Thread: GMO's

Results 1 to 17 of 17

  1. #1

    Default GMO's

    What is your opinion on GMOS do you think they are useful, an essential part of our future or maybe they are devil spawn? I would like to hear your general opinions and maybe interesting stuff you read about it. No conspiracy shit please :P
    "I am vegan because I have compassion for animals; I see them as beings possessed of value not unlike humans. I am an anarchist because I have that same compassion for humans, and because I refuse to settle for compromised perspectives, half-assed strategies and sold-out objectives. As a radical, my approach to animal and human liberation is without compromise: total freedom for all, or else."

    "It takes no more time to be a vegetarian than to eat animal flesh.... When non-vegetarians say ‘human problems come first’ I cannot help wondering what exactly it is that they are doing for humans that compels them to continue to support the wasteful ruthless, exploitation of farm animals."
  2. #2
    Join Date Feb 2017
    Location California
    Posts 13
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    GMO's are fine to me, they may even be an effective response to world hunger that has occurred due to poor soil, lack of water, or pests.
    Almost all farmed foods are 'modified' already through applied selective pressures used to make the crops yield more each harvest.
    This is nothing new, it's just these fucking hippies.
  3. #3

    Default

    GMO's are fine to me, they may even be an effective response to world hunger that has occurred due to poor soil, lack of water, or pests.
    Almost all farmed foods are 'modified' already through applied selective pressures used to make the crops yield more each harvest.
    This is nothing new, it's just these fucking hippies.
    THanks for your comment i also think GMOs can play a role in agriculture.
    "I am vegan because I have compassion for animals; I see them as beings possessed of value not unlike humans. I am an anarchist because I have that same compassion for humans, and because I refuse to settle for compromised perspectives, half-assed strategies and sold-out objectives. As a radical, my approach to animal and human liberation is without compromise: total freedom for all, or else."

    "It takes no more time to be a vegetarian than to eat animal flesh.... When non-vegetarians say ‘human problems come first’ I cannot help wondering what exactly it is that they are doing for humans that compels them to continue to support the wasteful ruthless, exploitation of farm animals."
  4. #4
    Join Date Feb 2011
    Posts 2,994
    Rep Power 56

    Default

    What is your opinion on GMOS do you think they are useful, an essential part of our future or maybe they are devil spawn? I would like to hear your general opinions and maybe interesting stuff you read about it. No conspiracy shit please :P
    I think people confuse the understandable worry about unaccountable corporations developing GMOs which are protected trade secrets with a rejection of the technology as such. Sensible and targeted use of the technology can have social benefits - that doesn't mean that making all our corn roundup-ready to allow for the excessive use of various pesticides is a good idea. Corn that can be grown in the Himalayas would be great. Dumping tons of roundup in our environment or creating genetic homogeneity in our crops can have harmful side effects.
    Socialist Party of Outer Space
  5. #5
    Join Date May 2015
    Location Virgo Supercluster
    Posts 565
    Organisation
    PerfectPontiff 8th degree
    Rep Power 5

    Default

    I think people confuse the understandable worry about unaccountable corporations developing GMOs which are protected trade secrets with a rejection of the technology as such. Sensible and targeted use of the technology can have social benefits - that doesn't mean that making all our corn roundup-ready to allow for the excessive use of various pesticides is a good idea. Corn that can be grown in the Himalayas would be great. Dumping tons of roundup in our environment or creating genetic homogeneity in our crops can have harmful side effects.
    corn that can grow in the himalayas is a terrible idea. If we all lived in dense cities, you could fit the entire worlds population into texas. In fact every person on earth could fit inside a cubic mile with enough room to swing there arms around. We should begin removing this dense urban sprawl that serves only to provide the self serving upper middle class careerists with their own miniature paradise where they self alienate in their own little world commute 3hrs+ per day just to live in a phony mini utopia. Adding to the cost of everyones lives, and inefficiently managing resources. How much oil would we save if they outlawed living more than 1hour from work? We shouldn't try to grow beets in the desert or corn in the himalayas. we should be demolishing entire cities and growing it there.
  6. #6

