GMO FOODS AND THE DAMAGE TO HUMAN BABIES, PLACENTAS & UMBILICAL CORDS

I wasn't advocating that the industry police itself. Just saying that we can't say anything about it's safety with absolute certainty one way or the other in this case. Of course you could easily make the case that we should keep it off the market until the research is solid, but I wasn't really talking about that.
 
faethor said:
GMO doesn't seem to be the problem. More so it's Monsanto business practices.
http://skepchick.org/2012/02/babies-and-bathwater-monsanto/
Click to expand...
Monsanto's business practices are a consequence of the way the laws were written (and vice versa - at the same time). Monsanto got the patent laws they wanted and bamboozled law makers and judges about the nature of life to win cases they should never have won. They hired people to bully non Monsanto farmers, they put genes into their products not to make them better but to create "synergies" with their other products. If what they make just happens to be lethal garbage they will still push it because it is THEIR lethal garbage and it is still profitable. If they take over the entire food industry and it turns out they have pushed old crops to extinction, then even if Monsanto crops are no good - what you gonna eat? But if it hadn't been Monsanto it would have been someone else.

The fact is that getting exclusive rights to food production is as near to business utopia as you can get. The only thing better would be owning air - but there is as yet no effective way to meter and charge for air. What CEO (and what board of directors) would pass up the business opportunity to take the entire human race by the short hairs and squeeze them for everything they are worth (except maybe an ethical CEO and ethical board but in a world of weak laws and absent enforcement then the other word for ethical is "loser")?

Such ventures as creating new GMO food and creating new drugs and mining minerals and developing oil fields are such ventures of strategic national importance that they should be conducted by a government that is strictly directed and monitored by the people it serves or at least by companies that are ruthlessly monitored and if necessary prosecuted by that government - but when the people stop paying attention to governing because they have "better" things to do like; watch TV, catch the game, check the latest music vids on YouTube or any of a million other trivial things - well, if you aren't playing the game then you ARE game. All I can say is that when the overlords are having their feast may my bones stick in their throats and choke the sons of bitches.
 
faethor said:
http://skepchick.org/2012/02/babies-and-bathwater-monsanto/
Click to expand...

On the lighter side, it's nice to see that Rebecca has woken up from her "sciencieness" and realized that there are real world problems with the way science gets used in practice. I know that nerdy science types get too close to the mechanics a lot of the time to see what is going on. Oppenheimer et al thought that the fission bomb was a wonderful problem of physics but running into the realpolitik that other people thought it was a wonderful device of global hegemony gave some of them a nasty wakeup.

You can never divorce science from it's users. When you are doing science you have to set up the political safeguards first and that sort of social engineering is often alien and even annoying to the kind of nerd that is good at doing the fundamental research.

However, I do believe that helping out the pro-woo crowd is not a bad thing. Monsanto has destroyed the trust in science. The more scientists that can stand behind the pro-woo crowd the better. First destroy the common enemy - then build bridges with the allies of necessity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top