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

[oppp7]

The negative attitude towards GMs, from what I've heard, is based around ignorance and fear(strangely enough...). Of course, that was from someone who researches it, so bias may be an issue. Overall, though, GM seems to have no serious problems compared to normal shit we eat, and organic food is just a money making scheme.

As for animal testing, don't really care. I mean, shit, in the last few months I've pretty much stopped caring about them completely, only noticing it when it reaches Michael Vick levels.

Edit: Sorry about that, mods. Just testing to see if self reporting gets me a certain badge.

Mod Edit: I don't think reporting gets you any badges at all... Unless I missed a memo.

 

[Zakarath]

Wait, Greenpeace still does things?

 

[Loop Stricken]

By and large, Greenpeace appear to be staffed completely by stupid arseholes. Of course they were wrong.

 

[Alleged_Alec]

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.

Yes! Let's destroy these research crops, kept in an enclosed environment, so there's no risk of accidental release of seeds/spores! Damn those people in Third World countries, we will not stand for this bullshit with interfering in nature, consequences be damned!

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.

All very nice and dandy, thinking up your own moral system and COMPLETELY CHANGING TERMINOLOGY to make it mean what you want it to, but don't expect others to abide to that changed terminology bit. In the right is a phrase often used to imply a legal issue, not just moral ones. So it's completely valid to say they are not in the right, since they broke the law.

Also: even from a moral standpoint: destroying other people's property isn't a nice thing to do, is it?

 

[TheAmokz]

Greenpeace is one crazy organization but its not even half as bad as sea shepherd.

 

[Moromillas]

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".

I think that what was trying to be said was that you shouldn't follow "law" blindly, or use it as the sole compass for right and wrong. Law is a funny little fickle thing that can easily change with the times, or be changed by those that have enough political influence. lunncal is quite right to say laws are not always morally correct.

I'll give you an example. I like to use the smoking example.

Say you're a smoker right, what chems you wanna take is none of my business, but anyway. So there's this law: You have to stay a least 4 metres away from an entrance to a public place or business. Which is fair enough right? If a cop just happened to walk by you could get a fine. But, you keep a fair distance from the others not because you might get a fine, but because it's morally correct to do so. There could be someone with asthma that wants to enter, or someone pregnant, or even hay fever maybe. These (I believe) should be the only reasons why you stand a good distance away from the entrances, not because of some fear of punishment.

Edit: lots of spelling in that, it's late at night.

 

[DEAD34345]

All very nice and dandy, thinking up your own moral system and COMPLETELY CHANGING TERMINOLOGY to make it mean what you want it to, but don't expect others to abide to that changed terminology bit. In the right is a phrase often used to imply a legal issue, not just moral ones. So it's completely valid to say they are not in the right, since they broke the law.

No need to get angry, I'm pretty sure that what was meant in the OP and the poll was a moral sense of right and wrong rather than a legal one, because it is a fact that what they were doing was illegal, and thus "wrong" in the legal sense. If I was wrong about that then fair enough, but I don't think I was... besides which even if that were the case I don't see how I have changed any terminology. Yes "right" can be used referring to a legal right, but that's not the kind of "right" I was talking about.

Also: even from a moral standpoint: destroying other people's property isn't a nice thing to do, is it?

I agree, it was morally wrong. I voted "completely wrong" in the poll and I said that I thought what they did was wrong on my first post, and each post afterwards... what's your point?

 

[ShindoL Shill]

they were wrong because 1. its illegal and 2. they probably did it so they couldnt be proven wrong by the study.
and if it werent for GM crops, we wouldnt be able to grow plants in certain countries. you cant say 'you shouldnt import x fruit from z country' and then say 'you shouldnt GM x fruit so you can grow it in y country'.

 

[Uszi]

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.

Actually, I'm inclined to agree with what the first person said, based on what I've read and learned at University.

Your analogy with screws and nails is a bit too simplistic to adequately represent the whole controversy. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies]

And I'm not even sure it makes sense---is a screw really more "advanced" than a nail? And what does it matter that you use different tools for different hardware? You also don't use a screw driver to type on a keyboard or drive a golf ball. I don't follow your argument at all.

If anything your argument seems to appeal to some notion that living organisms can be divided into discreet categories based on intrinsic properties. Which doesn't really apply to living things, much less crops that have been engineered by humans through selective breeding to not look anything like what they used to.

For instance, did you realize that broccoli, brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower and collard greens are all the same species of plant [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brassica_oleracea]?

 

[k-ossuburb]

Snip

Oh, awesome. I didn't know it's also possible to add in genes as well as alter/subtract them. This pretty much makes GM food a hell of a lot more useful in the long term.

