View Full Version : GM
This might be under the right heading so please forgive me.
It has to be mentioned.
What does everyone think on the huge GM ( Global Megalomaniacs )debate?
Jack.
Roving Rich
04-12-2003, 13:39
I'm on the Organic side. We eat nearly all organic and grow some of our own. If it aint broke don't fix it! We survived thousands of years without needing to mess. There is just no way that the outcome can be predicted, a small mutation in our food supply can have drastic effects on human health. Do not touch.
Unfortunately the pollen from these GM plants is already on the loose, so is happily mutating our native hardy plants. From what i can make out it boils down to a few greedy companies wanting to gain an economic strangle hold on our basic food supply. It does seem to be inevitable in the UK. I don't believe we have the land area available to sustain our ever growing (over) population.
GRRRRRR :evil:
Rich
Fallow Way
04-12-2003, 13:47
Completely agree with the above
Humans need to figure out the obvious and stop Rutting :-) For a little while at least :-)
Roving Rich
05-12-2003, 12:49
Just to play devils advocate...
(I've used this one on my friends just to as a matter of interest..)
Right just suppose those nasty GM megalomaniacs were to do something useful. The example I propose is that they alter the Genes of the Elm tree to make it resistant to Dutch elm disease.
So the British countryside would be full of mighty elm trees that I've only read about in old books.
What do you wreckon?
Rich
:roll:
MartiniDave
05-12-2003, 14:16
I'm showing my age now but-
I'd love to see rows of elms again. Certainly around where I grew uo the nature of the countryside was drastically changed by Ditch Elm Disease, a real shame.
One other devils advocate point, when is GM GM? Is selective breeding included? If so this has given us many useful breeds of cattle, strains of wheat etc over the centuries. Just a though, I may be way off target.
Dave
The example I propose is that they alter the Genes of the Elm tree to make it resistant to Dutch elm disease.
Ok... I get that bit.... but...
So the British countryside would be full of mighty elm trees that I've only read about in old books.
What do you wreckon?
erm... what makes you think that they would plant them in the countryside for all to see ... there is no profit in that.
Geneticly modyfiying a product takes vast sums of money, therefore the trees would cost a fortune. They are more likely to be sold to the commercial sector and the wood used for furniture or cabinet making.... and probably 'farmed' on private land with very little or no access. (proably no access because of the anti GM brigade... thats the usual excuse)
But it is a nice idea :-)
Ed
Roving Rich
05-12-2003, 17:09
Yer right Ed they wouldn't, it was just to see if you would except GM if it was used for such worthy causes?
I don't include cross breeding as GM. We have been doing this since the year dot. Every couple that has children has secretly selected genes they wish to mix with. Along with every gardener that has kept the seed of their best fruit to plant for the following year.
Some say GM is just the same result it just doesn't take the thousands of years of subtle evolution to do it.
I say it is unnatural so the outcome cannot be predicted.
Cheers
Rich
[quote="Roving Rich"]Just to play devils advocate...
(I've used this one on my friends just to as a matter of interest..)
Right just suppose those nasty GM megalomaniacs were to do something useful. The example I propose is that they alter the Genes of the Elm tree to make it resistant to Dutch elm disease.
So the British countryside would be full of mighty elm trees that I've only read about in old books.
What do you wreckon?
Nice one Rich, you have really put the cat amongst the pigeons now with that question!
Its a good point that you have put forward and you were right to do so as we must like at it from all angles.
Yes, we could have to countryside full of English Elms again, yes, we could all see the mighty Elms that are really only a memory in books.
Unfortunately, the argument falls down right there. Simply because the Elms that we would see, wouldn’t be English Elms. How can they be, they are genetically different! We could see Elms, but they won’t be English Elms.
What we must also bear in mind, is the fact that trees, like humans, suffer from disease from time to time and Dutch Elm disease is nothing new, our Elms were wipe many thousands of years ago, and they came back and they will again, without the intervention of man and his wonderful sciences!
Best wishes.
Jack.
