being poor in america

wait what, you took a twitter quote by Tyson as an argument? I've just completely lost all respect for the dude, it's a very ignorant and unscientific thing to say that human tampering with genetic code is the equivalent of natural selection.. wow, pretty much speechless but ill come back to the thread later when i'm not as shocked

tyson quote said 'artificial selection' but yeah it's a bit of an oversimplification. not too many scientists seem to have (vocalized their) issues with gmos though**. i definitely agree we're in guinea pig testing phase at the moment, not too keen on that

**that i've been exposed to anyway, i'm guessing there are certainly outspoken critics somewhere

  On 3/23/2013 at 11:56 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

wait what, you took a twitter quote by Tyson as an argument? I've just completely lost all respect for the dude, it's a very ignorant and unscientific thing to say that human tampering with genetic code is the equivalent of natural selection.. wow, pretty much speechless but ill come back to the thread later when i'm not as shocked

He's not saying they are equivalent idt... its more a grander look at what constitutes as "natural"

http://worldsciencefestival.com/videos/is_genetically_modified_food_safe

Further thoughts from Tyson on this:

  Quote

I think the public has a love/hate relationship with the progress of science. Not a week goes by where you don't find people complaining that there's some genetically engineered food that they might be eating, or that technology has made their lives harder instead of easier, or they have less free time then they once did. I think what we have to consider is the very people who are making those statements 100 years ago might have died in child birth because medicine wasn't advanced enough to have kept them alive. They might've died of tuberculosis or polio or smallpox, so what a luxury it is to sit here in modern times and say you don't want to eat the bell pepper because it might have been genetically engineered. So yes, I don't mind if people take technology for granted, but at the end of the day, sit back and ask yourself, maybe once a week ask yourself how has technology enhanced your life, in fact, made you healthier, made you dream about what the next wave of technology might bring your way.

Tyson's argument is completely bullshit, hes comparing advancements in medicine with a process developed by big food corporations to make the production of food cheaper and in big quantities. These food corporation don't have the health of people in mind, they dont modified food to make people healthier.

  On 3/21/2013 at 3:48 PM, Joyrex said:

 

  On 3/20/2013 at 11:41 PM, HoA said:

Redistribute the wealth and land every fifty years and forgive all debts every seven years.

That wouldn't work, because people would just live care-free and irresponsibly every seven years, and the wash their hands of it, whereas society would be left holding the bag.

Imagine a sporting contest where the score had been going for centuries and one side had built a massive lead. What would motivate new players being substituted into the game?

im sorry to say this, but using that Tyson quote to explain monopolization of growth hormone chemicals and agribusiness is just completely misleading and dangerously so. Awe is absolutely right in being critical of an institution whose former VP for Public Policy is now the Deputy Commissioner at the Food and Drug Administration. The people created the FDA to primarily avoid such a conflagration between business and government.

  On 3/24/2013 at 4:17 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

im sorry to say this, but using that Tyson quote to explain monopolization of growth hormone chemicals and agribusiness is just completely misleading and dangerously so. Awe is absolutely right in being critical of an institution whose former VP for Public Policy is now the Deputy Commissioner at the Food and Drug Administration. The people created the FDA to primarily avoid such a conflagration between business and government.

Proper regulations are of course ideal and I doubt Tyson is arguing against regulations. We may be testing the waters as Luke said (which is not very fun indeed) but I don't view genetic modification as innately worse than organic (which is why I quoted that Tyson quote). Scientifically speaking genetic modification will hopefully provide cures to a lot of genetic diseases in the future... and in that context I can see how genetically modifying food and animals might do the same. Or at least in theory. I am no expert on this.

  On 3/24/2013 at 4:39 AM, compson said:

 

  On 3/24/2013 at 4:17 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

im sorry to say this, but using that Tyson quote to explain monopolization of growth hormone chemicals and agribusiness is just completely misleading and dangerously so. Awe is absolutely right in being critical of an institution whose former VP for Public Policy is now the Deputy Commissioner at the Food and Drug Administration. The people created the FDA to primarily avoid such a conflagration between business and government.

 

Proper regulations are of course ideal and I doubt Tyson is arguing against regulations. We may be testing the waters as Luke said (which is not very fun indeed) but I don't view genetic modification as innately worse than organic (which is why I quoted that Tyson quote). Scientifically speaking genetic modification will hopefully provide cures to a lot of genetic diseases in the future... and in that context I can see how genetically modifying food and animals might do the same. Or at least in theory. I am no expert on this.

if used well. that's the key. i don't think anyone on here is disputing the fact that genetic modification can yield superior crops in many situations. it all goes back to who is doing the modification, and why.

any scientific discovery has the potential to benefit humanity, but implementation of the discovery by humans is another thing entirely. the quote was disingenuous in the context given, is what I'm saying.

therefore, I think being skeptical of a gigantic corporation's R&D and implementation methods while simultaneously having their former reps and CFO's in government offices of food-related regulation agencies is completely above water and a very legit grievance.

  On 3/24/2013 at 5:00 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

 

  On 3/24/2013 at 4:39 AM, compson said:

 

  On 3/24/2013 at 4:17 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

im sorry to say this, but using that Tyson quote to explain monopolization of growth hormone chemicals and agribusiness is just completely misleading and dangerously so. Awe is absolutely right in being critical of an institution whose former VP for Public Policy is now the Deputy Commissioner at the Food and Drug Administration. The people created the FDA to primarily avoid such a conflagration between business and government.

 

Proper regulations are of course ideal and I doubt Tyson is arguing against regulations. We may be testing the waters as Luke said (which is not very fun indeed) but I don't view genetic modification as innately worse than organic (which is why I quoted that Tyson quote). Scientifically speaking genetic modification will hopefully provide cures to a lot of genetic diseases in the future... and in that context I can see how genetically modifying food and animals might do the same. Or at least in theory. I am no expert on this.

 

 

if used well. that's the key. i don't think anyone on here is disputing the fact that genetic modification can yield superior crops in many situations. it all goes back to who is doing the modification, and why.

 

any scientific discovery has the potential to benefit humanity, but implementation of the discovery by humans is another thing entirely. the quote was disingenuous in the context given, is what I'm saying.

 

therefore, I think being skeptical of a gigantic corporation's R&D and implementation methods while simultaneously having their former reps and CFO's in government offices of food-related regulation agencies is completely above water and a very legit grievance.

I agree but it'd be nice to read some scientific findings about their R&D. It seems reasonable that genetic modification can be a benefit for a corporations profit and a consumers health benefit. But people seem to have the belief that fiddling with mother nature is always a bad idea. So while I don't have the scientific knowledge to understand these things with foresight, I don't buy into fluoridation theory or that humans/Americans are seeing a higher proportion of diseases/cancers because of genetically modified food. Maybe in time there will be evidence to support this notion. Ultimately if you are concerned about it, don't buy it. But I personally will need to read more about this to gauge how legitimate of a concern this is. Would there not be lawsuits and scientific publications all about genetically modified foods having health risks if the FDA were incompetently approving them?

i think you're blowing that quote out of proportion.

  On 3/24/2013 at 12:24 AM, compson said:

Further thoughts from Tyson on this:

 

 

  Quote

I think the public has a love/hate relationship with the progress of science. Not a week goes by where you don't find people complaining that there's some genetically engineered food that they might be eating, or that technology has made their lives harder instead of easier, or they have less free time then they once did. I think what we have to consider is the very people who are making those statements 100 years ago might have died in child birth because medicine wasn't advanced enough to have kept them alive. They might've died of tuberculosis or polio or smallpox, so what a luxury it is to sit here in modern times and say you don't want to eat the bell pepper because it might have been genetically engineered. So yes, I don't mind if people take technology for granted, but at the end of the day, sit back and ask yourself, maybe once a week ask yourself how has technology enhanced your life, in fact, made you healthier, made you dream about what the next wave of technology might bring your way.

Wait, is he implying these complaining people should have been pruned out of human history by natural selection if it wasn't for science saving their asses? You can almost hear him think these people actually shouldn't have been saved from their Darwinian fate....

LOL

That Tyson dude might be a tiny bit more cynical than people realize.

  On 3/24/2013 at 5:42 AM, zaphod said:

i think you're blowing that quote out of proportion.

right. because the quote was irrelevant.

Compson: it takes a LONG time to make the connections.