    Default

    corn that can grow in the himalayas is a terrible idea. If we all lived in dense cities, you could fit the entire worlds population into texas. In fact every person on earth could fit inside a cubic mile with enough room to swing there arms around. We should begin removing this dense urban sprawl that serves only to provide the self serving upper middle class careerists with their own miniature paradise where they self alienate in their own little world commute 3hrs+ per day just to live in a phony mini utopia. Adding to the cost of everyones lives, and inefficiently managing resources. How much oil would we save if they outlawed living more than 1hour from work? We shouldn't try to grow beets in the desert or corn in the himalayas. we should be demolishing entire cities and growing it there.
    Im very confused about what you mean. Do you want cities or do you not want cities? What commute do you mean. If we destroy all cities would it not be harder to live close to your work? I hope you can explain again

    Also, do you have a source or calculation about the worlds population in a cubic mile? And if this is true, why would it be wrong to grow corn in a desert? If we can build super efficient sky scrapers where everyone lives( if this is what you propose), would it not be necessary to grow corn in deserts to feed the growing population?
    "I am vegan because I have compassion for animals; I see them as beings possessed of value not unlike humans. I am an anarchist because I have that same compassion for humans, and because I refuse to settle for compromised perspectives, half-assed strategies and sold-out objectives. As a radical, my approach to animal and human liberation is without compromise: total freedom for all, or else."

    "It takes no more time to be a vegetarian than to eat animal flesh.... When non-vegetarians say ‘human problems come first’ I cannot help wondering what exactly it is that they are doing for humans that compels them to continue to support the wasteful ruthless, exploitation of farm animals."
  7. #7
    Join Date Feb 2011
    Posts 2,994
    Rep Power 56

    Default

    corn that can grow in the himalayas is a terrible idea. If we all lived in dense cities, you could fit the entire worlds population into texas. In fact every person on earth could fit inside a cubic mile with enough room to swing there arms around. We should begin removing this dense urban sprawl that serves only to provide the self serving upper middle class careerists with their own miniature paradise where they self alienate in their own little world commute 3hrs+ per day just to live in a phony mini utopia. Adding to the cost of everyones lives, and inefficiently managing resources. How much oil would we save if they outlawed living more than 1hour from work? We shouldn't try to grow beets in the desert or corn in the himalayas. we should be demolishing entire cities and growing it there.
    I don't see why there is some kind of dichotomy between eliminating the urban/suburban divide and suburban sprawl and growing corn in high altitudes. Don't you think Tibetans might want corn too? Might Tuaregs in the desert want beets? Or do you want people who otherwise want to continue living in those places to be compelled to move to one of a handful of global megacities? Hundreds of millions of people are not poor middle class careerists but poor people who live in small rural communities, some in harsh environments. Creating crops which can grow in new environments is a great way to expand the agricultural surplus and the issue you raise is a red herring.
    Socialist Party of Outer Space
  8. #8

    Default

    I'm of a mixed opinion about GMOs. I know that I most certainly am against them as their current structure, and their operations within it (granting the ability to patent them, and as a consequence run small farmers out of business and sue them). In order for me to have any positive view of them, I would need to see and understand the long-term projected nutritional and environmental consequences of such a move. Most certainly, while they can be considered as a meaningful move in the long-term, and as an adjustment to the changing situations of the population, and to better and more cheaply provide for the people, we should approach such a fundamental consideration with caution.
  9. #9
    Join Date May 2015
    Location Virgo Supercluster
    Posts 565
    Organisation
    PerfectPontiff 8th degree
    Rep Power 5

    Default

    Im very confused about what you mean. Do you want cities or do you not want cities? What commute do you mean. If we destroy all cities would it not be harder to live close to your work? I hope you can explain again

    Also, do you have a source or calculation about the worlds population in a cubic mile? And if this is true, why would it be wrong to grow corn in a desert? If we can build super efficient sky scrapers where everyone lives( if this is what you propose), would it not be necessary to grow corn in deserts to feed the growing population?
    I don't see why there is some kind of dichotomy between eliminating the urban/suburban divide and suburban sprawl and growing corn in high altitudes. Don't you think Tibetans might want corn too? Might Tuaregs in the desert want beets? Or do you want people who otherwise want to continue living in those places to be compelled to move to one of a handful of global megacities? Hundreds of millions of people are not poor middle class careerists but poor people who live in small rural communities, some in harsh environments. Creating crops which can grow in new environments is a great way to expand the agricultural surplus and the issue you raise is a red herring.

