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.

(Mother Jones)   Cosmos star Neil deGrasse Tyson gets back in the ring with the Anti-GMO crowd for a little more rope-a-dope   (motherjones.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, deGrasse Tyson, genetically modified organism  
•       •       •

4559 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 05 Aug 2014 at 4:18 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



123 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-08-05 02:24:35 PM  
The smart money is betting on NdGT in this fight.
 
2014-08-05 02:54:53 PM  

quatchi: The smart money is betting on

science in this fight.
 
2014-08-05 03:16:08 PM  

netizencain: quatchi: The smart money is betting on science in this fight.


Isn't that what I said?
 
2014-08-05 03:18:34 PM  
A GMO label sprained my ankle.
 
2014-08-05 03:27:12 PM  
Tyson concludes:

If your objection to GMOs is the morality of selling nonprerennial [sic] seed stocks, then focus on that. If your objection to GMOs is the monopolistic conduct of agribusiness, then focus on that. But to paint the entire concept of GMO with these particular issues is to blind yourself to the underlying truth of what humans have been doing-and will continue to do-to nature so that it best serves our survival. That's what all organisms do when they can, or would do, if they could. Those that didn't, have gone extinct extinct [sic].


He said "extinct" twice.
 
2014-08-05 03:30:15 PM  
It's these times, when I see the wacko anti-GMO leftwing folks actually weirdly cross the line and end up with the wacko right wing folks.The GMO banana, aka the Cavendish, has been changed from its original origins to the standard we enjoy today.

i1.squidoocdn.com

It has nothing to do with either killing us or God. So won't both sides STFU.
 
2014-08-05 03:33:03 PM  

stpauler: The GMO banana, aka the Cavendish


I hate to break it to you, but the Cavendish was discovered long before GMO technology existed.
 
2014-08-05 03:42:52 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: stpauler: The GMO banana, aka the Cavendish

I hate to break it to you, but the Cavendish was discovered long before GMO technology existed.


GMO technology is prehistoric, about 12000 BCE.So no, the Cavendish has not been around as long with the stone age ending between 6000 and 2000 BCE.
 
2014-08-05 03:44:38 PM  

stpauler: Marcus Aurelius: stpauler: The GMO banana, aka the Cavendish

I hate to break it to you, but the Cavendish was discovered long before GMO technology existed.

GMO technology is prehistoric, about 12000 BCE.So no, the Cavendish has not been around as long with the stone age ending between 6000 and 2000 BCE.


"GMO" technically refers to the use of genetic engineering to extract a gene from one organism, and splice it into the DNA of another organism.  This was first done in 1973.  You are thinking of "selective breeding", not "genetic engineering".
 
2014-08-05 03:51:13 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: stpauler: Marcus Aurelius: stpauler: The GMO banana, aka the Cavendish

I hate to break it to you, but the Cavendish was discovered long before GMO technology existed.

GMO technology is prehistoric, about 12000 BCE.So no, the Cavendish has not been around as long with the stone age ending between 6000 and 2000 BCE.

"GMO" technically refers to the use of genetic engineering to extract a gene from one organism, and splice it into the DNA of another organism.  This was first done in 1973.  You are thinking of "selective breeding", not "genetic engineering".

From my first link:
"Humans have been domesticating plants and animals since around 12,000 BC; the process of selective breeding, in which organisms with desired traits (and thus with the desired genes) are used to breed the next generation and organisms lacking the trait are not bred, is the oldest form genetic modification. "
 
2014-08-05 03:57:45 PM  

stpauler: Marcus Aurelius: stpauler: Marcus Aurelius: stpauler: The GMO banana, aka the Cavendish

I hate to break it to you, but the Cavendish was discovered long before GMO technology existed.

GMO technology is prehistoric, about 12000 BCE.So no, the Cavendish has not been around as long with the stone age ending between 6000 and 2000 BCE.

"GMO" technically refers to the use of genetic engineering to extract a gene from one organism, and splice it into the DNA of another organism.  This was first done in 1973.  You are thinking of "selective breeding", not "genetic engineering".
From my first link:
"Humans have been domesticating plants and animals since around 12,000 BC; the process of selective breeding, in which organisms with desired traits (and thus with the desired genes) are used to breed the next generation and organisms lacking the trait are not bred, is the oldest form genetic modification. "


Selective breeding will yield a red tabby cat.  But in order to make a cat glow in the dark, you need a GMO.
 
2014-08-05 04:07:57 PM  
All of this is distracting from my original point, which is how incredibly dangerous it is to consider labeling GMO foods with a GMO label.

A GMO label gave my dog mange.
 
2014-08-05 04:34:52 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: stpauler: Marcus Aurelius: stpauler: The GMO banana, aka the Cavendish

I hate to break it to you, but the Cavendish was discovered long before GMO technology existed.

GMO technology is prehistoric, about 12000 BCE.So no, the Cavendish has not been around as long with the stone age ending between 6000 and 2000 BCE.

"GMO" technically refers to the use of genetic engineering to extract a gene from one organism, and splice it into the DNA of another organism.  This was first done in 1973.  You are thinking of "selective breeding", not "genetic engineering".


Don't skip the 50-60 years we spent making genetic freaks through radiation exposure. No one seems to complain about Ruby Red grapefruit.
 
2014-08-05 04:40:39 PM  
I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?
 
2014-08-05 04:41:48 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: stpauler: Marcus Aurelius: stpauler: Marcus Aurelius: stpauler: The GMO banana, aka the Cavendish

I hate to break it to you, but the Cavendish was discovered long before GMO technology existed.

GMO technology is prehistoric, about 12000 BCE.So no, the Cavendish has not been around as long with the stone age ending between 6000 and 2000 BCE.

"GMO" technically refers to the use of genetic engineering to extract a gene from one organism, and splice it into the DNA of another organism.  This was first done in 1973.  You are thinking of "selective breeding", not "genetic engineering".
From my first link:
"Humans have been domesticating plants and animals since around 12,000 BC; the process of selective breeding, in which organisms with desired traits (and thus with the desired genes) are used to breed the next generation and organisms lacking the trait are not bred, is the oldest form genetic modification. "

Selective breeding will yield a red tabby cat.  But in order to make a cat glow in the dark, you need a GMO.


 Selective breeding is GMO. GMO isn't necessarily selective breeding; just as a tabby is a cat but cat isn't necessarily a tabby.

/Farking syllogisms, how do they work?
 
2014-08-05 04:41:59 PM  
Pro-GMO or No-GMO, I think what's on ballot measures is the question of whether GMO products should be labelled as such, so that people can make a choice,  not whether they should exist.

That's all.  Now I have to go back to burning my flag, which the SUPREME COURT says that I HAVE TO DO.
 
2014-08-05 04:43:11 PM  

someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?


He's a celebrity.  Nothing is out of the purview of a sleb.
 
2014-08-05 04:52:20 PM  
Those kinds of liberal whack-a-doodles love the machine gun approach to arguing... If they can't prove their point with their first mish-mash point; they keep firing off more herp-a-derp...

Go ahead have a discussion with a femi-liberal about what is 'Organic' food; and see how quick the ban on short handled hoe or a living wage for illegals comes up.

And you scratch your head, going WTF?
 
2014-08-05 04:52:23 PM  

someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?


upload.wikimedia.org

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy - and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter."
 
2014-08-05 04:53:45 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: But in order to make a cat glow in the dark,


you'll need the right plasmids.

/playing bioshock "the first one" now
 
2014-08-05 04:54:30 PM  
 
2014-08-05 04:57:45 PM  

someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?


He has many fields of expertise, but he is first and foremost a scientist. So, no.
 
2014-08-05 04:59:36 PM  

lindalouwho: someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?

He has many fields of expertise, but he is first and foremost a scientist. So, no.


It's good to know that an astrophysicist is an expert in every field.
 
2014-08-05 04:59:46 PM  

stpauler: Selective breeding is GMO


Gazelles and most other prey animals are GMO under that definition.
 
2014-08-05 04:59:52 PM  

Bith Set Me Up: someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy - and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter."


You aren't saying GMOs today don't involve science, are you?
 
2014-08-05 05:03:55 PM  

BafflerMeal: lindalouwho: someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?

He has many fields of expertise, but he is first and foremost a scientist. So, no.

It's good to know that an astrophysicist is an expert in every field.


Google is your friend.

Also, brilliant people don't have to know everything when they have access to other brilliant people to ask and educate themselves on matters that interest them.

Only trolls and those who are ignoble distort the the original intent of a statement.
 
2014-08-05 05:04:28 PM  

wildcardjack: Marcus Aurelius: stpauler: Marcus Aurelius: stpauler: The GMO banana, aka the Cavendish

I hate to break it to you, but the Cavendish was discovered long before GMO technology existed.

GMO technology is prehistoric, about 12000 BCE.So no, the Cavendish has not been around as long with the stone age ending between 6000 and 2000 BCE.

"GMO" technically refers to the use of genetic engineering to extract a gene from one organism, and splice it into the DNA of another organism.  This was first done in 1973.  You are thinking of "selective breeding", not "genetic engineering".

Don't skip the 50-60 years we spent making genetic freaks through radiation exposure. No one seems to complain about Ruby Red grapefruit.


Finding Organic Ruby Red grapefruit is the best.

GMO is going to be a key tool in keeping populations fed, not because of herbicide resistance or pesticide production, but because climate could change our cropland faster than we can use traditional breeding techniques to adapt.

And, you can use GMO to prove your rice or wheat has the genes you want (and it will be 100% rice or wheat), then take the originals and breed them together using good "old fashioned" breeding techniques.

And Neil makes a point I've tried to make, but I obviously lack the platform he has.

If you don't like corporate domination of agriculture, focus on that.

Have problems with monoculture?  Focus on that.

Don't use GMO as a catch all for the things are are very wrong and problematic with our current food production system.  Labeling isn't going to stop monoculture or even put a dent in Monsanto's or ConAgra's profits.  Monsanto has "regular" seed stock you know, and ConAgra will still do whatever it is they do, they'll just use whatever crops they end up using for it.
 
2014-08-05 05:05:01 PM  

lindalouwho: Bith Set Me Up: someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy - and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter."

You aren't saying GMOs today don't involve science, are you?


It does, (and again I cannot believe I am taking issue with NdGT, because he is awesome and I would climb that man like a tree) but I fail to see why his opinion on, say, the patenting of seeds should carry more weight than anyone else's.
 
2014-08-05 05:05:59 PM  

lindalouwho: Bith Set Me Up: someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy - and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter."

You aren't saying GMOs today don't involve science, are you?


What he was saying was someone who specializes in a specific field can be as uninformed about a completely different field as the average person. For instance, it's not a very good idea to ask a microbiologist a question about astrophysics or vice-versa.
 
2014-08-05 05:12:47 PM  
By the way.

Farmers can legally save certain RoundUp Ready Soy this year.
 
2014-08-05 05:13:31 PM  

someonelse: lindalouwho: Bith Set Me Up: someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy - and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter."

You aren't saying GMOs today don't involve science, are you?

It does, (and again I cannot believe I am taking issue with NdGT, because he is awesome and I would climb that man like a tree) but I fail to see why his opinion on, say, the patenting of seeds should carry more weight than anyone else's.


