GM Crops

[scalyblue]

You can't grow that much uninformed crazy in one video without GMO tech.

Does anybody think the entire process of selective breeding should be b&d because of africainized bees? No? Then stop bitching about GM crops.

 

[Niocan]

You can hardly compare the two, and that was a horrible counter-argument.. but, nice try?

 

[scalyblue]

You can hardly compare the two, and that was a horrible counter-argument.. but, nice try?

Oh, I'm sorry, allow me to veil it in mysticism and dualism, turn it into a conspiracy to oppress beekeepers and endanger the public, and ignore everybody who disagrees with me...oh wait, we have you for that.

 

[Niocan]

Have you seen the trials for GMO crops? The tests? The reactions? (Bees, while mentioned, die off from GMO plants because of the unusual levels of pesticides found on and/or in the plant depending on whether it's designed to produce it's own pesticides or to be immune to them).

I doubt you've looked into this enough, and it seems you're just blindly agreeing to anything marketed towards you:
Bigger crops! Less pesticide use! [but you have to use *our* pesticide] More yield! More nutritious! (Complete bullshit).

This isn't simple science being applied to better humanity, it's [Biotech] all based upon a system of patents used to control the food we eat. It's as if Linux decided to close their kernel source one day because *they* know how to do things 'correctly' and everyone else in the world is banned from seeing it... When in reality the open source flourished the creativity of whomever wanted to play with it.
(I know Linux can't be described as a single entity at all, but you should get the point).

 

[Aught3]

A more accurate analogy would be if a programmer came up with an improved version of linux and decided to commercialise it. People who want to use the enhanced version will have to pay for it, those who want to keep using the basic linux can do that as well.

 

[Niocan]

Except we're not dealing with just isolated systems here, the plant genome is a sea of information and GMO's the equivalent piss..
Would you rather trust the insights of one company to produce carbon copies which will survive, or the cloud of self-improving systems that've been surviving longer then we have.
The later is much more secure, stable, and already provides us with everything we need; Why think that our hands must do the direct 'improving' when we only need to guide and understand what's already there..

 

[Aught3]

The later is much more secure, stable, and already provides us with everything we need

Except that it doesn't. Conventional agriculture uses too much fertiliser, too many chemicals, and doesn't reliably produce enough food for the entire world. GMOs are part of the solution to these problems. Crops improved require less pesticides and herbicides per acre and they can grow in conditions where conventional crops would die. Check out flood resistant rice: http://www.irri.org/flood-proof-rice/

 

[Niocan]

Yes, 'conventional' agriculture is rather bad but only because it's not organic.. Which does use far less pesticides, and grows far more then 'usual' methods. There's an additional problem here of centralization, and it's not very efficient to grow everything in one place when we can each grow enough on our own properties; Which also solves the problem of the time needed to organically grow vs 'conventional' methods.

 

[Aught3]

Which does use far less pesticides, and grows far more then 'usual' methods.

I would be interested to see evidence of improved yields from organic crops.

There's an additional problem here of centralization, and it's not very efficient to grow everything in one place when we can each grow enough on our own properties; Which also solves the problem of the time needed to organically grow vs 'conventional' methods.

Perhap we could all grow our own food, but then who would be the doctors, the police, the artists? If all our time were spent growing our food society would move backwards rather than forwards. It is actually pretty efficient to centralise skills and production.

 

[aeroeng314]

Perhap we could all grow our own food, but then who would be the doctors, the police, the artists? If all our time were spent growing our food society would move backwards rather than forwards. It is actually pretty efficient to centralise skills and production.

It's such a successful plan that even biological systems group specific functions into specific organs.

 

[Niocan]

True, but organs are still part of the body, and not miles away.. Thus, we could have more local farmers instead of bigger international centers. I'm not against farming, I'm against having very few central things that need to support overwhelming numbers of people; Which is the very problem with centralized farming because large scale operations *require* shortcuts to be made.

Compare the quality of one mass produced item to that of a hand crafted source, which do you think will be better? We don't have to jump right from international farms to back yard farms, but if the future trends of agriculture support the former then all hope is lost..

 

[scalyblue]

It's as if Linux decided to close their kernel source one day because *they* know how to do things 'correctly' and everyone else in the world is banned from seeing it... When in reality the open source flourished the creativity of whomever wanted to play with it.
(I know Linux can't be described as a single entity at all, but you should get the point).

Wow, you fail at computing too.

Compare the quality of one mass produced item to that of a hand crafted source, which do you think will be better? We don't have to jump right from international farms to back yard farms, but if the future trends of agriculture support the former then all hope is lost..

'kay

 

[aeroeng314]

True, but organs are still part of the body, and not miles away..

In terms of the size of an individual, a cell, yeah, they are. If I were the size of a cell, my body would be 400 km in height. But, then, that size comparison is completely arbitrary. I mean, this is a non-sequitur.

"Specialization of function is a successful design demonstrated by its prevalence in nature in the form of organs."

"Yeah, but all the organs are still in the same body!"

"Lolwut?"

As usual, you've entirely missed the point and I think you're just being intentionally obtuse. The whole point is that it's advantageous to have people specialize in a particular task rather than have everyone do a little bit of everything. Distance is entirely irrelevant.

