Ok this is a huge part of big "S" Science and big "C" Commerce right now. The Canadian government not only gave Monsanto a total laisse fare free ride into this , they won't force label what is genetically altered in our food supplies. Nor foods grown and produced in China for that matter and thats a whole other thread..lol We have a perfect piece of fruit. It's been here either by chance or by God. what ever! who cares how it got here but the fruit is perfect in everyway. why do we need to alter it? Just because we can does not make it the right thing to do. I mean somehow nature has really produced an incredible eco system that supports itself quite well. Everything on the planet was once in a gas like state and came together to produce this planet we live on. so genetics and the surge to alter food. they want to introduce apples that don't turn brown once peeled. why? Europe once banned all seed from Canada and is now lightening up on that ..why? I would like to see the ethics of it all argued here. I would like to see the science of it argued here. I would like to see the necessity of it argued here. I would like to see the disdain of it all argued here.
We're altering it because we can, was there ever any other reason needed? Commercial scientists are making a living, that's good. They are splicing pesticides into our food, that's bad. Growers can provide food to the people without fear of droughts or other seasonal abnormalities, that's good. We are playing God, or at least nature's keeper, by altering a good, natural product to produce a pale, stressed out, less tasty, mass produced version of the lovely food our ancestors favored. That's, I don't know, a mixed bag.
In what way do you consider any given piece of fruit "perfect"? They're certainly not perfect for human consumption in their wild forms but then that's not their primary purpose. Fruit have developed to best propagate the seeds of their parent plant. It happens that, because of some of the features that requires some of them can provide a food source to animals (though lots can't). Every since the early days of farming, millions of years ago, humans have altered fruit and other food plants to make them better for our consumption (though often worse for propagating their species. Many domesticated fruit and vegetables were almost unrecognisable from their wild forms long before the idea of genetic manipulation could even be conceived. There are plenty of valid questions to be raised about GM in itself but on the principle of us altering things to better suit our needs, that's been addressed a long, long time ago.
well not even looking back, but in context i am sure i was defining it before it was altered. why do you challenge posts in such a way. you take a sentence out of context and then try to debate it. it's not even annoying , it's just boring as hell.. like this was some revaluation of yours, what does this out of context set words mean? ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
I still have no idea what you mean by a "perfect" piece of fruit. If there were such a thing, then all other fruit would be, by definition, imperfect. The concept of a perfect anything in nature is objectively absurd. But there are different fruit. Some are very good for us. Others deadly poisonous. And if you had, say, a "perfect strawberry" would all other strawberries be less than perfect if they were not impossibly identical? When somebody proffers me a "perfect piece of fruit" I am in the habit of understanding that they are engaging in hyperbole. But never would I expect to see such silliness in something alleged to be a serious argument. Nature is not Platonic. All of nature mocks the very concept of a platonic ideal; a perfect anything. I am on a mission to civilize. And it begins with confronting bad arguments head on by pointing out the prejudice that frames them. Your entire argument in this (and a couple of other threads) rests on the vacuous assertion that nature is "perfect." As long as you insist on making that assertion, you will continue to be called on it. I take the key sentence that is foundational to your argument, hold it up to the light and address how flimsy it is. If that offends you, then make better arguments. I am under no obligation to amuse you. And so we get to the end of your post and find no answer to the question. Again.
actually i answered you and showed your pseudo scientific ramblings as nothing other than some wannabe science guy with no real science to "It's" claims. the basis for my argument is thus..and this is exactly what i said in context. A piece of fruit was perfect before some corporation decided to genetically alter it. A Salmon caught in a stream 60 years was a perfect specimen of nature and both fed people and animals and kept them healthy . there is no need to alter them except in the sense of commerce. you mission to civilize is absurd if you think genetically altering what is there is the way to civilize humanity …you are not actually civilizing lol anything. you are grasping at something unrelated to the topic. Cramming the thread with arguments to genetically alter in order to civilize the world. wow...
From land to sea, genetic engineering can make a great difference in the food we eat. In addition to corn and other crops, fish have been genetically engineered. They have been modified for two main reasons: to change the rate of growth and to increase resistance to disease. Changing the genetic makeup of fish makes them grow larger more quickly at lower temperatures. These changes make fish more readily available to consumers.
When did, say, the peach become perfect? The wild ancestor of today's varieties of peaches would have been much smaller. How about corn? At what stage from being a rather ordinary sort of wild grass to being what it is today was it perfect? Lets do cabbage / cauliflower / brussel sprouts / kohl rabi? here is what the common ancestor of same looked like before people started selectively breeding (genetically altering them) began. When was that plant "perfect"?
And has been repeatedly observed, the assertion that a piece of fruit is "perfect" is 1) vacuous, 2) subjective, 3) demonstrably absurd in its implications,and ultimately 4) the commencement of a vicious circle. When you begin a premise that flawed, any argument made from it is already unworthy of serious consideration. Changing from fruit to fish does not save an erroneous argument. And if nature had created a perfect salmon at some point in the past, how would one account for any further evolution? It would by definition be making a perfect thing less perfect. How do you reconcile nature changing anything if it has ever achieved "perfection?" Do you honestly not understand what a horrible argument you're trying to make? Ignoring that there is nothing automatically offensive about commerce, there are many legitimate reasons to alter them. You can increase their nutritional value. You can make them more suitable for aquaculture, thus feeding more people. You can make them disease resistant. The potential list could probably go on for several paragraphs. But all that ignores the underlying false dichotomy from which all your silly arguments all seem to arise; that nature is "good" and human intervention is "bad." If there were no need to alter living organisms, then evolution becomes completely inexplicable. Nature sure seems to find it necessary to alter its "products" on quite a routine basis. Then its a good thing I do not think that. My mission to civilize has instead to do with killing irrational arguments, inspiring critical thinking, and raising awareness regarding the profound untrustworthiness of arguments from intuition and inchoate fear. You know... arguments like yours. Please... leave the straw for the dairy cows.