BECAUSE HE IS A SCIENTIST WHO IS EDUCATED ON THE SUBJECT.

/sorry for yelling, but cripes sake
 
2014-08-05 05:15:04 PM  

Bith Set Me Up: lindalouwho: Bith Set Me Up: someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy - and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter."

You aren't saying GMOs today don't involve science, are you?

What he was saying was someone who specializes in a specific field can be as uninformed about a completely different field as the average person. For instance, it's not a very good idea to ask a microbiologist a question about astrophysics or vice-versa.


Pretty much that.  Working in transplant research I have worked with a PHD, MD who believed in the great flood and working as an engineer I have worked with a peer who believe that there are internal combustion engines that run on water.  I like NGT a lot, but being a scientist in one field does not make one a scientist in every field, and it is quite possible to have myopia even where the scientific method is involved.
 
2014-08-05 05:15:29 PM  

Bith Set Me Up: lindalouwho: Bith Set Me Up: someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy - and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter."

You aren't saying GMOs today don't involve science, are you?

What he was saying was someone who specializes in a specific field can be as uninformed about a completely different field as the average person. For instance, it's not a very good idea to ask a microbiologist a question about astrophysics or vice-versa.


WHY ARE YOU SAYING THIS?

/I give up
//off to another thread
 
2014-08-05 05:19:07 PM  

lindalouwho: someonelse: lindalouwho: Bith Set Me Up: someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy - and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter."

You aren't saying GMOs today don't involve science, are you?

It does, (and again I cannot believe I am taking issue with NdGT, because he is awesome and I would climb that man like a tree) but I fail to see why his opinion on, say, the patenting of seeds should carry more weight than anyone else's.

BECAUSE HE IS A SCIENTIST WHO IS EDUCATED ON THE SUBJECT.

/sorry for yelling, but cripes sake


I understand that he's an intelligent, educated person, of sound judgment, and I am interested in what he has to say about most anything he chooses to address. But his education is in astrophysics.
 
2014-08-05 05:24:14 PM  

someonelse: lindalouwho: someonelse: lindalouwho: Bith Set Me Up: someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy - and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter."

You aren't saying GMOs today don't involve science, are you?

It does, (and again I cannot believe I am taking issue with NdGT, because he is awesome and I would climb that man like a tree) but I fail to see why his opinion on, say, the patenting of seeds should carry more weight than anyone else's.

BECAUSE HE IS A SCIENTIST WHO IS EDUCATED ON THE SUBJECT.

/sorry for yelling, but cripes sake

I understand that he's an intelligent, educated person, of sound judgment, and I am interested in what he has to say about most anything he chooses to address. But his education is in astrophysics.


Again. Google.is.your.friend.

As an aside, he's also won gold medals in Latin Ballroom dancing.

People can be many things that you're unaware of.
 
2014-08-05 05:27:58 PM  

someonelse: lindalouwho: someonelse: lindalouwho: Bith Set Me Up: someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy - and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter."

You aren't saying GMOs today don't involve science, are you?

It does, (and again I cannot believe I am taking issue with NdGT, because he is awesome and I would climb that man like a tree) but I fail to see why his opinion on, say, the patenting of seeds should carry more weight than anyone else's.

BECAUSE HE IS A SCIENTIST WHO IS EDUCATED ON THE SUBJECT.

/sorry for yelling, but cripes sake

I understand that he's an intelligent, educated person, of sound judgment, and I am interested in what he has to say about most anything he chooses to address. But his education is in astrophysics.


You have a point.

Tyson says "If your objection to GMOs is the morality of selling nonprerennial [sic] seed stocks,  then focus on that. "

Maybe he means the proposed terminator seeds that have never been sold or developed commercially and there is a worldwide moratorium on them.

Or maybe he means annuals like most vegetables Americans are familiar with and the general objections some people have with hybrid seed stocks and farmers generally having to purchase seed year to year.

I've never heard a plant scientist or botanist or anyone except Neil here use the term "nonperennial".
 
2014-08-05 05:32:01 PM  

lindalouwho: someonelse: lindalouwho: someonelse: lindalouwho: Bith Set Me Up: someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy - and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter."

You aren't saying GMOs today don't involve science, are you?

It does, (and again I cannot believe I am taking issue with NdGT, because he is awesome and I would climb that man like a tree) but I fail to see why his opinion on, say, the patenting of seeds should carry more weight than anyone else's.

BECAUSE HE IS A SCIENTIST WHO IS EDUCATED ON THE SUBJECT.

/sorry for yelling, but cripes sake

I understand that he's an intelligent, educated person, of sound judgment, and I am interested in what he has to say about most anything he chooses to address. But his education is in astrophysics.

Again. Google.is.your.friend.

As an aside, he's also won gold medals in Latin Ballroom dancing.

People can be many things that you're unaware of.


OK, but Google brings up, almost exclusively, links to this same story. I see that he has strong opinions that seem well thought out. What I don't see is that he has any particular background in this subject that makes his opinion any more worthwhile than your average Joe who is well-read and interested in this subject. Maybe I'm missing something here?

Let's try this: NdGT is an expert in ballroom dancing because he has won awards for it. NdGT is an expert in GMOs because ..?...
 
2014-08-05 05:33:24 PM  

someonelse: lindalouwho: someonelse: lindalouwho: someonelse: lindalouwho: Bith Set Me Up: someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy - and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter."

You aren't saying GMOs today don't involve science, are you?

It does, (and again I cannot believe I am taking issue with NdGT, because he is awesome and I would climb that man like a tree) but I fail to see why his opinion on, say, the patenting of seeds should carry more weight than anyone else's.

BECAUSE HE IS A SCIENTIST WHO IS EDUCATED ON THE SUBJECT.

/sorry for yelling, but cripes sake

I understand that he's an intelligent, educated person, of sound judgment, and I am interested in what he has to say about most anything he chooses to address. But his education is in astrophysics.

Again. Google.is.your.friend.

As an aside, he's also won gold medals in Latin Ballroom dancing.

People can be many things that you're unaware of.

OK, but Google brings up, almost exclusively, links to this same story. I see that he has strong opinions that seem well thought out. What I don't see is that he has any particular background in this subject that makes his opinion any more worthwhile than your average Joe who is well-read and interested in this subject. Maybe I'm missing something here?

Let's try this: NdGT is an expert in ballroom dancing because he has won awards for it. NdGT is an expert in GMOs because ..?...


I think you're the only one claiming he is an expert in the field.
 
2014-08-05 05:42:41 PM  

meat0918: someonelse: lindalouwho: someonelse: lindalouwho: someonelse: lindalouwho: Bith Set Me Up: someonelse: I don't disagree with

I think you're the only one claiming he is an expert in the field.


I think he's trying to claim it's an appeal to authority.  Which is rather off the mark, imo.  An intelligent, well-researched opinion can be simply that.  It just LOOKS like an appeal to authority because he happens to work in an intellectual field and the majority of anti-GMOers....well let's just say they aren't.
 
2014-08-05 05:43:04 PM  
Some of us object to GMOs despite understanding the science and safety perfectly well. What we object to is the prospect of megacorporations like Cargill or Monsanto controlling food production, for example by producing seed lines that have to be repurchased or relicensed each year; or crops that can only be treated with insecticides and weed killers that they alone produce. And you know what? We don't trust Cargill or Monsanto or their ilk with that kind of power, and with good historical reasons.

In other words, Monsanto, Cargill and others want to bring the equivalent of DRM to our basic food supply -- now, raise your hand if you think DRM has even been a good thing for the consumer?

Now, I will freely award 1,000 points to anybody who can manage to engage with the actual point I'm making here, rather than pretending I'm an anti-science left-wing neo-hippy fearmonger. And by the way, the reason the GMO fight continues is precisely because it's supporters fail to recognize this objection and address it.
 
2014-08-05 05:50:58 PM  
someonelse: But his education is in astrophysics.

Astrophysics is the study of everything in the universe.  Which includes the Earth and everything on it.
 
2014-08-05 05:51:57 PM  

idsfa: someonelse: But his education is in astrophysics.

Astrophysics is the study of everything in the universe.  Which includes the Earth and everything on it.


Quiet, Sheldon.
 
2014-08-05 05:54:16 PM  

Bith Set Me Up: lindalouwho: Bith Set Me Up: someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy - and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter."

You aren't saying GMOs today don't involve science, are you?

What he was saying was someone who specializes in a specific field can be as uninformed about a completely different field as the average person. For instance, it's not a very good idea to ask a microbiologist a question about astrophysics or vice-versa.


Yet an astrophysicist could probably explain the functions of the various parts of a cell and a microbiologist could probably tell you how a star is formed.

Generally speaking, anyone with a PhD in one science has, at least, foundational knowledge of other sciences.

When NdT talks about GMO foods, he's not speaking from expertise, but from general scientific literacy.
 
2014-08-05 05:56:09 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: stpauler: Marcus Aurelius: stpauler: The GMO banana, aka the Cavendish

I hate to break it to you, but the Cavendish was discovered long before GMO technology existed.

GMO technology is prehistoric, about 12000 BCE.So no, the Cavendish has not been around as long with the stone age ending between 6000 and 2000 BCE.

"GMO" technically refers to the use of genetic engineering to extract a gene from one organism, and splice it into the DNA of another organism.  This was first done in 1973.  You are thinking of "selective breeding", not "genetic engineering".


Um, no.  GMO is exactly what it says: genetically modified organism.  Many GMO's involve simply modulating the expression of existing genes.  You don't need a lot of fancy genetic modification to make a leaner cow or a bigger tomato, just turn on the right genes.  What you're referring to is recombinant DNA technology, and we heard the same alarmism about it in the 70's that we do now.  Genetic engineering is just an umbrella term to describe modifying an organism's genome through biotechnology.  The only difference between genetic engineering and selective breeding is technique and precision.
 
2014-08-05 05:59:44 PM  

Mentat: Marcus Aurelius: stpauler: Marcus Aurelius: stpauler: The GMO banana, aka the Cavendish

I hate to break it to you, but the Cavendish was discovered long before GMO technology existed.

GMO technology is prehistoric, about 12000 BCE.So no, the Cavendish has not been around as long with the stone age ending between 6000 and 2000 BCE.

"GMO" technically refers to the use of genetic engineering to extract a gene from one organism, and splice it into the DNA of another organism.  This was first done in 1973.  You are thinking of "selective breeding", not "genetic engineering".

Um, no.  GMO is exactly what it says: genetically modified organism.  Many GMO's involve simply modulating the expression of existing genes.  You don't need a lot of fancy genetic modification to make a leaner cow or a bigger tomato, just turn on the right genes.  What you're referring to is recombinant DNA technology, and we heard the same alarmism about it in the 70's that we do now.  Genetic engineering is just an umbrella term to describe modifying an organism's genome through biotechnology.  The only difference between genetic engineering and selective breeding is technique and precision.


Well that and sometimes combining organisms that aren't on the same branches of the genetic tree.
 
2014-08-05 06:05:21 PM  

czetie: Some of us object to GMOs despite understanding the science and safety perfectly well. What we object to is the prospect of megacorporations like Cargill or Monsanto controlling food production, for example by producing seed lines that have to be repurchased or relicensed each year; or crops that can only be treated with insecticides and weed killers that they alone produce. And you know what? We don't trust Cargill or Monsanto or their ilk with that kind of power, and with good historical reasons.

In other words, Monsanto, Cargill and others want to bring the equivalent of DRM to our basic food supply -- now, raise your hand if you think DRM has even been a good thing for the consumer?

Now, I will freely award 1,000 points to anybody who can manage to engage with the actual point I'm making here, rather than pretending I'm an anti-science left-wing neo-hippy fearmonger. And by the way, the reason the GMO fight continues is precisely because it's supporters fail to recognize this objection and address it.


How is this different than the current state of the seed production business in the world? How do you propose to change it?

Economies of scale in seed production have generally made it more profitable for a farmer to sell all of what he produces, rather than saving a portion of the seed for next year.  I.E. his revenue lost by saving a portion of his seed is more than what it will cost him to purchase new seed, plus there is a lot of value added products in what he may purchase (seed treatments, assurances the seed he purchased is disease free, etc.)

Add in hybrid vigor considerations for what he grows, and unless he gets a premium for his produce, he's probably going to sell it all and buy new seed the next year.

I think these guys have the right idea to protect existing genomes, but it won't cover things like inserting BT genes into corn or cotton.
 
2014-08-05 06:08:24 PM  

Snapper Carr: Bith Set Me Up: lindalouwho: Bith Set Me Up: someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy - and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter."

You aren't saying GMOs today don't involve science, are you?

What he was saying was someone who specializes in a specific field can be as uninformed about a completely different field as the average person. For instance, it's not a very good idea to ask a microbiologist a question about astrophysics or vice-versa.

Yet an astrophysicist could probably explain the functions of the various parts of a cell and a microbiologist could probably tell you how a star is formed.

Generally speaking, anyone with a PhD in one science has, at least, foundational knowledge of other sciences.

When NdT talks about GMO foods, he's not speaking from expertise, but from general scientific literacy.


That's the problem. NdT is very intelligent, but he isn't an expert where GMOs are concerned.
 
2014-08-05 06:12:43 PM  

czetie: Some of us object to GMOs despite understanding the science and safety perfectly well. What we object to is the prospect of megacorporations like Cargill or Monsanto controlling food production, for example by producing seed lines that have to be repurchased or relicensed each year; or crops that can only be treated with insecticides and weed killers that they alone produce. And you know what? We don't trust Cargill or Monsanto or their ilk with that kind of power, and with good historical reasons.

In other words, Monsanto, Cargill and others want to bring the equivalent of DRM to our basic food supply -- now, raise your hand if you think DRM has even been a good thing for the consumer?

Now, I will freely award 1,000 points to anybody who can manage to engage with the actual point I'm making here, rather than pretending I'm an anti-science left-wing neo-hippy fearmonger. And by the way, the reason the GMO fight continues is precisely because it's supporters fail to recognize this objection and address it.


That is actually the point of the article.  The difference is that there are plenty of non-GMO versions of each plant, but they are not compatible with the pesticides sold by those companies and cannot be without genetic modification.

If you want to use Roundup weed killer you need a roundup ready crop. This isn't based on the same concept as DRM, which is artificial, but is a result of how the pesticide works biochemically. There are 2 ways to get a roundup ready crop, 1: GMO, 2: develop resistance (selective breeding). GMO is faster and cheaper and more reliable.  You have part of the concept backward. Monsanto seeds can be treated with other pesticides/herbicides but that would be a waste, however Monsanto pesticides (Roundup) can only be used with Monsanto seeds.

/PhD Chemist/medicinal chemist
 
2014-08-05 06:14:04 PM  

satanorsanta: czetie: Some of us object to GMOs despite understanding the science and safety perfectly well. What we object to is the prospect of megacorporations like Cargill or Monsanto controlling food production, for example by producing seed lines that have to be repurchased or relicensed each year; or crops that can only be treated with insecticides and weed killers that they alone produce. And you know what? We don't trust Cargill or Monsanto or their ilk with that kind of power, and with good historical reasons.

In other words, Monsanto, Cargill and others want to bring the equivalent of DRM to our basic food supply -- now, raise your hand if you think DRM has even been a good thing for the consumer?

Now, I will freely award 1,000 points to anybody who can manage to engage with the actual point I'm making here, rather than pretending I'm an anti-science left-wing neo-hippy fearmonger. And by the way, the reason the GMO fight continues is precisely because it's supporters fail to recognize this objection and address it.

That is actually the point of the article.  The difference is that there are plenty of non-GMO versions of each plant, but they are not compatible with the pesticides sold by those companies and cannot be without genetic modification.

If you want to use Roundup weed killer you need a roundup ready crop. This isn't based on the same concept as DRM, which is artificial, but is a result of how the pesticide works biochemically. There are 2 ways to get a roundup ready crop, 1: GMO, 2: develop resistance (selective breeding). GMO is faster and cheaper and more reliable.  You have part of the concept backward. Monsanto seeds can be treated with other pesticides/herbicides but that would be a waste, however Monsanto pesticides (Roundup) can only be used with Monsanto seeds.

/PhD Chemist/medicinal chemist


RoundUp is an herbicide, Mr Internet Chemist.
 
2014-08-05 06:23:19 PM  
What does he have against muscle cars?
 
2014-08-05 06:23:34 PM  

iron de havilland: Tyson concludes:

If your objection to GMOs is the morality of selling nonprerennial [sic] seed stocks, then focus on that. If your objection to GMOs is the monopolistic conduct of agribusiness, then focus on that. But to paint the entire concept of GMO with these particular issues is to blind yourself to the underlying truth of what humans have been doing-and will continue to do-to nature so that it best serves our survival. That's what all organisms do when they can, or would do, if they could. Those that didn't, have gone extinct extinct [sic].

He said "extinct" twice.


maybe he was using Siri and forgot that only works when you say period twice.  Like "the Jurassic period."
 
2014-08-05 06:24:26 PM  

someonelse: lindalouwho: someonelse: lindalouwho: someonelse: lindalouwho: Bith Set Me Up: someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy - and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter."

You aren't saying GMOs today don't involve science, are you?

It does, (and again I cannot believe I am taking issue with NdGT, because he is awesome and I would climb that man like a tree) but I fail to see why his opinion on, say, the patenting of seeds should carry more weight than anyone else's.

BECAUSE HE IS A SCIENTIST WHO IS EDUCATED ON THE SUBJECT.

/sorry for yelling, but cripes sake

I understand that he's an intelligent, educated person, of sound judgment, and I am interested in what he has to say about most anything he chooses to address. But his education is in astrophysics.

Again. Google.is.your.friend.

As an aside, he's also won gold medals in Latin Ballroom dancing.

People can be many things that you're unaware of.

OK, but Google brings up, almost exclusively, links to this same story. I see that he has strong opinions that seem well thought out. What I don't see is that he has any particular background in this subject that makes his opinion any more worthwhile than your average Joe who is well-read and interested in this subject. Maybe I'm missing something here?

Let's try this: NdGT is an expert in ballroom dancing because he has won awards for it. NdGT is an expert in GMOs because ..?...


He is a Science Communicator.
He has the information that those particular scientists have. And I would think he has formed opinions on his own, based on that knowledge.

Think about it like this: with,say, climate change, many people have an opinion. Some of those people have done a lot of reading on the subject, based on the present day known science. Some have based their opinion on much less than that. Me? I know which opinions I'm interested in hearing.

Disclaimer: this is in no way an invitation to anyone to discuss climate change. Don't threadjack.
 
2014-08-05 06:28:15 PM  

meat0918: satanorsanta: czetie: Some of us object to GMOs despite understanding the science and safety perfectly well. What we object to is the prospect of megacorporations like Cargill or Monsanto controlling food production, for example by producing seed lines that have to be repurchased or relicensed each year; or crops that can only be treated with insecticides and weed killers that they alone produce. And you know what? We don't trust Cargill or Monsanto or their ilk with that kind of power, and with good historical reasons.

In other words, Monsanto, Cargill and others want to bring the equivalent of DRM to our basic food supply -- now, raise your hand if you think DRM has even been a good thing for the consumer?

Now, I will freely award 1,000 points to anybody who can manage to engage with the actual point I'm making here, rather than pretending I'm an anti-science left-wing neo-hippy fearmonger. And by the way, the reason the GMO fight continues is precisely because it's supporters fail to recognize this objection and address it.

That is actually the point of the article.  The difference is that there are plenty of non-GMO versions of each plant, but they are not compatible with the pesticides sold by those companies and cannot be without genetic modification.

If you want to use Roundup weed killer you need a roundup ready crop. This isn't based on the same concept as DRM, which is artificial, but is a result of how the pesticide works biochemically. There are 2 ways to get a roundup ready crop, 1: GMO, 2: develop resistance (selective breeding). GMO is faster and cheaper and more reliable.  You have part of the concept backward. Monsanto seeds can be treated with other pesticides/herbicides but that would be a waste, however Monsanto pesticides (Roundup) can only be used with Monsanto seeds.

/PhD Chemist/medicinal chemist

RoundUp is an herbicide, Mr Internet Chemist.


I love this comment so so much.
 
2014-08-05 06:30:25 PM  

voran: What does he have against muscle cars?


He doesn't like the little modified Pon-Pon ;-)
 
2014-08-05 06:31:42 PM  

lindalouwho: meat0918: satanorsanta: czetie: Some of us object to GMOs despite understanding the science and safety perfectly well. What we object to is the prospect of megacorporations like Cargill or Monsanto controlling food production, for example by producing seed lines that have to be repurchased or relicensed each year; or crops that can only be treated with insecticides and weed killers that they alone produce. And you know what? We don't trust Cargill or Monsanto or their ilk with that kind of power, and with good historical reasons.

In other words, Monsanto, Cargill and others want to bring the equivalent of DRM to our basic food supply -- now, raise your hand if you think DRM has even been a good thing for the consumer?

Now, I will freely award 1,000 points to anybody who can manage to engage with the actual point I'm making here, rather than pretending I'm an anti-science left-wing neo-hippy fearmonger. And by the way, the reason the GMO fight continues is precisely because it's supporters fail to recognize this objection and address it.

That is actually the point of the article.  The difference is that there are plenty of non-GMO versions of each plant, but they are not compatible with the pesticides sold by those companies and cannot be without genetic modification.

If you want to use Roundup weed killer you need a roundup ready crop. This isn't based on the same concept as DRM, which is artificial, but is a result of how the pesticide works biochemically. There are 2 ways to get a roundup ready crop, 1: GMO, 2: develop resistance (selective breeding). GMO is faster and cheaper and more reliable.  You have part of the concept backward. Monsanto seeds can be treated with other pesticides/herbicides but that would be a waste, however Monsanto pesticides (Roundup) can only be used with Monsanto seeds.

/PhD Chemist/medicinal chemist

RoundUp is an herbicide, Mr Internet Chemist.

I love this comment so so much.


Whoops... I meant BOTH comments.
 
2014-08-05 06:33:39 PM  

BafflerMeal: Well that and sometimes combining organisms that aren't on the same branches of the genetic tree.


You can do that with selective breeding too.
 
