Zero Health Risks from GMO Meme

[goodsamaritan]

A facebook friend who is so pro-gmo he's getting to be extremely insane posted this.

I commented:

"Dogma. Hubris. From Kavin Senapathy. None = Zero. Tsk tsk.

Just do a simple google search for "gmo related diseases" or whatever keywords you choose. All of that cannot be zero."

[sabertooth]

If they want to play blind, go walk with the Shepard, as for me... my eyes are open.

[dariorpl]

http://naturalsociety.com/genetically-modified-soy-linked-to-sterility-and-infant-mortality/

[panacea]

Genetically modified organisms (GMO's) are not inherently good or bad. A hammer can be used to bash someones skull in or build a shelter to protect from the elements. "Genetically modified organisms" should not be demonized, that is the same overreaction lesser minds in the religious realms used to shun cloning technology which could have achieved wonders by now if given public support. People should push for "GMO control" and isolation, safety, testing, transparency, and all of that good stuff, not lumping new technology into oversimplficiations of "dangerous/toxic". All new technology can be dangerous, especially when we don't know much about it at first, but it's the way forward. We can't be cavemen forever. It's not going to go away just because you are resistant to change. Embrace it in a positive feedback loop, and you have a better chance at not sprouting corruption which will advance the technology anyway, at a dangerously slower pace.

[dariorpl]

First, no, GMO is very dangerous. Second, why are you claiming that it can't be stopped and therefore putting up any sort of resistance is futile? That's a very weak and defeatist attitude.

[panacea]

First, GMO's are not inherently dangerous, messed with in a lab, transparently, and improved upon at a fast pace (technological innovation). The same would be true of big pharma if the emphasis was truly on acquiring more knowledge than profit. What makes any technology dangerous is shortcuts for profit, which becomes even more prominent when you start trying to push an industry to the shadows through demonization. The same is true, in the case of big pharma, when the public adoption an industry (pills to solve problems) without a focus on technological innovation/understanding instead. If cloning, stem cell research, nanotechnology, etc was given public adoption as much as "curing cancer", "fighting aids", and other futile endeavors were the world would be very different by now.

To try and stop the future is the most primitive and savage thing you can do. Grain-based farming was a horrible futuristic trend that gave way to standing armies, vastly spread civilization and expanded population at the cost of lower overall health, until today when it's finally possible to get high quality foods, directly because of that grain-based farming "technology" which paved the way. GMO's have the potential to be super foods which are better than any natural counterpart, it's all about how good the technology becomes, not what state it's in right now.

The defeatist attitude is demonizing anything that challenges the norm, when one should strive for more understanding/testing/control instead. I agree that letting loose a poorly understood technology (GMO's) into the food supply is a bad idea at the current time, disagree that GMO deserves the label "very dangerous", drowning is "very dangerous" but people don't talk about it with an exaggerated panic whenever a bottle of water is around, because it's not demonized. Unfortunately, the public at large is a mob that is easily manipulated when there is a financial incentive, and there is one here, so the futile resistance method of the few to reject GMO's is only going to delay the progress that makes GMO's a useful technology in the end, instead there should be a push for control and understanding which an industry can actually respond to and grow with, it can still operate within those requirements. Telling it to just cease all activity for their new holy grail is only going to be met with shadowy corruption.

[TylerDurden]

The further we turn away from Nature, the more likely we will become extinct.

[panacea]

We and everything we do is a product of nature. Man-made skyscrapers are made of natures materials, assembled by nature's creations (man is a natural creature, even if he naturally uses his gifts to make a machine out of a bunch of nature's atoms). Your binocular vision and warning on technology is only true while we undergo the initial stage of harnessing a technology, eventually it will far surpass what is naturally provided in terms of letting us reach our goals, whether that be longevity or other resources.

If we never use technology, we are guaranteed to become extinct when the planet has an extinction event, and the planet will - asteroid collisions, solar flares, etc. are a constant threat. The only hope to survive longer than other lifeforms on this planet is to harness technology, which is simply harnessing nature using a more complex understanding of it than an ape using a twig to get termites from a termite hill.

[goodsamaritan]

The gmo crap of today is deliberately manipulated for serious profitability / monopoly crap angle.

- sterile seeds
- resistance only to their brand of weed killer

and more crap

If there was more ALTRUISM in the designing of the species then we would get better results in the future.

[cherimoya_kid]

The profit motive, by itself, will never lead to health. It must be tempered with wisdom. People who are solely concerned with next quarter's profits are rarely wise. 😄

[sabertooth]

I agree it is feasible that genetic engineering if conducted properly could hold some promise of beneficial gain. Still I insist Genetic modification conducted in the primitive way it is being done right now.... with Genetic roulette, gene gun, trial and error methods..... does not take into account the innumerable variables or consequences. Nor does it recognize the earth as a living holistic entity in which all organisms must align them selves with genetically in accordance with evolutionary possesses that have operated within an organically evolving ecosystem since the beginning of life. 

So far in practice GMO has been a disaster.... by altering these mono crop organisms the entire ecosystem of vast areas of farm land has become decimated, and what initial benefit may have existed is becoming negated as the earths ecosystem fights back against the GMO abominations, by creating resistance in pest. 