Doc, The produce we see on the shelves today is neither perfect, nor is it the product of nature. What it is, is the result of hundreds, even thousands of years of genetic modification. Here is natures banana Here is natures ancestral predecessor to modern corn. And natures tomato
A couple of things here Doc. It was the domestication through selective breeding which transformed human existence from hunter gatherers to farming communities and subsequently civilization. Corporations and individuals have taken on the continuation of crop improvement. What nature had provided is wholly inadequate to sustain our global population.
thats the con…thats what is being pushed through the pipeline in order to justify the poison we eat. ok so lets back up a bit. My stance is strictly that produced by nature, for nature is perfect. It worked since time beginning here on earth. Now one might say these genetically altered apples that don't go brown anymore is an improvement . Splicing scorpion genes into corn so birds and insects fear it and we can use less pesticides seems like a great idea. Fish genes into apples for longer shelf life, and the commerce of genetically engineering and coming up with newer and better ways to "improve" and make what scientists and corporations now deem perfect…. all this is a far cry from selective breeding and pruning, and grafting trees and flowers to produce new varieties. I mean if you cannot see the difference between that form of agriculture and messing with the actual DNA and introducing through forced science... genes from one species of the animal kingdom and splicing that into the vegetable kingdom…I mean wow…thats why it is called Franken food there is some hormone or something that americans use in their dairy to bypass the periods the cow does not produce milk. It allows for larger yields and cows that produce milk always…the cows suffer due to this…i know a small price to pay for commerce…their teats are damaged…and so on... the dairy products from this are not sold in Canada ..at the cost of litigation from American Dairy boards and NAFTA. We lost the magnesium additive in gasoline and this stuff is burned in cars like lead used to be….we just did not want it burned in cars…they seem to work ok without it…why fill the air with a heavy metal…we lost... Just because science CAN does not make it right… something has happened to food …it doesn't have the same taste and smell in north america anymore. Talking to europeans and they say when they return home they notice how different the taste of everything is. there is this woman i know ,Polish. her kids have auto immune deceases and are sick all the time…she took them to Poland to visit their grand parents….after one month they were no longer sickly…after three months they were entirely well…she brings them back to Canada and it all s happening again even though she feeds them only organic stuff…she is making plans to move to poland… I realize science is god and that challenging it with common sense is non starter…i don;t profess to be a scientist or know science like another poster here seems to try…but i do know what i buy and what it smells and tastes like.. STEAK!!!! the crap you buy at the regular grocery is mealy , chalky to to the feel and tasters awful…i loathe this COSTCO stuff all my family serves… I went to an /american whole foods store and found American grass fed beef….wow…what a delight….in every way…even down to the frying pan being washed…it does;t have this awful smell to it before hand…the frying pan crust leftover does not offend me anymore… bah humbug on genetic engineers. a pox on you...
Try again; Since 1970 Canada's dairy industry has been operating under a supply management system by which supply is matched with domestic demand. In the process of controlling the supply the amount of imports are made predictable through a system of tariff rate quotas. Canada annually allows in a pre- determined amount of dairy products in various categories duty free from the United States, but once the volume limit has been reached (quota), anything over that amount is subject to tariffs of a minimum of 200 per cent and up to 313.5 per cent. - See more at: http://www.thedairysite.com/article...etween-the-us-and-canada#sthash.NIrmNkT5.dpuf
And has been repeatedly demonstrated, you have no rational or objective standard for "perfect." Therefore your argument fails with its first premise.
wow , thanks for the update, i guess another conservative government vermin decided to sell out canada… it's poison …plain and simple… i will have to take the time to figure out what is american and what is canadian…
you feel the need to baffle us with a foggy glimpse of what you think is science and what is perfect and what needs to be perfected.. I'm getting warnings that i am wasting my time trying to converse fairly with you. my experience is you post with some sort of authority ring to what you decide i am saying.
which of course wash;t the mainstay of the post and was just using an example… which of course is just your way of looking for some sort of recognition no matter , hearer have this nice ribbon, if you are so off topic it does;t matter to you.
You appear to be the only one "baffled." Perhaps it's you? Perhaps you should actually try. But begging the question with your premise and then making no actual effort to defend its validity after several challenges, well... that's hardly "trying to converse" at all. Every time I have pointed out that you have no basis for your declarations of perfection, rather than correcting the deficit you whine like a beaten step child and then just do it again. That post was just the latest example. You are arguing in a circle by assuming what you pretend to prove. Do not expect applause. Perhaps you should decide what you are saying then, and defend it rather than wring your hands and run from your own words.
There is nothing natural about the "organic" non-GMO fruits and vegetables and meats you buy at your local farmer's market. They are all products of hundreds or even thousands of years of artificial selection by humans. Worrying about pesticides in our water is rational. Distrusting large profit driven corporations like Monsanto is rational. But there is nothing rational in fearing GMO in itself. GMO saves lives.