2014-08-05 06:34:57 PM  

JolobinSmokin: iron de havilland: Tyson concludes:

If your objection to GMOs is the morality of selling nonprerennial [sic] seed stocks, then focus on that. If your objection to GMOs is the monopolistic conduct of agribusiness, then focus on that. But to paint the entire concept of GMO with these particular issues is to blind yourself to the underlying truth of what humans have been doing-and will continue to do-to nature so that it best serves our survival. That's what all organisms do when they can, or would do, if they could. Those that didn't, have gone extinct extinct [sic].

He said "extinct" twice.

maybe he was using Siri and forgot that only works when you say period twice.  Like "the Jurassic period."


Which is why you should call a full stop "full stop".

Period.
 
2014-08-05 06:35:52 PM  

satanorsanta: That is actually the point of the article. The difference is that there are plenty of non-GMO versions of each plant, but they are not compatible with the pesticides sold by those companies and cannot be without genetic modification.


That's really a different issue though.  I certainly agree that we can debate and criticize specific applications of genetic engineering.  Where I have an issue with when people start throwing around words like "Frankenfood".  Guess what?  Your body doesn't care which organism a particular gene came from.  It's all C, N, O, S and P in the end.
 
2014-08-05 06:43:00 PM  

lindalouwho: lindalouwho: meat0918: satanorsanta: czetie: Some of us object to GMOs despite understanding the science and safety perfectly well. What we object to is the prospect of megacorporations like Cargill or Monsanto controlling food production, for example by producing seed lines that have to be repurchased or relicensed each year; or crops that can only be treated with insecticides and weed killers that they alone produce. And you know what? We don't trust Cargill or Monsanto or their ilk with that kind of power, and with good historical reasons.

In other words, Monsanto, Cargill and others want to bring the equivalent of DRM to our basic food supply -- now, raise your hand if you think DRM has even been a good thing for the consumer?

Now, I will freely award 1,000 points to anybody who can manage to engage with the actual point I'm making here, rather than pretending I'm an anti-science left-wing neo-hippy fearmonger. And by the way, the reason the GMO fight continues is precisely because it's supporters fail to recognize this objection and address it.

That is actually the point of the article.  The difference is that there are plenty of non-GMO versions of each plant, but they are not compatible with the pesticides sold by those companies and cannot be without genetic modification.

If you want to use Roundup weed killer you need a roundup ready crop. This isn't based on the same concept as DRM, which is artificial, but is a result of how the pesticide works biochemically. There are 2 ways to get a roundup ready crop, 1: GMO, 2: develop resistance (selective breeding). GMO is faster and cheaper and more reliable.  You have part of the concept backward. Monsanto seeds can be treated with other pesticides/herbicides but that would be a waste, however Monsanto pesticides (Roundup) can only be used with Monsanto seeds.

/PhD Chemist/medicinal chemist

RoundUp is an herbicide, Mr Internet Chemist.

I love this comment so so much.

Whoops... I meant BOTH comments.


I get what he is getting at, and it is a common mistake to call glyphosate/RoundUp a pesticide.  It detracts from the argument when you mix up the herbicide resistance being engineered into the plants versus the pesticide production being engineered into the plants though.

And BT is one of the safest pesticides we use too.

However, RoundUp was being used before RoundUp Ready (RR) plants were around.  Farmers would spray the field to prep it for planting, wait the designated time for the weeds that popped up to die, then plant the seed.  RR meant they can also spray after their RR plant emerges. 

Also, large scale no till farming in American heavily relies on herbicides rather than mechanical destruction of weeds by plowing them under. 

//The Mr. Internet Chemist may have been a bit harsh though.
 
2014-08-05 06:54:30 PM  

Mentat: BafflerMeal: Well that and sometimes combining organisms that aren't on the same branches of the genetic tree.

You can do that with selective breeding too.


Humans and rabbits? Humans and pigs? Rats and soybeans?
 
2014-08-05 06:54:42 PM  

someonelse: It does, (and again I cannot believe I am taking issue with NdGT, because he is awesome and I would climb that man like a tree) but I fail to see why his opinion on, say, the patenting of seeds should carry more weight than anyone else's.


How about judging his arguments on the merits of that argument (and the evidence underlying it) instead of worrying about whether you should afford him more or less weight on the basis of his background?

Is that somehow a crazy idea?
 
2014-08-05 06:56:26 PM  

lindalouwho: someonelse: lindalouwho: someonelse: lindalouwho: someonelse: lindalouwho: Bith Set Me Up: someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy - and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter."

You aren't saying GMOs today don't involve science, are you?

It does, (and again I cannot believe I am taking issue with NdGT, because he is awesome and I would climb that man like a tree) but I fail to see why his opinion on, say, the patenting of seeds should carry more weight than anyone else's.

BECAUSE HE IS A SCIENTIST WHO IS EDUCATED ON THE SUBJECT.

/sorry for yelling, but cripes sake

I understand that he's an intelligent, educated person, of sound judgment, and I am interested in what he has to say about most anything he chooses to address. But his education is in astrophysics.

Again. Google.is.your.friend.

As an aside, he's also won gold medals in Latin Ballroom dancing.

People can be many things that you're unaware of.

OK, but Google brings up, almost exclusively, links to this same story. I see that he has strong opinions that seem well thought out. What I don't see is that he has any particular background in this subject that makes his opinion any more worthwhile than your average Joe who is well-read and interested in this subject. Maybe I'm missing something here?

Let's try this: NdGT is an expert in ballroom dancing because he has won awards for it. NdGT is an expert in GMOs because ..?...

He is a Science Communicator.
He has the information that those particular scientists have. And I would think he has formed opinions on his own, based on that knowledge.

Think about it like this: with,say, climate change, many people have an opinion. Some of those people have done a lot of reading on the subject, based on the present day known science. Som ...


Would you go to a Podiatrist instead of an OB/GYN? They're  both MD's...
Just because NdGT is intelligent, educated and on TV doesn't make him omniscient and no, he doesn't have access to secret information they only give to  Scientific Educators.

/I happen to agree with his opinion on this subject but not because he's the one saying it.
 
2014-08-05 07:00:28 PM  

BafflerMeal: Mentat: BafflerMeal: Well that and sometimes combining organisms that aren't on the same branches of the genetic tree.

You can do that with selective breeding too.

Humans and rabbits? Humans and pigs? Rats and soybeans?


3.bp.blogspot.com
Here's a Geep:
news.softpedia.com

You get it from:

31.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-08-05 07:02:25 PM  

meat0918: RoundUp is an herbicide, Mr Internet Chemist.


satanorsanta: If you want to use Roundup weed killer you need a roundup ready crop.


I had it right the first time but then started using pesticide herbicide interchangeably.

No hard feelings, it made me smile.

/I really am a chemist though
 
2014-08-05 07:06:25 PM  

Billy Liar: Pro-GMO or No-GMO, I think what's on ballot measures is the question of whether GMO products should be labelled as such, so that people can make a choice,  not whether they should exist.


Sure. We can put those labels right next to the ones that state whether the food was ever within 20 feet of a microwave or air conditioning, cuz a lot of people believe those are dangerous, too.

Or, instead of labeling food based on the pseudo-science crisis of the moment, we properly educate the public about what they should and shouldn't be afraid of.
 
2014-08-05 07:10:39 PM  

RexTalionis: BafflerMeal: Mentat: BafflerMeal: Well that and sometimes combining organisms that aren't on the same branches of the genetic tree.

You can do that with selective breeding too.

Humans and rabbits? Humans and pigs? Rats and soybeans?

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 550x201]
Here's a Geep:
[news.softpedia.com image 728x400]

You get it from:

[31.media.tumblr.com image 400x307]



Yep, quite aware of those.  Mules too.  But those parent organisms are close enough in genetic profile to actually reproduce.

Pretty sure humans and rats can't reproduce with plants.  Or pigs and rabbits with humans.  It's one thing to discuss selective breeding or natural selection, but it's disingenuous to try and talk around recombinant dna.
 
2014-08-05 07:12:46 PM  

kenryoku_one: lindalouwho: someonelse: lindalouwho: someonelse: lindalouwho: someonelse: lindalouwho: Bith Set Me Up: someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy - and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter."

You aren't saying GMOs today don't involve science, are you?

It does, (and again I cannot believe I am taking issue with NdGT, because he is awesome and I would climb that man like a tree) but I fail to see why his opinion on, say, the patenting of seeds should carry more weight than anyone else's.

BECAUSE HE IS A SCIENTIST WHO IS EDUCATED ON THE SUBJECT.

/sorry for yelling, but cripes sake

I understand that he's an intelligent, educated person, of sound judgment, and I am interested in what he has to say about most anything he chooses to address. But his education is in astrophysics.

Again. Google.is.your.friend.

As an aside, he's also won gold medals in Latin Ballroom dancing.

People can be many things that you're unaware of.

OK, but Google brings up, almost exclusively, links to this same story. I see that he has strong opinions that seem well thought out. What I don't see is that he has any particular background in this subject that makes his opinion any more worthwhile than your average Joe who is well-read and interested in this subject. Maybe I'm missing something here?

Let's try this: NdGT is an expert in ballroom dancing because he has won awards for it. NdGT is an expert in GMOs because ..?...

He is a Science Communicator.
He has the information that those particular scientists have. And I would think he has formed opinions on his own, based on that knowledge.

Think about it like this: with,say, climate change, many people have an opinion. Some of those people have done a lot of reading on the subject, based on the present day known science. Som ...

Would you go to a Podiatrist instead of an OB/GYN? They're  both MD's...
Just because NdGT is intelligent, educated and on TV doesn't make him omniscient and no, he doesn't have access to secret information they only give to  Scientific Educators.

/I happen to agree with his opinion on this subject but not because he's the one saying it.


Nonsensical comment is nonsensical and cherry-picks.
 
2014-08-05 07:14:13 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: Sure. We can put those labels right next to the ones that state whether the food was ever within 20 feet of a microwave or air conditioning, cuz a lot of people believe those are dangerous, too.

Or, instead of labeling food based on the pseudo-science crisis of the moment, we properly educate the public about what they should and shouldn't be afraid of.


885fa5ce61295ebf3c84-35b073afd3cf2f7bae35b2b9457774cf.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com
 
2014-08-05 07:27:43 PM  

BafflerMeal: Pretty sure humans and rats can't reproduce with plants. Or pigs and rabbits with humans. It's one thing to discuss selective breeding or natural selection, but it's disingenuous to try and talk around recombinant dna.


Is that really so unnatural? Viruses are quite capable of taking DNA from one host species, incorporating it into its own genome and the reinserting it to another hose species in a naturally occurring process.
 
2014-08-05 07:28:30 PM  

BafflerMeal: RexTalionis: BafflerMeal: Mentat: BafflerMeal: Well that and sometimes combining organisms that aren't on the same branches of the genetic tree.

You can do that with selective breeding too.

Humans and rabbits? Humans and pigs? Rats and soybeans?

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 550x201]
Here's a Geep:
[news.softpedia.com image 728x400]

You get it from:

[31.media.tumblr.com image 400x307]


Yep, quite aware of those.  Mules too.  But those parent organisms are close enough in genetic profile to actually reproduce.

Pretty sure humans and rats can't reproduce with plants.  Or pigs and rabbits with humans.  It's one thing to discuss selective breeding or natural selection, but it's disingenuous to try and talk around recombinant dna.


