Poll of the Day > Do you support GMOs?

(+) Yeah! (+)

---

No.
---

this is a topic people from for and against GMOs sling shit over, so here I am not knowing if they're good, bad or neutral.

so i cant vote.

Yes, because the alternative is some ridiculous anti-scientific nonsense involving the naturalistic fallacy.
---

Yes obviously. I'm not stupid.

'Muh scorpion dna'
---

Yes and no.

For one thing GMO's have saved countless lives and greatly reduced global hunger worldwide. On the other hand there are some really fucked up laws here in the US regarding genetically modified seed that is harmful to biodiversity.
---

Not Monsanto... that's like saying "Hey, do you support good health and also satan?"
---

Yes. Since I'm not an idiot and actually know what GMO's actually are. Heck, technically EVERYTHING we eat is a GMO to some degree due to centuries of careful growth and breeding.
---

Considering how moronically butthole licking the term GMO is used these days, technically everyone does. Every fucking domesticated animal, and humans themselves under certain circumstances, are all GMOs. Selective breeding is literally that, and how many things has it happened to? Do real bananas even exist anymore? I know they were/are basically a nearly-inedible little pod of seeds and almonds were poisonous. All the hipsters with their allegedly non-GMO food need to see a picture of what their food used to look like before farming.
---

Conceptually, yes. However, there's a lot of room for some really shady **** within that concept, including potential major health concerns and a whole lot of financial incentive to cover them up, and I'm not a fan of that. I don't see that as a reason to resist the concept as a whole, though. Just to call for regulations and education to prevent the sort of shadiness that puts people and the environment at risk.

I apparently missed this entire debate. I've seen that acroynm before but had no idea what it stood for.
---

gmo7897 is an a'ight mod.
---

Yes because I have a basic understanding of genetics and artificial selection via breeding Vs the much more effective, efficient, and more predictable artificial selection via genetic modification in a lab.
---

Lokarin posted...

Not Monsanto... that's like saying "Hey, do you support good health and also satan?"

This
---

The natural way is completely inferior to the GMO's. Its like telling people to get rid of computers because communicating by mail or telegraph is more personal and makes better connections.
---

Well of course I do
---

yutterh posted...

The natural way is completely inferior to the GMO's. Its like telling people to get rid of computers because communicating by mail or telegraph is more personal and makes better connections.

Oh please. That's still too artificial. Carrier pigeon is the way to go.
---

Unbridled9 posted...

Yes. Since I'm not an idiot and actually know what GMO's actually are. Heck, technically EVERYTHING we eat is a GMO to some degree due to centuries of careful growth and breeding.

---

Being against GMOs is so ignorant. I understand and agree with the right to know what is in your food and how it is made, but GMOs are a good thing
---

People love to bag on Monsanto and don't even realize that like 90% of GMO research is done at universities. Monsanto is just the name everyone knows yet somehow they don't generally even really know much of anything about them.

I'm against the GMOs that are made so that they can be completely doused on herbicides and survive. Guess what? The herbicides still get absorbed by the plant through its root structures and then are consumed by humans in trace amounts.

Consuming trace amounts of herbicides over time have negative health consequences for humans.

Also, Monsanto is horribly fascist when it comes to protecting its IP. Farmers need to buy new seeds from the company and/or its distributors every year, instead of just reusing the seed from previous years.
---

_AdjI_ posted...

Conceptually, yes. However, there's a lot of room for some really shady **** within that concept, including potential major health concerns and a whole lot of financial incentive to cover them up, and I'm not a fan of that. I don't see that as a reason to resist the concept as a whole, though. Just to call for regulations and education to prevent the sort of shadiness that puts people and the environment at risk.

---

yes but not monsanto
---

Unbridled9 posted...

yutterh posted...

The natural way is completely inferior to the GMO's. Its like telling people to get rid of computers because communicating by mail or telegraph is more personal and makes better connections.

Oh please. That's still too artificial. Carrier pigeon is the way to go.

Pfft anything past cave paintings is too modern
---

I'm not sure.
---

I don't freakin' care.
---

Yes; to an extent.
---

Gaawa_chan posted...

Yes because I have a basic understanding of genetics and artificial selection via breeding Vs the much more effective, efficient, and more predictable artificial selection via genetic modification in a lab.

Direct genetic modification isn't necessarily more predictable, actually. Genetics is really complicated, and most genomes are so poorly understood that making changes to the genotype can effect totally unforeseen phenotypic changes. The same can also happen with selective breeding, but generally less so.

Very relevant video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TmcXYp8xu4
---

SomeUsername529 posted...

People love to bag on Monsanto and don't even realize that like 90% of GMO research is done at universities. Monsanto is just the name everyone knows yet somehow they don't generally even really know much of anything about them.

To be fair, part of the hate is for Monsanto's overly aggressive, dickish policies where it sues farmers. Monsanto isn't exactly a saint, although they very generously donate seed and crops to third-world nations.

orlouge82 posted...

I'm against the GMOs that are made so that they can be completely doused on herbicides and survive. Guess what? The herbicides still get absorbed by the plant through its root structures and then are consumed by humans in trace amounts.

Consuming trace amounts of herbicides over time have negative health consequences for humans.

Also, Monsanto is horribly fascist when it comes to protecting its IP. Farmers need to buy new seeds from the company and/or its distributors every year, instead of just reusing the seed from previous years.

So-called organic providers also make use of pesticides, so it's not like you're going pesticide free. And, in the case of GMOs, they can breed immunities which require fewer pesticides.
---