Adapt or Die!

2012 ,    »  -   55 Comments
Ratings: 6.79/10 from 75 users.

If nature won't cooperate then why not take control. If for example through genetic manipulation you still don't succeed in creating the perfect crop or animal then why just not create one. Currently Australia is the leader in the enhancement of life through genetic modification techniques. In Australia they happily practice techniques that are forbidden everywhere else. But what consequences does that have on the process of evolution by natural selection?

Some say that genetics is nothing more than normal farming techniques with added ingenuity. For ten thousand years farmers have been giving the process of evolution by natural selection a helping hand, as Darwin called it "the process of evolution by domestic selection." In other words they've selected the traits they wanted in their plants and animals by allowing only the choice breeds to mate.

Gregor Mendel discovered that the units of genetics are not fluids but particles. He focused on one plant, the ordinary garden pea, and he remorselessly tracked down the productions of generations when he interbred them. In Australia living on a farm has become a lot easier because of Darwin and Mendel and this has nothing to do with natural selection.

But what are the rights and the wrongs of all this? Philosopher Daniel Dennett thinks that there is no reason we shouldn't tamper with nature. Everything you eat, every bit of clothing you wear is tampered. You could not survive on non-genetically modified diet, you couldn't live without it. The only difference is that now we can do the modifications lot faster, more effectively and much safer. So Europeans have been unnecessary difficult, according to Dennett.

More great documentaries

55 Comments / User Reviews

  1. a_no_n

    The vast majority of anti GM opinion is based purely in superstition and paranoia.

    They use the term Frankenfoods...and it's obvious by their use of this term that none of them have ever read Frankenstein, because the fact that the monster is a vulnerable misunderstood creature that's hunted down by paranoid closed minded villagers seems to go entirely over their does all other forms of rational thought.

    (this opinion was bought to you by me, for free, before the accusations of Shill start getting thrown my way.)

  2. megatron_mcdaniels

    Bovine semen collection and racism in one doc?! Also that man who collects bovine semen aint got swag...he got bovine semen.

  3. FundamentalClue

    You make a good point and I like the way way you used the analogy.
    There is of course real concern about the degree of known control when it comes to genetic modifications. Yes, we have become informed enough to make distinct changes to genetic material, but we are still just in the adolescent stage of knowing exactly how we're changing an organism in its entirety when we do this. So the real concern is actually the release of genetically modified products without the proper testing to understand the ramifications in full.
    One other problem is a beaureaucratic one. The option to patent genetic material is beyond all scope of reason. No one owns life or its constituent parts. The idea of it is absurd and the potential human rights violations and life violations in general are too large to ignore.

  4. Harry Nutzack

    "eating it will change our DNA!!!" "did you grow horns the last time you had a steak?"... a typical dialogue on GMO.

  5. Deborah L. aka O. LaRosa

    What a load of rubbish. GMOs are not like natural hybrids. They are bred to survive even if their genes cause harm and death. Natural hybrids that are not genetically hardy do not survive.

  6. Nicholas Hewlett

    gmo"s are bred to survive and not necessarily live or cause harm and death,

  7. yellowmattercustard

    This documentary tries to go in so many directions it doesn't have the slightest cohesion.

  8. Jerry

    Everyone in the GMO biz says trust me........ No long term testing has ever taken place......except on us in the USA. They don`t want you to know how many products its in for a reason.
    Just think about it. Why would they not brag about their new product being in our food.
    Because NOBODY knows the long term consequences.
    So, the whole trust me, its safe line of shit from MONSANTO does not fly.
    You only have to take a look at the history of these companies to get a understanding of how they function, and what the goals are.

