~ The Case For Socialism ~

[bobevenson]

It's also rather like trying to plug a ... hole in the dyke...

I believe most people would rather try to plug the hole in a dyke than in a dike.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Nature on the other hand has never "accidentally" created a poison apple, squash, pea, ear of corn, etc.

Actually, since you seem disinclined to include homo sapiens as a part of "nature", then "nature" didn't create any of the above. Every plant which you list here was genetically engineered by man, as was almost every single plant and animal we eat.

Genetic engineering is not the same as hybridization!

I try and eat only organic, non GMO vegetables and grains. And the same thing applies to animals, I prefer no artificial hormones or antibiotics, only pasture raised, on organic, naturally occurring foods, of their choice.

[Obvious Leo]

Genetic engineering is not the same as hybridization!

Yes it is. Selective breeding is EXACTLY the same thing as genetic engineering except the outcomes are less certain. Ask any biologist.

Artificial hormones and antibiotics are a completely different story and a far more serious concern than GMOs.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Genetic engineering is not the same as hybridization!

Yes it is. Selective breeding is EXACTLY the same thing as genetic engineering except the outcomes are less certain. Ask any biologist.

Artificial hormones and antibiotics are a completely different story and a far more serious concern than GMOs.

The term genetic engineering is usually reserved for the art of gene splicing. Everyday domestic selection by stock holders, and dog and cat breeders would not use that term about what they do, and since hybridisation as an art pre-dates the knowledge of genetics by a long chalk, then it would be anachronistic to apply the term to all hybridisation.
Genetic engineering is a modern, very modern term. The other stuff humans have been doing for thousands of years, consciously and other wise.

From a Google definition, note the word "manually". Genetic engineering is the process of manually adding new DNA to an organism. The goal is to add one or more new traits that are not already found in that organism.

However, as far as eating plant GMOs is concerned, there is no reason at all why they would do you any harm, as DNA is easily denatured by stomach acid.
However, again, it might be possible to engineer a poisonous to human GMO, that looked and tasted like any other of its kind. Not likely this would be accidental.

[Obvious Leo]

Hobbes. The point you make is a semantic one and not a scientific one. If a gene sequence is deliberately altered for a specific purpose what difference does it make what the process is called?

[Hobbes' Choice]

Hobbes. The point you make is a semantic one and not a scientific one. If a gene sequence is deliberately altered for a specific purpose what difference does it make what the process is called?

It's more than a semantic difference. It makes a difference, because hysterical people can't call everyday selective breeding "acting like God", or "producing Frankensteins".
And its important to realise that they are responding to ingnorance and media hype so knowedge here is vitally important. On both sides. And GMOs do create problems. The scientific side of the debate can be as blinkered as the greeny/alternative side of the debate.
I can furnish an example, but I have to rush....

[Obvious Leo]

Hobbes. The point you make is a semantic one and not a scientific one. If a gene sequence is deliberately altered for a specific purpose what difference does it make what the process is called?

It's more than a semantic difference. It makes a difference, because hysterical people can't call everyday selective breeding "acting like God", or "producing Frankensteins".
And its important to realise that they are responding to ingnorance and media hype so knowedge here is vitally important. On both sides. And GMOs do create problems. The scientific side of the debate can be as blinkered as the greeny/alternative side of the debate.
I can furnish an example, but I have to rush....

I see the problem more as one of public ignorance than anything else and often the scientific community itself is as much to blame as anybody else. When people who know nothing of genetics or biochemistry read of a "fish gene" being inserted into a tomato they can easily conjure up all manner of grotesque outcomes simply because they don't realise that there's no such thing as a fish gene and a gene which performs a particular function in a fish will perform it differently in a tomato. The general public are woefully scientifically illiterate, as are the politicians and the popular media, so whipping up a hysteria about any matter of science is never hard to do.

Having said that I don't think that the case for GMOs is that much better than the case against and I very much agree that the idea of introducing any new diversity into the biosphere is something which should be carefully thought through. It is always impossible to predict the entire cascade of causal consequences but it is usually possible to predict the more obvious ones. For instance feeding ever-increasing doses of antibiotics to livestock as a prophylactic measure was always going to lead to antibiotic resistant strains of bacterial disease in the human population. Biologists were warning of this as long ago as the 1950s, when antibiotics were the new wonder of the medical world, and yet 60 years later this practice is still being adopted even though the story unfolded exactly as predicted.

I don't give a shit about what anybody might have to say about the so-called nanny state but if governments can't even be given the authority to protect the population from biological sabotage then why are we so worried about occasional acts of violent terrorism, which have only trivial adverse consequences by comparison?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Genetic engineering is not the same as hybridization!

Yes it is. Selective breeding is EXACTLY the same thing as genetic engineering except the outcomes are less certain. Ask any biologist.

Artificial hormones and antibiotics are a completely different story and a far more serious concern than GMOs.

And so your brain is damaged to think so! In nature there is cross breeding, that one increases proximity to selectively breed, could happen naturally. But there is no natural means to, in a laboratory, artificially splice genes, so they are resistant to roundup, and other such toxins. You have your head up your ass, as usual!

[Obvious Leo]

SOB. Your understanding of biology is on a par with your understanding of science more generally but your logic is in a class of its own. You are suggesting that deliberately manipulating the processes of genetic variation is safer when we don't understand the underlying mechanisms involved than it is when we do.

[SpheresOfBalance]

SOB. Your understanding of biology is on a par with your understanding of science more generally but your logic is in a class of its own. You are suggesting that deliberately manipulating the processes of genetic variation is safer when we don't understand the underlying mechanisms involved than it is when we do.

Not at all, nature only allows cross breeding in time, as it's able. Test tubes forgoes natures checks and balances. For instance humans can't breed with the ass. Whoops, I forgot about you. But then again you probably were a test tube experiment, unfortunately they forgot to add brains.

[bobevenson]

The case for socialism? It doesn't belong in a case, it belongs in a coffin.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.





Human need, not corporate greed.


Socialism is based on the idea that we should use the vast resources of society to meet people’s needs.


It seems so obvious--if people are hungry, they should be fed; if people are homeless, we should build homes for them; if people are sick, the best medical care should be available to them. A socialist society would take the immense wealth of the rich and use it to meet the basic needs of all society. The money wasted on weapons could be used to end poverty, homelessness, and all other forms of scarcity.






.

[bobevenson]

Human need, not corporate greed.

It's corporate greed that has raised everybody's standard of living, including the poor, who would be even poorer under socialism.

[henry quirk]

"if people are hungry, they should be fed"

Those who can't feed themselves mebbe deserve a hand, but, those who can but don't get nuthin'.

#

"if people are homeless, we should build homes for them"

Those who can't shelter themselves mebbe deserve a hand, but, those who can but don't get nuthin'.

#

"if people are sick, the best medical care should be available to them."

Those who can't care for themselves mebbe deserve a hand, but, those who can but don't get nuthin'.

#

"A socialist society would take the immense wealth of the rich and use it to meet the basic needs of all society."

In a true socialism, there would (eventually) be no rich folks. Who, in their right mind, will continue to amass wealth only to have it taken away (over and over)? Eventually, even the most compassionate will tire of supporting strangers and will stop producing.

#

"The money wasted on weapons could be used to end poverty, homelessness, and all other forms of scarcity."

When A no longer has a big stick, B is sure to skull fuck A.

You really wanna end scarcity?

Build atomic powerplants and make nano-fabrication a reality.

Cheap, plentiful power and 'building' food addresses the problem without catering to parasites or punishing the productive.

[Hobbes' Choice]

"if people are hungry, they should be fed"

Those who can't feed themselves mebbe deserve a hand, but, those who can but don't get nuthin'.

#.

And this is where objective morality breaks down.
Who is deserving?