Poll: GM food.... wait.... what?

[JochemDude]

While GreenPeace is on my list of charity's I donate to...
I don't see how you can be against this, normally their actions are in my book justified, but this whole GM food thing is health progress... I'll have to reconsider the sizable amount of money I dump into them.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

g'day!

Anyway, I was watching 7pm project with my father over dinner. For anyone who does not know, 7pm is a news show hosted by comedians. It is generally pretty fair, but does lean to the left slightly. There was a segment on GM food. The show ran the whole 'doom and gloom' section, with chefs and a person from Greenpeace spouting unsighted studies. The actual topic was about the tests that the CSIRO (Australia government run research division, quite respected in Australia) was running by growing GM wheat. CSIRO was growing some GM wheat for a study.



Here are the facts, my fellow escapists:

Greenpeace broke into the government research facility at night and, using whipper-snippers (line trimmers), completely destroyed the crop. The wheat was grown under controlled situations and was going to be fed to animals for research into GM effects on animals. The CSIRO's research was set back by about a year.

So, I ask you: Was Greenpeace in the right to destroy the crop?

The reason I ask is because my father saw no problems with their actions.

-coder

I think Movie Bob <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/2541-Feeding-Edge> said it best in one of his early Big Picture episodes. Bottom line: mankind has been genetically modifying crops and livestock for thousands of years, but now scientists can do in a year what used to take farmers decades, and with much more predictable results. If humanity is not meant to progress why the hell do any of us bother getting up in the mornings?

There are certain elements of Greenpeace (no doubt in the minority - I'm not tarring everyone with the same brush) who use any and every excuse to indulge their penchant for vandalism and public disorder, and in my view they should be dealt with to the full extent of the law. If these people were normal vandals they would be dealt with accordingly - the phrase "But I'm with Greenpeace" should not confer special treatment nor excuse criminal behaviour.

 

[DEAD34345]

I disagree with the people saying that because their actions were against the law, they were the wrong thing to do. What is legally correct and what is morally correct are sometimes two very different things, and stating that something is illegal is not the same as stating that something is wrong.

That said, Green Peace totally dropped the ball on this one (even by their standards). I mean I already think that their goals and their methods are stupid and counter-productive respectively, but when they actively hinder the very research that could prove them correct, I have to think something fishy is going on.

Either that or they're just idiots.

>.>

<.<

Oh.

 

[Moromillas]

200% in the wrong.

They destroyed someones research, and the research was to make a healthier wheat.

They(CSIRO) were following every necessary safety protocol, their reasoning is just ridiculous.

 

[k-ossuburb]

Fundamentally speaking it is possible to say that genetic engineering as no different than selective breeding; at the most basic level this is fairly accurate, although both techniques are very different in how they achieve their results. With selective breeding, what you're doing is making sure that whatever species you're changing has the traits that you want them to have, genetic modification is just a more efficient and accurate method to achieve the same results.

Genetic modification doesn't add anything to the species that makes it worse, it only makes it better suited to our needs. GM food is basically a more selectively engineered version of the same species, but engineered so that it suits our needs more perfectly than its organic counterpart. That isn't to say that organic is worse, it is just less reliable than genetically modified food.

However, there is some hyperbole about organic food in the public eye and it is viewed are more "pure" and better for you, however organic food has no benefits over any other cultivation method, it's all the same stuff when you break it down.

This article here demonstrates this fact. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8174482.stm]

Both forms are on a pretty level playing field in terms of how "safe" they are, the risks are pretty much the same for both GM and "organic" foods. The combination of both is what we should be working towards. I suggest the book "Tomorrow?s Table" by Pamela Ronald (a plant genetic scientist) and her husband Raoul Adamchak (an organic farmer), which propagates a similar idea.

My basic point is that both are pretty much the same and we shouldn't be viewing it as a binary problem. This "us vs them" mentality is unproductive and genetically modified food is an inevitable advancement in agriculture as the needs for food rises with a growing population. What should be done instead is to drop the idea of "us vs them" and work together to strike a balance between the two, both organic and genetically modified food have their benefits and if we are going to move as a society then we need to accept both without stigma.

