The Big Picture: Feeding Edge

[maximara]

Selective breeding (I.e with carrots and cows) and genetic engineering are not the same thing. Neither are bad, just genetic engineering isn't just shutting on and off genes its making potatoes provide the correct proteins so they can be used for vaccinations (for human diseases) something which would never happen no matter how many potatoes you bred together.

I'm fine with both, this is more of a definitions thing.

Agreed. Genetic engineering is more like that Tex Avery cartoon "Farm of Tomorrow" where they did things 'we crossed a chicken with an ostrich for bigger drumsticks" only they are mixing the genes of totally different KINGDOMS (plants and animals) and the concern (A very valid one) is that this could cause problems down the road.

Selective breading is eugenics NOT genetic engineering:

Eugenics: "applied science or the biosocial movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population."

genetic engineering: "Scientific alteration of the structure of genetic material in a living organism using recombinant DNA, employed for such purposes as creating bacteria that synthesize insulin."

You can't put animal traits in plants with eugenics but you CAN do that with genetic engineering.

I should point out the novel Frankenstein is about responsibility rather then the film's man taking on the role of God. Victor (in the film he becomes Henry for some reason) abandons the monster after creating him and in so doing triggers all that follows. This is the real concern with "Frankenfood"--scientists doing things that once it does comes out of the test tube they either do not or will not want to take responsibility for that they have done.

 

[Drake_Dercon]

I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.

Again, sorry for the delayed response. I know you so love hearing my opinions and this time I really don't have a good reason. [/sarcasm]

First I'd loke to personally thank Father Time for attempting to clarify some of what I've been saying, though I apologise as your aid may well have fallen on dead ears.

On the topic of actually paying attention, keserak, I'd like to ask you what the hell you've been doing. The bulk of my previous post has been completely ignored (you know, the important parts) in favor of attacking me on matters that seem to personally offend you. I can offer proof of this in that some points you have made against me could never have been made had you paid attention to another portion that clarified them. I'm highly insulted at this evidence that, rather than paying attention to what I actually have to say, you skim through it for parts you may want to respond to without even recognizing that there is an issue involved that we both are perpetuating. I'll have you know that I read and reread each of your posts to be absolutely sure I've left nothing out. Hell, you probalbly haven't even read this far, so there's really no point to this paragraph other than taking a swipe at your character. And now I can imagine your face as you go back to read this from the start.

That said, this will be my second-to-last response. I've no wish to drive this problem much farther, especially since nobody's paying attention to your posts or mine (save Father Time, thank you once more for your help).

Snipped wacky stuff: This merely shows a lack of willingness to understand.

No, it was mockery of the inanity in your post. A portion of it was completely nonsensical. That's not a slur: I mean it made no sense whatsoever. It communicated nothing.

You're doing nothing more than proving my own point. If it made no sense whatsoever to you, then how is it within your own rights to call it an ignorant viewpoint? That's why I said to ask if there's something you don't get. We can do this rationally, or we can take swings at eachother until someone gives up. Frankly, I'd prefer to have a real discussion.

Take the time, if you chose to respond to this section, to ask for specific clarification rather than attacking it because it is somehow stupid.

You cut apart one paragraph as though it was three separate arguments (making it completely nonsensical). If you plan on slandering someone else's argument, please don't rely on such tactics.

The result was not nonsensical. You made a series of completely wrong points, where each wrong point demanded refutation. It is amazing that you call carefully pointing out your errors a "tactic." In fact, this method is usually called Fisking [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisking], and is held up as being a way to show one is not obfuscating the point of the quoted individual. So, in essence, you're complaining that a method dedicated to not undermining your point undermined your point -- a position that, unfortunately, obscures the fact that your initial arguments were horrible. To wit: you use a collateral attack on the method used to point out your arguments' errors, but you do not subsequently defend your arguments.

So wait, you're saying that because of you, I made sense?

