To the PETA...

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
cff said:
Point 2 is bull**** proposed by the pesticide producers. That is the biggest stupidity one can do. Make plants more endurable just to b able to sell more evil posion... *shakes head*
I must say, I'm somewhat baffled by the logic of this statement... pesticide producers want pest-resistant plants so that they can sell more pesticide? Logically, pest-resistant plants would be a very bad thing for pesticide producers.
 

steampunk

Spaceman
cff said:
Point 1 is debatable. Sides that most likely the taste/consistency/... will be altered as well (usually for the worse) you could also argue that this simply shouldn't be done. Stick to the plants that grow in your climate?!
Point 2 is bull**** proposed by the pesticide producers. That is the biggest stupidity one can do. Make plants more endurable just to b able to sell more evil posion... *shakes head*
Bollocks. GM != taste funny. That's an unreasonable assumption. Your second point makes no sense. By equiping less hardy plants with natural defences found in other plants we are protecting the environment. And there are infact several tests that GM foods must past before they are even considered to be put on supermarket shelves.

Problem is once I seed one field with the maipulated crop I'll have it in all fields in a couple of years due to bees, etc. Now what if we learn that it is indeed harmful?! It would be worse then nuclear waste.
Don't be so paranoid. And regular cross breeding can produce nasty results too. A certain breed of celery that was developed using cross breeding actually produces a chemical that some people are serverly allergic to. In such cases it is actually BENEFICIAL to simply splice a few valued genes rather than the tradiational method that would introduce thousands of genes at once. And lets not forget the featherless chicken which was BREED into existance. Not genetically altered. Imagine if one of those got out. There'd be thousand of bald birds rampaging the country side :eek:
 

t.c.cgi

Vice Admiral
steampunk said:
And lets not forget the featherless chicken which was BREED into existance. Not genetically altered. Imagine if one of those got out. There'd be thousand of bald birds rampaging the country side :eek:
I heard an arguement once that this is unhumane, as the chickens would get sunburnt easily etc. Here is my take on it: Pre-cooked chicken!
 

Napoleon

Spaceman
Every single human being who eats any plant or animal that has been domesticated (ie every person except maybe for a few hermits eating wild berries and some venison) is eating GM food. The only difference is that now rather than having to spend years upon years breeding for a specific trail, having all different forms of mutations happen in the process, some with dangerous results, and dangerous attempts at cross breeding going horribly horribly wrong (ie killer bees being let loose in the Americas by people trying to breed a heartier honey bee); we can now be precise about what changes occur, knowing exactly what will happen in a controlled laboratory setting, without the risks associated with traditional breeding experiements, as well as without the HORRIBLE waste. Modern genetics are safer than not.

Read the British Royal Acadamy for the Sciences report from early this summer about the pure bullsh*t comming from the anti-gm people and how modern GM foods are in no way dangerous and there isnt a SINGLE SHRED OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to support the claim that GM isnt a good idea. (ill look for a link and post it when i can)
 
Top