^
our bodies evolved for millions of years to digest natural food. Gene-spliced stuff is NOT natural.
That's where all the many new allergies and diseases come from.
Let's not even go into what long-term side effects this has on the entire ecosystem.
Humans eff up everything they touch. Keep your hands off of stuff far too complex for monkeybrains to handle...
Ya’ll know that domestication and selective breeding are forms of genetic modification, right? If “we don’t understand it” was a good reason to avoid studying something, we’d never learn anything.
apples and oranges.Originally Posted by Mermaid Delphinidae
selective breeding doesn't change any genes, you just favor some (which already exist naturally) over others.
while this may have far-reaching implications as well, it's still nothing compared to messing with the code itself.
Whew chile never have i ever thought anyone would have to explain GMOs in the year of the lord 2019. There are multiple types of GMOs that range from selective breeding to creating plant hybrids. People want to believe that GMOs are scientist adding who knows what into the DNA of plants but in reality it is usually crossing species of plants to create a hardier plant. One plant immune to pests? Cross it with another to get more pest immune plants. Your corn not growing as large? Cross it with a large variety.
GMOs while yeah, some can be iffy are probably the only reason why the human race hasn't run out of food yet and not only that but new advances in GMO are being used to help people in war torn, drought prone areas where food and nutrition are scarce.
I honestly think one of the things holding back scientific studies are people who refuse to research the discoveries and decide they don't like it just because of a few (usually downright wrong and misleading) "facts (cough, *antivaxers*)
Research what you are against instead of going with what media says because i promise usually the paper written by the scientist includes info the media chooses to gloss over. Then decide if you don't like it.
Sent from my [device_name] using MerNetwork mobile app
Also vegetarian chickens? As in they only eat a vegetarian diet? Isn't that animal abuse since chickens are not herbivores?
Sent from my [device_name] using MerNetwork mobile app
Mermaid Momo is right. I also want to add in that GMOs are studied and tested extensively before they go out onto the market. They're not just putting out this stuff and crossing their fingers. Besides, Earth got 7.5 billion people and counting. We're not gonna be able to adequately feed everyone on "all natural" (whatever that means) organic food, at least not without further environmental destruction.
The media is truly terrible about scientific reporting. Is it really that hard to find someone who can read and understand a scientific study and also write a decent article about it? Scientific literacy isn't THAT rare, right? Right? Well, the bad reporting is probably a combination of legit ignorance and the fact that fearmongering sells.
I agree. We have made enough of a mess of things. Less humans would not be a bad thing at all. The main reason for the population boom was the discovery of how to fix nitrogen -- which increased the food supply.
Even selective breeding isn't really a good thing in many cases. I've had enough heavily hybridized plants that never had more than one bloom before deciding that enough was enough. I do not intend to grow tulips for the foliage. I do not intend to bother with orchids that refuse to rebloom for me. I don't want to think about what has been done to corn and wheat to render them inedible as they are now.
We brought this on ourselves IMO. There are too many humans for Our Mother to support us. I imagine that she is tired of our nonsense. We would do well to remember that humans are small and breakable.
So who’s gonna volunteer to die? I sure as hell won’t, lol.
Sent from my iPhone using MerNetwork
The balance will return if we stop trying to feed more people than we can support on this planet. We are not equipped to colonize other planets any time soon, so this is all we have to work with.
For what it's worth, diseases keep the population in check if we stop interfering. All these children who never catch the common childhood diseases seem to end up with them later when the vaccine's effectiveness runs out. On the other hand, having those diseases once as a child -- and surviving -- means lifetime immunity. Let Nature take her course.
I have a feeling that you wouldn't support this view if you (or your loved ones) were the one in danger of dying from starvation or preventable disease. Go tell your stance to a bunch of starving refugees in a third world country and get their input. At least Thanos had the decency to kill half of all life randomly and not favoring some over others. If you're concerned about overpopulation, education and birth control are the best solutions, not letting poor and marginalized people die because you think science is scary.
Seriously? I wasn't vaccinated, and I have had all the usual childhood illnesses. I have full immunity, unlike what you get with a vaccine. Childhood illnesses are not the least bit scary if you get them during childhood. Don't try fear-mongering like the immunologist who tried to scare me that "people die of chicken pox". Exposure to these illnesses is good for the immune system; otherwise it gets bored and starts looking for something else to destroy.
I'm not even going to touch the plea to "think of the starving children" because I don't think you want to hear my view on that.
And what about illnesses like smallpox or polio? What about kids (or adults) who have weakened immune systems? You can say "this happened to me and I turned out fine". Someone who died can't exactly give their opinion on the subject.