The result was entirely nonsensical. "A banana shares 5% of human DNA" bears no meaning when not followed by the "snipped wacky crap" (a portion that you didn't understand and therefore ignored). This "fisking" you refer to is actually defined as a (and I'm quoting from a dictionary entry) "point-by-point refutation of a blog entry or (especially) news story". While I'll allow that it can be used in posting (in fact, it's exactly what we've both been doing this whole time), you CANNOT take apart three portions of the same point in order to render it meaningless and then say you were fisking.

I do not defend my single argument because there was no legitimate point made against it. Even if you had successfully separated it into three comprehensible points and responded to each one accordingly, I could not qualify your responses as counter-points.

And I did, in fact, state that testing has been vastly inadequate thus far, so don't give me any of that crap.

I was way off on the banana: Humans share 50% of our DNA with a banana.

My God man, are you really still not getting this? Did you even read the post? No. It must be concluded that you didn't. You were annoyed by the format of the post and ignored the content. If you had read it, you would have realized:

Banana DNA similarity with humans is irrelevant. Do you understand what that means? The assertion, regardless of its truth or falsity, goes to neither prove or disprove any issue at hand. It's a waste of time. That's the problem.

Example: humans born with tails are examples of atavism. What does this have to do with Bob's movie? The same thing banana DNA does: absolutely nothing.

Now that this section is larger, perhaps you won't ignore it.

Thank you for actually making a point. I can respond to this much better than "wtf i dont even...".

The reference to the banana was made to show that we aren't terribly different from everything else (and neither is anything else terribly different from anything other than itself... I'm being confusing again, aren't I?). If a species can be modified by making subtle changes to its genetic structure, why shouldn't it be? I can see many uses for this technology. However, it should be used responsibly and I consider its current employment a deep insult to both science and invention.

This relates to Bob's video in that he made a similar point, which I just took a step farther. The point of the video (at the specific point I am referencing) was that "this is a fascinating technology, why shouldn't we use it?". What he dodged was the issue of complete disregard for anyone other than the large corporations dominating the GM crop industry. One argument to the exclusion of others so as not to concede point. If I considered this an actual debate, I'd be doing the same.

7. The definition of fear-mongering: If I've ever done this, please let me know where and how. I will endeavor to correct the issue as quickly as possible.

Bob's animation and posts asserted, without evidence or even logical coherence, the notion that GMOs are inherently good, then proposed that there existed a group of individuals who, due to stupidity and/or an excess of misplaced emotion and without any legitimate basis, were using tremendous power in the U.S. government to undermine the cause of GMOs. His communication served to encourage fear of this nonexistant group -- or, more likely, to generate fear against very real groups that have legitimate and profoundly important problems with GMOs. Note that in the latter case such groups provide a valuable public service, as has been described voluminously upthread. This was fearmongering. You defended Bob's position, helping him fearmonger, thus, you fearmongered in turn.

This was already explained before. Seriously. I need to point out that this is near charity at this point. You could have read all this before.

So the mightily informed pays charity to the poor that clearly has no idea what he's babbling. The great keserak so decrees that any and all supporting anything said by anyone he/she doesn't like must be associated with them unconditionally. The ignorant must be enlightened so that he may understand his evils. Get off your horse.

Bob asserted that people were acting irrationally, not with stupidity. There is a massive distinction and I can safely say that there is very little rationality in this whole issue (see: my last post, please). This notion was not that GMOs are good, simply that they are not evil (irrational: anything not evil must be good). These "evil activists" are actually completely normal people. They are rationally angry about how these technologies have been abused, people hear these and become afraid of the technologies. This is the massive "pull" you were referring to. The unmanipulable will of the people directed at the wrong locations because nobody is pushing them in the right direction and not doing anything terribly productive (yes, I do consider the outright ban of genetically modified foods unproductive, thank you very much). None of those statements made anyone more afraid of anything, so I find it a pathetic attempt at fearmongering, even if it was.