No it's not. It's something different altogether. They may both attain the goal of change in a plant or animal but the process makes all the difference. Think of it this way: A nail and a screw are both fasteners. Yes? A screw is more advanced than a nail. Yes? Do you dive a nail with a screwdriver or a screw with a hammer? No. A nail is not a screw. A screw is not a nail. Anyone who tells you so is woefully misinformed.

Actually you're supposed to hammer in a screw with a hammer and remove it with a screwdriver, it's a common practice among carpenters.

 

[SilentCom]

No, they are not in any way justified to break into and destroy government property meant for the betterment of society.

It's sort of like if I were to decide to break into the science lab at University and set the place on fire. There really isn't any good reason for it, especially not just because I felt slightly offended.

Also, people have been modifying food stuffs for as long as agriculture has been around. Even the food that farmers grow aren't completely "natural" because they grow in a controlled environment under the farmer, not out in the wilds of nature.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

I disagree with the people saying that because their actions were against the law, they were the wrong thing to do. What is legally correct and what is morally correct are sometimes two very different things, and stating that something is illegal is not the same as stating that something is wrong.

What then is the purpose of laws, dear reader, if people get to pick and chose which ones they will obey? Or perhaps that's not what you are saying.

It's not as if this is an "iffy" law. They broke into a person's property and destroyed that person's property. It's very reasonible to say "This is wrong and illegal. Let them fry".

 

[Nimcha]

That's pretty stupid of those Greenpeace to realize that this kind of research might actually help their cause if it turns out to be dangerous in any way. It won't, but there's a tiny chance it could.

And by doing this they've set it back for a few years. Nice thinking!

 

[Craorach]

They broke into someone else's property and destroyed their crop. Their reasons are irrelevant, they were entirely in the wrong.

There is only one acceptable reason not to use a technological advance, and that is if it is proven, via scientific testing, to be dangerous.

Greenpeace are, as almost always, nothing more than vigilantes in their best cases and criminals in their worst. In this case, criminals.

 

[Richardplex]

Though I don't like the show very much, I'm going to point towards The Big Picture episode about this.

Genetic Modifation has been happening for ages. It's the next step up from Selective Breeding and Cross Breeding. Now instead of having to selective breed they can select the traits they want and don't want.

No it's not. It's something different altogether. They may both attain the goal of change in a plant or animal but the process makes all the difference. Think of it this way: A nail and a screw are both fasteners. Yes? A screw is more advanced than a nail. Yes? Do you dive a nail with a screwdriver or a screw with a hammer? No. A nail is not a screw. A screw is not a nail. Anyone who tells you so is woefully misinformed.

True point, but you don't destroy the screw and say it is evil because it isn't a nail.

 

[Esotera]

Fundamentally speaking it is possible to say that genetic engineering as no different than selective breeding; at the most basic level this is fairly accurate, although both techniques are very different in how they achieve their results. With selective breeding, what you're doing is making sure that whatever species you're changing has the traits that you want them to have, genetic modification is just a more efficient and accurate method to achieve the same results.

Not really. They both achieve the same aim (more efficient crops), but don't have the same results. With genetic modification it's much quicker, as you don't have to go through many generations, and you can change the original more, by adding useful genes that were not present in the population before, and would not be likely to occur naturally.

Basically, selective breeding always provides the best evolutionary path for the plant, whereas GM provides the best evolutionary decision for the humans. These are rarely the same things.

Genetic modification doesn't add anything to the species that makes it worse, it only makes it better suited to our needs. GM food is basically a more selectively engineered version of the same species, but engineered so that it suits our needs more perfectly than its organic counterpart. That isn't to say that organic is worse, it is just less reliable than genetically modified food.

Organic is worse, nutritionally, than GM food, which is partly why we need to create GM crops. A lot of people in non-western countries suffer from malnutrition - boosting nutrient levels in crops helps combat this, alongside any other benefits the plant may have.

 

[DEAD34345]

I disagree with the people saying that because their actions were against the law, they were the wrong thing to do. What is legally correct and what is morally correct are sometimes two very different things, and stating that something is illegal is not the same as stating that something is wrong.

What then is the purpose of laws, dear reader, if people get to pick and chose which ones they will obey? Or perhaps that's not what you are saying.

It's not as if this is an "iffy" law. They broke into a person's property and destroyed that person's property. It's very reasonible to say "This is wrong and illegal. Let them fry".