    Overpopulation is a myth so first of all any ideas that come from the philosophy of "the planet is overpopulated and we must do something to solve this crisis" are inherently false and unfounded. The Malthusian philosophy that human productivity is not exponential is something that has been widely criticized and has also been used to justify almost every genocide and every form of ethnic cleansing. http://www.colorado.edu/Sociology/gi.../popissue.html

    If the state of Texas was as dense as New York city we could fit all 7 billion people inside. The reason for things like poverty and mass famine is because of things like war and lack of infrastructure not over population. We dont need to grow corn on the Himalayas anymore than we do on the moon, in fact growing corn on the moon might be a more worthwhile endeavor. But even if you could figure out how to do it, there is still the question of whether its good for the environment. Completely changing the climate and the environment of a major stretch of land like the Himalayas could have disastrous consequences for the rest of the planet, especially if its done at any substantial scale. We know that if we chop down the entire Amazon rainforest that we could cause disaster elsewhere, and we seem to be understanding that if the polar ice caps melt it can have consequences as well, but people still dont know how important the desert is, or the mountains or even the Patagonian steppe.

    Silt from the Sahara desert crosses the atlantic and feeds the amazon rainforest, so growing massive corn farms there would actually destroy the amazon rainforest, and probably cause a lot more damage. We didn't know this 20 years ago, these discoveries are really only just being made and understood. The fact is, environmental science isn't developed to the point where we can begin terraforming (for lack of a better word), the uninhabitable regions of the planet. Neither do we need to.


    So these ideas are really just futuristic solutions to problems that dont exist, and could cause more damage. The world already produces enough food to feed 10 billion people if we updated african farmland to produce the same amount of food per square acre as farmland in america does, we could feed the entire world using just the farmland in Africa alone.
    Last edited by willowtooth; 16th February 2017 at 05:00.
  10. #10
    Join Date Feb 2011
    Posts 2,994
    Rep Power 56

    Default

    Overpopulation is a myth so first of all any ideas that come from the philosophy of "the planet is overpopulated and we must do something to solve this crisis" are inherently false and unfounded. The Malthusian philosophy that human productivity is not exponential is something that has been widely criticized and has also been used to justify almost every genocide and every form of ethnic cleansing. http://www.colorado.edu/Sociology/gi.../popissue.html

    If the state of Texas was as dense as New York city we could fit all 7 billion people inside. The reason for things like poverty and mass famine is because of things like war and lack of infrastructure not over population. We dont need to grow corn on the Himalayas anymore than we do on the moon, in fact growing corn on the moon might be a more worthwhile endeavor. But even if you could figure out how to do it, there is still the question of whether its good for the environment. Completely changing the climate and the environment of a major stretch of land like the Himalayas could have disastrous consequences for the rest of the planet, especially if its done at any substantial scale. We know that if we chop down the entire Amazon rainforest that we could cause disaster elsewhere, and we seem to be understanding that if the polar ice caps melt it can have consequences as well, but people still dont know how important the desert is, or the mountains or even the Patagonian steppe.

    Silt from the Sahara desert crosses the atlantic and feeds the amazon rainforest, so growing massive corn farms there would actually destroy the amazon rainforest, and probably cause a lot more damage. We didn't know this 20 years ago, these discoveries are really only just being made and understood. The fact is, environmental science isn't developed to the point where we can begin terraforming (for lack of a better word), the uninhabitable regions of the planet. Neither do we need to.


    So these ideas are really just futuristic solutions to problems that dont exist, and could cause more damage. The world already produces enough food to feed 10 billion people if we updated african farmland to produce the same amount of food per square acre as farmland in america does, we could feed the entire world using just the farmland in Africa alone.
    Nobody said anything about overpopulation, or about covering the entire Himalayan plateau with corn. Nor does being able to produce food in deserted areas mean we cover the whole desert in agriculture. Boosting agricultural production is not a bad thing, but moving everyone to one of a few mega-cities might not be the best idea. I agree that massively farming the Himalayas would require us to understand the ecological consequences, but that does not mean that having such a capability is in itself a bad idea. For one thing, even if overpopulation isn't an issue now, it's clear that one way which we have ensured that it isn't a problem is through technological advance. Saying increasing food production capacity is a good idea does not commit us to Malthusian logic (on the contrary, the capacity for technological advance is one of the things that makes Malthusian analysis problematic). For another thing, growing food in places like Tibet might, say, allow us to reduce deforestation in places like India. It's about having the capacity to balance a complex system to maximize our needs, not about massively terraforming the uninhabitable parts of the planet.
    Socialist Party of Outer Space
  11. #11
    Join Date May 2015
    Location Virgo Supercluster
    Posts 565
    Organisation
    PerfectPontiff 8th degree
    Rep Power 5