Not to mention the fact that those particular cross-bred animals will never themselves be able to reproduce, it's not in the realm of possibility.
 
2014-08-05 07:29:47 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: Billy Liar: Pro-GMO or No-GMO, I think what's on ballot measures is the question of whether GMO products should be labelled as such, so that people can make a choice,  not whether they should exist.

Sure. We can put those labels right next to the ones that state whether the food was ever within 20 feet of a microwave or air conditioning, cuz a lot of people believe those are dangerous, too.

Or, instead of labeling food based on the pseudo-science crisis of the moment, we properly educate the public about what they should and shouldn't be afraid of.


The thing with labeling is that just saying "GMO" tells you nothing useful unless it also describes what genes were modified. I suppose we could require the entire genome to be printed on the label.
 
2014-08-05 07:31:33 PM  

lindalouwho: BafflerMeal: RexTalionis: BafflerMeal: Mentat: BafflerMeal: Well that and sometimes combining organisms that aren't on the same branches of the genetic tree.

You can do that with selective breeding too.

Humans and rabbits? Humans and pigs? Rats and soybeans?

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 550x201]
Here's a Geep:
[news.softpedia.com image 728x400]

You get it from:

[31.media.tumblr.com image 400x307]


Yep, quite aware of those.  Mules too.  But those parent organisms are close enough in genetic profile to actually reproduce.

Pretty sure humans and rats can't reproduce with plants.  Or pigs and rabbits with humans.  It's one thing to discuss selective breeding or natural selection, but it's disingenuous to try and talk around recombinant dna.

Not to mention the fact that those particular cross-bred animals will never themselves be able to reproduce, it's not in the realm of possibility.


Past, the seeds you are so afraid of can't either
 
2014-08-05 07:42:46 PM  

satanorsanta: meat0918: RoundUp is an herbicide, Mr Internet Chemist.

satanorsanta: If you want to use Roundup weed killer you need a roundup ready crop.

I had it right the first time but then started using pesticide herbicide interchangeably.

No hard feelings, it made me smile.

/I really am a chemist though


I briefly considered it as a career once.

CSB warning:

I also wanted to do gene research of pretty much what they are doing now directly improving the seed lines with science. I decided I didn't want to be vilified as a mad scientist and moved targets before college to chemical engineering (for the money mostly, turns out I hated the engineering part), then thought about a pure chemist or high school chemistry teacher since I had a good chunk of chemistry credits in college already, finally settled on computer science.

I was also raised on a farm, my grandfather grew soy, corn, and wheat with my father helping when he was laid off for years from the local automotive plant, but later converted a portion of the land to Christmas trees and leased the rest to other farmers after my grandfather grew too old to farm and my father had been rehired. I helped where I could.  We never planted RoundUp Ready crops, as we'd started leasing the land before they were available, but we'd used Round Up.  I still remember being yelled at to not play with the pink corn seeds too.

Modern farming has it's problems, don't get me wrong.  I've met a lot of people that are scared of what the future of farming holds.  The answer isn't to run backwards though to some pastoral and idyllic image of what farming is, which is what I feel some (but not all) are advocating, but to take what we have learned so far and improve upon it (which is what we are generally doing).
 
2014-08-05 07:44:16 PM  
Tyson concludes:

If your objection to GMOs is the morality of selling nonprerennial [sic] seed stocks, then focus on that. If your objection to GMOs is the monopolistic conduct of agribusiness, then focus on that. But to paint the entire concept of GMO with these particular issues is to blind yourself to the underlying truth of what humans have been doing-and will continue to do-to nature so that it best serves our survival. That's what all organisms do when they can, or would do, if they could. Those that didn't, have gone extinct extinct [sic].



My objections are thus: I'm uneasy about mucking with our food supply.

The artificial selection we've been engaged in for millennia has been slow and done on a more localized scale. It takes longer for something to go wrong and it was limited to a smaller area. The damage could be contained. Monoculture food crops makes our food supply more vulnerable. If something goes wrong it can very easily affect our entire food supply.

They're taking the process of artificial selection to a whole new level. It's not just crossing various species of plants but adding genes from other species as well. What if the results produce something unexpected and lethal? Adding pesticide genes and making non-perennial seed crops for example. I mean moral issues aside is that really a good idea? What if the problems don't show up for several generations? Do we really know what we're doing?

I don't think the big corporations are intentionally malicious but they're concerned with maximizing profits and repeat business. Maybe I'm overestimating the danger due to my ignorance of the subject but I think caution is warranted. Mass famine is NOT something any of us want to experience but there tend to be missteps with new technologies. Any missteps with this could be particularly painful.

Also, I find agricorp business practices to be somewhat deplorable.
 
2014-08-05 07:44:37 PM  

chitownmike: lindalouwho: BafflerMeal: RexTalionis: BafflerMeal: Mentat: BafflerMeal: Well that and sometimes combining organisms that aren't on the same branches of the genetic tree.

You can do that with selective breeding too.

Humans and rabbits? Humans and pigs? Rats and soybeans?

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 550x201]
Here's a Geep:
[news.softpedia.com image 728x400]

You get it from:

[31.media.tumblr.com image 400x307]


Yep, quite aware of those.  Mules too.  But those parent organisms are close enough in genetic profile to actually reproduce.

Pretty sure humans and rats can't reproduce with plants.  Or pigs and rabbits with humans.  It's one thing to discuss selective breeding or natural selection, but it's disingenuous to try and talk around recombinant dna.

Not to mention the fact that those particular cross-bred animals will never themselves be able to reproduce, it's not in the realm of possibility.

Past, the seeds you are so afraid of can't either


Huh?! Where did I say anything about the seeds? The only part of GMOs that bother ME are the evil corporations.
 
2014-08-05 07:45:39 PM  

chitownmike: lindalouwho: BafflerMeal: RexTalionis: BafflerMeal: Mentat: BafflerMeal: Well that and sometimes combining organisms that aren't on the same branches of the genetic tree.

You can do that with selective breeding too.

Humans and rabbits? Humans and pigs? Rats and soybeans?

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 550x201]
Here's a Geep:
[news.softpedia.com image 728x400]

You get it from:

[31.media.tumblr.com image 400x307]


Yep, quite aware of those.  Mules too.  But those parent organisms are close enough in genetic profile to actually reproduce.

Pretty sure humans and rats can't reproduce with plants.  Or pigs and rabbits with humans.  It's one thing to discuss selective breeding or natural selection, but it's disingenuous to try and talk around recombinant dna.

Not to mention the fact that those particular cross-bred animals will never themselves be able to reproduce, it's not in the realm of possibility.

Past, the seeds you are so afraid of can't either


Yes, they can. Terminator seeds aren't a thing.

The GMO and/or hybrid(I must stress hybrid plants are NOT GMO in common parlance) may not breed true, but these seeds can be harvested and replanted.
 
2014-08-05 07:49:07 PM  

MechaPyx: Tyson concludes:

If your objection to GMOs is the morality of selling nonprerennial [sic] seed stocks, then focus on that. If your objection to GMOs is the monopolistic conduct of agribusiness, then focus on that. But to paint the entire concept of GMO with these particular issues is to blind yourself to the underlying truth of what humans have been doing-and will continue to do-to nature so that it best serves our survival. That's what all organisms do when they can, or would do, if they could. Those that didn't, have gone extinct extinct [sic].


My objections are thus: I'm uneasy about mucking with our food supply.

The artificial selection we've been engaged in for millennia has been slow and done on a more localized scale. It takes longer for something to go wrong and it was limited to a smaller area. The damage could be contained. Monoculture food crops makes our food supply more vulnerable. If something goes wrong it can very easily affect our entire food supply.

They're taking the process of artificial selection to a whole new level. It's not just crossing various species of plants but adding genes from other species as well. What if the results produce something unexpected and lethal? Adding pesticide genes and making non-perennial seed crops for example. I mean moral issues aside is that really a good idea? What if the problems don't show up for several generations? Do we really know what we're doing?

I don't think the big corporations are intentionally malicious but they're concerned with maximizing profits and repeat business. Maybe I'm overestimating the danger due to my ignorance of the subject but I think caution is warranted. Mass famine is NOT something any of us want to experience but there tend to be missteps with new technologies. Any missteps with this could be particularly painful.

Also, I find agricorp business practices to be somewhat deplorable.


We actually experienced that problem in the 70s with corn way before we were inserting genes into it.

We're (somewhat) smarter about it now.  Monoculture is still big problem that needs to be addressed a bit more thoroughly.
 
2014-08-05 07:49:18 PM  

lindalouwho: chitownmike: lindalouwho: BafflerMeal: RexTalionis: BafflerMeal: Mentat: BafflerMeal: Well that and sometimes combining organisms that aren't on the same branches of the genetic tree.

You can do that with selective breeding too.

Humans and rabbits? Humans and pigs? Rats and soybeans?

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 550x201]
Here's a Geep:
[news.softpedia.com image 728x400]

You get it from:

[31.media.tumblr.com image 400x307]


Yep, quite aware of those.  Mules too.  But those parent organisms are close enough in genetic profile to actually reproduce.

Pretty sure humans and rats can't reproduce with plants.  Or pigs and rabbits with humans.  It's one thing to discuss selective breeding or natural selection, but it's disingenuous to try and talk around recombinant dna.

Not to mention the fact that those particular cross-bred animals will never themselves be able to reproduce, it's not in the realm of possibility.

Past, the seeds you are so afraid of can't either

Huh?! Where did I say anything about the seeds? The only part of GMOs that bother ME are the evil corporations.


Than quit saying it's about GMOs
 
2014-08-05 08:03:43 PM  

chitownmike: lindalouwho: chitownmike: lindalouwho: BafflerMeal: RexTalionis: BafflerMeal: Mentat: BafflerMeal: Well that and sometimes combining organisms that aren't on the same branches of the genetic tree.

You can do that with selective breeding too.

Humans and rabbits? Humans and pigs? Rats and soybeans?

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 550x201]
Here's a Geep:
[news.softpedia.com image 728x400]

You get it from:

[31.media.tumblr.com image 400x307]


Yep, quite aware of those.  Mules too.  But those parent organisms are close enough in genetic profile to actually reproduce.

Pretty sure humans and rats can't reproduce with plants.  Or pigs and rabbits with humans.  It's one thing to discuss selective breeding or natural selection, but it's disingenuous to try and talk around recombinant dna.

Not to mention the fact that those particular cross-bred animals will never themselves be able to reproduce, it's not in the realm of possibility.

Past, the seeds you are so afraid of can't either

Huh?! Where did I say anything about the seeds? The only part of GMOs that bother ME are the evil corporations.

Than quit saying it's about GMOs


I truly have no idea where you're coming from.
 
2014-08-05 08:17:43 PM  

RexTalionis: someonelse: It does, (and again I cannot believe I am taking issue with NdGT, because he is awesome and I would climb that man like a tree) but I fail to see why his opinion on, say, the patenting of seeds should carry more weight than anyone else's.

How about judging his arguments on the merits of that argument (and the evidence underlying it) instead of worrying about whether you should afford him more or less weight on the basis of his background?

Is that somehow a crazy idea?