 

[k-ossuburb]

Actually, I'm inclined to agree with what the first person said, based on what I've read and learned at University.

Your analogy with screws and nails is a bit too simplistic to adequately represent the whole controversy. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies]

And I'm not even sure it makes sense---is a screw really more "advanced" than a nail? And what does it matter that you use different tools for different hardware? You also don't use a screw driver to type on a keyboard or drive a golf ball. I don't follow your argument at all.

If anything your argument seems to appeal to some notion that living organisms can be divided into discreet categories based on intrinsic properties. Which doesn't really apply to living things, much less crops that have been engineered by humans through selective breeding to not look anything like what they used to.

For instance, did you realize that broccoli, brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower and collard greens are all the same species of plant [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brassica_oleracea]?

Yeah, look at what we did to the banana:

This is a wild banana:

This is what we have selectively bred it to be:

There's obviously other examples, but I just love how different the banana has become when compared to its "wild" counterpart.

 

[Gwarr]

Aren't the no seed oranges GM? Then , hell , VIVA GM FOOD!

 

[Uszi]

Yeah, look at what we did to the banana:

This is a wild banana:

This is what we have selectively bred it to be:

There's obviously other examples, but I just love how different the banana has become when compared to its "wild" counterpart.

Or corn:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teosinte

Corn is actually a great example of how harmless to human health[footnote]Objections to GMOs as doing significant ecological damage are bit better founded.[/footnote] GMOs are. 85% of the corn grown in the US is Genetically Modified. And, in the average American, 69% of the carbon in your body came from corn[footnote]http://articles.cnn.com/2007-09-22/health/kd.gupta.column_1_high-fructose-corn-syrup-corn-refiners-association-soybean-oil?_s=PM:HEALTH[/footnote]. The burgers you eat are made from cows that are fed genetically modified corn. The sweetening agent in your soda is made from genetically modified corn.

Fact of the matter is that most GMOs are modified for increased vitamin or mineral content, drought or temperature tolerance, etc. To think that getting more vitamins or eating corn that grew in slightly more arid conditions is going to some how give you cancer or some nonsense is pretty silly.

Though I haven't necessarily seen a study on the issue, my guess is that there is significant overlap in the demographics of people who are strongly opposed to GMOs and people who are also opposed to vaccinations, or people who are on all raw diets or who support homeopathic medicine.

Let me go ahead and mention that there is a valid criticism of GMOs, in that they can increase the damage we do to our environment. For instance, our corn based diet is widely criticized for being completely unsustainable, requiring us to destroy the environment to water, fertilize and spray the corn with pesticides. Genetically modifying corn without making it more sustainable ecologically is certainly bad. But you aren't less healthy as person eating GM corn than eating "natural" corn. Whatever natural corn is.

 

[k-ossuburb]

Snip

I'm actually on your side. I'm of the opinion that organic food is a scam to get idiots who'll blindly follow the advice of celebrates over scientists so that they'll pay more for an inferior product.

You know what I saw once? Organic water. How the hell does that work? It's WATER! H2O! How the hell can you get more organic than two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom? Chances are that "organic" water has more crap in it if they're not using chemicals to purify it.

I honestly laughed when I saw that, I can't be the only one who thinks it's silly to have organic water. It's not too dissimilar to having organic air and I bet there's a huge market out for that if you can get Oprah or someone to appear on the commercials.

 

[Esotera]

Snip

Oh, awesome. I didn't know it's also possible to add in genes as well as alter/subtract them. This pretty much makes GM food a hell of a lot more useful in the long term.

Yeah, it makes it far more useful as a technique, although you can definitely alter/subtract as well. It's all a bit hit & miss though. Especially when I'm running the experiment.

Following on from your pretty good explanation of how a banana is selectively bred, here is how you would genetically modify an organism:

Normal mouse

Glow in the dark mouse!

I've used mice as it's by far the coolest example available. This mouse has had a gene from a fluorescent jellyfish added, so it glows in the dark, a trait which would be very unlikely to appear if you used selective breeding. These mice have all sorts of applications in research, and they're much harder to misplace than regular mice.

If you wanted to make a GM crop you'd just find a plant that was resistant to pesticides, isolate the gene, then splice it into your plant. Vitamin A in rice is a good example.

 

[Uszi]

You know what I saw once? Organic water. How the hell does that work? It's WATER! H2O! How the hell can you get more organic than two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom? Chances are that "organic" water has more crap in it if they're not using chemicals to purify it.

I honestly laughed when I saw that, I can't be the only one who thinks it's silly to have organic water. It's not too dissimilar to having organic air and I bet there's a huge market out for that if you can get Oprah or someone to appear on the commercials.

Actually, it's impossible for H2O to be "organic" because it doesn't have any carbon in it. Unless their "organic" water is C2H6O, in which case get me some shot glasses.



/chemistry joke



Re-reading the thread, why did I even bother to post here when my sentiments were already perfectly expressed by someone else:

What the hell kind of idiots would do that? Goddamn hippy luddites, they need to use their brains ocasionally.

 

[SamBargeron]

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/]

THANK YOU!!! I was just about to make that point, but you beat me to it. Genetic modification is one of the first things we humans learned. Evidence suggests we were genetically engineering animals and crops through controlled breeding before we developed stone tools.

 

[Gitty101]

I cry for Humanity because people like this exist. I'm also amazed that what are essentially bored College/Uni Students managed to break into a research facility and access the projects. Surely a revamp of the security in place is needed?

 

[Ghengis John]

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

When did I ever advise we do that? In fact:

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.

Does that sound like I advocate this destruction? Does it sound like I view genetically modified crops as evil? Perhaps that confuses you because I'm addressing the notion that genetic modification and selective breeding are the same thing? Maybe that makes you quick to assume I'm a torch wielding villager? I'm not. So if I'm not for destroying GM crops what am I for? What I'm for is intelligence and reason. I'm really disappointed with the number of people who don't know what they're talking about. Especially when they decry others as ignorant.

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.

Two things. First of all: Supposed to? No. Not at all. I don't know how much carpentry you do but it has a tip and threads for a reason. My brother is a carpenter and has dragged me along on several jobs to help and I have never seen anyone do it. Ever. Of course that's around here. I've actually had other people point this out and they were all also British. So I assume this is a British thing. "Birmingham screwdriver" correct? The only problem for you is, the origin of this phrase was to mock the people of Birmingham for being dim and backwards. While these aren't my views, they hardly make for a convincing argument.

its a slang for hammer, somewhere along the line people from birmingham were considered...shall we say luddite-ish. Instead of screwing in a screw they'd say, "Sod it, get me a hammer"

A quick Google search will define the phrase as being indicative of or synonymous with stupidity. Of course I'm all for people learning things on their own so you're free to remove the screws from your favorite game controller and then, place them back in new spots with a hammer. Come back to me and let me know what you learn. Seriously though, it's a bad idea. You'll strip the threads and ruin whatever you're driving them into. Friendly word of advice: Don't do it.

Your analogy with screws and nails is a bit too simplistic to adequately represent the whole controversy. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies]

It's not supposed to nor is it intended to be an indictment against GM crops (which I support). It's simply meant to highlight the fact that selective breeding and genetic modification are not one in the same.

And I'm not even sure it makes sense---is a screw really more "advanced" than a nail? And what does it matter that you use different tools for different hardware? You also don't use a screw driver to type on a keyboard or drive a golf ball. I don't follow your argument at all.

Medieval blacksmiths could make nails. I doubt they could machine screws.
Screws are the result of precision manufacturing and the advent of standardization and replaceable parts.
Yes a screw is more advanced than a nail.
As for the rest you are unbelievably dim.
I'm sorry. But trying to make you understand looks like it would take too long. If you want I'll try to explain the analogy in a series of PM's. But what I don't want is to derail the thread any further.

If anything your argument seems to appeal to some notion that living organisms can be divided into discreet categories based on intrinsic properties. Which doesn't really apply to living things,

No. Not what I was saying at all. But:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_classification

Then what the fuck have biologists been doing all this time?!?

For instance, did you realize that broccoli, brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower and collard greens are all the same species of plant [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brassica_oleracea]?

Yes and despite how fantastically different they may look they have not incorporated genes from other plants or animals that could not be cross-bred. The ability to do so is the key difference between selective breeding and genetic modification. In addition any changes brought about through selective breeding, no matter how extreme they may appear can be undone by reversing the selection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurochs

Second thing:

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.

No it's not. They are not the same thing nor is one simply a more "efficient" and accurate version of the other. This would assume that it was possible to inter-breed a potato and a bacterium or a tomato and a starfish in the first place. Which it is not. You are welcome to try of course. But no amount of mood music will provide you a tomato-starfish progeny.

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

No problem. It is a delight to see someone else who understands the difference. Believe me. They seem to be very few in number and the number of people parroting the carrot thing is frustrating. Bob has helped to spread ignorance and I was really disappointed with him for never issuing a retraction.

Glow in the dark mouse!

That is incredibly bad-ass. I need one of those! Now!

 

[Dr. Pepper Unlimited]

It was not theirs to destroy. They were in the wrong completely. Friggin' Greenpeace...