While I cannot speak for Bob's own opinions, I can chose to defend certain good arguments and not be associated with any perceived Monsanto worship (exaggeration, don't even think about responding to me because I exaggerated). I have stated time and again the abuse genetic modification and I honestly wish that you didn't ignore that because I have defended other points.

Please stop being a dick.

You mean like deliberately ignoring entire posts so you can make a point that's already been refuted? That's pretty much being a dick. Could you take your own advise, or at least dispense with the hypocrisy?

I have not ignored other posts. If you had paid attention, I have been speaking to actual issues besides making arguments against your own statements. I'd say you could try taking your own advice and some of mine: I realise wholeheartedly my occasional tone of condescention, I am making an effort to regulate that, but it is difficult while you can't stop being incredibly rude in each statement you make. "Dear lord, what kind of pathetic moron is this?" is not the way to enter any form of discussion, which is what I am asking you to stop doing. I would like to be able to speak decently about this.

I'll also note that Bob's video, while not factually incorrect, sidestepped this issue entirely. And that's the point.

No, it's not the point. To wit: I don't care about the other stuff you said. I care about the specific issue of Bob's video. I am trying to counter Bob's disinformation. Full stop. I don't seek to expand the issue beyond that, and pretending that all of the above posts and Bob "miss the point" so you can get up on your soapbox about the issue is arrogant in the extreme. E.g., you're being a dick. If you want to discuss GMOs and Monsanto without regard to Bob's communications, make a new thread. I'm not indulging in an off-topic conversation, especially given the incredibly poor grasp of the science involved you displayed upthread -- then conveniently ignored.

Either make a new thread where you can wax poetic about your ideas, or react to Bob, but don't derail.

I'd say you should care. True, I am attempting to expand the issue beyond Bob's video, but so are you. By making these corporations a part of the issue, it has been expanded. Farther expansion serves only to acheive the same effect: making a small change to the issue's scope so that it can be looked at from a more comprehensive perspective. Point and laugh at my soapbox all you like, it just gives me a good view of the crowd I'm speaking about, not unlike yours.

I said that Bob dodged the greater issue that you're addressing. He was not factually incorrect, simply ignoring the corporations that you seek to involve. You involve Monsanto, so I involve the people observing the issue (which were already recognised by your posts to some degree).

As far as derailing from Bob's video, I fear I was misunderstood. What I meant was that's HIS point. His point was that there are people acting incredibly irrationally about this and that needs to be dealt with before it can be handled properly, such as I percieve it. Regardless of how you choose to look at it, one cannot disregard the fact that Monsanto was ignored by the video. So what was the point if not that? I'm fairly sure at this point that it was the people who are handling the issue poorly. In that respect, I had barely diverted from the actual topic. I'm not sure what your interpretation of the video was, but from what you'd let on, I'm inclined to think we're actually talking about the same one. Gasp! Does that mean we're actually having some form of discussion? Never...

And just because I am terrible at explaining things doesn't mean I don't know anything about them, it just means that I need you to ask for clarification in order to get my point across or I won't be understood at all. If you have a problem with that, you're fully welcome to ignore me.

Next: for my last post, I'll make everything as clear as I possibly can without questions asked. Just stop being so offensive.

I really don't want any "wtf is this i dont even...". That doesn't help either of us.

Um, no, it helped me deal with the inanity of your posts. Go back up and read what you said. It was insultingly bad. If you were deliberately trolling, you'd derserve a prize. Please don't post something that makes absolutely no sense in English then blame someone else for failing to have puzzled out your secret twin language. . . and then refuse to even address your own incompetent phrasing and misinformation! That would be being a dick.

I get it! It's like one of those anger balls! tell your psychiatrist it isn't working. Then ask for clarification or give a damned counter-point. Your argument is meaningless if it doesn't qualify an argument.

I'm not blaming you for me being confusing. If I said something that didn't make sense, you can usually guess that it made sense to me, just that I didn't do a very good job of explaining it. When I say "ask for clarification" I mean to tell me specifically what parts seemed completely out there, so I can correct my own mistakes. Help me help you help me. (See what I did there? that's where you could ask for clarification.)

