Why are you afraid?

[conon394]

I already answered your question: universities don't mass-produce food, corporations do. Hence the ban. If universities were mass-producing food somehow, then it would be different story. But they don't. Hence the ban. I'm sure you will again reply with some nonsensical retort pretending that I said something else just to have a last word or something.

Umm the point is your banana is grown by you know farmers. Now they might peons in the third word, or small farmers or employees of a corporate farm... but the variation in question was not produced by a corporation thus your repeated statements make no sense. What in fact has happened is a resistant variety of the banana that everyone kinda loves is on the table and the EU turned it down for no scientific reason. Second you have to show how you be healthy and well feed and minimal expense but for the 'corporate' system you rail against with again no data.

And so I take it that is no you really have no ideal how much labor is required in mainlining just a small research plots picked out for no herbicide or pesticide for a summer growing season.

[Heathen Hammer]

Umm the point is your banana is grown by you know farmers. Now they might peons in the third word, or small farmers or employees of a corporate farm... but the variation in question was not produced by a corporation thus your repeated statements make no sense. What in fact has happened is a resistant variety of the banana that everyone kinda loves is on the table and the EU turned it down for no scientific reason. Second you have to show how you be healthy and well feed and minimal expense but for the 'corporate' system you rail against with again no data.

And so I take it that is no you really have no ideal how much labor is required in mainlining just a small research plots picked out for no herbicide or pesticide for a summer growing season.

I'm sure you will again reply with some nonsensical retort pretending that I said something else just to have a last word or something.

Called it.
Ban is in place because of harmful practices done by corporations, which can't be trusted. Controlled experiment by university (which can be trusted in controlled environment) is irrelevant, since its not the university itself that would use this technology to mass-produce food, but privately owned corporations whose standards we can't ensure.
To argue the opposite you need to provide a clear picture of how you'd ensure that corporations don't pollute market with harmful products. The floor is yours, but we already know that you won't.

[Ältester der Motten]

"Playing god" is a culturally reinforced thought-terminating cliché. Someone came up with it, and now we keep falling back to it, feeling a mild sense of unease when someone is tinkering with the fundamentals of life or nature in an unprecented way, without being able to adequately pinpoint the reason for our concern. It's basically the engineering/science equivalent of calling a weird-acting guy "creepy". We don't really understand it, but we fear it and we don't like it, so we put the blame on the technology by rationalising our feeling with a simple handwave.

If you look at the attitudes around GMO for example, it does not seem like people outside of Westerners and those immediately influenced by them are worried about it at all. They do not have the cultural perception that tinkering with the basics of nature has an inherent risk to cause an unforeseen sinister calamity or blacklash by nature (or god). There is no such thing as playing god, we are simply exploiting the ressources of nature to an increasingly sophisticated level. If you look at it frankly, isn't breeding animals to do our bidding also "playing god"? Isn't tilling the earth and controlling the water to grow our own vegetation also "playing god"? Isn't resuscitation and cancer therapy "playing god"?

[basics]

For some time now we have worked at improving both yield and quantity in what we eat because it is what we as humans were designed to do. We can't play God because we are not God but with some insight and will we can improve what we do eat. So therefore we put our trust in those encumbant with that task to make sure of the safety of anything put before us to eat.

[conon394]

Called it.
Ban is in place because of harmful practices done by corporations, which can't be trusted. Controlled experiment by university (which can be trusted in controlled environment) is irrelevant, since its not the university itself that would use this technology to mass-produce food, but privately owned corporations whose standards we can't ensure.
To argue the opposite you need to provide a clear picture of how you'd ensure that corporations don't pollute market with harmful products. The floor is yours, but we already know that you won't.

I not really sure what you babbling about. The remains ridiculous it blanket bans classes of technology, not a specific use. Its clearly implemented on a emotional political level. If the ban existed for what you say than it would cover a lot more things. Notable the problem is what wired story only sorta hinted at there is no dichotomy between GMO and traditional breeding. Saying that way makes people who nothing about plant breeding think of farm Joe in the field saving the best seed. Nope there lots of chemical methods for sliding an isolated gene into the seed of a another species. Or just brute force mutate the plant via chemicals or radiation over and over again. Either way will get the gene you are looking but also a lot you don't want and that takes time remove if thay have negative impacts on the variety. What CRISPER and so called GMO are simply more elegance in application, allowing a more specific approach. But they are in just more refined version of the versions of so called 'traditional breeding the EU allows. How any specific case of use should be judged as I said individually no matter who brings it to market.

To argue the opposite you need to provide a clear picture of how you'd ensure that corporations don't pollute market with harmful products. The floor is yours, but we already know that you won't.

So you are going to stop replaying because your computer is pretty damn harmful?

What harmful ag product you got in mind there HH you don't really like providing data but again banning a class of technology is simply foolish, and specific example is fine so provide some.

[Heathen Hammer]

I not really sure what you babbling about. The remains ridiculous it blanket bans classes of technology, not a specific use. Its clearly implemented on a emotional political level. If the ban existed for what you say than it would cover a lot more things. Notable the problem is what wired story only sorta hinted at there is no dichotomy between GMO and traditional breeding. Saying that way makes people who nothing about plant breeding think of farm Joe in the field saving the best seed. Nope there lots of chemical methods for sliding an isolated gene into the seed of a another species. Or just brute force mutate the plant via chemicals or radiation over and over again. Either way will get the gene you are looking but also a lot you don't want and that takes time remove if thay have negative impacts on the variety. What CRISPER and so called GMO are simply more elegance in application, allowing a more specific approach. But they are in just more refined version of the versions of so called 'traditional breeding the EU allows. How any specific case of use should be judged as I said individually no matter who brings it to market.



