Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Scientific America is Promoting Gmo's

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 12:53 AM
link   
So after casually browsing facebook I stumble across a soccermom which used to be an old crush in highschool posting this. blogs.scientificamerican.com...

It stings a little to see average people actually saying pls shovel this stuff into my families mouth's unconditionally.
Pls help me understand this viewpoint. Is there anyone here on ATS who supports GMO's?




posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Foxy1
 


Gotta love those reputable scientists who never do anything for money, but only seek to tell the truth.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 12:59 AM
link   
The basic idea of GMO's is a good one in my opinion...we just aren't using it well.

I will start trusting them, along with vaccines and pharmaceuticals, the day that our illnesses aren't profitable.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by theMediator
 


I starred your post because of your second sentence, but I am curious what you are referring to about the basic idea of GMO's being a good idea. I'd like to hear your take on that.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 02:34 AM
link   
the basic premise of genetically modified doesnt necessitate that it be forced at the end of a gene gun to cross with another species. Most of us know that humans have been crossing all kinds of similar species for a long time and this is still genetic modification. So in principle there is nothing wrong with this within the bounds of nature. Modern GMO science forces this process to occur in ways that nature would never allow. Obviously what we are dealing with here is a fundamental disagreement in scientific circles as to whether or not its ok to bypass the limits of nature...and many convincing arguments could be made for doing it, just as we skirt nature in many other ways...for example...flight! After all we werent born with wings right?


anyway, the principles behind gmo are natural and sound...with limits. When science starts creating seeds that are resistant to pesticides and contain suicide genes so they are sterile after one planting.....well even the dumbest human on earth would see that as tampering with something pretty sacred.

"duh...you mean me cant plant seed from plant next time??? WHAAAAT?!?!?!'



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 04:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Foxy1
 



I suppose one thing has always masqueraded as something else, often directly opposite what the apparent intention was, to fool people. It was always discouraged as something to be ashamed of if you got caught. In those days there were things more important than money. I think in the late 60's, early 70's when the peace, love and honesty movement lost it's footing, many bastions of excellent repute were sold, no questions asked to new buyers, without the same resolve to avoid corrupt influences. The ethical obligation and presumed integrity, synonymous with the name, went out with the previous owners and changes were made. I think someone at SA sold out the same way those climate scientists were bought. If it has to do with chemicals, pharmaceuticals any and all artificial, synthetic, anything - including GMO products, they have an assortment of names but they are all sourced back to the Rockefeller's. If they can't fight it, they buy it and by now they have a team of "accredited scientist's" telling us whatever they want us to hear.

edit on 9-9-2013 by Loveaduck because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 04:50 AM
link   
reply to post by instigatah
 


Agreed
But there's a big difference between selective breeding or rubbing 2 flowers together of a similar crop to produce a hybrid and blasting fish genes into the genetic code of strawberries

And it's not like its an exact science .........load up your shotgun with genes ..........blast them into the sequence you want to modify........and pretty much hope for the best



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 04:55 AM
link   
The bottom of the article clearly states the views expressed here are of the author ,and not that of scientific American .
I don't know if that's the truth or a get out of jail free card if anyone calls them on it
edit on 9/9/13 by PtolemyII because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


Well I don't really believe in the idea that genetic manipulation is against God, or creation. I don't see the taboo in it.
I mean, should we live in caves because that's the way it was intended?

There is nothing only bad or only wrong in the universe.
If we have the tools and the intelligence to do so, it seems to me, God made everything transmutable.

Genetic manipulation sure is a dangerous thing that we might not have the wisdom and the right objectives to make GMO's positive at the moment, but I'm sure that it is a logically attainable enhancement to manipulating our environment to our needs...and hopefully, to the needs of other living creatures that we share our living earth with.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Boy, I read that article and is the philosophy of the author twisted. He used tactics to say that true concerns had no basis because of lack of proof of a direct consequence caused by GMO. He even went to go so far to say non genetic modification can be much worse than GMO.....Should we be modifying the food by any means is the question. Slow changes in our foods is alright but to quickly add these changes in a few generation is bad. The author knows nothing of what changes gene expression can do. Mostly it is psychological changes, not physical. Is the behavior changes and need for mood stabilization a direct result of changing our foods too fast? Is this effecting our military personnel and our government heads? When will they realize that all food has effects on people's perception. Or is this all intentional to cause a disruption of our society. Who is controlling this thing.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


It is a really scary subject. Man has proven that his ego and drive for power and to play god is strong and it never ends well when we do things like this. Nature modifies genes but it does so the right way, over thousands of years and in harmony with the rest of the world.

It is a dangerous thing to be playing with. Nature's way is safe because it happens so slowly. We have no idea the consequences our actions could have long term. It is not unlike creating a clone just for the body parts so you could live forever, would you do it, does the clone not have the right to life once created.

Hmmmmmm

The Bot



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by dlbott
 


We evolved with nature. We cannot evolve as fast as man is changing nature. We are symbiotic with nature, not above it. We cannot live without certain microbes in a certain precentage in our bodies. Altering the percentage makes us ill. Looking at the big picture is necessary, it makes what Monsanto creates a very big problem. Too much change too fast changes gene expression which causes changes to brain chemistry, mostly negative. Changes in brain chemistry also effect health. To prove GMO guilty of this is almost impossible and their lawyers know this.
edit on 10-9-2013 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
3

log in

join