Every day is Earth Day. Let's talk about ways to make it better.

PJPOWER

For all of those of you that are “anti-GMO”:
https://www.sciencealert.com/review-of-6000-studies-over-two-decades-delivers-its-verdict-on-GMO-corn-safety

Meltdown99

Why not.  Some people actually want their meat grown in a lab...

brianlux

PJPOWER said:

For all of those of you that are “anti-GMO”:
https://www.sciencealert.com/review-of-6000-studies-over-two-decades-delivers-its-verdict-on-GMO-corn-safety

I remain highly skeptical.  First off, who is Science Alert and the original publisher of the article, Futurism?  I've never hear of either.  Secondly, this does not take into account the fact that corn in mono-cropped in massive, miles wide sea of soil stripping, aquifer draining plants that rely on large amounts of petrochemical fertilizers. 

Sadly, with an earth population of 7.53 billion people, this kind of frankenfood is necessary to prevent widespread starvation.  It's a fact of life we must live with until a balance is restored and that balance will only come when our number diminish and we return to living in conjunction with nature's cycles and balances rather than use our clever minds to try to live in opposition to nature's ways.  That can't/won't go on endlessly.

PJPOWER

brianlux said:

PJPOWER said:

For all of those of you that are “anti-GMO”:
https://www.sciencealert.com/review-of-6000-studies-over-two-decades-delivers-its-verdict-on-GMO-corn-safety

I remain highly skeptical.  First off, who is Science Alert and the original publisher of the article, Futurism?  I've never hear of either.  Secondly, this does not take into account the fact that corn in mono-cropped in massive, miles wide sea of soil stripping, aquifer draining plants that rely on large amounts of petrochemical fertilizers. 

Sadly, with an earth population of 7.53 billion people, this kind of frankenfood is necessary to prevent widespread starvation.  It's a fact of life we must live with until a balance is restored and that balance will only come when our number diminish and we return to living in conjunction with nature's cycles and balances rather than use our clever minds to try to live in opposition to nature's ways.  That can't/won't go on endlessly.

I’m fine with scepticism and scrutinizing as long is it carries over to any studies and sources claiming GMOs are unsafe

brianlux

PJPOWER said:

brianlux said:

PJPOWER said:

For all of those of you that are “anti-GMO”:
https://www.sciencealert.com/review-of-6000-studies-over-two-decades-delivers-its-verdict-on-GMO-corn-safety

I remain highly skeptical.  First off, who is Science Alert and the original publisher of the article, Futurism?  I've never hear of either.  Secondly, this does not take into account the fact that corn in mono-cropped in massive, miles wide sea of soil stripping, aquifer draining plants that rely on large amounts of petrochemical fertilizers. 

Sadly, with an earth population of 7.53 billion people, this kind of frankenfood is necessary to prevent widespread starvation.  It's a fact of life we must live with until a balance is restored and that balance will only come when our number diminish and we return to living in conjunction with nature's cycles and balances rather than use our clever minds to try to live in opposition to nature's ways.  That can't/won't go on endlessly.

I’m fine with scepticism and scrutinizing as long is it carries over to any studies and sources claiming GMOs are unsafe

There are plenty of them out there and yes, I've read several of them.  One of the big problems is that they are difficult to contain.  It is going to be more and more difficult for those of us who prefer not to eat GMO food (and we should have that chose, wouldn't you agree?) because of inability to contain the spread of GMO's through pollination.

brianlux

Here's one good example:

https://nutritionstudies.org/gmo-dangers-facts-you-need-to-know/

And I think it is valuable to ask what the motivation is for GMO's.  The article (and others have stated the same) points out this:

The commercial purpose of GMOs is not to feed the world or improve farming. Rather, they exist to gain intellectual property (i.e. patent rights) over seeds and plant breeding and to drive agriculture in directions that benefit agribusiness.

oftenreading

brianlux said:

Here's one good example:

https://nutritionstudies.org/gmo-dangers-facts-you-need-to-know/

And I think it is valuable to ask what the motivation is for GMO's.  The article (and others have stated the same) points out this:

The commercial purpose of GMOs is not to feed the world or improve farming. Rather, they exist to gain intellectual property (i.e. patent rights) over seeds and plant breeding and to drive agriculture in directions that benefit agribusiness.