    Default

    Nobody said anything about overpopulation, or about covering the entire Himalayan plateau with corn. Nor does being able to produce food in deserted areas mean we cover the whole desert in agriculture. Boosting agricultural production is not a bad thing, but moving everyone to one of a few mega-cities might not be the best idea. I agree that massively farming the Himalayas would require us to understand the ecological consequences, but that does not mean that having such a capability is in itself a bad idea. For one thing, even if overpopulation isn't an issue now, it's clear that one way which we have ensured that it isn't a problem is through technological advance. Saying increasing food production capacity is a good idea does not commit us to Malthusian logic (on the contrary, the capacity for technological advance is one of the things that makes Malthusian analysis problematic). For another thing, growing food in places like Tibet might, say, allow us to reduce deforestation in places like India. It's about having the capacity to balance a complex system to maximize our needs, not about massively terraforming the uninhabitable parts of the planet.
    I never said I was against boosting agricultural production in fact im all for it, in places like africa and the places where there already is agriculture. I suppose growing food on the surface of the sun would be a great technological achievement as well, but that doesn't mean it should someones goal. Companies like monsanto often mumble this line in defense of GMO's that they will allow us to grow food in places never seen before, but while this rhetoric might be acceptable from a chemical company trying to justify making mutant corn plants the size of a truck. It shouldn't be mistaken for an actual political philosophy or scientific goal, like landing on mars or curing cancer and it furthers the myth of overpopulation, by repeating the lie that the reason starvation and famine exist is because we are running out of land to grow food on. Which is just not the case.

    Thats why im talking about megacities because im trying to make the point that we already waste millions of acres of farmland. Not just on suburban housing but corporate office parks, cemeteries, churches, stadiums golf courses, highways and railroads we dont need. Now your asking about the tuaregs and the monks of Nepal, well I would I ask them what the hell are they doing in the desert in the first place? Have you tried a bacon cheeseburger its delicious come the cities and bring your children.

    Its never the poor who want too maintain these sort of traditionalist cultures, if you go to these villages I guarantee none of the kids want to live there, a none of the poor parents do either. The same is virtually true for the rural and suburban americans, they all want to go the major cities they all want to leave except for the few well off who are more concerned with maintaining they're position of power as the tuareg general or buddhist monk or the leader of the local PTA at the elementary school.

    This is a major flaw in the theory of socialism in one country, as well, as you see with the horrible environmental disasters caused under the soviet union, one of the worst was the Aral sea the former fourth largest sea in the world which they have almost completely wiped off the map. Another would be the population controls and 1 child policy of China. By cutting off the natural flow of immigration they have to invent these things like growing corn in the Himalayas to survive, or they have to expel a large percentage of their population every few years, like when Castro they emptied the prisons, or when england used to send its criminals and unwanteds to the prison colony of australia.
  12. #12
    Join Date Oct 2016
    Posts 108
    Organisation
    Socialist Worker Party
    Rep Power 1

    Default

    GMOs are no harm, scientists have already determined there is nothing harmful about GMOs, the problem is the mono farms where only one crop, corn is being produced. And i it gets turned into unhealthy trash products, so much corn is being produced that the price of corn has gone so dramatically low people can buy ramen at 33 cents (yes they find a way to put corn into every unhealthy food), this is because the United States Government was literally bribed into subisdising farmers wages because of how low the corn was selling because of the mass production. GMOs aren't the problem it is the people who own it, honestly though GMOs could do a lot to end world hunger. They are currently developing an apple that doesn't rot when it is opened, it literally never goes brown.
  13. #13
    Join Date Feb 2011
    Posts 2,994
    Rep Power 56

    Default

    I never said I was against boosting agricultural production in fact im all for it, in places like africa and the places where there already is agriculture. I suppose growing food on the surface of the sun would be a great technological achievement as well, but that doesn't mean it should someones goal. Companies like monsanto often mumble this line in defense of GMO's that they will allow us to grow food in places never seen before, but while this rhetoric might be acceptable from a chemical company trying to justify making mutant corn plants the size of a truck. It shouldn't be mistaken for an actual political philosophy or scientific goal, like landing on mars or curing cancer and it furthers the myth of overpopulation, by repeating the lie that the reason starvation and famine exist is because we are running out of land to grow food on. Which is just not the case.
    It should be clear from what I posted before that I am not sympathetic to the propaganda of biotech firms. As much as anything else, increasing agricultural production allows us to preserve more land for other uses.