This is only an insult to you if you make it that way.

And speaking of being a dick:

No response means you concede.

Be more childish here. Seriously. Give it a shot. Try to act more like a four year old here. "I know you are but what am I?" would actually be a step up from this.

Do I need to actually say the word sarcasm now? Who would actually be self righteous enough to say that in earnest? No, not me, put your finger down.

I was attempting to lighten the mood after what might have been an excessively serious topic. If I made a bad call, then I made a bad call. I really don't think it's quite as important as

the point.

but god forbid that should get in anyone's way.

 

[spartan231490]

Selective breeding (I.e with carrots and cows) and genetic engineering are not the same thing. Neither are bad, just genetic engineering isn't just shutting on and off genes its making potatoes provide the correct proteins so they can be used for vaccinations (for human diseases) something which would never happen no matter how many potatoes you bred together.

I'm fine with both, this is more of a definitions thing.

I was going to make the same point. I believe that selective breeding is a part of genetic engineering, but it certainly isn't all of it. Genetic engineering can also, in addition to making potatoes into a vaccine, can do things like put disease resistant genetic material from one species of crop, into another.(they've been doing this with corn recently, so does that make it carrot-corn, or potato-corn or whatever-corn?)

 

[Bre2nan]

While a farming dynasty can, say, breed the perfect sheep for their benefit, Monsanto and others genetically engineer crop and vegetables to dominate the market.
They even go so far as to "unsex" plants so that they don't produce new seeds which have to be bought for a hefty price every damned year again and sustainability and independence go overboard.

I only fear the day when Monsanto's Sardaukar-crops have eliminated all and every "organic" AKA traditional alternative and some African farmers have to go Fremen on His Imperial Highness' corporate ass.

I was wondering if someone would bring up the whole Monsanto thing.

A lot of the controversy doesn't come from the fact that genetic engineering is taking place, it's that greedy asshole corporations can take advantage of what can be done with modern genetic engineering to eliminate all competition. Stuff like this is why people don't like GMOs nowadays, not simply that it is being done by scientists in laboratories.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

For a show called The Big Picture, you seem to be missing it and focusing on a small issue of semantics.

What people are worried about are genetically CREATED foods. Foods that don't exist and can't be found in the natural world. A Chicken Wing, Chicken Nugget or Coca-Cola is not a FOOD. It is a product created from food-like materials, flavored with artificial chemicals, sterilized, packaged in environment-harming plastics or litter-causing packages and mass-marketed to as many people as possible, with the GOAL being to make people buy and eat as much as possible (addiction-causing flavorings help with this), regardless of whether those people are hungry or not.

Food addiction isn't just caused by addictive personalities.

And then there's Monsanto and all of that. Monsanto is like the Mr. Burns of real life.

When genetic engineering hurts the sustainability of agriculture and attempts to enforce capitalism through the creation of crops which don't produce seeds (or when Monsanto and others try to force peasant villages to not collect seeds), that is heinous.

I've watched a few of these Big Picture episodes and have found your opinions in them pretty far off, unbalanced and making no attempt to acknowledge any validity on the other side.

 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

The problem is not genetic engineering itself, it is a tool that can be use for either "good" or "evil", the problem is it's been used for "evil". So most of the people who fight against it, are just fighting against the bad use of that kind of technology.

I live in Argentina, a country that has an agriculture based economy, and I can confirm what others have stated before me: Monsanto is an evil corporation. Also, it is not the only one being evil or irresponsible, there's also rich farmers and politicians helping it out.

Well, not so long ago farmers began planting soybeans they bought from Monsanto and started selling soy to chinese pigs (no, this is not a metaphor, chinese pigs are eating tons of soy). The problems being: this have almost driven the country into a single crop farming system and that they are using glyphosate as a weed killer. As some of you may have guessed glyphosate is really toxic and is screwing around with the soil fertility and the health of the people who works on the farms. Those people also work under inhuman conditions: They are paid wages way below the minimum and live with all they co-workers and their families in tiny houses.

Altough many people have done exhaustive research, people like one of my college teachers, no one is taking serious measures to stop it. The government tried to solve the problem of inhuman work conditions by negotiating with the owners of the farms as follows: If the owners improved the working conditions of their employees, the government would allow them to export all the corn they wanted to. All this ended with the big landlords making a protest in which that consisted in not exporting anything for two weeks, unbalancing the exportation balance in the process.

So as you can all see, the problem of genetic engineering is that people are dicks =(

 

[Duck_Man52]

for some reason if frakenfood was actually real, I would want to try it lol. I don't know why?

 

[shumajax]

most of the genetically modified food is not made so food is better for you or longer lasting or even for some trivial reason like color no what they do in lab is make modify crops so that they can with stand being constantly sprayed with herb-aside or so that they have built in pest-asides and there has been no studies in to the long term effect of this accelerated and haphazard approach to evolution. also a big source of controversy in this area come not from the food itself but of the application of patients to living things. if you patient a living thing you own it and all of it kin and all of it decedent this is a powerful thing and should not be taken lightly. there more to the story than you put out there bob.

 

[Solivagus]

What farmers did wasn't genetic engineering, it was selective breeding or artificial selection (going by Darwinian terminology).

I know what you were getting at and I understand this isn't your area of expertise and so on, but correct terminology is important in these things. Artificial selection focuses on the physical traits or phenotypes while genetic engineering focuses on the genes or genotypes. And now I've bored you. You're welcome.

 

[Jagji56]

Here is the thing, company's are genetically engineering seeds they sell so they only grow once, and there for, making them more money. I don't mind GM food, I mean, potato chips are GM, you only have to read there packaging to find that out. No, its the company's that are taking advantage of the technology (if you can call it that) that I am worried about.

 

[Ninja Twinky]

FMA reference, i love your videos because they talk about actual issues and such.

 

[personion]

Through years and years of these genetic breedings, seeds start to get less fertile. The apple 100 years ago was much more bitter than the apple we eat today. That means our bodies are consuming more sugar than ever before, and this explains a lot of problems.

 

[NightRavenGSA]

I have no problem with selective breeding or recombinant DNA, when done correctly.
I do however have a problem with the lack of ethics and accountability when it comes companies like Monsanto

 

[saber152]

What farmers did wasn't genetic engineering, it was selective breeding or artificial selection (going by Darwinian terminology).

I know what you were getting at and I understand this isn't your area of expertise and so on, but correct terminology is important in these things. Artificial selection focuses on the physical traits or phenotypes while genetic engineering focuses on the genes or genotypes. And now I've bored you. You're welcome.

yea he has a point, but in the end it all depends on what we are referencing and how it's exacted, now scientists can actually splice DNA in and out of cells. what bob said about the sheep, was in the wrong terminology but had the same idea behind it, physically u are making the best sheep breed with other sheep with the same wool output (for example) to make the next generation hopefully have the best or better wool output, this is selective breeding, in the end though both sheep have a gene that makes them produce more wool then others.

I think the term genetic engineering is more along the lines of actually taking the gene out of a cell and placing it in something else to make it ether better or something completely different.

 

[VioletHorizon]

I'm not from America, and I've never heard of those arguments before. I've also heard of good arguments against genetically modified foods, not because of health concerns, but because of socio-economic impacts (like huge corporations monopolizing on certain strains, killing off smaller businesses due to higher barriers of entry) as well as threats to biodiversity.

 

[Jux]

Good video, just want to point out one thing. Common misconception about defibrillation is that you can restart a heart with it, like you see in medical dramas. This isn't true. Defibrillation is simply a means of 'resetting' an irregular heart rhythm, it is actually useless once your heart goes asystole. A flatline is pretty much just treated with CPR and an intravenous vasopressor.