The inherent fallacy of the prevailing genetic theory is not taken into consideration by genetic engineers. Its the environment which determines genetic expression... if you alter the genes without changing the environmental conditions to support those changes, then those changes will not stand up to the test of time, when the forces of nature are unleashed...This is why the GMO organisms being used now have to be highly cultivated and require continual human intervention to remain viable. 

Harnessing technology is an entirely separate subject from the haphazard adulteration of the genetic code (by people who know nothing of the forces they are playing god with) which is being referred to as genetic engineering.

Let them do more research in this field and perfect methods of gene manipulation, but dont just test these organisms on lab rats for 6 month and if the rats dont die, then label the stuff safe and release it into the ecosystem

I dare say that if an organism cant stand its ground on this earth, and cant adapt and live within the indigenous ecosystem, as a holistic and interconnected being in tune with the organic earth, then it has no business on this planet! 

[panacea]

@sabertooth
While I like your post, I think you should be keen to remember that "continual human intervention" is just another form of environmental maintenance. If all the bees on the planet suddenly went extinct, a lot of plant life and animal life would be in serious trouble or also go extinct. They are therefore reliant on "continual bee intervention", but you don't see this as a negative thing, neither should "continual human intervention" be seen that way. Although human intervention might be bad for other reasons such as low efficiency - it is not bad solely because humans have to intervene.

[TylerDurden]

So far "human intervention" has been a total disaster for the environment. The only way Nature can recover is for humans to disappear. A classic example are  Czernobyl and Fukushima where the absence of humans has directly led to  a resurgence in local wildlife.

Also, it is naive and hubristic  to assume that humanity will exist forever. The very fact that no sentient aliens have ever visited the Earth in the 4 billion years of its existence indicates that the main point of Fermi's Paradox(that all sentient species in the Universe eventually kill themselves off after reaching sentience) is correct.

I  recall the Machine Stops by E M Forster which accurately describes how easy it is for technology to destroy humanity:-
http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/prajlich/forster.html

[goodsamaritan]

So far "human intervention" has been a total disaster for the environment. The only way Nature can recover is for humans to disappear.

Totally disagree with you there, partner.

That is what child less people say.

Those of us who will inherit this earth will keep trying.

[TylerDurden]

Those of us who will inherit this earth will keep trying.

The future Earth will be a toxic, overcrowded, overconcreted desert filled with garbage, so I pity any future generations that will have to live on it.

[sabertooth]

@sabertooth
While I like your post, I think you should be keen to remember that "continual human intervention" is just another form of environmental maintenance. If all the bees on the planet suddenly went extinct, a lot of plant life and animal life would be in serious trouble or also go extinct. They are therefore reliant on "continual bee intervention", but you don't see this as a negative thing, neither should "continual human intervention" be seen that way. Although human intervention might be bad for other reasons such as low efficiency - it is not bad solely because humans have to intervene.

There is an irreconcilable difference, which has more to do with personal faith and perspective than it does with proving a point.

It is not continual intervention which causes the flowered to bloom, calling out for the bees to share in their essence...to propagate, to flourish, to evolve within the rhythms of our earth and sun. This flow of life seems effortless to me, its something that the world creates spontaneously. The flower spirit gives its blossoms to the worlds creatures in gratitude as a treat.... without fear the flower spirit blesses creation with its sweet nectar, pollen, fruits and seeds, and is rewarded for giving itself freely, with love by the creatures who are its symbiant.

Man has strayed from this spirit of giving and has turned its back on the flower Gods, who produced the garden in which the human being has been cultivated. Life in the spirit of mutual give and take, has created itself out of the primordial oze. It is my opinion that Genetic modification in itself is not the issue, it is the spirit in which GMO it is being evoked that I stand firmly against. The life spirit gives itself freely..... while scientist work to make life forms in the spirit of greed, life that does not share itself. Many GMOs are manifest with greed to the core..... poisons are built in to keep insects from eating it...they are designed to be larger and nutritional out of proportion to the optimal ecological parameters... Bactria genes that make it resistant to plant poisons so they can be treated with chemicals that kill off anything else that grows near it, so it never has to develop relationships to other plants, and so if ever the round up tap be shut off they would be strangled by the surrounding plant life.

Man no longer is satisfied to share this world with all the other creatures, nor does Man want to incooperate with the other lifeforms symbiotically, man wants it all to himself, and so creates life in his image. These GMO crops grow in isolation and are being decoupled from the earths ecosystem, unable to form symbiosis with the natural environment, there arises great imbalances and disruptions, which increases the need for further and more intensive interventions.

Ultimately its a question of personal values....Gmo to me is not a road I want to go down, I dont care if some scientist tries to tell me it may save the world or some other delusion, there are many ways to imagine how to save the world, and the post humanist genetic cybernetic world is something Id personally not want to participate in...... and I prefer to find ways to live and thrive more in accord with the spirit of the flowers.
 

[TylerDurden]

What is so absurd is the ridiculous, hubristic  notion that humankind is somehow more powerful than Nature. The reverse is true.

[ys]

The only negative evidence of GMO impact I've ever seen is Sabertooth's claim that cows do not do well on GMO feed.
I personally avoid GMO whenever possible.  And it would be nice to see more real evidence.