The "purpose" of laws is to force those who would normally be immoral into choosing the moral choice, for fear of repercussion. At least that's what it should be, unfortunately the law isn't perfect both because designing a perfect and universal set of laws that will always lead to the morally decent option is impossible, and because the law has often been subverted and used for other purposes.

The point that I was making is simply that "it's illegal" is not a valid point to make when you are arguing that something is morally wrong. The poll and the OP were asking whether GreenPeace was "in the right", but many people simply responded with posts along the lines of "They broke the law." and that's it. GreenPeace's actions would be morally wrong even if they weren't against the law.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

I disagree with the people saying that because their actions were against the law, they were the wrong thing to do. What is legally correct and what is morally correct are sometimes two very different things, and stating that something is illegal is not the same as stating that something is wrong.

What then is the purpose of laws, dear reader, if people get to pick and chose which ones they will obey? Or perhaps that's not what you are saying.

It's not as if this is an "iffy" law. They broke into a person's property and destroyed that person's property. It's very reasonible to say "This is wrong and illegal. Let them fry".

The "purpose" of laws is to force those who would normally be immoral into choosing the moral choice, for fear of repercussion. At least that's what it should be, unfortunately the law isn't perfect both because designing a perfect and universal set of laws that will always lead to the morally decent option is impossible, and because the law has often been subverted and used for other purposes.

The point that I was making is simply that "it's illegal" is not a valid point to make when you are arguing that something is morally wrong. The poll and the OP were asking whether GreenPeace was "in the right", but many people simply responded with posts along the lines of "They broke the law." and that's it. GreenPeace's actions would be morally wrong even if they weren't against the law.

Just wondering, what form of morals are you arguing from?

Something like relativism? Or absolutism? Or objectivism?

Regardless, they did break the law, and thus, deserve to get punished. Again, you don't get to pick and choose what laws you want to follow if you want to belong to a society

 

[Amphoteric]

GM food is pretty neccessary if you don't want famines...

 

[XxSummonerxX]

This is ridiculous. Greenpeace used to have a bit of sense to them (and yes it's been said before) but it's just gone now. They rally and fight against things they don't understand, then when someone wants to do research, which could actually prove them right and chalk up a victory for the Green team, they destroy.

Well done Greenpeace. Another good opportunity for mankind, and potentially the planet, gone thanks to hippy rejection of SCIENCE!

 

[Hamish Durie]

wow as soon as i read this i instantly rembred something i saw at the beach once.
there was a kid building a sandcastle and there was another kid eyeing the sandcastle, watching it growing bigger with every passing minute when suddenly the kid making the sandcatle is called away(to put on sunscreen i would think) and the other kid ran out stomped the sandcastle to bits then ran back to his cover.
what happend next you ask long story short tears where involved

 

[u4527646]

Anything Greenpeace does is wrong. They're just terrorists. The only reason they don't have a few M1A2's sitting in their living room is because they're doing it in the name of the earth instead of their deity.

While we agree on greenpeace you are a hell of a broken record. For the record the only reason they don't have any M1A2's sitting in their living room is because they're cowards who want to hide behind the banner of non-violence even as they smash labs and hurl shit at people. And might I add, thank goodness for that cowardice.

People get freaked out by GM foods not realising that we;ve been doing it for generations...


Next time someone gets up in your face about GM food ask them if they eat carrots, then ask if they're purple. If they eat orange carrots they're GM foods.

GM foods doesn't mean pumped full of chemicals and terrible doom and gloom, it just means that they are grown in a controlled way.

Source [http://www.nextnature.net/2009/08/why-are-carrots-orange-it-is-political/]

There is a difference between selective breeding and genetic modification. A pig and an earthworm could never be bred together. (You are welcome to try.) With genetic modification though there currently exists a hybridized animal that produces bacon chalk full of omega 3 fatty acids (that fat in fish that's good for your heart. These sorts of mixtures, which have never nor ever could have, occurred in nature are often fraught with ethical concerns as well as with all manner of unexpected, real-world problems. There was a scare in india for example where GM terminator crops had spread their sterility to neighboring rice fields. Another incident revolved around a genetically modified corn that killed off it's own pests without the use of chemicals, but also scores of endangered monarch butterflies. Genetic engineering has many very real dangers that it would be foolish to ignore as "doom and gloom".