  9. batbrat

    who wrote this mess of a summary to this documentary? not only is it disjunct and the ideas do not flow logically, but it's also replete with erroneous information. clearly, you don't understand the enormous difference between selective plant breeding and genetic modification of an organism. plant breeding does not involve incorporating the genetic material of a distinct species such as a bacteria or fish into a plant; instead, it involves a controlled breeding of 2 organisms of the *same* plant species (or self-pollination of a single plant if the species has the ability to reproduce that way). this procedure may involve breeding 2 cultivars or subspecies of one plant species, but it's still a far cry from the wholly artificial techniques used to genetically modify an organism. grafting is a little different than controlled breeding by pollination, but even then grafting still involves mixing 2 plants that are related. The graft recipient plant isn't forced to accept the graft donor plant part and would only do so if can naturally incorporate the donor tissues as a part of itself. even then, the graft recipient and graft donor plant tissues remain relatively distinct. for example, grafting a red delicious apple branch onto a golden delicious apple tree will yield a tree that grows both cultivars. that is, the golden delicious tree doesn't suddenly become a red delicious tree. on the other hand, genetic modification (also called genetic engineering) involves using a virus and/or bacteria as a vector to insert a segment of DNA from a completely *foreign* species into another organism. for example, a specific gene from fish could be inserted into the gene of a tomato using a virus or bacteria plasmid as a vector. (this has been tested in the lab to attempt producing tomatoes that are resistant to cold temperatures. many fish species are able to "super cool", meaning their cells can survive even in sub 0 C temperatures. this is usually accomplished by the production of "anti-freeze" proteins by the fish cells. scientists have isolated what they believe are the genes responsible for giving fish cells this impressive ability, and they used lab methods to *artificially* insert these genes into the DNA of a tomato, hoping that the cold-resistant trait would transfer to the crop plant. that is, the genetically engineered tomato is expected to incorporate the fish gene(s) into its own DNA so that it then is able to synthesize the fish anti-freeze proteins. these fish anti-freeze proteins are then expected to confer the supercooling adaptation to the tomato cells. clearly, this is nothing remotely close to the process of plant breeding. you could never force a tomato plant to breed with a fish. *EVER*. the only way to get fish gene(s) into a tomato is to artificially force it into a tomato cell. this is NOT the same as growing a field of tomatoes, selecting the plants that produce the best quality tomatoes, and then selectively breeding those plants to ensure that future crop generations produce tomatoes that are of equally high quality. no foreign species genes are involved in this process!!!!!!! the outcome of selective plant breeding = the same plant species you started with but with certain NATURAL traits of the plant being expressed a little more pronounced. the outcome of genetic engineering = a completely NEW and ARTIFICIAL "SPECIES"!!!!). genetic engineering is a dangerous and irreversible experiment that has far-reaching consequences, some of which we are currently unaware and possibly couldn't even fathom. any claims from biotech companies that genetically engineering crops is: 1. harmless, 2. necessary for "solving" world hunger, 3. useful for improving nutrition in impoverished countries, 4. beneficial for growing stronger crops that are pest-resistant and require less chemicals for growing, and / or 5. similar to traditional methods of plant selective breeding, are falsities intend to assuage public concern and to blind the public into complete ignorance. all biotech companies have interests that are clearly vested, biased, and focused on profit rather than any philanthropic venture they may advertise. for anyone to trust the marketing ploys of multinational conglomerates is obtuse and naive. corporations have *never* cared about the "greater good" of humanity, wildlife, or the planet, and they most certainly have never prioritized altruism and compassion above capitalistic success. in fact, the have been wreaking economic, social, political, and personal havoc in the lives of innumerable communities. they have been causing farmers to become financially & personally destitute and yet these corporations claim to care so much about people that they want to eliminate world hunger and abolish malnutrition?!?! if they care so much about humanity, why would they exploit farmers and cause the demise of so many small family farm operations? also, what the heck do you mean by writing "You could not survive on non-genetically modified diet, you couldn't live without it. The only difference is that now we can do the modifications lot faster, more effectively and much safer." ??!?!?! this makes no sense!!! modern techniques of genetic modification were invented in the late 70's and genetically engineered crops have only been commercialized since the late 90's! how did *any* human survive before then?!?! i assume that you are referring to natural evolutionary processes--stating that everything around us has evolved since the beginning of time/from the point at which it branched from its ancestor and became a distinct species, and thus the genetic make up of any organism changes over space-time. while this is true, this is also an irrelevant and moot point if your intent is to defend or even promote the use of genetic engineering. as i explained above, genetic manipulation doesn't speed up the *natural* evolution of an organism. in fact, genetic engineering has NOTHING to do with *natural* evolution via processes such as natural selection, lamarckian evolution, or epigenetics. these latter 3 natural and inescapable processes DO NOT involve the co-mixing of genes from organisms that are in different taxonomic domains, kingdoms, or phyla whereas this is precisely what genetic engineering entails. it would be prudent of you to rewrite this introductory summary and to ensure your claims are accurate instead of perpetuating ignorance of such an important global issue.

  10. Harry Nutzack

    do you really need to produce a wall of text to say "it's different, so it must be wrong"? it's the technological logical next step of artificial selection, which is what produced ALL of our agricultural products, both plant and animal. lemarcism is proven false, BTW

  11. Paul Gloor

    And that is where the whole thing goes to hell in a handbasket ! GM production should NOT be for commercial interest.