    I agree that modernizing methods in much of the 3rd world could improve our population carrying capacity greatly, but that doesn't mean we should stop seeking out new technologies too. The issue is that those new technologies are currently being developed by massive private corporations.

    Thats why im talking about megacities because im trying to make the point that we already waste millions of acres of farmland. Not just on suburban housing but corporate office parks, cemeteries, churches, stadiums golf courses, highways and railroads we dont need. Now your asking about the tuaregs and the monks of Nepal, well I would I ask them what the hell are they doing in the desert in the first place? Have you tried a bacon cheeseburger its delicious come the cities and bring your children.
    Maybe they value things other than bacon cheeseburgers? It is the height of arrogance to assume that our way of life is superior in every way. We can recognize that without falling into the kind of naive relativism that says that their way of life is perfect for them and should go unchanged like some kind of museum piece. Neither extreme is fair to the communities in question - either in their want to live where they do, or in their legitimate desire for improved access to goods and services. They should have the freedom to leave, and the freedom to stay, and we should be in solidarity with them regardless of their choice.

    Its never the poor who want too maintain these sort of traditionalist cultures, if you go to these villages I guarantee none of the kids want to live there, a none of the poor parents do either. The same is virtually true for the rural and suburban americans, they all want to go the major cities they all want to leave except for the few well off who are more concerned with maintaining they're position of power as the tuareg general or buddhist monk or the leader of the local PTA at the elementary school.
    Having visited some traditional towns, the main pull to live in the cities is the increased access to goods and services, which is a result of capitalism, not an intrinsic desire to leave their home. I am obviously not committed to a radical and conservative defense of their "way of life" as it stands right now if I am suggesting they *might* want the *freedom* to grow corn or beets or whatever else in their harsh environment.

    I am curious, have you ever been to these kinds of communities? I have visited a few ... a lot of people like living in these kinds of places, they just don't like the lack of access to certain commodities and services. It is a lack of social and economic opportunity that drives them from their home more than anything else.

    This is a major flaw in the theory of socialism in one country, as well, as you see with the horrible environmental disasters caused under the soviet union, one of the worst was the Aral sea the former fourth largest sea in the world which they have almost completely wiped off the map. Another would be the population controls and 1 child policy of China. By cutting off the natural flow of immigration they have to invent these things like growing corn in the Himalayas to survive, or they have to expel a large percentage of their population every few years, like when Castro they emptied the prisons, or when england used to send its criminals and unwanteds to the prison colony of australia.
    There's a lot there, but as I implied, we should not repeat the mistakes the USSR made when it came to things like the Aral Sea.
    Socialist Party of Outer Space
  14. #14
    Join Date May 2015
    Location Virgo Supercluster
    Posts 565
    Organisation
    PerfectPontiff 8th degree
    Rep Power 5

    Default

    It should be clear from what I posted before that I am not sympathetic to the propaganda of biotech firms. As much as anything else, increasing agricultural production allows us to preserve more land for other uses.
    Well, if you are a secret monsanto propagandist you are terrible at your job lol

    I agree that modernizing methods in much of the 3rd world could improve our population carrying capacity greatly, but that doesn't mean we should stop seeking out new technologies too. The issue is that those new technologies are currently being developed by massive private corporations.
    yes, thats the problem thats why im surprised to see this argument coming out of non sponsored source (for lack of a better phrase). The reason monsanto or dupont invest in growing mutated plants or whatever is too maximize their profit margins, they have zero interest in feeding the whole world, in fact just the opposite, if they could figure out a way to make more money while feeding less people they would. Yet the only thing you could come up with too say that was good about this technology was their corporate tagline about feeding the world that they say in all their commercials https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7A4oAyKOGHg

    GMO's would fall into the wasted sciences category of capitalism, instead focusing on curing cancer were focused on curing erectile dysfunction instead of trying to regrow hair on someone with alopecia, they focus on alleviating male pattern baldness. the profit motive is a detriment to scientific accomplishment. Rather than focusing on what the biggest problem of the day is, and what can we do to solve it we spend millions of dollars doing financial research, on what scientific research will most likely result in the most profit.

    thats not to say the technology as a whole is bad im just stating the obvious, that theyre more likely to develop a pig that tastes like strawberry soda, before they figure out a way cure world hunger with mutant corn