I already said that I largely agree with him and think he's awesome. I was referring to the implication upthread that he had more authority on this issue because he is a scientist, which I don't really think he does in this case. But maybe I inferred something that wasn't implied, since hardly anyone else had the same reaction.
 
2014-08-05 08:19:28 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: stpauler: Marcus Aurelius: stpauler: The GMO banana, aka the Cavendish

I hate to break it to you, but the Cavendish was discovered long before GMO technology existed.

GMO technology is prehistoric, about 12000 BCE.So no, the Cavendish has not been around as long with the stone age ending between 6000 and 2000 BCE.

"GMO" technically refers to the use of genetic engineering to extract a gene from one organism, and splice it into the DNA of another organism.  This was first done in 1973.  You are thinking of "selective breeding", not "genetic engineering".


Because BIG FARKING DIFFERENCE.

C'mon, Marcus, you're not supposed to be one of the Fark Derp Brigade.
 
2014-08-05 08:19:47 PM  

BafflerMeal: Pretty sure humans and rats can't reproduce with plants. Or pigs and rabbits with humans. It's one thing to discuss selective breeding or natural selection, but it's disingenuous to try and talk around recombinant dna.


If anyone were talking around it, you might have a point.
 
2014-08-05 08:47:24 PM  
Question, how can there be a 'round 2' if one of the opponents was KOed by logic in the first...?
 
2014-08-05 08:48:41 PM  

Iczer: Question, how can there be a 'round 2' if one of the opponents was KOed by logic in the first...?


Kick 'em when they're down. It's the only way to be sure.
 
2014-08-05 09:08:08 PM  
I'm impressed. It's actually been quite a few weeks since Fark has blown this guy. Remarkable restraint, everyone.
 
2014-08-05 09:12:13 PM  
MechaPyx:
My objections are thus: I'm uneasy about mucking with our food supply.

The artificial selection we've been engaged in for millennia has been slow and done on a more localized scale. It takes longer for something to go wrong and it was limited to a smaller area. The damage could be contained. Monoculture food crops makes our food supply more vulnerable. If something goes wrong it can very easily affect our entire food supply.



www.historyplace.com

This happened many times before recombinant DNA or big agribusinesses came into being. If anything, truck farming and GMOs from labs have reduced dust bowls and almost eliminated famine (at least where an external political pressure isn't enforcing one, like Ethiopia in the 80s, or the ones now where European agriculture has pressured African states to turn away GMO food relief from Canada and the US).
 
2014-08-05 09:17:38 PM  
muchosmundos.com

He is right.....here is a wild banana ....looks tasty doesn't it?
 
2014-08-05 09:38:26 PM  

luidprand: MechaPyx:
My objections are thus: I'm uneasy about mucking with our food supply.

The artificial selection we've been engaged in for millennia has been slow and done on a more localized scale. It takes longer for something to go wrong and it was limited to a smaller area. The damage could be contained. Monoculture food crops makes our food supply more vulnerable. If something goes wrong it can very easily affect our entire food supply.


[www.historyplace.com image 346x203]

This happened many times before recombinant DNA or big agribusinesses came into being. If anything, truck farming and GMOs from labs have reduced dust bowls and almost eliminated famine (at least where an external political pressure isn't enforcing one, like Ethiopia in the 80s, or the ones now where European agriculture has pressured African states to turn away GMO food relief from Canada and the US).


GMOs are a greatly beneficial technology but have the potential for harm as well. Recombinant DNA tech seems like it could help maximize the potential benefits but could also increase the risks. I think we should continue to develop this tech but with caution and an awareness of the potential dangers.

As for megacorps, I trust them to do what's in THEIR best interests but that's not necessarily what's good for me or everyone else and quite frankly, I don't think large monopolistic corporations can be trusted with that kind of power over our food supply. They certainly can't be trusted with self regulation with regards to safety and environmental concerns. Unfortunately the agencies that enforce regulatory precautions are subject to undue influence and corruption so the can't be entirely trusted either.
 
2014-08-05 09:38:34 PM  

someonelse: lindalouwho: someonelse: lindalouwho: Bith Set Me Up: someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy - and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter."

You aren't saying GMOs today don't involve science, are you?

It does, (and again I cannot believe I am taking issue with NdGT, because he is awesome and I would climb that man like a tree) but I fail to see why his opinion on, say, the patenting of seeds should carry more weight than anyone else's.

BECAUSE HE IS A SCIENTIST WHO IS EDUCATED ON THE SUBJECT.

/sorry for yelling, but cripes sake

I understand that he's an intelligent, educated person, of sound judgment, and I am interested in what he has to say about most anything he chooses to address. But his education is in astrophysics.


And that precludes him from learning about GMOs?
 
2014-08-05 10:56:52 PM  

quatchi: The smart money is betting on NdGT in this fight.


Did Monsanto get a new stock symbol?
 
2014-08-05 11:27:34 PM  

Billy Liar: Pro-GMO or No-GMO, I think what's on ballot measures is the question of whether GMO products should be labelled as such, so that people can make a choice,  not whether they should exist.

That's all.  Now I have to go back to burning my flag, which the SUPREME COURT says that I HAVE TO DO.


This. Plain and simple. The right to choose as the right to know.
 
2014-08-06 12:05:55 AM  
I find it amusing that an astrophysics PhD isn't allowed to talk about biology because it's not his field, but a bunch of random non-scientists on Fark can pontificate all they want.

Newsflash: It's actually possible to be educated in multiple topics.
 
2014-08-06 12:20:51 AM  

meat0918: satanorsanta: czetie: Some of us object to GMOs despite understanding the science and safety perfectly well. What we object to is the prospect of megacorporations like Cargill or Monsanto controlling food production, for example by producing seed lines that have to be repurchased or relicensed each year; or crops that can only be treated with insecticides and weed killers that they alone produce. And you know what? We don't trust Cargill or Monsanto or their ilk with that kind of power, and with good historical reasons.

In other words, Monsanto, Cargill and others want to bring the equivalent of DRM to our basic food supply -- now, raise your hand if you think DRM has even been a good thing for the consumer?

Now, I will freely award 1,000 points to anybody who can manage to engage with the actual point I'm making here, rather than pretending I'm an anti-science left-wing neo-hippy fearmonger. And by the way, the reason the GMO fight continues is precisely because it's supporters fail to recognize this objection and address it.

That is actually the point of the article.  The difference is that there are plenty of non-GMO versions of each plant, but they are not compatible with the pesticides sold by those companies and cannot be without genetic modification.

If you want to use Roundup weed killer you need a roundup ready crop. This isn't based on the same concept as DRM, which is artificial, but is a result of how the pesticide works biochemically. There are 2 ways to get a roundup ready crop, 1: GMO, 2: develop resistance (selective breeding). GMO is faster and cheaper and more reliable.  You have part of the concept backward. Monsanto seeds can be treated with other pesticides/herbicides but that would be a waste, however Monsanto pesticides (Roundup) can only be used with Monsanto seeds.

/PhD Chemist/medicinal chemist

RoundUp is an herbicide, Mr Internet Chemist.


Fun fact: the definition of "pesticide" that the EPA (and various internet dictionaries) uses includes herbicides as a subset. While Mr. Internet Chemist did cop to making a mistake, it wasn't really a mistake. At least not in the eyes of the EPA.

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/about/
 
2014-08-06 03:42:32 AM  

mookielove: meat0918: satanorsanta: czetie: Some of us object to GMOs despite understanding the science and safety perfectly well. What we object to is the prospect of megacorporations like Cargill or Monsanto controlling food production, for example by producing seed lines that have to be repurchased or relicensed each year; or crops that can only be treated with insecticides and weed killers that they alone produce. And you know what? We don't trust Cargill or Monsanto or their ilk with that kind of power, and with good historical reasons.

In other words, Monsanto, Cargill and others want to bring the equivalent of DRM to our basic food supply -- now, raise your hand if you think DRM has even been a good thing for the consumer?

Now, I will freely award 1,000 points to anybody who can manage to engage with the actual point I'm making here, rather than pretending I'm an anti-science left-wing neo-hippy fearmonger. And by the way, the reason the GMO fight continues is precisely because it's supporters fail to recognize this objection and address it.

That is actually the point of the article.  The difference is that there are plenty of non-GMO versions of each plant, but they are not compatible with the pesticides sold by those companies and cannot be without genetic modification.

If you want to use Roundup weed killer you need a roundup ready crop. This isn't based on the same concept as DRM, which is artificial, but is a result of how the pesticide works biochemically. There are 2 ways to get a roundup ready crop, 1: GMO, 2: develop resistance (selective breeding). GMO is faster and cheaper and more reliable.  You have part of the concept backward. Monsanto seeds can be treated with other pesticides/herbicides but that would be a waste, however Monsanto pesticides (Roundup) can only be used with Monsanto seeds.

/PhD Chemist/medicinal chemist

RoundUp is an herbicide, Mr Internet Chemist.

Fun fact: the definition of "pesticide" that the EPA (and various internet dictionaries) uses includes herbicides as a subset. While Mr. Internet Chemist did cop to making a mistake, it wasn't really a mistake. At least not in the eyes of the EPA.

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/about/


I am amazed I have never seen that definition, or heard it, and I have been involed with anti-"toxics" people as we try to address industrial pollution(including herbicide exposure) in our neighborhood, plus have done a decent amount of reading on the subject. There is always a distinction.

Thank you. I mean it, no sarcasm intended.
 
2014-08-06 03:46:02 AM  

HortusMatris: mookielove: meat0918: satanorsanta: czetie: Some of us object to GMOs despite understanding the science and safety perfectly well. What we object to is the prospect of megacorporations like Cargill or Monsanto controlling food production, for example by producing seed lines that have to be repurchased or relicensed each year; or crops that can only be treated with insecticides and weed killers that they alone produce. And you know what? We don't trust Cargill or Monsanto or their ilk with that kind of power, and with good historical reasons.

In other words, Monsanto, Cargill and others want to bring the equivalent of DRM to our basic food supply -- now, raise your hand if you think DRM has even been a good thing for the consumer?

Now, I will freely award 1,000 points to anybody who can manage to engage with the actual point I'm making here, rather than pretending I'm an anti-science left-wing neo-hippy fearmonger. And by the way, the reason the GMO fight continues is precisely because it's supporters fail to recognize this objection and address it.

That is actually the point of the article.  The difference is that there are plenty of non-GMO versions of each plant, but they are not compatible with the pesticides sold by those companies and cannot be without genetic modification.

If you want to use Roundup weed killer you need a roundup ready crop. This isn't based on the same concept as DRM, which is artificial, but is a result of how the pesticide works biochemically. There are 2 ways to get a roundup ready crop, 1: GMO, 2: develop resistance (selective breeding). GMO is faster and cheaper and more reliable.  You have part of the concept backward. Monsanto seeds can be treated with other pesticides/herbicides but that would be a waste, however Monsanto pesticides (Roundup) can only be used with Monsanto seeds.

/PhD Chemist/medicinal chemist

RoundUp is an herbicide, Mr Internet Chemist.

Fun fact: the definition of "pesticide" that the EPA (and various interne ...


Stupid phone, logged me in as my wife's account, even though it said I was logged in as me.

She's gonna be a bit upset with me.
 
