G.M.nOpe.. It's our future... Let's take it back.. optus. GMOs aren't dangerous. At all. You know how corn and apples are nothing like they were a few hundred years ago? That's because we selectively bread them to have
Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #3 - retardedboss (09/21/2013) [-]
GMOs aren't dangerous. At all. You know how corn and apples are nothing like they were a few hundred years ago? That's because we selectively bread them to have the qualities we wanted. That's exactly what we're doing now.

Monsanto, on the other hand, can suck a big fat dick. They purposefully bread the plants not to produce futile seeds so that farmers have to continue to buy from them. That's a ******* dick move.
User avatar #4 to #3 - threadz (09/21/2013) [-]
You want grapes with seed in them?
User avatar #5 to #4 - retardedboss (09/21/2013) [-]
Grapes is one thing. Making them seedless has a purpose. But when they make it so corn or wheat or other staple crops cant reproduce it just ***** over the farmer.
User avatar #6 to #5 - threadz (09/21/2013) [-]
If they don't do that, they will go out of business within a couple years tops. Computer companies make new computers for when your current one becomes outdated or breaks. Is that being an asshole too? How about clothes companies making more clothes?
User avatar #7 to #6 - retardedboss (09/21/2013) [-]
You kind of have a point, but the thing is, it's somewhat unbroken ground. Can you own a specific gene or genetic makeup? Saying anything either way sets precedence for the future when we start messing around with human genes.

But going back to your analogy, you can use a computer for more than a year. sure the newer one will work better, but the old one will still work. Same with cloths. But a seed? that's a one and done deal. If you were to extend your analogy to crops then they should still be usable, but the next one would be better/more efficient.
User avatar #8 to #7 - threadz (09/21/2013) [-]
Well crops are not computers, which is where the analogy breaks down. Many flowers will not survive the winter and must be replanted each year. Hence why gardening is an ongoing hobby. Is that the fault of the companies which grow the flowers? If they could make them survive the winter but didn't would that make them assholes? Or would it make them people who still want to have a job in a few months and who made the practical decision to ensure continued business?
But I agree with your position on owning genetic makeups. ****** going to have massive implications in the not too distant future.
User avatar #9 to #8 - retardedboss (09/21/2013) [-]
Right, which is why this is such a weird position.

They would still make money though. While farmers would still be able to grow last years crop this years would be improved and offer greater returns IF they were doing their job right. As it stands now farmers have to buy new seeds every year whether they're satisfied with the product or not. I'm not saying that a company shouldn't be about making money, I'm just saying there are ways to go about it that are pretty high up on the "not-cool-O-meter". Not to mention all the lawsuits they get into with farmers who try to get around using their product. I don't remember the specifics so feel free to take this with a grain of salt or two, but I remember watching something about a farmer who got sued for trying to re-use seeds.

Back to the genetics side though, If you haven't read "Next" by Micheal Crichton, I would highly recommend it if you are interested with the whole moral grey area of owning human genes.
User avatar #10 to #9 - threadz (09/21/2013) [-]
You can only make food so good at growing before it becomes a completely different food, or stops being food and becomes a nutrition pellet.
But they shouldn't be suing farmers for messing with their legally acquired seeds. They own the seeds, they can do what they wish with them. As long as they don't reverse engineer and start selling them or something like that.
User avatar #11 to #10 - retardedboss (09/21/2013) [-]
The laws and ethics on this stuff is so grey, and that's what I'm trying to get at. No one that makes laws really knows what's going on, so they have pretty much free reign to do what they want (a problem a lot of emerging technologies have). We are treading new ground and if things don't go quite right it could be really bad.
User avatar #15 to #3 - fantomen (09/21/2013) [-]
They essentially make people pay a license to use their strain of plants.

