Posts by 3410
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it.
-
The point is bitching about how your bread tastes is an incredibly stupid and offensive argument against GM when over 25,000 people a day die of starvation.
Hang on; I'll need a while to take on all the implications of that.
-
My impression is that we have access to tastier and more nutritious bread, in much greater variety, than we did when I was a lad. Gluten free, even.
My impression differs but, hey, maybe it's just me. Hard to describe, but for one thing, it never tastes like it's been leavened properly. Also, has no texture, and doesn't toast right.
-
I would imagine this might depend on how hungry you are, Yes?
And you'd probably drink your own piss if you were thirsty enough. Which proves what?
-
Both of these other technologies are subject to the same (rather silly) criticisms as GE ('a corporation might do something evil!, 'we can't put the genie back in the bottle!').
Could you explain why those criticisms are rather silly?
-
And more so of the various wheat varieties in which scientists have been inducing mutations (in the hope that they'll be beneficial) since the early 1960s. The mutations are generated through the application of radiation or toxic chemicals.
If by "beneficial" you mean "cheaper to produce".
Have you eaten any bread lately? It sucks.
-
No complaints on the Slovak goal then?
-
Thanks, Emma. Suddenly I feel like an ugly fat loser. ;)
-
IANAS, so take it with agrain of salt if you like, but I think we need to remain wary of GM.
For starters, we can not put the genie back in the bottle if it goes wrong. Secondly, we do not know the ramifications of any instance of genetic modification, but we can be fairly sure that the evolutionary drive will adapt (sometimes in unforseeable ways) to any adaption that we may make.
Couple this with the fact that many of those pushing forward in this area have enormous financial incentives for doing so (and therefore disincentives for caution) and you have, IMO, the conditions for the possibility of undue haste.
The US is at the forefront of GM, and I predict serious problems for them in the not-too-distant future.
Hardy superweeds immune to Monsanto's genetically modified herbicide system is prompting farmers to use greater amounts of even harsher chemicals. Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" crop, whereby GM seeds unaffected by an accompanying herbicide, make up for 90 percent of the soybean and 80 percent of the corn grown in the US. The rise of Roundup more than a decade ago eclipsed herbicides of other agrochemical companies, but now the invasion of evolved superweeds is sparking a bioengineering race to enable more powerful chemicals - a trend that can only lead to a more precarious food system.
That said, if the Greens are right to promote caution, then they should be able to have the science to back it up.
-
Anyhoo, the ball was clearly perfected in 1970,
I agree. Also, your dad probably says that the ball was perfected in 1950. :)