He was not pleased that we basically beat them to the punch, and with traditional breeding methods at that.


Sounds good. I hope it works out for you.

If you don't mind my asking, what kind of testing do you typically perform on the new breeding lines? There's a lot of debate about the GMO testing, and what is considered sufficient, but I have no idea what kind of testing is normal for plants developed using traditional breeding methods. Every new species can have unexpected outcomes, even ones produced using  hybridization.
 
2014-03-19 04:58:38 PM  

Thom Joad: I've grown and crossed with Papa Cacho, Papa Amarillo and Yema de Huevo

One of our varieties (Red Magic) is doing really well in S. America.  So well in fact that I just bought a new flatbed truck with some of the royalties.

The main problem with some of these S. American lines is season length.  A few years ago I grew ~ 800 clones from a cross with one of my own varieties and Papa Cacho.  After applying diquat 3 times to the plot and waiting 3 weeks, I was able to select maybe a dozen that actually had dead vines.  The rest of them were perfectly green, 3-5 feet tall and wanted to go for another 2-3 months.  Out of the dozen or so that I selected, 3 or 4 had very immature tubers that did not want to separate from the vines and

another one had fingerling tubers the length of my arm.  Out of those original 800, I'm now left with 3 that seem to be adapted to the growing conditions around here.

I want that just for the novelty.
 
Displayed 257 of 257 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report