Remember how long it took to find the Pacific Railroad and Gas Company culpable for destroying a town's ground water?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_groundwater_contamination

Everyone thought Brockovich was insane and wasting time when she was skeptical over hexavalent chromium being a carcinogenic agent. These things aren't always easy to prove, and unfortunately they usually come after some horrible suffering or disaster.

  On 3/24/2013 at 2:24 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

Compson: it takes a LONG time to make the connections.

 

Remember how long it took to find the Pacific Railroad and Gas Company culpable for destroying a town's ground water?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_groundwater_contamination

 

Everyone thought Brockovich was insane and wasting time when she was skeptical over hexavalent chromium being a carcinogenic agent. These things aren't always easy to prove, and unfortunately they usually come after some horrible suffering or disaster.

Of course they come after some horrible suffering or disaster... which is my question... where is the evidence for fluoridation and GMO's causing said disaster? There is no doubt that choices by corporations (high-fructose corn syrup) to cut costs lead to unhealthy diets for the consumers. But specifically on this topic I am waiting for some explanation on why we should avoid using such processes, especially if it leads to cheaper food? I know my tone comes across as apathetic about this issue compared to some, but I think some restraint on issues such as this is a better route than fueling the fear fire by loosely suggesting our government is intentionally poisoning us with fluoridation of water and GMO's. Who knows where science and technology will lead us. It's a double edged sword, sure. One that needs constant attention, but a lot of problems we are facing need to be tackled on a macro level (energy policy) so that we can more easily manage a transition into a more equal and free society.

hopefully that made some sense, was up all night

The sad thing is the poorer people get the more they will have to participate in these experiments unwillingly and without choice in the matter..

I still don't feel that flouride does much.. Who else has known a lot of people who brushed like they were told to all their lives, yet still suffer tooth problems constantly? I've met plenty.
Lately i've been on a Dr. Mellanby kick.. Her and her husband, Edward Mellanby, found that many non-western cultures seemingly had very few dental problems. They were convinced it was related to diet. As a couple they also were the people who discovered vitamin D deficiency caused rickets.

Their theory is that phytic acid binds to minerals we need for tooth remineralization and prevents teeth from healing themselves, thus leading to caries. They also felt that getting enough vitamin D and minerals (especially calcium and phosphorous) were extremely important.

Their research was rather interesting.. funnily enough I eat a diet very similar in that I don't eat grains anymore, and that I eat grass-fed butter constantly. I brush very sparingly with a baking soda based toothpaste (no flouride) and my teeth are still super strong. Who knows really...

the most dangerous thing in the water supply is antibiotics and hormones.

U ON THAT PALEO DIET BRO i heard mankind hasnt evolved to process foods and use technology so i only eat fuckin berries and squirrels and shit ive got some spreadsheets u wanna see them (p sure they didnt have spreadsheets in paleolithic times)

  On 3/24/2013 at 5:42 PM, RichieBees said:

U ON THAT PALEO DIET BRO i heard mankind hasnt evolved to process foods and use technology so i only eat fuckin berries and squirrels and shit ive got some spreadsheets u wanna see them (p sure they didnt have spreadsheets in paleolithic times)

Oh fuck off. No I don't do the "paleo diet". I eat farm food and that's really all there is to it.

And you know why? It reduces my suffering (lethargy, depression, anxiety, skin problems, and digestive disorder).

Is that really difficult to understand?

lol nothing personal bro imon nthe primal diet myself and i feel as strong as a caveman

so, how do you block/ignore people again?

  On 3/24/2013 at 7:22 PM, auxien said:

so, how do you block/ignore people again?

Don't mind Richie, I don't think he was trying to be a dick to you. He just loves to get his goof on.

Btw, what is your sig a reference to?

The problem with richie bees is that he is 3 year too late, unfunny internet characters are not funny anymore, people want to be real now, nobody has time for his type.

yall

  On 3/24/2013 at 7:36 PM, Deer said:

The problem with richie bees is that he is 3 year too late, unfunny internet characters are not funny anymore, people want to be real now, nobody has time for his type.

I heard it's coming back.

  On 3/24/2013 at 7:53 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 3/24/2013 at 7:36 PM, Deer said:

The problem with richie bees is that he is 3 year too late, unfunny internet characters are not funny anymore, people want to be real now, nobody has time for his type.

 

I herd it's coming back.

fixed