But that isn’t a study, Brian - it’s an opinion piece. 

I don’t disagree that some of the ways that GMO crops are or could be used are problematic, but I have not yet seen good scientific data that shows that the existing GMOs are dangerous. 

brianlux

oftenreading said:

brianlux said:

Here's one good example:

https://nutritionstudies.org/gmo-dangers-facts-you-need-to-know/

And I think it is valuable to ask what the motivation is for GMO's.  The article (and others have stated the same) points out this:

The commercial purpose of GMOs is not to feed the world or improve farming. Rather, they exist to gain intellectual property (i.e. patent rights) over seeds and plant breeding and to drive agriculture in directions that benefit agribusiness.

But that isn’t a study, Brian - it’s an opinion piece. 

I don’t disagree that some of the ways that GMO crops are or could be used are problematic, but I have not yet seen good scientific data that shows that the existing GMOs are dangerous. 

What I would suggest to anyone interested in this subject is for them to ask this question:  Why are GMO's being produced in the first place? 

For me, as long as non-GMO foods are available, that's what I'll eat.  To me it's more than just about this opinion or that one or this study or that.  Studies are like statistics- they can be bent to "prove" any point of view.  I'm more interested in what makes sense.  It does not make sense to me that we humans are so over-populated and removed from nature that we feel the need to manipulate nature to our own temporary needs... and ultimately our own undoing.   As humans more further and further from living in a natural state, I believe we will have no choice but to learn to live again with nature's balances and cycles or die off as a species.  That's what makes sense to me. 

PJPOWER

brianlux said:

oftenreading said:

brianlux said:

Here's one good example:

https://nutritionstudies.org/gmo-dangers-facts-you-need-to-know/

And I think it is valuable to ask what the motivation is for GMO's.  The article (and others have stated the same) points out this:

The commercial purpose of GMOs is not to feed the world or improve farming. Rather, they exist to gain intellectual property (i.e. patent rights) over seeds and plant breeding and to drive agriculture in directions that benefit agribusiness.

But that isn’t a study, Brian - it’s an opinion piece. 

I don’t disagree that some of the ways that GMO crops are or could be used are problematic, but I have not yet seen good scientific data that shows that the existing GMOs are dangerous. 

What I would suggest to anyone interested in this subject is for them to ask this question:  Why are GMO's being produced in the first place? 

For me, as long as non-GMO foods are available, that's what I'll eat.  To me it's more than just about this opinion or that one or this study or that.  Studies are like statistics- they can be bent to "prove" any point of view.  I'm more interested in what makes sense.  It does not make sense to me that we humans are so over-populated and removed from nature that we feel the need to manipulate nature to our own temporary needs... and ultimately our own undoing.   As humans more further and further from living in a natural state, I believe we will have no choice but to learn to live again with nature's balances and cycles or die off as a species.  That's what makes sense to me. 

Interesting thing is that many of the foods that we enjoy today were barely even edible without modifying through hybridization and human “unnatural” selection.  Corn, watermelons, etc...Before domestication, corn (maize) cobs only grew to about 1 inch long, for example.   

oftenreading

brianlux said:

oftenreading said:

brianlux said:

Here's one good example:

https://nutritionstudies.org/gmo-dangers-facts-you-need-to-know/

And I think it is valuable to ask what the motivation is for GMO's.  The article (and others have stated the same) points out this:

The commercial purpose of GMOs is not to feed the world or improve farming. Rather, they exist to gain intellectual property (i.e. patent rights) over seeds and plant breeding and to drive agriculture in directions that benefit agribusiness.

But that isn’t a study, Brian - it’s an opinion piece. 

I don’t disagree that some of the ways that GMO crops are or could be used are problematic, but I have not yet seen good scientific data that shows that the existing GMOs are dangerous. 

What I would suggest to anyone interested in this subject is for them to ask this question:  Why are GMO's being produced in the first place? 

For me, as long as non-GMO foods are available, that's what I'll eat.  To me it's more than just about this opinion or that one or this study or that.  Studies are like statistics- they can be bent to "prove" any point of view.  I'm more interested in what makes sense.  It does not make sense to me that we humans are so over-populated and removed from nature that we feel the need to manipulate nature to our own temporary needs... and ultimately our own undoing.   As humans more further and further from living in a natural state, I believe we will have no choice but to learn to live again with nature's balances and cycles or die off as a species.  That's what makes sense to me. 

I disagree that studies can be bent to prove any point of view. A writer who is minded to try to do that can selectively point to some aspects of certain studies while ignoring others, but if you look at the raw data and the study design then you get the full information. The writer of the piece you posted also presented biased information. 

One of the purposes of developing GMOs is for profit, definitely. That’s also the purpose of the farmers of all the food you eat, as well. Another purpose is to better feed people who are malnourished in many parts of the world that are not as fortunate as we are in North America. I am not personally willing to say that those people need to starve while we have ample food. 
 

brianlux

PJPOWER said:

brianlux said:

oftenreading said:

brianlux said:

Here's one good example:

https://nutritionstudies.org/gmo-dangers-facts-you-need-to-know/

And I think it is valuable to ask what the motivation is for GMO's.  The article (and others have stated the same) points out this:

The commercial purpose of GMOs is not to feed the world or improve farming. Rather, they exist to gain intellectual property (i.e. patent rights) over seeds and plant breeding and to drive agriculture in directions that benefit agribusiness.

But that isn’t a study, Brian - it’s an opinion piece. 

I don’t disagree that some of the ways that GMO crops are or could be used are problematic, but I have not yet seen good scientific data that shows that the existing GMOs are dangerous. 

What I would suggest to anyone interested in this subject is for them to ask this question:  Why are GMO's being produced in the first place? 

For me, as long as non-GMO foods are available, that's what I'll eat.  To me it's more than just about this opinion or that one or this study or that.  Studies are like statistics- they can be bent to "prove" any point of view.  I'm more interested in what makes sense.  It does not make sense to me that we humans are so over-populated and removed from nature that we feel the need to manipulate nature to our own temporary needs... and ultimately our own undoing.   As humans more further and further from living in a natural state, I believe we will have no choice but to learn to live again with nature's balances and cycles or die off as a species.  That's what makes sense to me. 

Interesting thing is that many of the foods that we enjoy today were barely even edible without modifying through hybridization and human “unnatural” selection.  Corn, watermelons, etc...Before domestication, corn (maize) cobs only grew to about 1 inch long, for example.   

But there is a difference.  Hybridization of crops is simply the interbreeding of different subspecies.  Like when you mix a Labrador retriever and a poodle and get a Labradoodle.  And that could happen anyway if the Smith let Tiffy out of the yard at the same time the Jones let Bruno escape.  Wham bam Labradoodle!  That's also how you end up with Broccolini.

Genetic engineering, on the other hand is another deal all together.

But look, nothing I can say will ever make a bit of difference.  It's going to happen.  Humans are going to fuck with nature and nature always bats last.  I at least just want the option to not be part of that game.  But my chances of that diminish all the time passes.  I'm glad I'm getting old.

brianlux

oftenreading said:

brianlux said:

oftenreading said:

brianlux said:

Here's one good example:

https://nutritionstudies.org/gmo-dangers-facts-you-need-to-know/

And I think it is valuable to ask what the motivation is for GMO's.  The article (and others have stated the same) points out this:

The commercial purpose of GMOs is not to feed the world or improve farming. Rather, they exist to gain intellectual property (i.e. patent rights) over seeds and plant breeding and to drive agriculture in directions that benefit agribusiness.

But that isn’t a study, Brian - it’s an opinion piece. 

I don’t disagree that some of the ways that GMO crops are or could be used are problematic, but I have not yet seen good scientific data that shows that the existing GMOs are dangerous. 

What I would suggest to anyone interested in this subject is for them to ask this question:  Why are GMO's being produced in the first place? 

For me, as long as non-GMO foods are available, that's what I'll eat.  To me it's more than just about this opinion or that one or this study or that.  Studies are like statistics- they can be bent to "prove" any point of view.  I'm more interested in what makes sense.  It does not make sense to me that we humans are so over-populated and removed from nature that we feel the need to manipulate nature to our own temporary needs... and ultimately our own undoing.   As humans more further and further from living in a natural state, I believe we will have no choice but to learn to live again with nature's balances and cycles or die off as a species.  That's what makes sense to me. 

I disagree that studies can be bent to prove any point of view. A writer who is minded to try to do that can selectively point to some aspects of certain studies while ignoring others, but if you look at the raw data and the study design then you get the full information. The writer of the piece you posted also presented biased information. 

One of the purposes of developing GMOs is for profit, definitely. That’s also the purpose of the farmers of all the food you eat, as well. Another purpose is to better feed people who are malnourished in many parts of the world that are not as fortunate as we are in North America. I am not personally willing to say that those people need to starve while we have ample food. 
 

I think you very much can bend studies to suit one's own ends, but for arguments sake let's say you are right.  OK.  But why are people malnourished in the first place?  And is genetic engineering a solution?  A preventative measure?  Or a band aid?  And what happens when the petroleum starts to become too expensive and too difficult to extract?  This will all catch up to us.  You can't run from nature.

Pap

brianlux said: As humans more further and further from living in a natural state, I believe we will have no choice but to learn to live again with nature's balances and cycles or die off as a species.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKKmIVdcLs0

Jason P

My environmentalist neighbors put solar panels on their house a few months ago ... two weeks ago I came home to find that they had three mature maple trees in their front yard cut down because they were blocking the sun from hitting the panels.

Ohhh, sweet irony ...

brianlux

Jason P said:

My environmentalist neighbors put solar panels on their house a few months ago ... two weeks ago I came home to find that they had three mature maple trees in their front yard cut down because they were blocking the sun from hitting the panels.

Ohhh, sweet irony ...

That's lame.  Solar panels can go places other than roofs.  Some people just don't think!

brianlux

Pap said:

brianlux said: As humans more further and further from living in a natural state, I believe we will have no choice but to learn to live again with nature's balances and cycles or die off as a species.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKKmIVdcLs0

Beautiful, Pap!

Pap

For important insight into addressing climate change, Stone recommends this Wall Street Journal article

brianlux

To my way of thinking, yesterday was Earth Day, today is Earth Day and every tomorrow we have remaining is Earth Day. 

Happy Earth Day every day!

brianlux

"The days of wonder are over now. We don’t need art — we need action. At this moment on earth, we are in a fight for our lives, and the lives of future generations. The way “Earthrise” is viewed today, it’s all too close to those slick Matthew McConaughey Lincoln commercials in which he drives a big V-8 through spectacular mountains. Yeah, it’s pretty, but dude, your ride is killing us. We are in an urgent fight to preserve a habitable planet. The science is clear. We have the technology we need. What we don’t have is the political leadership. And a pretty picture of the earth floating in space doesn’t help much with that.

So what would be a more appropriate and inspiring image for Earth Day? If it were up to me, I’d vote for something a little more human. Perhaps the face of 15 year-old Swedish activist Greta Thunberg, whose bluntness in describing the risks of what’s at stake is perfectly matched to our times. Or maybe an image of Extinction Rebellion activists, marching on the streets around the world. One way or another, it’s time for Earth Day to return to its roots as a day of anger and activism, not awe and celebration. The Earth is a beautiful place, but unless humans get their act together fast, there may be a lot fewer of us around to appreciate it."

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/wrong-with-earth-day-jeff-goodell-825407/

Meltdown99

All you can do is do your best, I suppose.  But until people stop breeding like rabbits, the earth is fucked...might as well enjoy the ride.