E.U: Leave or Stay? Your thoughts.

I'm guessing this:

 

Which was precisely what I asked about at page 312 post #6233

To which you replied.

At which point I let you know that I would ignore the request, did so at page 312 post #6240


Which brings us to....

I tell you what, since from your perspective everything is GMO, in one way or another, the answer wouldn't matter.

 

Bit rubbish TBH. Promises to satisfy, but turns out to be mostly air and leaves you feeling more hungry than you started out.

 

Is your idea of debate to respond to a question in a childish manner, then when it's ignored as a result, continue to spam a request +20 times?

What prompted my question at page 312 post # 6233 was that I had previously drawn the line with Monsanto, whereas you had said you wouldn't draw yours with apple trees at least. I asked because I wanted to find out if you also viewed everything as GMO, whilst seeing no limitations.

I didn't ignore it because I thought my answer would undermine my position and support yours.

That said.
If your position is that everything is GMO, with no limitations, then any answer I would give you would from your perspective undermine my position.

 

Since no one asked me , I had a bacon sandwich along with a mug of coffee


so hard to answer that question *phew*

 

I approve. You can never go wrong with the classics.

Today I had a nice croque and an Americano in a French-style café.

 

Y'see, there's a fundamental problem with your position here, and it's one that all anti-GMO supporters share. You're against tomatoes crossed with tobacco plants, or plums that taste like lemons, that sort of thing. Except that this isn't how genetic modification works.

Desirable traits from one species/variant are inserted into another, in order to increase disease/pest resistance or to increase crop yields. The point Gareth has already made is that mankind has been doing that for centuries already. We selectively bred plants and created hybrid species to suit our needs. Most of the food that is grown for human consumption did not naturally evolve to be the way it is now: humans usually had their hands on that species' rudder. Do you eat things that have been grown in dirt? Congratulations, you probably eat genetically modified food. All that has changed in the last 5 decades or so is the technology: now we can do it at a cellular level and achieve far faster results, instead of working for decades to get just the right result.

Storytime yo, let me tell you a little bit about Norman Borlaug. One of his achievements was a hybrid strain of wheat he developed. He developed a hardier strain of wheat with higher yields that was easier to grow in Mexico's harsh conditions, but the stems were not strong enough to support the weight of the grain - they collapsed. He cross-bred his strain with dwarf wheat strains which had stronger stems. The stronger stems allowed the plant to yield much more than it did before. He is credited with helping to avoid starvation in many countries and, throughout his 95-year life, saving over a billion lives (one billion, not million). And he did it all through genetic modification (albeit done the "old fashioned" way). What could someone like Borlaug have achieved if he had access to the kinds of technologies we do today? Techniques like CRISPR which are already revolutionising genetic engineering. How many more lives could be saved by simply making it easier for people to grow their own food?

GM crops are not without their problems - usually the hand of greed through instruments like patents. But the principle of genetically engineered crops is so important to the continued survival of our species that it is hard to over-state it's potential. Like it or not if population growth continues the way it's going, then in 30-50 years time we are going to have a serious problem feeding everyone. An all-vegan, all-vegetarian, or all-meat diet alone will not solve the problem.

Now, if you've got a coherent, well supported point to make then I suggest you bloody well do it and stop wasting everyone's time. Your argument so far is basically: "Natural = good, artificial = bad, Monsanto = bad". If you want to discuss this then start your own god damned thread about it and stop hijacking this one. This is the "Serious" subforum and discussions like that are what this subforum exists for - not 7 pages of off-topic poorly argued rambling.

 

Privatizing the very building blocks of life itself is of concern, as for resources they are if anything poorly managed, when it comes to population growth that will eventually reach a breaking point, it has to, the planet can only manage so many people. GMOs might be able to postpone it a bit. Then we have other resources that aren't' finite, eventually is gonna be like trying to plug a leak in a Swiss cheese. We're already busy raping the planet of her resource to support growth in a system that is unsustainable. I believe we have more pressing issues than lack of food at this point (food which is poorly managed) not to diminish the issue.

 

So I suppose you missed the part where I kindly asked you to stop wasting everyone's time? Diversions and tangents are not uncommon in "Serious" threads, but this has gone on for far too long. This has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit, so from now on every time you - or anyone else - posts about this I'm just going to report it.

Start. Another. Thread.

 

Someone get out of bed on the wrong side?

 

It was good of you to bring the thread back on track again.

 

On Topic.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-commission-jean-claude-juncker-a7622726.html

They really wanna keep this thing together.

 

When is May going to pull you out? It's March now and it seems it is still all talk and no Brexit.

 

This whole `sovereignty` thing is getting in the way of Darth May just doing what she feels like

 

There's some reasoning errors there. Yes, capitalism has a way of corrupting science, but that doesn't mean the science in itself isn't sound, or useful.

Second, feeding people is the antidote to overpopulation. This may sound strange, but research shows that in developing countries where people have, like, 10+ starving children per mother, as soon as you increase the survival chances of those babies to an extent that they are certain to get past age 5, birth rates drop like a brick in less than a generation (people behave in a counterintuitive fashion like that. It's why you need psychologists to work them out). Turns out that when parents know that their child is likely to make it to adulthood, they stop having more babies and invest all their resources in the few they have.

So if we want to stop people breeding like rabbits and crashing the ecosystem, we need to: 1. Feed them properly and 2. Give them clean water. They can take it from there.

 

Well, at least it gives her some time to practise her evil emperor laugh:

 

And the EU is going to see her more like Voltar anyway: