Is this Idiocracy? Is Idiocracy happening? We've finally got technology that makes food production for the mounting population viable and cheap, and we're protesting it because the media told us to. Mandatory GMO labeling will land in the Supreme Court in the next 10 years.
Your comment is. How is buying a patented GM seed every year, instead of saving your own, cheaper? How exactly is GM going to save the world? You may wan to ask the 1000s of Indian farmer's that commit suicide after GM seeds fail to produce and they're left with debts they can't pay. Feeding the world isn't a problem of food scarcity but of food distribution. And only the blind can't see that corporations aren't driven by altruist motives. What media has told us to protest? The vast majority of the mass media has either ignored the GMO debate or has blatently been biased pro-GMO. Hence the protests. If you don't see anything wrong with the centralization of seed production and patenting of life for profit, then I'm sorry, but it's not the protesters that are idiots.
I apologise if you feel offended. I was simply replying in the tone of your own reply. It doesn't feel nice does it?
Mmm ... but you weren't. Who did I call an idiot? You're still doing it. I'll say again, because a lot of new users do this, but hubski isn't reddit. We all know each other's usernames, and we're all friends. If you don't want to be friends you'll end up muted. People notice, and that's one of the things that makes hubski such a great 'third space' to hang out in.
I'm sorry but you were the first to insult me. I happen to be one of the protesters that rallied against Monsanto, therefore I am part of the "Idiocracy" you mentioned. That felt insulting and I apologise (for a second time) for reciprocating the feeling. Now, without hard feelings, I'm available to cordially discuss whatever issue you wish to debate regarding GMOs. Perhaps being an activist myself, you can hear first hand why there's such opposition. We can start by addressing the points I raised in my previous comment, if you wish.
You probably should have led with that, I'd be interested to hear why you personally were protesting (was it GMOs, or Monsanto, or both -- as thenewgreen says below, people need to separate the science from the business practices). But honestly I had the GMO discussion, extensively, a few months ago in this thread and multiple others. I did a lot of reading, it was a hot-button Supreme Court issue, etc. Now I'm less willing to dive back into it. I'm pro-GMO, anti-life patenting, although that's murky, and I'm ambivalent about Monsanto -- they're working within the structure we've built. One thing I do know is that as a company they've made a lot of important advances in the past. I also know that the green revolution isn't possible without hardy wheat strains. Like I said, I'm not really looking to debate a months-old topic. But I'd be interested in why you protested, and how, and so on. That sounds fascinating.
To me the GMO issue is very much alive and pertinent as nothing has changed since the protest other than perhaps there has been slightly more discussion about it. Which for me is a positive considreding this was a technology introduced under the public's ignorance. Bear in mind that opinions are my own and by no means represent the views of the whole anti-GMO movement.
I'll try to summarise what I see as multi-faced complex problem as much as I can. Please bear with me as it's fairly late. I decided to join the protests against Monsanto for both reasons, corporate first and bio-tech second. The science part I can't strongly discuss but it doesn't take a scientist to understand many of the negative impacts of GMOs in their current state. The swapping of saving locally adapted seed for a patented, centrally created, single variety makes communities more dependent on corporations and way less resilient, with no place to turn when GMOs fail. This also afects bio-diversity as heirloom varieties become extinct. (Did you know that We Lost 93% Of Variety In Our Food Seeds just in the last 80 years?. GMOs will exacerbate this further. Furthermore, it impacts farmers (specially small subsistence farmers) economically as the GMO seeds are more expensive and some promote the use of expensive pesticides. Again, negative environment impact. On the science side, I don't want to pick on it as I don't want to become an easy target and be accused of not being an expert. That's fair enough, I'm not an expert. The reason I'm against biotechnoly as a whole is because it's hard for me to trust a science like the bio-tech industry that is so reluctant to label its own product. If the industry is 100% sure of GMOs safety and benefits, then the logical step would be to proudly label its products. It would be free advertising dammit. The fact that instead it spends millions trying to stop people from having a choice, just makes me loose my trust. And to finalise... a general comment.
I fail to understand bio-technologists mindset and approach towards nature. It appears to me that they have become so separate from nature that they are unable to care the consequences of changing even if (on the surface) a seemingly small part of the whole. For each crop there are hundred (sometimes thousands) of varieties adapted to all sorts of soils and climatic conditions. Yet, we're trying to replace all of this valuable genetic bank, which took so incredibly long to select and evolve, with one (say a handful) genetically modified strain? Nothing is separate in nature. But we seem to care very little about how a part that we modify, not only is going to affect the different beings in the ecosystem in which it's introduced but also everywhere it travels in its subsequent generations. Testing in a lab is a thing but releasing it into an ecosystem with hundreds of variables it's a different beast all together. It's a scenario which can't possibly be thouroughly tested. We know that a pest is usually a symptom of an ecosystem out of balance. Usually it's out of balance because of human intervention in the first place. Instead of trying to comprehend the core problem of the symptom, we come up with a bigger hammer every time to stamp down on the symptom while the problem increases. (If a headache is persistent and you keep taking strongeer painkillers eventually you'll die out from the tumour.) The wider problem is industrial mono-culture of course, which is a feast for pests and depletes and erodes soils, making crops ever more reliant on inputs from oil based fertilizers and chemicals. With or without GMOs this is not sustainable. We need to switch to systems that take advantage of our genetic heritage (which is free for all) and create balanced perennial food production ecosystems, which enrich soils year after year. This design system already exists, it's called Permaculture but it's given very little attention because it doesn't fit the big agri-bis system. It's a new approach based on understanding and cooperation with nature instead of fighting it. The whole attitude of forcing nature into a sanitised landscape to suit humans is not only arrogant (in the sense that we feel that as the pinnacle of evolution know better than evolution itself) it will eventually bite us in the behind big time. In fact it has already begun as the problems become bigger every time we try to fix a symptom. Biotechnology may have some knowledge of some of the part's inner workings but it fails miserably to comprehend what nature as a whole actually IS. This is why I feel GMOs are not only a problem, they are totally uncessary to solve the worlds problems. We already have solutions to most of them, we just need to change the way we interact with nature so we can see them. This is why I'm for nature and not bio-technology.
Okay. Fair views. It comes down to the monoculture argument vs. the necessity argument. I lean to the latter. You say that GMOs aren't needed to solve our problems. I say that they already have solved some of our problems in the past. Sure, it would be great if all of the food we wasted in America made it to the "bottom billion," but it can't, because there's no money in that. That's easily the most elegant solution, but there's no money in building infrastructure in Ghana. There is money in genetically-modifying plants to last longer. (And, you need to acknowledge that we've been modifying our foods for 100 years now, and just about everything you eat, labeled or not, is no longer your holy grail of "natural.") I'm an amateur environmentalist. My entire family are professional environmentalists. I understand the importance of biological diversity more keenly than anyone my age still does anymore. It worries me. Lots of things worry me. But blocking GMOs for longterm purposes just doesn't hold up to the lives potentially being lost in the shortterm. (Note that very little of that has to do with Monsanto; I'm not at all sure how I feel about their patent lawsuits, and I'm annoyed that they've drawn so much bad press to the GMO cause.) Last thing I have to say -- you point out that the industry should welcome GMO labels, because if they're completely sure in their product it won't matter. They are sure in their product's safety (though not, perhaps, in its longterm diversity effects), but look what happens when they write "GMO" on packaging. Sales go down, and that's largely because of the media's portrayal of the debate, unfortunately. Large-scale protests in general worry me, because of the overall ignorance of the American population. Odds are not many of the people in those protests are as cognizant of the issues as you and I.
I'd be curious know which problems you think GMOs have solved so far. They might have solved symptoms but not the bigger problems that I mentioned, themselves. And even the symptoms they have solved it doesn't mean they are the only solution. My point is that there are more than one way of peeling a banana. Permaculture would have not only solved the symptom but also the root problem of massive scale mono-culture. I don't think that stopping GMOs = dead people. It's not one or the other. As I said, if we look around there are other solutions. People are still able to eat the heirloom crops if we give it to them. As for labelling, we'll agree to disagree. If biot-tech has a strong case it shouldn't be hard to convince/educate the public. The responsibility is on the industry to restore the trust that has been lost.You say that GMOs aren't needed to solve our problems. I say that they already have solved some of our problems in the past.
we've been modifying our foods for 100 years now
I assume you're referring to selective breeding and hybridising crops and animals? Actually this has been going on since agriculture started and it's not the same as merging genes across multiple branches of the Phylogenetic tree. Selective breeding happens within the laws and restrictions of evolution to allow very little change with every new generation. Perhaps there's a reason why evolution introduces very little DNA change over time? So that perhaps the ecosystem can adapt to it? GMOs scraps what I see as a safety safety net and creates totally different organisms, which in turn create new proteins to which we humans and other beings might no t be adapted to (potential for alergies?) and hopes for the best when released into the wider environment.locking GMOs for longterm purposes just doesn't hold up to the lives potentially being lost in the shortterm.
People need to be able to separate the science from the business practices. Genetic modification isn't causing farmers to kill themselves or patent laws to be written and upheld, corporations are. There's a HUGE difference and it's misleading to equate the two. Also, I have to point out that flagamuffin's reply was to the post and even if it was to OP, my guess is that NotPhil and flagamuffin have had a number of conversations in the past thus creating a familiarity where such an exchange isn't unusual or offensive. Still, welcome to Hubski. I look forward to more discussions with you about GMO and about documentary film. -Two very worthwhile subjects.
I totally agree, science shouldn't take the blame for corporate irresponsibility and there are anti-GMO activists focused on these two distinct objectives. That's why it is not very productive either to label activists "anti-science" as it has been flying around lately. Many are pro-science and anti-corporate tactics but in the crowd of protest it's harder to hear the distinction. So both sides of the GMO debate are guilty of mixing up science and corporate issues. I've apologised for coming on too strongly in my reply to flagamuffin. I felt insulted when he called the protest an "Idiocracy" and the tone of my comment came out wrong. I hope we can get past this and focus on discussing specific GMO issues.People need to be able to separate the science from the business practices.
If Monsanto were using toothpaste as a way to corner markets and do really evil stuff you wouldn't be anti-toothpaste protestors, you'd be anti-Monsanto protesters. -Maybe not the best analogy, but point is modifying organisms genetically isn't good or bad, it's indifferent but the companies employing this ability can be good or bad.I totally agree, science shouldn't take the blame for corporate irresponsibility and there are anti-GMO activists focused on these two distinct objectives.
Then they shouldn't be labeled anti GMO activists, they should be labeled anti-Monsanto (etc) activists.
Please see one of my previous comments, which explains why some people object the process of genetic engineering as a whole.Then they shouldn't be labeled anti GMO activists, they should be labeled anti-Monsanto (etc) activists.
Are they protesting GMO or Monsantos business practices? Or both?