2014-08-06 03:55:02 AM  
The source of some of the debate here seems to be that we have about two acceptable public faces for science communication in this country.  While they can't be an expert in every topic, we just keep coming back to them because reality tv gets an infinite number of celebrated persons and the sciences just get NdGT and Bill Nye.

How about we use this thread to promote some of our fav scientists who could and should be more known to the public?

I'll start with Brother Guy Consolmagno, Vatican research astronomer, Carl Sagan medal winner, and, from all the personal accounts I've heard, overall nice guy.

/I love you, but you lost that rap war with Newton, Bill Nye
//your arguments were all personal; by that standard we'd have had to let Edison beat Tesla because pigeons
 
2014-08-06 07:38:20 AM  
I like the guy (Pluto may or may not have had it coming,) and I am not and anti-GMO nutter, but I wish he would stick to the Astrophysics stuff. I think the celebrity thing is getting to him, like a Hollywood actor/actress who thinks their opinions on everything are important enough to share with the world.

Resist the dark side Neil


www.astro.caltech.edu

sites.psu.edu
i.kinja-img.com
 
2014-08-06 07:43:41 AM  

lindalouwho: someonelse: lindalouwho: someonelse: lindalouwho: Bith Set Me Up: someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy - and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter."

You aren't saying GMOs today don't involve science, are you?

It does, (and again I cannot believe I am taking issue with NdGT, because he is awesome and I would climb that man like a tree) but I fail to see why his opinion on, say, the patenting of seeds should carry more weight than anyone else's.

BECAUSE HE IS A SCIENTIST WHO IS EDUCATED ON THE SUBJECT.

/sorry for yelling, but cripes sake

I understand that he's an intelligent, educated person, of sound judgment, and I am interested in what he has to say about most anything he chooses to address. But his education is in astrophysics.

Again. Google.is.your.friend.

As an aside, he's also won gold medals in Latin Ballroom dancing.

People can be many things that you're unaware of.


Or they can just generally be smart people.  And have opinions about subjects that their entire life's work is not immediately focused on.

Like NDgT.  Or George Clooney.
 
2014-08-06 08:00:04 AM  

Close2TheEdge: lindalouwho: someonelse: lindalouwho: someonelse: lindalouwho: Bith Set Me Up: someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy - and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter."

You aren't saying GMOs today don't involve science, are you?

It does, (and again I cannot believe I am taking issue with NdGT, because he is awesome and I would climb that man like a tree) but I fail to see why his opinion on, say, the patenting of seeds should carry more weight than anyone else's.

BECAUSE HE IS A SCIENTIST WHO IS EDUCATED ON THE SUBJECT.

/sorry for yelling, but cripes sake

I understand that he's an intelligent, educated person, of sound judgment, and I am interested in what he has to say about most anything he chooses to address. But his education is in astrophysics.

Again. Google.is.your.friend.

As an aside, he's also won gold medals in Latin Ballroom dancing.

People can be many things that you're unaware of.

Or they can just generally be smart people.  And have opinions about subjects that their entire life's work is not immediately focused on.

Like NDgT.  Or George Clooney.


Thank you for that ;-)
 
2014-08-06 08:00:55 AM  

wildcardjack: Marcus Aurelius: stpauler: Marcus Aurelius: stpauler: The GMO banana, aka the Cavendish

I hate to break it to you, but the Cavendish was discovered long before GMO technology existed.

GMO technology is prehistoric, about 12000 BCE.So no, the Cavendish has not been around as long with the stone age ending between 6000 and 2000 BCE.

"GMO" technically refers to the use of genetic engineering to extract a gene from one organism, and splice it into the DNA of another organism.  This was first done in 1973.  You are thinking of "selective breeding", not "genetic engineering".

Don't skip the 50-60 years we spent making genetic freaks through radiation exposure. No one seems to complain about Ruby Red grapefruit.


This.  We've been doing it for a very long time.  The methodology is all that has changed, enabling more diverse combinations.

That is it.  You're not going to absorb DNA and have it affect you.  You're going to digest what you can of what you eat and break it down into it's component parts, and shiat out the rest.  It's always been that way.  The methodology isn't going to change that basic function.

That's not to say a given genetic modification could be bad, a certain specific protein so that it is now undigestable.(just a random potential example), or that the FDA will miss such a thing and sanction it as a source of protein, or that a "new" species will a terrible effect on the local wildlife(ie importing frogs to Australia).

IF you take issue with those, that's fine, but limit your arguments to what you understand on a fact based level, instead of wholesale bannination of such a practice that really can help with things like world hunger or over-sensitive crops(or other lifeforms: see below) that are dying out.

IMO, we should be doing a lot of research into helping out bees.
 
2014-08-06 08:49:05 AM  

meat0918: wildcardjack: Marcus Aurelius: stpauler: Marcus Aurelius: stpauler: The GMO banana, aka the Cavendish

I hate to break it to you, but the Cavendish was discovered long before GMO technology existed.

GMO technology is prehistoric, about 12000 BCE.So no, the Cavendish has not been around as long with the stone age ending between 6000 and 2000 BCE.

"GMO" technically refers to the use of genetic engineering to extract a gene from one organism, and splice it into the DNA of another organism.  This was first done in 1973.  You are thinking of "selective breeding", not "genetic engineering".

Don't skip the 50-60 years we spent making genetic freaks through radiation exposure. No one seems to complain about Ruby Red grapefruit.

Finding Organic Ruby Red grapefruit is the best.

GMO is going to be a key tool in keeping populations fed, not because of herbicide resistance or pesticide production, but because climate could change our cropland faster than we can use traditional breeding techniques to adapt.

And, you can use GMO to prove your rice or wheat has the genes you want (and it will be 100% rice or wheat), then take the originals and breed them together using good "old fashioned" breeding techniques.

And Neil makes a point I've tried to make, but I obviously lack the platform he has.

If you don't like corporate domination of agriculture, focus on that.

Have problems with monoculture?  Focus on that.

Don't use GMO as a catch all for the things are are very wrong and problematic with our current food production system.  Labeling isn't going to stop monoculture or even put a dent in Monsanto's or ConAgra's profits.  Monsanto has "regular" seed stock you know, and ConAgra will still do whatever it is they do, they'll just use whatever crops they end up using for it.


If I weren't on my phone I'd toss you a picture of organic sea salt.
 
2014-08-06 09:28:42 AM  

Close2TheEdge: lindalouwho: someonelse: lindalouwho: someonelse: lindalouwho: Bith Set Me Up: someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy - and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter."

You aren't saying GMOs today don't involve science, are you?

It does, (and again I cannot believe I am taking issue with NdGT, because he is awesome and I would climb that man like a tree) but I fail to see why his opinion on, say, the patenting of seeds should carry more weight than anyone else's.

BECAUSE HE IS A SCIENTIST WHO IS EDUCATED ON THE SUBJECT.

/sorry for yelling, but cripes sake

I understand that he's an intelligent, educated person, of sound judgment, and I am interested in what he has to say about most anything he chooses to address. But his education is in astrophysics.

Again. Google.is.your.friend.

As an aside, he's also won gold medals in Latin Ballroom dancing.

People can be many things that you're unaware of.

Or they can just generally be smart people.  And have opinions about subjects that their entire life's work is not immediately focused on.

Like NDgT.  Or George Clooney.


Great if I want info on Latin Ballroom dancing (whatever that is) I seek out his opinion.

Actors and astrophysicists are not on my go to people list for information on GMOs, vaccination, immigration, economics or the Middle East. Unless they were somebody like Heady Lamar, a go to person on acting and  spread-spectrum communication technology
 
2014-08-06 10:18:18 AM  

hasty ambush: Great if I want info on Latin Ballroom dancing (whatever that is) I seek out his opinion.

Actors and astrophysicists are not on my go to people list for information on GMOs, vaccination, immigration, economics or the Middle East. Unless they were somebody like Heady Lamar, a go to person on acting and  spread-spectrum communication technology


This might shock you, but a person interested in one area of science is usually interested (and knowledgeable) about many areas of science. Unlike the anti-GMO crowd, Neil's stance on GMOs is actually backed by scientific studies.
 
2014-08-06 10:22:49 AM  

hasty ambush: Close2TheEdge: lindalouwho: someonelse: lindalouwho: someonelse: lindalouwho: Bith Set Me Up: someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy - and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter."

You aren't saying GMOs today don't involve science, are you?

It does, (and again I cannot believe I am taking issue with NdGT, because he is awesome and I would climb that man like a tree) but I fail to see why his opinion on, say, the patenting of seeds should carry more weight than anyone else's.

BECAUSE HE IS A SCIENTIST WHO IS EDUCATED ON THE SUBJECT.

/sorry for yelling, but cripes sake

I understand that he's an intelligent, educated person, of sound judgment, and I am interested in what he has to say about most anything he chooses to address. But his education is in astrophysics.

Again. Google.is.your.friend.

As an aside, he's also won gold medals in Latin Ballroom dancing.

People can be many things that you're unaware of.

Or they can just generally be smart people.  And have opinions about subjects that their entire life's work is not immediately focused on.

Like NDgT.  Or George Clooney.

Great if I want info on Latin Ballroom dancing (whatever that is) I seek out his opinion.

Actors and astrophysicists are not on my go to people list for information on GMOs, vaccination, immigration, economics or the Middle East. Unless they were somebody like Heady Lamar, a go to person on acting and  spread-spectrum communication technology


So as a scientist who is trained in Food Chemistry I know nothing of any other sciences or cannot possibly have a grasp on how they work?  You are putting people in a box they just do not fit into.  I have collegiate and field training in physics, biology(micro), statistics, advanced maths, computer science, ecology, agri-soil science, animal physiology, and I took three classes in astronomy because that shiat is fascinating.  I would guess that De Grasse has similar healing and he is FAR more educated than I am.  His opinion, albeit not his specialized field, is correct SPEAKING AS SOMEONE SPECIALIZED IN FOOD SCIENCE WITH DEGREES, PATENTS, AND PUBLICATIONS.  There are you happy?  Now go back to your bizarre fantasies of this celeb-u-scientist.
 
2014-08-06 11:02:53 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Selective breeding will yield a red tabby cat. But in order to make a cat glow in the dark, you need a GMO.


THIS. What the people who harp that selective breeding is EXACTLY THE VERY VERY SAME as GMO can't seem to grasp. Selective breeding can result in eleventy thousand types of potatoes or a jillion breeds of cattle... but only modification in a lab on a genetic level will make goats spooge spider silk proteins from their udders in their milk.

I don't care how much crossbreeding people do, spider-goat ain't gonna happen without a test tube.
Selective breeding is not the same as GMO.
 
2014-08-06 11:21:54 AM  

kicksmile: hasty ambush: Close2TheEdge: lindalouwho: someonelse: lindalouwho: someonelse: lindalouwho: Bith Set Me Up: someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy - and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter."

You aren't saying GMOs today don't involve science, are you?

It does, (and again I cannot believe I am taking issue with NdGT, because he is awesome and I would climb that man like a tree) but I fail to see why his opinion on, say, the patenting of seeds should carry more weight than anyone else's.

BECAUSE HE IS A SCIENTIST WHO IS EDUCATED ON THE SUBJECT.

/sorry for yelling, but cripes sake

I understand that he's an intelligent, educated person, of sound judgment, and I am interested in what he has to say about most anything he chooses to address. But his education is in astrophysics.

