Don't worry ... the agronomist who came up with the type of rice for India has saved more lives, so it is claimed, than any other human in history. So, good on you @renzoarg, thanks for the post and don't you dare get too down. For therapy, may I suggest a large dose of something foul on Monsanto's doorstep?
indeed, i did. my comment grew to pages. i've decided to turn it into a post. we need to delineate terms, to even begin to communicate about this. i see a beginning. the continuing use of the term GMO, to mean, things done in the lab and done on the farm, let alone what happens in nature, is only going to allow miscommunication to perpetuate.
a human is no more a parasitic virus, than a rottweiler is a jellyfish. hacking the taxonomic ranks and feeding the result to people, untested, is criminal, at least. the use of CRISPR as a tool to produce food places the burden of the precautionary principle on the producer. regulatory capture and corruption is putting the public health at risk.
also, there are other methods of natural mutation including, but not limited to, cosmic rays and other natural energetic radiation, and mechanical mutation, such as, asbestos induced mutation. carbon nanotubes are an artificial method that can also cause this.
statements like this:
"Is it different? Hardly. Is it dangerous? Yes, but using a car also is, also eating certain foods. Is is inherently destructive? and we should keep it locked down in a subterranean vault to never speak about this topic again? No, we had that chance with Justin Bieber; and we still let him roam free"
contain armies of strawmen that i'm not going to take the time to unpack, here, because either, you actually believe them or you are intentionally trying to deceive the reader. to me, it does seem to be the former.
questions about safety are not about creating religious taboos against novelty, but are about stopping the greedy from killing people for profit. if we continue to feed people untested scientific experiments, very soon we will not have an increase in population to support.
again it grows to lengths unbidden. maybe a series of posts is called for.
i do not believe you are being deliberately disingenuous. i would encourage you to look a little deeper.
Don't worry @renzoarg it appears @lifeworship has all the answers and is too intelligent to be swayed by, oh, I don't know, repeatable research. They can't possibly be fooled by something trivial like evidence. Oh please!
there you go again, clouding the issue with that obvious BS. you might believe that it is the same thing, but i'm too intelligent and i know too much to be fooled by that crap.
so which is it? are you not smart enough to know the difference, too ignorant, or deliberately lying?
Don't worry ... the agronomist who came up with the type of rice for India has saved more lives, so it is claimed, than any other human in history. So, good on you @renzoarg, thanks for the post and don't you dare get too down. For therapy, may I suggest a large dose of something foul on Monsanto's doorstep?
BTW, I coined the name 'Steem Cell Research' for development of the platform. Thought that was apt
indeed, i did. my comment grew to pages. i've decided to turn it into a post. we need to delineate terms, to even begin to communicate about this. i see a beginning. the continuing use of the term GMO, to mean, things done in the lab and done on the farm, let alone what happens in nature, is only going to allow miscommunication to perpetuate.
a human is no more a parasitic virus, than a rottweiler is a jellyfish. hacking the taxonomic ranks and feeding the result to people, untested, is criminal, at least. the use of CRISPR as a tool to produce food places the burden of the precautionary principle on the producer. regulatory capture and corruption is putting the public health at risk.
also, there are other methods of natural mutation including, but not limited to, cosmic rays and other natural energetic radiation, and mechanical mutation, such as, asbestos induced mutation. carbon nanotubes are an artificial method that can also cause this.
statements like this:
"Is it different? Hardly. Is it dangerous? Yes, but using a car also is, also eating certain foods. Is is inherently destructive? and we should keep it locked down in a subterranean vault to never speak about this topic again? No, we had that chance with Justin Bieber; and we still let him roam free"
contain armies of strawmen that i'm not going to take the time to unpack, here, because either, you actually believe them or you are intentionally trying to deceive the reader. to me, it does seem to be the former.
questions about safety are not about creating religious taboos against novelty, but are about stopping the greedy from killing people for profit. if we continue to feed people untested scientific experiments, very soon we will not have an increase in population to support.
again it grows to lengths unbidden. maybe a series of posts is called for.
i do not believe you are being deliberately disingenuous. i would encourage you to look a little deeper.
Are you aware that you, your parents, your grandparents, and all your ancestors for dozens of generations ate GMOs?
Don't worry @renzoarg it appears @lifeworship has all the answers and is too intelligent to be swayed by, oh, I don't know, repeatable research. They can't possibly be fooled by something trivial like evidence. Oh please!
there you go again, clouding the issue with that obvious BS. you might believe that it is the same thing, but i'm too intelligent and i know too much to be fooled by that crap.
so which is it? are you not smart enough to know the difference, too ignorant, or deliberately lying?
Don't forget the option of you being too shallow to fully understand the topic in full depth.
you eat what you think is safe and i'll do the same. ready, set, go.