So you are going to stop replaying because your computer is pretty damn harmful?

What harmful ag product you got in mind there HH you don't really like providing data but again banning a class of technology is simply foolish, and specific example is fine so provide some.

So you are now claiming that corporations never produced a harmful product? Do you have any data to back up that assertion?

[conon394]

So you are now claiming that corporations never produced a harmful product? Do you have any data to back up that assertion?

Nothing I wrote is making that assertion considering you back on none of yours why should I bottler even if I had. What I said is basely baning whole class of technological refinement en mass is silly. Banning a proposed specific use is not. The EU is being silly the previous generation of scientific breeding combined with the latest genetics produces the exact same results. It just takes a few more years. So if you want wait a round for resistant crops well fine. To go back to the banana the guy doing there research might have needed a another post doc and collaborator but what he achieved could have been in in twice the time being conservative (I mean maybe they get lucky and the baggage genes thay get have no negative expression but they going to have remove some - could do that with CRISPR but hey that is GMO as well according to the EU) using slight older science and the EU would not call it GMO. Its stupidity.

Perhaps you could define 'traditional' breeding for me what are you imagining.

[Heathen Hammer]

Nothing I wrote is making that assertion considering you back on none of yours why should I bottler even if I had. What I said is basely baning whole class of technological refinement en mass is silly. Banning a proposed specific use is not. The EU is being silly the previous generation of scientific breeding combined with the latest genetics produces the exact same results. It just takes a few more years. So if you want wait a round for resistant crops well fine. To go back to the banana the guy doing there research might have needed a another post doc and collaborator but what he achieved could have been in in twice the time being conservative (I mean maybe they get lucky and the baggage genes thay get have no negative expression but they going to have remove some - could do that with CRISPR but hey that is GMO as well according to the EU) using slight older science and the EU would not call it GMO. Its stupidity.

Perhaps you could define 'traditional' breeding for me what are you imagining.

If you are claiming that GMO ban is bad, then its your own burden to prove that doing so makes sense - again, we are still waiting on you to provide us data that corporations can be trusted with this technology. Citing controlled research in some university doesn't prove that.

[basics]

Farming has come a long way since I was a kid and no farmer I know would farm anything that could damage human health. To be a farmer takes a special breed of person as anyone who has ever worked or helped on a farm knows and so here in Britain we the consumer have no qualms about eating their produce.

[conon394]

If you are claiming that GMO ban is bad, then its your own burden to prove that doing so makes sense - again, we are still waiting on you to provide us data that corporations can be trusted with this technology. Citing controlled research in some university doesn't prove that.

That is an entirely non logical statement. Its on your to prove that effective regulation will fail to work. Or to prove the EU ban is not entirely silly because other modern technological breeding methods allow the exact same result they are just a half step less elegant and take maybe 2-5 years more.

[Heathen Hammer]

So they didn't ban one harmful practice, and that's why banning the other is bad? I can't seem to follow that logic.

[basics]

Being brought up during the war when access to food was restricted it is sheer luxury being able to choose from so many varieties on the shelf today.

[Heathen Hammer]

Being brought up during the war when access to food was restricted it is sheer luxury being able to choose from so many varieties on the shelf today.

Yeah? I can't buy raw dairy anywhere in my province. And quality of meat cuts went downhill too, at least judging by butchershops I go to.

[basics]

Heathen Hammer,

Perhaps you should go Kosher.

[conon394]

So they didn't ban one harmful practice, and that's why banning the other is bad? I can't seem to follow that logic.

The logic is its not a harmful practice you have yet to establish that. And it remains simply slightly more efficient way of doing something that is not banned.

[Heathen Hammer]

The logic is its not a harmful practice you have yet to establish that. And it remains simply slightly more efficient way of doing something that is not banned.

What do you mean? Corporations cut corners all the time, ban is there for harm reduction.

Heathen Hammer,

Perhaps you should go Kosher.

Ew, life without bacon is no life at all. Maybe if Abraham and Muhammad tried some crispy bacon or pork sausages they would be less prone to start those crazy religious cults leading to so many wars and miseries.

[basics]

Heathen Hammer,

But aren't piggies not force fed to make them larger and juicier? Aside from that by Kosher I meant that you'd be on top of how they were reared and slaughtered. Anyway I love my pork ribs as well as bacon and eggs. Frazzle the bacon and then chop it up adding on top two fried eggs still runny and mix it all up and see how delicious that is. Hot or cold it makes a super meal coupled to toast or bread. It's an old family recipe.

[AqD]

Looks to be the University of Shanghai - who would appear to lack an ethics review panel.

Which is a great thing. No point of obstructing our development by the perspective of majorities who always struggle with their boring life and have zero foresight.

There isn't and never has been a human being who has not known or thought about God. When God separated the peoples way back at Babylon they carried off with themselves the knowledge of His being. From that knowledge various versions arose as time passed but nonetheless it never left mankind.

I think of him as a dictator.

All your stories only confirm it. Real or imaginary, it indicates most people love to be guided oppressed by some benevolent dictator and they're afraid to define their own rules and use their own powers.

We don't need someone above us. We can do everything he does and more - cure a blind man like Jesus did!

[conon394]

Which is a great thing. No point of obstructing our development by the perspective of majorities who always struggle with their boring life and have zero foresight.

Sorry nope unless that was sarcasm the experiment was loathsome and should never have been funded.

[basics]

AqD,

So, you do think of Him? The problem with the world's peoples is that they have all gone their own ways and one sees the result of that every day.