Point is we shouldn't be modifying plants so they can survive the mess we've made, we should be learning from our mistakes and modifying our own behaviour. Pollution, over population, continual building, pesticides etc - all our doing and maybe our eventual undoing.
And dont even bother with the 'we could feed the starving millions' line either - last thing we need is more people polluting the planet.
Let nature alone and it'll come through ok, even if (in the end) we don't.
MartiniDave
08-12-2003, 08:55
Good post Gary.
Now, if we can only get people to turn away from our societies throw away life styles we'll be able to make the resources we've got last much longer. You know, build cars to last 30 years and keep them that long, not buying the newest phone every 3 months etc etc
I could go on but I think you all know what I mean
Dave - off to recyle my soap box :-)
Roving Rich
08-12-2003, 09:48
Here Here ! Have some faith in your planet.
Most of the problems caused in the world are the result of Human over population. Only a politician will never tell you that. What is he gonna say you cant have children or maybe he'll suggest a cull?
How long would our current society last without electricity or the supermarket? It all looks very fragile to me.
(I found this nice soap box down the recycling centre, I'll just take it back again now eh....)
Rich :-?
Andrew Middleton
09-12-2003, 12:46
I'm really going to play devils advocate here: The original scope of the string was "GM". How many of you use commercially bought paints, eat ice cream, drink beer/wine, eat canned meat with aspic, have had the MMR jab, polio or flu vaccines, been treated with antibiotics, use household disinfectants etc? I could go on. All either look good, taste good, or make us feel good/better. All use GM to a greater or lesser degree. All have a greater or lesser impact on our environment.
We live with/cause genetic modification/genotypic attenuation in more aspects of our lives than I can list. Within the grand scale of all our "meddling", GM crops are but a splash in the ocean. I believe, compared to the long-term effects of some of our other human interventions, the worry about the effects of genetically modifying crops far outways its true implications.
Happy to debate over several pints of beer brewed with GM yeasts!
Interesting point Andrew. Am I right in thinking that you're saying there's no point in worrying about GM crops 'cos there's lots worse things out there?
Don't know if I'd agree with that one. But you're right - there are lots of other scarey things happening.
For me the point is that no-one asked me (or anyone else)before they went ahead and messed around with all this stuff, not so that I could have a tastier/better looking/healthier Apple/Orange/Tomato or whatever but so that they could capture a bigger market share and make more profits.
If we are told that such and such a product tastes X times better than its nearest competitor then just like good little consumers we go out and buy it. The better taste etc is often only a myth (think Sunny Delight advertising and market share success). GM food may or may not be a nightmare, I don't know yet. But for the majority of uses it appears to have been brought about not for the 'good of mankind' like they often tell us, but just to get greater profits for the companies involved.
Now don't get me wrong, I've nothing against making a fair profit but not by ******g up the world my kids are going to inherit.
Same goes for pollution, nuclear power, road building etc. etc.
I'm off to hug a tree and pat bunnies now
George
Andrew Middleton
09-12-2003, 16:23
George,
I guess my general point was that there are things to worry about with more immediate consequences and, believe me, you didn't get a say in those either. However, with two kids and a love of the environment, I'm certainly not going to disagree with your valuable points.
Knowing a bit of "behind the scenes" info makes it difficult to know where to start worrying.
Andrew
GM is another nail in the coffin of our species all species on the planet and its a nail (like all the others andrew mentioned) that we are driving in ourselves.
Do we need all that 'stuff' - No of course we dont. Does big business need all that 'stuff' - yes of course it does thats where its profit margin lays.
And just because we've screwed up everything else doesnt mean we should just sit back and say ok then, we're door mats bring in the GM oh and while your at it you can tax us to pay for it - yes Mr Government/Fat cat businessman its our pleasure to line your pockets.
Call me cold, heartless whatever but we'd also be better off, the planet would be better off is science hadn't found so many cures to illness etc either.
It makes me sad to see how bad things are and it makes me sadder to see how many people are ignorant to it. Worse than this how many people just dont care either way.