Again. Google.is.your.friend.

As an aside, he's also won gold medals in Latin Ballroom dancing.

People can be many things that you're unaware of.

Or they can just generally be smart people.  And have opinions about subjects that their entire life's work is not immediately focused on.

Like NDgT.  Or George Clooney.

Great if I want info on Latin Ballroom dancing (whatever that is) I seek out his opinion.

Actors and astrophysicists are not on my go to people list for information on GMOs, vaccination, immigration, economics or the Middle East. Unless they were somebody like Heady Lamar, a go to person on acting and  spread-spectrum communication technology

So as a scientist who is trained in Food Chemistry I know nothing of any other sciences or cannot possibly have a grasp on how they work?  You are putting people in a box they just do not fit into.  I have collegiate and field training in physics, biology(micro), statistics, advanced maths, computer science, e ...


Despite your immense amount of schooling I would not choose you to perform open heart surgery (also involves science) or even go to you for a second opinion on a diagnosis on it.
 
2014-08-06 12:05:03 PM  

hasty ambush: Despite your immense amount of schooling I would not choose you to perform open heart surgery (also involves science) or even go to you for a second opinion on a diagnosis on it.


You're moving the goalposts a tad.  You can be well informed an educated on a subject without being the utmost authority on it.
 
2014-08-06 12:11:19 PM  

hasty ambush: Despite your immense amount of schooling I would not choose you to perform open heart surgery (also involves science) or even go to you for a second opinion on a diagnosis on i


No, but I can still describe how the heart works at a level of detail beyond lay speak.
 
2014-08-06 12:20:16 PM  

satanorsanta: There are 2 ways to get a roundup ready crop, 1: GMO, 2: develop resistance (selective breeding). GMO is faster and cheaper and more reliable.


GMO very well may be the only way of making certain crops resistant to a pesticide. Adaptation is not guaranteed by evolution for a particular species. Resistance will develop within certain species, but other species will never develop resistance. That's why penicillin's reliability against Staphylococcus aureus is way down but it can still be used to treat other infections. The problem is that with antibiotics, much like with roundup, every species gets affected so S. aureus present will develop resistance even if that's not the infection (which might always get killed off with the antibiotics until the end of the earth). With roundup, certain weeds are starting to become resistant to it and popping up in corn fields. It's not the great-great grand seedlings of all the weeds that used to be there. It's that some weeds survived, moved in, and took off. The weed ecosystem doesn't look like it did 20 years ago.

If I sprayed roundup on a field with many different non-GMO corn varieties, I'd end up with a bunch of dead corn and a few weeds that survived the spraying.
 
2014-08-06 12:40:40 PM  

LoneWolf343: Marcus Aurelius: stpauler: Marcus Aurelius: stpauler: The GMO banana, aka the Cavendish

I hate to break it to you, but the Cavendish was discovered long before GMO technology existed.

GMO technology is prehistoric, about 12000 BCE.So no, the Cavendish has not been around as long with the stone age ending between 6000 and 2000 BCE.

"GMO" technically refers to the use of genetic engineering to extract a gene from one organism, and splice it into the DNA of another organism.  This was first done in 1973.  You are thinking of "selective breeding", not "genetic engineering".

Because BIG FARKING DIFFERENCE.

C'mon, Marcus, you're not supposed to be one of the Fark Derp Brigade.


Sorry.  I am just going by the definition found on Google, Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Brittanica, and Dictionary.com.  While I realize these are horrible sources, they do all agree.

From Google:

Genetically modified organism
A genetically modified organism is an organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques


This of course leads one to look for a definition of "genetic engineering techniques".  See Wikipedia

So from my point of view, a GMO requires genetic engineering techniques, which are a far cry from "let's cross this tomato with that tomato and see what happens".
 
2014-08-06 04:53:07 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: stpauler: The GMO banana, aka the Cavendish

I hate to break it to you, but the Cavendish was discovered long before GMO technology existed.


We should stop using the term "GMO" and should instead use "rDNA-enhanced." GMO's have been around forever. Recombinant DNA technology was developed in the 60's and that's what gets people concerned.
 
2014-08-06 05:10:53 PM  

meat0918: someonelse: lindalouwho: someonelse: lindalouwho: someonelse: lindalouwho: Bith Set Me Up: someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy - and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter."

You aren't saying GMOs today don't involve science, are you?

It does, (and again I cannot believe I am taking issue with NdGT, because he is awesome and I would climb that man like a tree) but I fail to see why his opinion on, say, the patenting of seeds should carry more weight than anyone else's.

BECAUSE HE IS A SCIENTIST WHO IS EDUCATED ON THE SUBJECT.

/sorry for yelling, but cripes sake

I understand that he's an intelligent, educated person, of sound judgment, and I am interested in what he has to say about most anything he chooses to address. But his education is in astrophysics.

Again. Google.is.your.friend.

As an aside, he's also won gold medals in Latin Ballroom dancing.

People can be many things that you're unaware of.

OK, but Google brings up, almost exclusively, links to this same story. I see that he has strong opinions that seem well thought out. What I don't see is that he has any particular background in this subject that makes his opinion any more worthwhile than your average Joe who is well-read and interested in this subject. Maybe I'm missing something here?

Let's try this: NdGT is an expert in ballroom dancing because he has won awards for it. NdGT is an expert in GMOs because ..?...

I think you're the only one claiming he is an expert in the field.


I love how intelligent people (scientists!) aren't allowed to have an opinion about this shiat, but every random idiot in the internet can. My friends have been posting all kinds of anti-GMO crap on FB and when somebody links to what NDTyson said, they're all "You should stick to astrophysics, Dr. Tyson" as if being able to use Google makes them some kind of farking genetic engineer whose opinions are more valid than his. What the fark, over?
 
2014-08-06 05:38:58 PM  
A month ago you couldn't knock his dick out of a lot of the mouths that are now saying he should stick to only that which he has specific education and training with a sledgehammer.
 
2014-08-06 07:21:21 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: LoneWolf343: Marcus Aurelius: stpauler: Marcus Aurelius: stpauler: The GMO banana, aka the Cavendish

I hate to break it to you, but the Cavendish was discovered long before GMO technology existed.

GMO technology is prehistoric, about 12000 BCE.So no, the Cavendish has not been around as long with the stone age ending between 6000 and 2000 BCE.

"GMO" technically refers to the use of genetic engineering to extract a gene from one organism, and splice it into the DNA of another organism.  This was first done in 1973.  You are thinking of "selective breeding", not "genetic engineering".

Because BIG FARKING DIFFERENCE.

C'mon, Marcus, you're not supposed to be one of the Fark Derp Brigade.

Sorry.  I am just going by the definition found on Google, Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Brittanica, and Dictionary.com.  While I realize these are horrible sources, they do all agree.

From Google:

Genetically modified organism
A genetically modified organism is an organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques

This of course leads one to look for a definition of "genetic engineering techniques".  See Wikipedia

So from my point of view, a GMO requires genetic engineering techniques, which are a far cry from "let's cross this tomato with that tomato and see what happens".


The overall point is that we have been changing our food using various methods over the years. GMO is just another method we use to improve our crops. That is what he was trying to say.
 
2014-08-06 07:58:19 PM  

cman: The overall point is that we have been changing our food using various methods over the years. GMO is just another method we use to improve our crops. That is what he was trying to say.


Yes.  All of you are technically correct, which is the best kind of correct.

The distinction that I am trying to draw is that we are no longer constrained to breeding within viable populations.  We can make goats whose milk secretes specific antibodies.  We can make cats that glow in the dark.

We can splice virtually any gene into any chromosome and see if it is viable.

That is what sets the term "GMO" apart, in my mind.

So what should I call a creature that was spliced together from a jellyfish and an alley cat?
 
2014-08-06 08:03:50 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: So what should I call a creature that was spliced together from a jellyfish and an alley cat?


I don't understand why that is morally wrong
 
2014-08-06 08:32:36 PM  

cman: Marcus Aurelius: So what should I call a creature that was spliced together from a jellyfish and an alley cat?

I don't understand why that is morally wrong


I didn't say it was morally wrong.  I just want to know what I should call it, to distinguish it from a viable breeding population (not to mention tentacle porn).
 
2014-08-06 08:36:15 PM  
There is a distinction between creatures that can breed in the wild and/or be irradiated or mutated in various ways to create variations within their population, and those recombined from bits of DNA.  Mother nature has done this for at least 15 billion years.  Homo Sapiens has done this for at least a dozen millenia.

Molecular biologists have done this since 1973.

What will they be getting up to in 2073, do you suppose?

Some of you are going to find out.  God help you.
 
2014-08-06 08:48:38 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: cman: Marcus Aurelius: So what should I call a creature that was spliced together from a jellyfish and an alley cat?

I don't understand why that is morally wrong

I didn't say it was morally wrong.  I just want to know what I should call it, to distinguish it from a viable breeding population (not to mention tentacle porn).


Naming rights goes to the author. Whomever does it first will get to name it.
 
2014-08-06 08:57:36 PM  
The legitimate concerns with GMO crops are being dismissed along with the ridiculous concerns.  NdGT talks about the legitimate concerns, but it is barely noticed.
 
2014-08-06 09:00:06 PM  
Are we smart enough to play God though?

What if the things we create start to interact in ways we can't control and are detrimental to us? What if we end up doing something really stupid because we're blinded by greed? What if we end up killing the goose that laid the golden egg?

Some of this is clearly fear of technology run amok but I think there are also valid concerns here. If there's one things I trust humans to do it's to screw something up.
 
2014-08-07 12:03:58 AM  

MechaPyx: Are we smart enough to play God though?

What if the things we create start to interact in ways we can't control and are detrimental to us? What if we end up doing something really stupid because we're blinded by greed? What if we end up killing the goose that laid the golden egg?

Some of this is clearly fear of technology run amok but I think there are also valid concerns here. If there's one things I trust humans to do it's to screw something up.


Whenever a technological innovation happens someone somewhere can turn it into evil. We will just do what we humans have done all along: Legislation. There is nothing wrong with GMO plants, food from GMOs, or even gene splicing in general. These things are not even controversial amongst scientists. Paranoia besets progress, which can be a good thing as it prevents really stupid things (ie we had to ensure that civilians do not own nuclear weapons while accepting their right to bear arms). In this case it isn't warranted. The science is on GMO's side.
 
2014-08-07 06:23:33 AM  

hasty ambush: I like the guy (Pluto may or may not have had it coming,) and I am not and anti-GMO nutter, but I wish he would stick to the Astrophysics stuff. I think the celebrity thing is getting to him, like a Hollywood actor/actress who thinks their opinions on everything are important enough to share with the world.

Resist the dark side Neil



In all fairness to him, he got asked a question about an out of field issue (GMOs), basically all he said is to approach the problem logically and without emotion... people mischaracterized that and freaked out. Then he expanded on his position, which still boils down to "approach with logic"... and people wildly mischaracterized that (one headline read "Tyson thinks Monsanto should make as much as they want with GMOs!")... and people freaked out about it. If you see the actual Q&A, or you read the ACTUAL comments from him on his facebook page not some rehashed, edited versions, you'll see he really isn't saying much of anything at all.
 
Displayed 123 of 123 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