    Maybe they value things other than bacon cheeseburgers? It is the height of arrogance to assume that our way of life is superior in every way. We can recognize that without falling into the kind of naive relativism that says that their way of life is perfect for them and should go unchanged like some kind of museum piece. Neither extreme is fair to the communities in question - either in their want to live where they do, or in their legitimate desire for improved access to goods and services. They should have the freedom to leave, and the freedom to stay, and we should be in solidarity with them regardless of their choice.
    If there is something more valuable than a bacon cheeseburger than I dont want to know about it lol, everyone of these people would rather have a bacon cheeseburger than your fucking desert corn. Assuming that they dont want the same, that is the height of arrogance, in fact they do want the same things you want, they are not more in tune with nature or desire more noble pursuits or some shit. the tuareg would rather move to london, that is if they havent been kept in such abject poverty their whole loves that they are illiterate and dont even know where london is. The bigger question is would londoners invite them? Based on europeans treatment of syrian refugees the answer is a strong fuck no. Maybe the wealthiest Tuaregs can come for vacation, as long as they promise to spend lots of money, but thats about it


    Having visited some traditional towns, the main pull to live in the cities is the increased access to goods and services, which is a result of capitalism, not an intrinsic desire to leave their home. I am obviously not committed to a radical and conservative defense of their "way of life" as it stands right now if I am suggesting they *might* want the *freedom* to grow corn or beets or whatever else in their harsh environment.

    I am curious, have you ever been to these kinds of communities? I have visited a few ... a lot of people like living in these kinds of places, they just don't like the lack of access to certain commodities and services. It is a lack of social and economic opportunity that drives them from their home more than anything else.
    If they want to! yes sure if they want to they should, lets take a poll and ask everyone on earth where they would rather live on earth, and then everyone agrees to move there, but they must stay for atleast ten years, I guarantee the tuareg and nepalese would vanish into the cities, 99% of them would most likely choose to leave even if its just to Kathmandu. However by circumstance of being born poor their freedom to travel has been taken from them. Im sure the 5 richest people in nepal would love to stay at their palaces in nepal and maybe you can figure out how to grow corn for them (although im sure they have no problem importing it.)


    There's a lot there, but as I implied, we should not repeat the mistakes the USSR made when it came to things like the Aral Sea.
    of course, it should go without saying.... but we shouldn't act like the USSR did this intentionally, although there were intentional environmental crimes like the clear cutting of forests in enemy territory, however this was done with best intentions to "scientifically" improve the Aral sea region, just as your planned 10 million acre fucking corn farm in the himalayas.

    anyway i know I just accused of 6 or 7 things you never said or even implied, but as you now this whole anti-GMO fad is getting pretty popular, im just saying your argument for buying GMO filled corn flakes to your health conscious GMO gluten hormone preservative free friends, shouldn't be, well it might help feed the world.. because it wont.
  15. #15
    Join Date Feb 2011
    Posts 2,994
    Rep Power 56

    Default

    yes, thats the problem thats why im surprised to see this argument coming out of non sponsored source (for lack of a better phrase). The reason monsanto or dupont invest in growing mutated plants or whatever is too maximize their profit margins, they have zero interest in feeding the whole world, in fact just the opposite, if they could figure out a way to make more money while feeding less people they would. Yet the only thing you could come up with too say that was good about this technology was their corporate tagline about feeding the world that they say in all their commercials https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7A4oAyKOGHg
    You can say that about any technology. Trains move the world, that of course could be corporate propaganda but does not in and of itself make it untrue. The assertion that something is untrue simply by virtue of being said by a corporation is a logical fallacy. Tractor companies say that tractors help feed the world, and that is an unarguably true statement, even if the way tractors are distributed in a Capitalist society does not ultimately achieve that end (as you rightly point out, there are too few in parts of Africa, and the continent would have better agricultural production if they were)

    GMO's would fall into the wasted sciences category of capitalism, instead focusing on curing cancer were focused on curing erectile dysfunction instead of trying to regrow hair on someone with alopecia, they focus on alleviating male pattern baldness. the profit motive is a detriment to scientific accomplishment. Rather than focusing on what the biggest problem of the day is, and what can we do to solve it we spend millions of dollars doing financial research, on what scientific research will most likely result in the most profit.

    thats not to say the technology as a whole is bad im just stating the obvious, that theyre more likely to develop a pig that tastes like strawberry soda, before they figure out a way cure world hunger with mutant corn
    Clearly the way corporations apply technology is not helpful to achieving social ends. That said, this does not make the technology itself useless. How did we "solve" the problem of the scarcity of food? One way was by improving productive methods. One way to do that is with different breeds of crop. One way to increase the breeds of crops is through genetic modification.