Imagine the world in 30 years You'll probably be able to buy pirated copies and clone seeds on the black market.
Piracy will take new forms that we haven't even imagined yet.
User avatar #16 to #15 - retardedboss (09/21/2013) [-]
That kind of stuff is what makes them bad. ******* patented genes is gonna make for a ****** future. But I think we shouldn't have to worry about it too much cause of some supreme court rulings.
User avatar #17 to #16 - fantomen (09/21/2013) [-]
I'm a pretty hardcore capitalist, so it sounds weird for me to say this, but I think current copyright, trademarks and intellectual property laws are holding society back and need to be re-written.

If smaller businesses and private individuals had more potential for profit, they would be to put money into research and development (probably along different lines than the big old corporations) they could help advance our science and understanding of biology and genetics. It would be like with computers. It was not always IBM that made the big breakthroughs, it could just as easily be the sweaty nerd working on hobby project in his basement.

Likewise the laws stating you can't own objects in space likely delayed commercial space travel and space industry for at least 50 years. With a very limited chance of serious profit there is little motivation for people or businesses to sent people or machines into deep space, or to develop new technology.
User avatar #18 to #17 - retardedboss (09/21/2013) [-]
Agreed. It's not odd at all. Just because you believe in a system, doesn't mean it isn't flawed in it's execution. Our lawmaking system is a bit flawed as it is now because the older generation that makes the laws don't know enough about the things they're regulating.
User avatar #12 to #3 - SuitUp (09/21/2013) [-]
Just a few points on Monsanto:
- They hold a patent on a biological mechanism by which they COULD make plants infertile. They do not actively use it and have pledged not
- Farmers have to buy from them every year not because the plants are infertile but A. they are contractually obliged to and B. You get diminished returns from 2nd gen GM foods.
- It has been commonplace to contractually oblige farmers in this way for years, and the same clauses are used by non-GM seed suppliers.

There are reasons to dislike Monsanto, but the infertile seed reason is a myth (And one that sadly hampers GMOs through bad publicity.)
User avatar #13 to #12 - retardedboss (09/21/2013) [-]
Fair enough, I will admit when I have been misinformed. But people get their panties in a bunch about GMOs when really they should be worried about the patenting of genes (which I think isn't actually much of an issue anymore because I remember the supreme court ruling it unconstitutional, but I could be misremembering that).

There is nothing wrong with their product, I just don't like the way they do business.
#24 - razerdude ONLINE (09/21/2013) [-]
that is a arm not just a hand
User avatar #14 - silentscreams (09/21/2013) [-]
Uh, that's not how genetically modified organisms/foods work. I hate seeing **** like this, please educate yourself before you make ******** advertising like this.
#19 to #14 - trashmaggots (09/21/2013) [-]
It's a joke. Does anyone really think we'll grow extra "workable" arms? Geesh.
Sadly, the real way GMO's and GE Seeds screw us is with tumors, infertility, and cancer. It's beyond Nature's demands. In 3-5 generations from now the human population is going to be getting one of it's first major side effects from these drugs.
User avatar #20 to #19 - fgtometer (09/21/2013) [-]
[citation needed]

inb4 Seralini
User avatar #23 to #19 - silentscreams (09/21/2013) [-]
Wow, nevermind, I wrote my original comment based on what I had learned in one of my classes. They failed to mention, however, that while it can be useful it apparently has the ability to **** with anything ranging from aging process to your organs...
User avatar #21 to #19 - silentscreams (09/21/2013) [-]
Well obviously the extra hands is just a humorous representation of the harm that they're claiming GMOs can cause to a person. However, isn't genetic modification simply splicing DNA and taking out a specific gene, then placing that gene into a plant's DNA so that it'll contain the chracteristic of that gene? How would that be harmful to a person?
User avatar #2 - dafuckisthisshit (09/20/2013) [-]
its one of those advertising tactics. its intentionally screwed up so u will remember it.
User avatar #22 to #2 - fgtometer (09/21/2013) [-]
No, it's satire on the topic of the biggest bandwagon in the activist world...
User avatar #1 - lordscooby (09/20/2013) [-]
mother of god
 Friends (0)