Everything the native american did he did with a view of benefiting his grandchildren and his brother creatures - we seem have grown into a state of mind where our greed and arrogance blinds us into not being able to see the damage we'll do next week let alone to the next generation.
Sorry soap box put away - never to speak again.
The point is this;
We have only just started to understand genetics. We all know that millions and millions of genes are needed to make life of any shape or form.
We are also fully aware that it only takes one gene out of the many millions to be missing to create a whole host abnormalities and problems. Believe me, we are only at the beginning of this science and our arrogance has already allowed it to be let lose upon all of us.
If you ever walk through the woodlands with me I will point something out to you that will change you mind forever and the chaps coming down to the hurdle making course this weekend will have this pointed out to them straight away.
Best wishes.
Jack.
Listening to the news the other day. Heard an item about obesity in bears in the US - caused by them eating too much junk food from people's picnic baskets.
Just goes to show - our impact spreads ever further - and we find new ways to bugger things up every day. :cry:
Andrew Middleton
09-12-2003, 19:16
On a slightly lighter note:
The eating of junk food by the bears could also bring an end to the old adage of bears s**ting in the woods, because they'll be too bloody constipated!
bigjackbrass
09-12-2003, 19:58
Some interesting points to mull over in this speech by a certain well-known novelist:
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote05.html
And dont even bother with the 'we could feed the starving millions' line either - last thing we need is more people polluting the planet.
I dont think you could quite say that. Being brought up in and out of south Africa i have seen the absolute devastation these people live in. Gary, how did you get to work this morning? Im sure if you drove you would be polluting more than these people would because they would live off the land in their own villages.
By saying they shouldnt be fed simply because they could "pollute" the world is wrong. It would make no difference if they were fed or not, they have the right to just live lives of comfort.
Effectively you are saying that we should cull the people living in these countries because there is too much of them. If GM were too feed these desparate nations, it would be one of the greatest days.
I do agree however, that alot of money is being made from GM, and we are using too much of it, one day we might pay the price.
GM is a method that needs to be controlled far more than it is now. And i also agree that alot of fat-cats are making alot of money.
If anyone wants to talk about it just send me a PM
I dont mean to sound harsh, it is just a subject that is very personal to me, i have seen it first hand, children dying.
No hard feelings.
Thanks,
Jake
I've travled and lived in many poor and desperate countrys, and like Jake seen the misery brought about by overpopulation, but i see the other side of the argument.
1.an area of land is capable of sustaining 2000 people.
2.the population rises to 4000.
3.Result, Famine
4.The westen charitys provide food to keep th 4000 alive for a year.
5.next year the population rises to 5000.
the land can still only support 2000
6. result even worse fammine than the first, with appalling loss of life
7.The western charitys provide food to keep 4000 alive for a year
(they cant supply enough for all of them)
8. the population rises to 5500 and the land can still only support 2000
9. the west forgets about them, as public intrest moves to another
country
10.Result Famine, loss of life 3500
supplying food to keep this population alive and therefor growing only made matters worse in the future, this may sound terrible (and when you see it in person it is!) but this how nature works, the land can only support 2000, thats it, cold, calculating and....... balanced
I think what gary met by polluting the earth was not that these extra people are porducing pollution, but we as human beings are the pollution by over population
I realize that this is a very emotive topic but both sides of this should be understood
1.an area of land is capable of sustaining 2000 people.
2.the population rises to 4000.
3.Result, Famine
Sorry to be pedantic when we're talking about human tradgedy, but by what mechanism did you get from step 1 to 2? If the land was capable of sustaining 2000 how come the population rose to 4000, or even 2100?