The orange carrot defense for current practices of genetic modification is misleading at best and an outright lie at worst. Dutch growers chose only from among genes that already existed within carrots. They didn't pull genes from an orange and put them into a carrot to acheive their desired effect.

I have nothing against genetically modified crops, but they need to be observed and carefully controlled to make sure there are no adverse side effects to the natural gene pool or to their environments before being deployed. The purpose of this lab was just that.

THANK YOU! As a geneticist I HATE the purple carrot argument! Most GM crops are what's know as transgenic plants where we put the genes from one plant or animal into another, for example the pig you mentioned. I'm so frustrated at MovieBob for popularising the purple carrots thing, but I'm glad some other people on the Escapist understand

OT: Greenpeace were wrong to do what they did, my overall opinion on GM food is pro, crops like golden rice (vitamin enriched rice) have (and hopefully will even more in the future) go a long way towards ending malnutrition.
However, the Monsanto corperation (a company who sells GM crop seeds) monopolise the industry and selling seeds with a suicide gene that means farmers need to buy the seeds every year is evil.

 

[LuckyClover95]

I am apparently one of 4 people who thought it was right... I unfortunately have a soft spot for those who take dramatic action and their beliefs into their own hands. Breaking the law doesn't = immorality.
I don't like dramatic action in the form of terrorism, although then again Guy Fawkes and V also gain my respect. Huh.

 

[DEAD34345]

The "purpose" of laws is to force those who would normally be immoral into choosing the moral choice, for fear of repercussion. At least that's what it should be, unfortunately the law isn't perfect both because designing a perfect and universal set of laws that will always lead to the morally decent option is impossible, and because the law has often been subverted and used for other purposes.

The point that I was making is simply that "it's illegal" is not a valid point to make when you are arguing that something is morally wrong. The poll and the OP were asking whether GreenPeace was "in the right", but many people simply responded with posts along the lines of "They broke the law." and that's it. GreenPeace's actions would be morally wrong even if they weren't against the law.

Just wondering, what form of morals are you arguing from?

Something like relativism? Or absolutism? Or objectivism?

Regardless, they did break the law, and thus, deserve to get punished. Again, you don't get to pick and choose what laws you want to follow if you want to belong to a society

I'm arguing from my own morals, which I've developed myself from my own experiences, as I believe everyone should. My worry is that there are people who don't really have their own morals, they simply have the law and act selfishly apart from that (and there are many people like that). These are the kinds of people who are immoral within the confines of the law. When you consider the law to be the same thing as morality, you are likely a very bad person (at least from my perspective).

A morally "good" person will probably never have reason to break the law, but they will also have their own rules that they follow regardless of the law. They will do kind/good things even when the law doesn't demand them to do it. Doing a favour for a friend (or anyone else) is something that I would consider a "good" thing to do, but the law certainly doesn't demand it. Insulting or ridiculing someone else is something I would usually consider a "bad" thing to do, but the law doesn't prohibit that either.

I wouldn't steal, or murder, or threaten people even if I were allowed by law. Essentially what I'm saying is that I don't follow the law, I follow my morals (which, since I'm a half-way decent person, happen to be entirely within the confines of the law), and I believe all good people should be following their morals rather than the law. The law exists to limit those without morals, not to replace morals. This is why they have no value when deciding whether something is "right" or not.

Of course I do agree that as you say "they did break the law, and thus, deserve to get punished.". I just don't think that has anything to do with the morality of their actions.

 

[FalloutJack]

g'day!

Anyway, I was watching 7pm project with my father over dinner. For anyone who does not know, 7pm is a news show hosted by comedians. It is generally pretty fair, but does lean to the left slightly. There was a segment on GM food. The show ran the whole 'doom and gloom' section, with chefs and a person from Greenpeace spouting unsighted studies. The actual topic was about the tests that the CSIRO (Australia government run research division, quite respected in Australia) was running by growing GM wheat. CSIRO was growing some GM wheat for a study.



Here are the facts, my fellow escapists:

Greenpeace broke into the government research facility at night and, using whipper-snippers (line trimmers), completely destroyed the crop. The wheat was grown under controlled situations and was going to be fed to animals for research into GM effects on animals. The CSIRO's research was set back by about a year.

So, I ask you: Was Greenpeace in the right to destroy the crop?

The reason I ask is because my father saw no problems with their actions.

-coder

I need more information. This is a vignette. Give me the story.