  12. batbrat

    you're right that i did write a wall of text, most of which you seem to have misunderstood. genetic engineering is not a "logical next step" to selected plant or animal breeding. it's a completely new and different means of manipulating organisms. selected plant and animal breeding did influence our modern agricultural crops and livestock (as well as our pets), respectively--this is indisputable. domestication and trait selection have affected species evolution, but throughout generations each of those species has remained within its distinct taxon (at least within its own genus, if not its own species). genetic engineering transcends the physical, biological/physiological, and genetic limitations of gene mixing to create combinations that would otherwise never occur naturally (whereas the former methods of trait selection could theoretically have occurred naturally--no cell or genetic manipulation would be necessary for this to occur). in contrast, the irreversible, long term ecological implications of GMOs are unknown and unfathomable. recent studies have already shown that livestock and people ingesting GMOs suffer immunological reactions and have increased incidence of various health disorders. furthermore, it's arrogant and myopic to have an attitude of self entitlement--assuming that just because humans have discovered how to genetically manipulate an organism that we therefore have a right to do so. in regards to your last point: certain tenets of Lamarckian evolutionary theory are actually considered valid, particularly in light of the recent understanding of epigenetic influences on histones, methylation processes, transcription inducers and silencers, etc.

  13. willymayshayes

    The idea of alienation between humans (born or created) was a minor theme compared to the major theme: Dangerous Knowledge. Thanks for your opinion though...

    Fact is Humans continue to apply science that has not been studied well enough and that often creates long term problems.
    In other words nature took millions of yrs to adopt, we are changing it in a few hundred. That is DANGEROUS KNOWLEDGE.

    As Einstien once said " Problems cannot be solved by the level of awareness that created them"

    You say don't be worried and I say you are a fool.

  14. disqus_BU3L0KG7Ko

    Thanks I enjoyed reading your response.

  15. Candace Sturtevant

    A small amount of genetically modified wheat was found in Helix Oregon USA, and all the farmers 'round here were totally baffled at how it got there. It is as though a sin to grow genetically modified wheat in Helix because Japan buys most of the wheat from here, and they don't buy MODIFIED!

    As far as, my DNA growing cells to make a a body part that's going back on my body, I agree with that because it's the same DNA. Messing around with mixing up DNA is as though playing God, and I don't think God "is down" with that sort of thing. Fake is Fatal in most cases.

  16. Harry Nutzack

    please explain to me the irreversible, long term ecological implications of GMO tomatoes, corn, and wheat. or cows and hogs for that matter. do you fear possible cross contamination of "the wild tomatoes"? "free range wheat"? perhaps the "aboriginal cows"?

    your position is ENTIRELY based on irrational fear. the doom you envision has no basis in reality.

  17. a_no_n

    Dangerous knowledge eh Padre? Let me guess, say fifteen hail maries and the sky wizard will forgive me...Do you know how we make science studied? By studying it.

    Superstitious paranoia...thank you for proving my point for me with that comment

  18. a_no_n

    which is totally fair and a justified concern...One that can be addressed with experimantation and study.

    However This is also kind of a loaded argument, because as soon as sterile seeds are produced that can't effect other crops, the producers are instantly accused of trying to "Control our food sources".

    You also say it's absurd to to patent genetic material, why? Do the people that create it not deserve credit for it?
    What human rights would be violated?

  19. Viktor Klouńćek

    Who cares any more about dangers of genetic modification. It is already everywhere. The future is stop eating what we now concider food, get used to cold and heat and accept what is happening, so why waste time debating about dangers of something that is irrelevant. It is like being on a train with one destination and whenever that train stops we get out and see what is around and then continue the train ride. Why not ride the train without stoping anywhere? Fear maybe? Fear is making us stop and talk about stuff instead of doing them.

  20. aam641

    I think that you're focusing on a rather small difference between artificial selection and genetic engineering. Its the final result that impacts the environment, not the method used to produce it.

    (And could you, please, capitalize properly? My eyes hurt.)

  21. aam641

    OK. Nobody knows the consequences of staring into a computer display several hours per day, all life long. Should we ban all computers, and the internet as well, just to be on the safe side? In fact, Coca Cola just changed their recipe, so you better not touch it for the next 30 years, until its long term consequences are properly known.

  22. aam641

    Genes can cause direct harm only to the organism in question. Animals are quite incapable of incorporating genetic material from their food into their bodies. So a gene from corn absolutely cannot directly harm you.
    Genes can cause a plant to produce a chemical substance that is potentially harmful, and many do (we call them poisonous). Genes used for GMOs, however, do not.

  23. aam641

    "Humans continue to apply science that has not been studied well enough".
    This is just an excuse for you personally not being comfortable with it. Do you have a rigid standard for what "studied well enough" means? And if a standard you like is proposed, are you willing to follow through with it, even if it means giving up something you like?