I'm sure this is just shorthand for
1. an are of land capable of sustaining 4000 people
2. the population rises to 4000
2a. a disaster (flood, drought, war) reduces the capability of the land to sustain life
3. Result: famine
But whatever the mechanism, the analysis is chillingly accurate
This is why a step 4a is so necessary:
4a. The western charities work with the local population to ensure appropriate population density (perhaps by improving the land)
the mechanism for getting from 1. to 2. can be any number of things war, famine, etc etc
in the case of flood, war etc these are temporary and the land will soon regain its ability to sustain, what i was refuring to was mainly drought and simple over population (massive imagration lack of education/contraception)
how does the western charity work with the local population to ensure appropriate population density???
education and free contraception is the most effective way of preventing over population but once it has happened, the population has to return to the number that the land can sustain somehow.
if somone can work out how to reduce the population without anyone dieing that would be great
how does the western charity work with the local population to ensure appropriate population density???
education and free contraception is the most effective way of preventing over population but once it has happened, the population has to return to the number that the land can sustain somehow.
Being cyncial, and turning the thread full circle, this is where the locals get sold the super-productive GM crops...
if somone can work out how to reduce the population without anyone dieing that would be great
Amen to that. Though in parts of Africa the Aids epidemic is de-populating the land anyway
In africa alone, one person dies from HIV/AIDS every 20 seconds. It will take 25 years before the deaths in africa (from this moment) will equal the british population.
Over-population is a great cause for concern. The biggest killer is however, AIDS. The west do not do enough about it. If it wasnt for the intervention of other countries (Germany, France etc) George W Bush would have closed down the HIV/AIDS office in USA.
Lack of education does effect population growth/decline and famine, but what people fail to realise, that alot of it is the lack of education HERE, UK, USA, Europe.
People die because they get themselves into situations (through no fault of there own) and cannot get out. They dont *want* to be helped, but they *need* it.
Thats where we come in. GM crops could save lives,
'we could feed the starving millions' . Seeds are so valuable. They can "grow" themeselves out of poverty..........i have seen it happen.
I really dont want to create tension, or difficulties.
But it is hard to see that these people dont get the respect that they deserve.
It would cost £1000 pounds for a freshwater well in an african village. That alone is a life saver.
When i travelled down from Jo'burg to Capetown by car (with my Father, and more recently, myself) i saw what people do for the most basic things.
a mother walk for 5 hours through the blazing african sun to fetch water from a pond that might kill her. This is real, we couldnt just forget about them. It is happening *right now*.
Thanks for your intrest, and im sorry if i sound abrupt.
Cheers,
Jake
bushwacker bob
31-01-2004, 00:36
Why do we need GM food to feed the starving millions.It is my understanding that the developed word produces and wastes,stores or throws away sufficient food to feed the third world.The only reason its not given to them is because there would be no profit in it. :cry: IF ENOUGH OF US GET TOGETHER OVER SOME BEERS WE COULD PUT THE WORLD TO RIGHTS :-)
Why do we need GM food to feed the starving millions.It is my understanding that the developed word produces and wastes,stores or throws away sufficient food to feed the third world.The only reason its not given to them is because there would be no profit in it. IF ENOUGH OF US GET TOGETHER OVER SOME BEERS WE COULD PUT THE WORLD TO RIGHTS
Very well said. But the governmet would never agree. It may be more cost effective to supply them with the raw materials (seed, grain etc) than the finished goods (bread, pasta etc)
These people would also, if given the raw materials, be able to stop themeselves faling deeper into trouble.
Cheers,
Jake
Where to start?
What is being discussed is the carrying capacity of the earth as a whole and estimates of productive land use suggest that the planet could support about 13 billion people. ( the number for the UK is about 200million if we were all vegetarian). As I have been taught and still teach, the major causes of famine and starvation in the third world are not overpopulation or natural disasters but the global economic system in which these countries have very little power over the prices of their exports. The development model applied by the world bank and IMF pushes industrialisation and exprts of manufactured goodsa as a route to improving the lives of the populations. From watching the news one can see that it doesn't really work.
A rather simplistic analysis but the argument that these folk are in trouble because they have too many kids doesn't wash.
BTW GM food - there is no need for it at all apart from to line the pockets of very few already rich business men.
Roving Rich
02-02-2004, 11:08
Sorry but i have Faith in nature and what she is doing. She has got the planet through the past couple of million years OK, so I guess she must be doing something right.
GM is a short term solution that will only end in disaster. Messing with a very delicate Eco system is a recipe for disaster. We may be able to engineer plants to be immune to one or two pests or diseases, but they have evolved over thousands of years and have encoded resistance to thousands of diseases we have never encountered. By altering their structure we negate this genetic history, evolution and wisdom and fly in the face of nature itself. The plants will fail, some small chink the scientists have overlooked. By which time man will be dependent on them and millions will starve (as Stuart pointed out). I have faith in this giant green brain that somehow sustains all living creatures. I have been to the jungle and seen just how well it works without mans intervention.
Humans in the short time we have been here have succeeded in rapidly destroying the planet with our ignorance and greed.
Politics is to blame. Pure and simple. no one would stay in an area that could not sustain them if there were no political boundaries.
Sorry there is NO need for GM.
Just a political revolution!
Cheers
Rich
:soapbox:
Wey Hey Rich !!
When does it start?
Ultimately, we are only killing the planet for ourselves and a range of species that currently 'coexist' with us.
As Rich said, the planet has seen through millenia without our interference and has seen massive upheavals and changes in the past. The planet will rebound after we have gone - it really is a question of protecting what we have for our descendants - not a great deal to ask one might think!
I understand that GM food may cause alot of natural problems......But my arguement lies with the suffering of people. I get so angry with western politicians (Bush, Blair.......) and i agree that most of the problem is caused by politics.
I wish there was a solution that would make everybody happy, but there aint, we have to go with the greater good for the greater number, situation ethics, and the greater number are the starving *millions*
cheers,
Jake
Hi.
I agree there is a need to help the starving massess. The world bank and IMF have a lot to answer for as does EU and US trade pactices.
The question of GM has little to do with volume of food production for we have vast over production on most food staples. The GM and Chemical industries are looking for new markets as they have their shareholders interests to cater for.
Can we as reasponsible people allow the enviroment to be permanently damaged with crops that have a small improvement in productivity.
In The US I believe the Monarch butterfly is already suffering from GM and lose of habitat. Yes its just a butterfly, so what? Insects are very good indicators of our planets health and we need biodiversity for all.
Hoodoo is the biologist amongst us, he maybe able to shed more light on the subject.
Today animal and plant diversity is expendable tomorrow those starving massess you so rightly worry about may become even more expendable as their ablilty to pay is further reduced by their debt burden.
Change in attitudes are needed from us all if global problems are to be resolved. It is obscene that I am willing to pay £200 for an Alan Wood blade when children are going blind for the want to clean drinking water.
That said I am totally against GM and industrial scale farming. However I shop most of the time in supermarkets and as an engineer have worked on weapons projects. Guess i'm a hypocrite.
bushwacker bob
02-02-2004, 23:16
There is a consensus of common sense in this forum. So who wants to stand for parliament? :idea:
Aah, the Monster Raving Bushcraft Party!
:nana:
its got my vote :notworthy
Roving Rich
02-02-2004, 23:59
quote " Guy Falks - the only man to enter parliment with honest intentions"
:lol:
Rich
Change in attitudes are needed from us all if global problems are to be resolved. It is obscene that I am willing to pay £200 for an Alan Wood blade when children are going blind for the want to clean drinking water.
You're so right......It is so hard to see what is going on. We all know that it is happening, but we only really comprehend it when we see the living faces, the children playing like our kids, the way people *try* to make things better and are still able to smile.
We spend in a day what they earn in years, literally.
We complain that the bus is late! Yet we can still come home to food.
It really is amazing how much you realise how absolutely lucky we are, completely, 100% blessed.
Yet B.liar is only out to fight a few crooked wars, find some WMD's and somehow sleep at night. Bush is worse, but i havent got the time to go on a Bush rant!
Our foriegn policies is what is killing these people, trade, aid, and research etc etc.
When people say (or think) that it is not our business, you would be suprised to see how much of the suffering is due to us.
Cheers,
Jake
Roving Rich
09-02-2004, 08:41
Here Here :-|
Rich