    If there is something more valuable than a bacon cheeseburger than I dont want to know about it lol, everyone of these people would rather have a bacon cheeseburger than your fucking desert corn. Assuming that they dont want the same, that is the height of arrogance, in fact they do want the same things you want, they are not more in tune with nature or desire more noble pursuits or some shit. the tuareg would rather move to london, that is if they havent been kept in such abject poverty their whole loves that they are illiterate and dont even know where london is. The bigger question is would londoners invite them? Based on europeans treatment of syrian refugees the answer is a strong fuck no. Maybe the wealthiest Tuaregs can come for vacation, as long as they promise to spend lots of money, but thats about it
    It's funny you pick an example (bacon cheeseburger) that neither Nepali Hindus nor Tuareg Muslims, assuming they hold to their religion, would ever eat. Based on the number of halal shops frequented by Muslim immigrants, coming to the West does not mean that Tuareg North Africans would start eating bacon cheeseburgers.

    Have you ever had Nepali food? It's delicious. I've been to some of these parts of the world and they have good food with complex palates there, too, even if they lack the kinds of agricultural surpluses you see in the US.

    If they want to! yes sure if they want to they should, lets take a poll and ask everyone on earth where they would rather live on earth, and then everyone agrees to move there, but they must stay for atleast ten years, I guarantee the tuareg and nepalese would vanish into the cities, 99% of them would most likely choose to leave even if its just to Kathmandu. However by circumstance of being born poor their freedom to travel has been taken from them. Im sure the 5 richest people in nepal would love to stay at their palaces in nepal and maybe you can figure out how to grow corn for them (although im sure they have no problem importing it.)
    You are doing two fallacies here:

    (1) making a massive evidence-free assertion, and a huge overgeneralization at that.

    (2) creating a false dichotomy.

    The problem for Nepalis and Tuaregs is not living outside the city or in harsh environments, it's in their isolation from goods or services. They should have the freedom to move to the cities, but they should also have the freedom to access goods and services where they currently live if they so please.
    Socialist Party of Outer Space
  16. #16
    Join Date May 2015
    Location Virgo Supercluster
    Posts 565
    Organisation
    PerfectPontiff 8th degree
    Rep Power 5

    Default

    You can say that about any technology. Trains move the world, that of course could be corporate propaganda but does not in and of itself make it untrue. The assertion that something is untrue simply by virtue of being said by a corporation is a logical fallacy. Tractor companies say that tractors help feed the world, and that is an unarguably true statement, even if the way tractors are distributed in a Capitalist society does not ultimately achieve that end (as you rightly point out, there are too few in parts of Africa, and the continent would have better agricultural production if they were)

    Clearly the way corporations apply technology is not helpful to achieving social ends. That said, this does not make the technology itself useless. How did we "solve" the problem of the scarcity of food? One way was by improving productive methods. One way to do that is with different breeds of crop. One way to increase the breeds of crops is through genetic modification.
    Exactly, just as we should look at nuclear power plants. Just because it has some problems doesn't mean the science should be banned. But its important to point out that disaters like Fukushima were not intentional, and that it could occur again. Just as some major enviromental disaster could occur with GMO's. At the same time we should not completely ban the science whether its GMO's or nuclear power plants, or whatever. So we can say 99% of the time it's fine. However even disasters like fukushima or 3 mile island occurred in developed nations. So we also have to ask can poor and developing nations use the same technology. for example the issues arising from the cotton crisis in India http://www.reuters.com/article/us-in...-idUSKCN10Z1OX or south african corn imports https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...for-first-time

    New tractor technology is not going to kill millions of people accidentally.

    It's funny you pick an example (bacon cheeseburger) that neither Nepali Hindus nor Tuareg Muslims, assuming they hold to their religion, would ever eat. Based on the number of halal shops frequented by Muslim immigrants, coming to the West does not mean that Tuareg North Africans would start eating bacon cheeseburgers.

    Have you ever had Nepali food? It's delicious. I've been to some of these parts of the world and they have good food with complex palates there, too, even if they lack the kinds of agricultural surpluses you see in the US.
    I love nepali food, I think indian food is better than italian

    Yes obviously I picked a bacon cheesburger for a reason, but it doesn't matter, since they can continue eating their favorite foods in a major city if they want too, in fact they probably would be more able to adhere to whatever diet they want in a major city. I was just making a point about modern technology. I'm not saying go to yemen where there is a famine right now and start handing out porkloins thats probably not a good idea and would probably end badly. However if they want to import all these things and grow them somewhere else on planet earth thats fine, what I mean about forming mega cities wasn't to say lets squeeze everybody inside of texas and grow all of our food in skyscrapers or underground bunkers. However lets say we are able to fit 99% of the population in the worlds largest 500 cities. Then we would have more room for agriculture, cattle grazing, and even nature preserves.