 

[Nogre]

As usual, you've entirely missed the point and I think you're just being intentionally obtuse. The whole point is that it's advantageous to have people specialize in a particular task rather than have everyone do a little bit of everything. Distance is entirely irrelevant.

To be fair, you do have to transport it farther, but the increase in efficiency outweighs that by far. Transportation also provides jobs for people that want to specialize in such. Ya, we're still using fossil fuels for transportation, which sucks, but once we get past that, adding more distance will have little effect on how good the crops are for the consumer or the environment.

 

[aeroeng314]

As usual, you've entirely missed the point and I think you're just being intentionally obtuse. The whole point is that it's advantageous to have people specialize in a particular task rather than have everyone do a little bit of everything. Distance is entirely irrelevant.

To be fair, you do have to transport it farther, but the increase in efficiency outweighs that by far. Transportation also provides jobs for people that want to specialize in such. Ya, we're still using fossil fuels for transportation, which sucks, but once we get past that, adding more distance will have little effect on how good the crops are for the consumer or the environment.

That's true, but I don't think that's what he was getting at because your body has the same "problem" of having to transport things everywhere. We can keep moving specialized "organs" farther away from where their needed because we keep finding ways to grow our transportation network to support things like that.

 

[AndroidAR]

The late Norman Borlaug used his training in genetics and plant breeding (among other things) to genetically engineer (read: he genetically modified the plants using selective breeding) semi-dwarf, high-yield wheat varieties. These techniques helped Mexico go from a net importer of wheat in 1944 (when he began his research in Mexico), to a net exporter by 1963, and in five years (1965 to 1970) helped Pakistan and India double their wheat yield.

Because of his research in genetically modified crops (and being the largest contributor to the Green Revolution), he is credited with saving over 1 billion people from starvation.

Today, it is estimated that GM crops feed over 2 billion people. Our planet could not sustain our population without GM crops, and I doubt there are 2 billion people willing to starve in order for us to grow just non-GM crops.

Most, if not all, GM crops are simply the result of selective breeding used to bring out favorable traits (resistance to disease, high-yield, etc).

Also, while I feel that the patenting of genetically plant strains is a double edged sword, it wasn't patented strains that fed those 1 billion that Borlaug is credited with saving, and it is likely not patented strains that feed over 2 billion today.

 

[Niocan]

The late Norman Borlaug used his training in genetics and plant breeding (among other things) to genetically engineer (read: he genetically modified the plants using selective breeding) semi-dwarf, high-yield wheat varieties. These techniques helped Mexico go from a net importer of wheat in 1944 (when he began his research in Mexico), to a net exporter by 1963, and in five years (1965 to 1970) helped Pakistan and India double their wheat yield.

Then that isn't the same GMO process as being discussed, in fact because it's a natural means of doing so I'm not surprised he got more out of the crop. There's zero support for GMO in this case...

Because of his research in genetically modified crops (and being the largest contributor to the Green Revolution), he is credited with saving over 1 billion people from starvation.

Selective breeding, not GMO, but nice try..

Today, it is estimated that GM crops feed over 2 billion people. Our planet could not sustain our population without GM crops, and I doubt there are 2 billion people willing to starve in order for us to grow just non-GM crops.

hmm, the world cannot feed itself without the use of product X... This is nothing but advertising and fear tactics.

Most, if not all, GM crops are simply the result of selective breeding used to bring out favorable traits (resistance to disease, high-yield, etc).

I hardly call the difference between natural gene transfer's to that of artificial implantation minimal, in fact it's the most un-natural thing you could ever do.

Also, while I feel that the patenting of genetically plant strains is a double edged sword, it wasn't patented strains that fed those 1 billion that Borlaug is credited with saving, and it is likely not patented strains that feed over 2 billion today.

And we'd never need to patent anything because we don't need to save the plant strains from themselves (so to speak) with GMO 'technology'.

 

[dr_esteban]

As much as it pains me to agree with Niocan he is correct in drawing a distinction between the products of the green revolution with its use of selective breeding and what we currently define as GM crops today.

However the question I would pose to Niocan is without the use of GM crops and the increased yields and increased farmable area that the technology does/will allow, how are we going to feed the massive increase in population?

From a purely practical point of view it is the only game in town.

 

[Aught3]

Then that isn't the same GMO process as being discussed, in fact because it's a natural means of doing so I'm not surprised he got more out of the crop. There's zero support for GMO in this case...

No, it's not natural it's artificial selection and forced crossing. The point is that non-natural plant breeding techniques can produce beneficial outcomes. GM is an extension of these techniques but I agree that it is distinct method, even if it is used for the same purpose.

I hardly call the difference between natural gene transfer's to that of artificial implantation minimal, in fact it's the most un-natural thing you could ever do.

This natural/artificial distinction is called the naturalistic fallacy. Just because there is a natural way to do something does not make it better than the artificial way. Introgression by cross-breeding followed by back-crossing to remove the excess genetic material is actually pretty similar in result to the technique of GM. What would be the difference between introducing a wild rice gene into a commercial variety by introgression or by GM techniques? There are two that I can think of, GM would be faster and introgression would introduce more genetic material than just the single gene of interest. Is there any reason to suspect the GM crop would be inferior or more dangerous?