typical animal
Registered Member
My god there are a lot of idiots here.
My god there are a lot of idiots here.
My god there are a lot of idiots here.
You have answered by repeating claims, not by explaining or substantiating them. You've said over and over that changing our food is bad, but you haven't said how or when we will see negative consequences or exactly what they will be, just that it is obvious to you. Well I'm sorry to break it to you, but you are in a small minority. The vast majority of people eat GM food and the vast majority of scientists think they are a good thing. You and iceaura apparently think all of these people are idiots and you are the smart ones, but you can't even articulate what you think is wrong and iceaura is actually posting evidence against his point and saying it agrees with him! Here's a small sample of your claims:I already answered that multiple times in this thread and/or the other one. If you're too lazy to go through it or not bright enough to understand or saw it already but forgot already then I can't help you. Saying it again would be simply repeating myself.
Frankly, to me this just sounds like fear of the unknown. You don't know what is happening so you are afraid that it will be bad even though you have no reason to believe it. That's the same reason people are afraid of flying! You assume change is bad, but you don't know why, which is why you haven't articulated it, you're just repeating this vague claim over ad over again.The worst thing is how they gradually and irreversibly are changing/going to change foods from what humans and their ancestors have co-evolved with for millions of years....
It's obviously bad to significantly and irreversibly change food from what we're evolved to eat to something with a significant amount of random and unknown elements in its place....
The problems with this are:Sure, maybe nothing about the AI will be damaged. Maybe all it did was really change the colour of the plant. However GMO scientists can never know since they are inserting, deleting and replacing large chunks of DNA while having little clue of the consequences.
Sure, maybe nothing about the AI will be damaged. Maybe all it did was really change the colour of the plant. However GMO scientists can never know since they are inserting, deleting and replacing large chunks of DNA while having little clue of the consequences.
The problems with this are:
1. The changes aren't random.
2. Yes, the consequences are known. They are tested!
And in any case, you aren't saying explicitly what you think those consequences are. Just saying "integrity" is not an explanation.
What you have here is just fear of the unknown (to you). You don't have any evidence and you are treating your lack of evidence as evidence. We don't know all possible consequences (which is true), therefore you believe that those consequences will be bad (which does not follow logically).
They have been, are being and will continue to be tested.Now russ the consequences are NOT known , and they have NOT been tested
This is disingenuous on your part
Such yields cannot be ascribed to the genetic engineering. If they could be ascribed to the GM we would not know if they were long term or reliable. If they had been ascribed to the GM and shown to be reliable long term we would not know they were worth the price in ecological damage, medical risk, economic dependency, and political exclusion from power. And so forth.russ said:...here's another chance for you to ponder the central issue: increased yields compared with what?.
Increased yields compared with what the farm was producing before.
That's not possible. We don't even know yet what all to test for - the situation is too new, and we have too little experience with anything like this stuff.russ said:They have been, are being and will continue to be tested.