I looked up "vegetarian chicken" and there are a bunch of articles saying that a vegetarian diet is bad for chickens. If that's true, then yeah, I'd consider that animal abuse. What's even the appeal of vegetarian chicken eggs anyway? I guess if you're hardcore enough to not want to kill bugs, but if you're that hardcore, you probably prefer chickens being free-range, which means they'll be eating bugs anyway. I dunno.
On that note, I wonder what non-vegetarian chickens are fed? I've always assumed that most chickens were just fed grain and corn, at least in the big farming operations.
You do I hope realise that this is how things work in nature. Predators cull the weak. If someone's immune system is that weak, those genes are probably better off not being passed to the next generation. Selective breeding to favour weakness is a bad idea IMO.
Probably draconian, but true.
And just for the record, chickens in their natural state eat insects. They are not vegetarian. "Free range" means they technically have access to the outdoors, but in practice it doesn't happen. Unless a farmer is focusing on the restoration of an ecosystem through the use of those Eggmobiles or similar (basically a mobile chicken coop), the chickens aren't going to get insects or any outdoor time. The average chicken is in a similar state to feedlot cows or pigs.
Food labelling drives me batty even with a secret decoder ring.
Our intelligence is our strength. Some animals get by with speed, others with claws, others with brute force. If we only lived "naturally", with no tools or medicines or study or manipulating our environment, we would have died off long ago. Hell, humans aren't even the only animals that use medicine.
On that note, I don't think anything we do is "unnatural". We are not outside of nature. Everything we use comes from nature in some way, and we're still subjected to natural laws. We aren't "cheating nature" by using medicine, we're just using our own adaptations to survive like any other animal does. That doesn't mean that everything we do it ultimately good for ourselves or the environment, but I don't think there's such a thing as "going against nature" or "playing god". Hell, one of the advantages of our intelligence is that we actually can recognize when we're doing harm and can take steps to stop it.
Last edited by Mermaid Delphinidae; 02-26-2019 at 11:38 PM.
Humans in general aren't all that bright. People like Stephen Hawking whose intelligence more than compensated for physical shortcomings are few and far between. Case in point: foolish humans who can't or won't cease destroying the only planet we have. Recycling is not enough, for example. We need to reduce our footprints to the bare minimum.
And yes, such things as genetic engineering including GMO crops do constitute "playing God". What's next, designer human babies with genes customized to the specifications of the parents? Just because the technology exists to do such things doesn't mean we should use that technology.
Where is the line between acceptable research and science and “playing god”? Why is it okay to use computers and airplanes and polyester clothes but not GMOs? Yeah, we do need to discuss the ethics of science but that doesn’t mean we should reject advancement outright. We do need to reduce our footprints, but we’ve also done so much damage that we should try to reverse what we’ve done along with preventing further damage.
Polyester clothes are itchy -- that should be reason enough not to experiment with them!
As far as reducing our footprints and GMOs and such, we need to understand the extent of the damage caused before we cause even more damage trying to repair anything. I know so many people who label-watch just as carefully as I do because of documented reactions to supposedly safe GMO "foods". If we keep playing around without giving that experimentation a generation or two to wash out, we may not be able to undo or even mitigate the damage. We need to sit back and watch how this round plays out before any further experimentation.
Google "eugenics" outs basically what you talked about with the whole "survival of the fittest" thing and eugenics is a bad thing. Eugenixs is the belief that disabled people are weaker and they're genes not fit for reproduction and as such with "survival of the fittest" there should die because they are weaker.
Also note, survival of the fittest doesn't mean shrvival of the strongest. It means survival of individuals who are most adapted to their environment and grow to reproduce.
Also vaccines work by introducing a DEAD version of a virus and vaccines don't have an expiration date. Why? Because once your body encounters the virus it remembers it. And vaccines are safer than exposing your child to mumps and polio and going "May the odds be ever in your favor" because a dead virus is introduced not a live one. (And don't get me started on people ruining herd immunity)
Also the entire thought of "we don't need this" is showing extreme privilege. Poor and marginalized people would KILL to have access to What we have. Heck people in the US would kill to be able to buy the big bad gmo produce since the only produce they ever see in their life are on billboards or fast food burgers. There are people out there saying goodbye to their loved ones waay too early because they didn't have access to What is made available to the priviledged.
Sent from my [device_name] using MerNetwork mobile app
That is not eugenics... that is what bad people make eugenics INTO.
Also, I'm not sure who you are priviledge checking but calm down.<3
-Siren Gita
Blue ocean "siren"
-rulesNazi
User formerly known as derBears
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks