Random Thoughts (Political Edition)

GRtak said:
No it is not the same thing. Selective breeding adapts traits within the plants that already exist to become more prominant. Gentically engieneering pulls genes from other species in to do something that was never intended by nature to be in a plant.
Click to expand...
Selective breeding can create completely new traits as well, look at dogs and all the different breeds. Genetic engineering doesn't have to pull genese from other species at all it really depends on what you are trying to make. Also you would be relatively hard pressed to adapt completely different genes from completely different species to each other at most you may get a single trait but even that would be difficult. Also just because say corn is not supposed to be able to survive in harsh climate (no idea if it does, I know they grow it in Ukraine) and they put some gene in that allows it to do so doesn't make that corn somehow dangerous to consume.
 
The point is that both genetic engineering and natural selection can have side-effects on other species. In the case of bug-resistant crops, these are intended. But we can't tell if there are other side effects without testing. Giving the manufacturers protection from litigation means they have less incentive to do so - if they fuck something up (does not necessarily mean kill or sterilize people, just ruin a region's ecosystem) they won't have to pay.
 
Dr_Grip said:
The point is that both genetic engineering and natural selection can have side-effects on other species. In the case of bug-resistant crops, these are intended. But we can't tell if there are other side effects without testing. Giving the manufacturers protection from litigation means they have less incentive to do so - if they fuck something up (does not necessarily mean kill or sterilize people, just ruin a region's ecosystem) they won't have to pay.
Click to expand...

And I absolutely agree with you, the other issue is that none of the GMO companies allow for independent research which is pretty iffy to me, if you got nothing to hide then why hide things?

My issue is that many people seem to misunderstand what genetic engineering actually does.
 
prizrak said:
Selective breeding can create completely new traits as well, look at dogs and all the different breeds. Genetic engineering doesn't have to pull genese from other species at all it really depends on what you are trying to make.
Click to expand...

Bringing dog breeding into the discussion is not such a good idea IMHO. Because dog breeding is notorious for breeding into the wrong direction. Take the German Shepherd for example. It used to be the first choice as a track hound or sniffer dog. The excessive mania of creating "pure pedigree" dogs with certain physical attributes has nearly ruined the whole race, though - and not only that race.

Police and customs here have almost completely stopped using German Shepherds. They switched to other races and half-breeds instead. German Shepherds have become worthless for professional use, because they have been turned into status symbols for misguided dog lovers.

You don't need genetics to create mayhem. Classic breeding and human vanity can be much more damaging.

Besides - I don't know if it has been mentioned yet - but "classic" breeding of seeds includes exposing them to radioactive irradation to provoke random mutations. Just saying...

The biggest mistake the human race is doing over and over again, is underestimating the complexity of nature. Whenever you point at some failed intervention in nature, you hear "We didn't know 50 years ago but we know better now". I guess the same thing will be said in 50 years again, too.

The human race is still doing trial and error with nature and nobody can convince me, that people actually know what they do. Take fracking for example. Sounds good, until you get to know, that even the chemical industry, which created the chemicals, has absolutely no idea whatsoever, what side-effects their chemicals in the ground may have in the future. They optimized them for their purposes and nothing else.

Well, I guess we will know in 50 years or so...
 
Last edited:
MacGuffin said:
Take fracking for example. Sounds good, until you get to know, that even the chemical industry, which created the chemicals, has absolutely no idea whatsoever, what side-effects their chemicals in the ground may have in the future. They optimized them for their purposes and nothing else.

Well, I guess we will know in 50 years or so...
Click to expand...

Source on this? It was my understanding that the hydraulic proppant typically used in fraking is 99% water...
 
MacGuffin said:
Bringing dog breeding into the discussion is not such a good idea IMHO. Because dog breeding is notorious for breeding into the wrong direction. Take the German Shepherd for example. It used to be the first choice as a track hound or sniffer dog. The excessive mania of creating "pure pedigree" dogs with certain physical attributes has nearly ruined the whole race, though - and not only that race.
Click to expand...
That's not really my point though... All I'm saying is that genetic engineering is basically a faster way of achieving the same thing you could do with selective breeding since you don't have to go through a million generations.

- - - Updated - - -

Cellos88GT said:
Source on this? It was my understanding that the hydraulic proppant typically used in fraking is 99% water...
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be, bigger issue is that even if it is just water there is no realistic way to prevent it from contaminating ground waters and stuff. Also since it's high pressure it will wash a whole mess of things out.
 
Let me rephrase my point above in stronger terms. This isssue is not about being for or against genetic manipulation or any risks special to it.
The problem is more fundamental in nature. A for-profit corporation has to do whatever it can to maximize profit. If it does not, it is neglecting its obligations to the shareholders.
Thus, exempting any for-profit company from litigation means that they can only do minimal safety checks on their products as otherwise they'd be wasting the shareholders money.

Imagine the automotive industry getting an exemption like this passed....
 
Dr_Grip said:
Let me rephrase my point above in stronger terms. This isssue is not about being for or against genetic manipulation or any risks special to it.
The problem is more fundamental in nature. A for-profit corporation has to do whatever it can to maximize profit. If it does not, it is neglecting its obligations to the shareholders.
Thus, exempting any for-profit company from litigation means that they can only do minimal safety checks on their products as otherwise they'd be wasting the shareholders money.

Imagine the automotive industry getting an exemption like this passed....
Click to expand...
That I 100% agree with, like I said earlier if McD can be sued for having hot coffee a company using a blackbox solution like GMO should NEVER be exempt.
 
Yeah, if they'd attack, their troops would only have gas for 2 days or so and as soon as they'd enter South Korea, they'd see with their own eyes, how people in the First World live. Cannot be in the interest of the regime.

Has anybody ever seen the movie "The Mouse That Roared"? Why do I have to think of that movie, ever since Kim Jong Dumm startet his war rhetoric?
 
MacGuffin said:
Yeah, if they'd attack, their troops would only have gas for 2 days or so and as soon as they'd enter South Korea, they'd see with their own eyes, how people in the First World live. Cannot be in the interest of the regime.
Click to expand...

Would they enter South Korea just like that, or after subjecting it to as much artillery bombardment as they could? Because after some artillery, SK wouldn't look very First World.
 
In the worst case, they'd probably have the upper hand for a couple of days and could indeed cause a lot of damage. But it's a good guess that both the South Korean and the American forces have studied possible scenarios already and know how to react. The North Koreans haben't got the potential to surprise them with anything they do. And I would take a bet, that American cruise missiles are already programmed to target key facilities of the North Korean army.

Let's hope for the NK people's sake, that it is all just barking.
 
Last edited:
I got this pet theory that the new Kim finally figured out that his country's economic system built on slave labour and hungry masses will completely and unrecoverably collapse within a few years and thus he decided to go out with a bang - getting overrun by "imperialist" forces, never having to admit that NK's system failed.
 
Yeah... only that he wouldn't survive such a scenario and dictators rarely have a death wish.
 
MacGuffin said:
Yeah... only that he wouldn't survive such a scenario and dictators rarely have a death wish.
Click to expand...
I don't see it this way. He can wage war and then go into exile in China or Cuba, a true communist leader who defended his superior system against overwhelming forces of imperialist aggression.
That's much better than being driven out of power in the economic collapse of the hollow shell that once was your country.

EDIT: Did you say "Death Wish"?
death-wish-image.jpg
 
Last edited:
Dr_Grip said:
I don't see it this way. He can wage war and then go into exile in China or Cuba, a true communist leader who defended his superior system against overwhelming forces of imperialist aggression.
That's much better than being driven out of power in the economic collapse of the hollow shell that once was your country.

EDIT: Did you say "Death Wish"?
death-wish-image.jpg
Click to expand...

And remember the current dear leader was at least partially educated in Europe so he knows things are better out there.
 
Yep educated in Switzerland.

[h=1]Tales of starvation and death in North Korea[/h]
[video]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11389824[/video]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top