nessa20x

I personally think GM foods are a wonderful way in increase yields so there can be more food/acre. A better way to reduce pesticide and herbicide use.

I'm an atheist but I don't think the 2 are related....not that you said it was impious.

CoffeeFiend

So, only "atheist evolutionists" can say: "I am against GM foods, because it hasn't been thurally tested yet" ? Silly me, now I know that "theist evolutionists" and other religious types never say such things and are always pro-GM foods

How about bringing up specific arguments from your side and the side of the "atheist evolutionists" you were debating, then we'd probably get somewhere.

Anyway, I am not generally against GM foods, but that has nothing to do with my atheism or evolution. Although there might be some potential for arguments against GM foods in hypothetical senariois where a population of tame GM life-forms could evolve into something that could reek havoc on the surrounding eco-system, if it were to undergo significant changes to become "wild" with it's added immunity to pests and diseases, but what are the chances of that happening ?

GunnerJ

Impious, I strongly suggest that you tone down the attitude, stat, or this topic will be locked. Keep it civil.

-GunnerJ, E/C Mod

GunnerJ

Definately brunettes. You can't even find a real blonde anymore, and even if you did, you wouldn't know if you had. There's just soemthing about various shades and textures, from soft, light brown to raven black, that puts brunette hair way further into teh secksay category for me, but why do so many brunette women feel the need to muck it all up with blonde "highlights," or worse, full dyes?

...

Um...

Going WAY off-topic here...

GunnerJ

OK TRYING TO BE RELEVENT HERE,

Hi! I'm an atheist and I accept evolution as the best available explanation for the diversity of life. I'm not sure what that has to do with the topic of GM foods, but, what the hell...

I think that any technology which increases food yeilds is a good thing, but I am worried about long term consequences to the genetic diversity of food fauna/flora stocks. I really don't know much about the issue, though.

On the other hand, the anti-GM crowd has some really pathetic arguments. Like, I saw a poster at college which explained how the government of Zimbabwae (sp?) decided to turn down a charitable donation of food for its starving populace because it was genetically modified. The end of the poster said, "STOP GM FOODS NOW!"

Pardon? Since when was the governemnt of Zimbabwae the foremost expert on agricultural genetic engineering? So, because the leaders of some thrid-world country decided to starve themselves out of some unnamed superstition about genetic engineering, we should stop the practice of genetically modifying foods? Um, wow. Have any real arguments?

beausoleil

I suppose I'm an agnostic evolutionist. Does that count?

I don't have any reason to believe eating GM foods is unhealthy - but I choose not to on political grounds. Many I've encountered in the GM lobby want to stop labelling so that people aren't free to choose, and I prefer not to support an industry wanting to restrict consumer choice.

Also, I'm not convinced that the genie can be returned to the bottle should something go wrong or that there is nothing to worry about. We may have modified the environment many times in the past, but we've also had our fair share of disasters in introducing new (foreign) species to various environments.

Details on how the economic changes in the food industry brought about by GM technology will improve the lot of the third world are also somewhat lacking. We already overproduce food in the 1st world and dump our surplus on the third world - how will GM technology tackle this?

rlogan

With you all the way here, buddy. If they're going to do it, then do it right. Splice those genes in there and get the real McCoy from top to bottom.

This isn't a political forum. But I think we can resolve an issue of science here.

How is "genetically modified" any different in principle from what we've been doing for millenia - or different from what "natural" mutations do?

If we took the arguments against GM research and applied them retroactively to hybridization of wheats, selection of best strains, etc. - would we not be arguing to leave mankind with stone-age foodstuffs?

How is splicing something manually different from waiting ten thousand years for it to arise by chance?

How is it that one can look with marvel on evolution and then ask that the biota freeze in place?

It seems that one has to take a position that a GM product is an unknown frankenstein monster. But I can't understand what the monster is going to do, exactly. Did hybrid corn overtake the amazon basin while I wasn't looking?

Doubting Didymus

There's the rub, as it were. Some of the genetic modification technology that is being churned out is having quite the opposite effect. In fact, a lot of research goes into making strains of crop that resist a certain pesticide, precisely so that much much more of the foul stuff can be dumped all over it without killing the plant. As a neat little side effect for the company reseraching the GM technology, it just so happens that the specific pesticide in question is produced by the very same company, so they can also profit from bigger sales of their horrendous toxic sprays. Pure coincidence, only not.

Another rather objectionable practice is this fad about patenting genes. While it's true that the company did spend the money on the research, the actual gene they put the patent on is usually snipped out of some other species genome. There was a case recently down here in australia somewhere, in which some guy's canola crop got contaminated by pollen from a GM test crop nearby, and the company is suing him for 'using' 'their' gene. Genes have a tendancy to spread, its what they do best, in fact. Chasing patents on them is going too far.

As an atheist and an evolutionist, these are some reasons that "we" can object. Like any technology, what matters is how you use it. There is no fundamental reason to object to GM, just as there is no fundamental reason to object to nuclear fission research. Using those technologies in nasty ways is another story entirely.

rlogan

Now we're on our way to substantive issues, and that is good. DD, is this really a criticism of GM foods per se? We have put pesticides on plants for many decades and Pioneer Corn Co.and Dekalb, etc. have been selecting the strains that are resistant to the pesticides and herbicides. So nothing has changed but the efficiency with which we can do this.

Laws against pesticides should be based on their harmful effects, regardless of whether they are applied to GM foods or "traditionally genetically modified" foods. That is, banning GM foods is a poor way to protect the environment against pesticides.




Same thing. Pioneer and Dekalb have always patented their corn seed. Don't know the specifics of the case down there in Australia. But the patent issue is not specific to GM brands. We follow the same law as before, don't we?

I realize you were just throwing out examples DD without staking a claim to them, and so I am not criticising you.

I do not see how anything is different other than our efficiency at accomplishing an ancient objective.

scombrid

What the hell are you on? Speak English please.

I can't even tell what you're asking.

Might the above be translated as:

"What problems, if any, do atheists have with genetically modified products?"

If so. None that have anything to do with my atheism.

Might there be concerns on an evolutionary scale? Perhaps. An example could be from a conservation biology standpoint if you consider escapes of GM plants or animals from culture and the effects of their modified genes on wild populations.

Effects on human health? Don't know.