    + YouTube Video
    ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


    http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...ne-giant-city/



    You are doing two fallacies here:

    (1) making a massive evidence-free assertion, and a huge overgeneralization at that.

    (2) creating a false dichotomy.

    The problem for Nepalis and Tuaregs is not living outside the city or in harsh environments, it's in their isolation from goods or services. They should have the freedom to move to the cities, but they should also have the freedom to access goods and services where they currently live if they so please.
    this is because of a lack of infrastructure, and war. The turareg are closer to major corn farms then people in California. The Himalayas are literally surrounded by corn farms. The answer to solving world is hunger is not GMO's because simply increasing supply does not increase access.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-h...b_1463429.html
  17. #17
    Join Date Feb 2011
    Posts 2,994
    Rep Power 56

    Default

    Exactly, just as we should look at nuclear power plants. Just because it has some problems doesn't mean the science should be banned. But its important to point out that disaters like Fukushima were not intentional, and that it could occur again. Just as some major enviromental disaster could occur with GMO's. At the same time we should not completely ban the science whether its GMO's or nuclear power plants, or whatever. So we can say 99% of the time it's fine. However even disasters like fukushima or 3 mile island occurred in developed nations. So we also have to ask can poor and developing nations use the same technology. for example the issues arising from the cotton crisis in India http://www.reuters.com/article/us-in...-idUSKCN10Z1OX or south african corn imports https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...for-first-time

    New tractor technology is not going to kill millions of people accidentally.
    There is no evidence that GMOs will kill large numbers of people. You can't draw an analogy between them and nuclear power.

    I love nepali food, I think indian food is better than italian

    Yes obviously I picked a bacon cheesburger for a reason, but it doesn't matter, since they can continue eating their favorite foods in a major city if they want too, in fact they probably would be more able to adhere to whatever diet they want in a major city. I was just making a point about modern technology. I'm not saying go to yemen where there is a famine right now and start handing out porkloins thats probably not a good idea and would probably end badly. However if they want to import all these things and grow them somewhere else on planet earth thats fine, what I mean about forming mega cities wasn't to say lets squeeze everybody inside of texas and grow all of our food in skyscrapers or underground bunkers. However lets say we are able to fit 99% of the population in the worlds largest 500 cities. Then we would have more room for agriculture, cattle grazing, and even nature preserves.
    Well, we agree on Indian food ... (though I do like Italian too)

    this is because of a lack of infrastructure, and war. The turareg are closer to major corn farms then people in California. The Himalayas are literally surrounded by corn farms. The answer to solving world is hunger is not GMO's because simply increasing supply does not increase access.
    First, California is one of the biggest agricultural regions in the world, second, the Tuareg and the Tibetans are often living in very remote areas. For instance there are very few supply routes going between India and China over the Himalayas. There is just one major railway into all of Tibet.

    Obviously GMOs alone do not increase access, I am taking for granted that we all agree on a different economic logic than the current one which minimizes access. All I am saying is that GMOs are among a useful set of technologies that a post-capitalist society could use to increase the agricultural surplus, feed even more people and use land more efficiently.

    I'm familiar with these statistics (although its worth noting the human population will continue to increase so long as women across the world lack access to reproductive technology to beyond that 10 billion figure)
    Last edited by Sinister Cultural Marxist; 21st February 2017 at 16:18.
    Socialist Party of Outer Space

Similar Threads

  1. Cheerios says no to MONSANTO
    By SovietCommie in forum News & Ongoing Struggles
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 16th January 2014, 14:46
  2. GMO's
    By Orcris in forum Social and off topic
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 31st July 2013, 15:04
  3. Wikileaks Memos Reveal U.S. Gov't Pushing Gene-Altered Crops Worldwide
    By freepalestine in forum Social and off topic
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 29th December 2010, 08:54
  4. WARNING: Kraft's Chips Ahoy contains GMOs
    By 3rdworldcasualty in forum Social and off topic
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 23rd October 2005, 01:54
  5. brazil lifts ban on GM soy products
    By dopediana in forum Social and off topic
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 8th December 2003, 01:06

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts