Thread: Food, Science and Sustainability

You're forgetting how much of everyday life is affected by Genetic Meddling and Cloning in a good way.

I would also like to see some sources cited on these GE crops.

Oh and remember that GE isn't exactly fully developed

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

You're forgetting how much of everyday life is affected by Genetic Meddling and Cloning in a good way.

Really? How much?

I agree with the church about that as well, but I'm sure it's not for the same reasons.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

To briefly touch on medicine, the time, money and brainpower put into gene therapies and GE-based pharmaceutical production could have many times the positive impact if applied to preventative research, community based health initiatives, and/or universal basic health care.

Unfortunately, common sense, education, and preventive strategies don't make big bucks for anyone.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

In the food supply, GMOs have been a blight on our health and natural resources, and unbalanced our economy.

And not even more land is being dedicated to growing that obnoxious plant to be made into ethanol. So once again instead of helping to find real alternative energy, the government subsidizes big business.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

The result is below-food-grade, suitable only for processed derivatives and--animal feed, which supports the glut of low-grade meat choking our veins via fast food chains and discount grocery stores.

Some form of corn is in every form of processed food there is. People are whining now about how much their food costs (since corn is being diverted to make ethanol) because everyone is addicted to those empty calories.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

We could easily set aside gene-meddling and pursue more fruitful strategies for health and nourishment, including genome-informed horticulture and husbandry, and more intensive study of living networks so that we can not only cease despoiling our environment, but also build a human ecology that promotes our health and nourishment.

I don't know about "easily". It should be done, but I don't think so. It's just like alternative energy; if big corporations can't make money doing it, and influence the government to enact policies that benefit them, forget about it. We'll just have to wait for a disaster when the monoculture crashes.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

You're forgetting how much of everyday life is affected by Genetic Meddling and Cloning in a good way.

Such as....?

Modern Medicines, Cancer Treatments, Possible Cure for Syckle-Cell Anemia, Pretty much all produce.

Possiblities of being able to meddle with your offspring's traits (Okay, maybe not helpfu, but still pretty cool )

Cloning is a fast method for creating numerous, genetically identical animals that will inheretly lower prices on the food, while keeping consistent qualities.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Modern Medicines, Cancer Treatments, Possible Cure for Syckle-Cell Anemia,

You said everyday life. Most of that stuff hasn't happened yet. As Taosaur said, there are so many things that need to be done in the field of medicine that could help so many more people, spending tons of money on cloning is not the best way to help the most people.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Pretty much all produce.

No, actually it's easy to avoid.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Cloning is a fast method for creating numerous, genetically identical animals that will inheretly lower prices on the food, while keeping consistent qualities.

That's as bad as the corn thing. Worse, in my opinion. When you have identical plants and animals, they are all susceptible to the same problems and diseases.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

You said everyday life. Most of that stuff hasn't happened yet. As Taosaur said, there are so many things that need to be done in the field of medicine that could help so many more people, spending tons of money on cloning is not the best way to help the most people.



No, actually it's easy to avoid.



That's as bad as the corn thing. Worse, in my opinion. When you have identical plants and animals, they are all susceptible to the same problems and diseases.

1. True I guess...
2. Sure, but the GE is still cheaper. Not everyone is an organic-foods person and it costs more.
3. Not really. If you are constanyl altering the genome to get bigger and better and more hardy crops and plants, it isn't bad at all! Then you don't have to worry about the possible drawbacks of naturally making more animals and plants.

I'm not against helping people with new therapies, it's just that there are so many other things that could be done first, that would help a lot more people for a lot less money.

As far as GE crops go, I'm not really sure what you mean about the drawbacks of nature.

Touching on medicine again, the one area of useful application I've seen are GMOs that produce pharmaceuticals, insulin, etc. The irony there is that these chemicals are late-stage interventions for conditions arising from the nutritional and environmental impacts of our food system, which relies on GMOs. Again, it's not the science that's the problem, but what we're doing with it, and what we fail to address while concentrating on making shiny new things we can sell. The root problem, or one root, is healthcare-for-profit: sheer idiocy.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

2. Sure, but the GE is still cheaper. Not everyone is an organic-foods person and it costs more.

GE is not cheaper. One exception might be Bt pest resistance, though inherently poisonous food crops are worrisome in other ways. In the case of typical(Round-Up Ready) GE food crops engineered to sell pesticide, they are supported by massive corporate welfare (tax dollars) now expanded by ethanol initiatives, and rely upon externalized costs to keep the sticker price down--costs like environmental degradation from run-off and fuel-intensive propagation and transportation; insurance premiums and other healthcare costs; and falling property values. Beyond these eventual economic costs, there's the cultural, quality-of-life impact of diminished food choices and industry-based 'cuisine,' and as Moonbeam mentioned the potential risks of relying on a genetically homogeneous food supply. The number on the shelf at Walmart is a lie.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

3. Not really. If you are constanyl altering the genome to get bigger and better and more hardy crops and plants, it isn't bad at all!

Don't forget blander and less satisfying
But you wouldn't know that if you never eat real food.

How the hell would they be blander and less-satisfying? That's like saying using machines to create cars makes them worse!

And I live on a farm, so I 100% of my meat comes from my backyard thank you...

Conventionally grown produce out of an average grocery store or chain restaurant tends to have less flavor than organic or garden-grown produce. Meals prepared with that produce just...satisfy less. It might have a bit to do with the skill level and concentration of people cooking with poor ingredients, but the fact that industrial agriculture operates in an overdetermined, purposefully impoverished ecology probably has a lot to do with the poor quality as well.

And no, it's not much like cars--cars are machines which are made, whereas food crops are organisms which grow, preferably in some sort of robust ecology.

Well that has nothing to do with the process of creating them was my point

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Well that has nothing to do with the process of creating them was my point

It doesn't have a lot to do with whether they're GMOs or not, except insofar as GMOs facilitate the assembly-line approach to food production, but yes, it has a great deal to do with how they're grown, harvested and distributed.

So then why bash down on GE?

Come up with a better way to do grow and harvest, implement it, then get rich and retire with a full pension.