  24. aam641

    These are good points and patents may actually be helpful. In theory, the patent process requires a a full disclosure of what you have done. If it is not described, it is not protected. Unfortunately, this rule has consistently not been enforced, and many recent patents have been allowed to "invent" ridiculously general ideas.

  25. willymayshayes

    That was the message of the book, I didn't write it, it is not my opinion... If you read it you sure didn't get it.

    I'm a science driven person, a pragmatist. Your rebuttal had zero science fact or point worth reading. I'm really wasting my time conversing with the you, but I will say one last time that people have applied science and often enough nature suffers. Long term effects are hard to see. Implementation needs to be controlled in order to minimize the chance of long term negative effects. Harming the earth and the living organisms on it is something that has happened over and over and If you are in need of examples you are more ignorant than I thought.

  26. willymayshayes

    Really it all depends on the possible impact in nature. If many can see the potential danger of something than I hope they speak up.

    It's usually not the benefits of the product that push things along it's the potential to make money. It is this fact that makes me question aspects of genetic modification. I push for the advancement of science (i am a science major) Science is important, but must be used responsibly.

  27. willymayshayes

    You staring at the computer for hours?
    How does that effect me??

    Nice analogy....

    Coca Cola is even better, LOL. Are you seriously using a product that has already been proven to have plenty of negative effects on people?

    I suggest you step back a foot or 2 from the screen and do your mouth and digestive track a favor and lay off the Cola.

  28. a_no_n

    So after the quote when you say: "In other words nature took millions of yrs to adopt, we are changing it in a few hundred. That is DANGEROUS KNOWLEDGE."
    That's somehow not you agreeing with the sentiment, even though you're parrotting it?
    blimey that's some of the quickest backpeddling i've ever seen.

    anyway how would you know about those effects if not for science? presumably you'd just paint with all the colours of the wind and your heart would tell you?

    Science hasn't harmed the earth, People have misused science, Politicians have deregulated the corporations that abuse the science.
    That is in no way science's fault, and your utter ignorance to this simple reality is as big a part of the problem as the corporate abuse.

  29. willymayshayes

    I really don't understand how some people can be so dense. I was never championing Shelley's point of view, I simply corrected your mistaken jest at the term. The Frankenfood term that the paranoid crazy people use actually makes sense you just don't seem able to see it. (Probably because you never read the book) Dangerous Knowledge was the main theme. Sorry if that's too much for you to digest.

    And so now you agree there have been those who misuse science. My point, at last you get it.

  30. a_no_n

    Oh I see!!! I did not realise you were talking about Shelly...the mists are cleared, sorry about that...fair enough.

  31. FundamentalClue

    But full disclosure won't stop a corporation from using their patent any way they deem fit.

  32. FundamentalClue

    Yes and it needs to be addressed before products are given approval for the market. Unfortunately, this is not the case at the moment. Or suffice to say it is not being dealt with as prudently as most informed people would hope.

    Ok, you tell me why someone would want to produce sterile seeds? And I wouldn't see it as "controlling our food sources" as much as controlling profits. But food supply would seem to be a contingent of that.

    Yes they deserve credit, but not control. Patenting gives the recipient a title ownership to the subject of the patent. This, with the continuation of further patenting in genetics, would eventually lead to a corporation being entitled to the majority of a plants genetic sequence, therefore giving them title ownership of the plant; by majority. Understand, the problem isn't scientific progress and what that entails. The problem is the motives... Which is driven by the corporatocracy whose main goals are profit and controlling market share. So I guess it's more about corporate abuse than anything.

    The right to establish in ones' own terms the use of what we can harvest from the earth; would be one violation of human rights. The right to the complete disclosure and transparency of what is known and unknown about GMO's and known harmful or potentially harmful traits, would be another. Then when the market is ready for it, the marketing of genetically modified bio-mechanics for amputees and the like, or harvesting organs for transplants (which otherwise would be a good thing); could spread the fictitious title ownership of life's genetic code to the human genome. That would be where the real trouble starts in terms of human rights violations. Bottom line, whichever way it would be proposed to pass human genetics as patentable, is where the hard line falls. And there is a myriad of other examples and potential pitfalls and hazards to watch out for.

  33. southab403

    I admire the way you write to explain such a multilayered subject. The breadth and depth of your knowledge and feelings come out load and clear.
    I totally understand your concerns about cross genus insertions and agree that Corporations are about the money.
    Thank you for such an informative and well written wall of text.

  34. a_no_n

    well yes, you wouldn't see it as controlling the food source because you're being perfectly reasonable.

    It would be foolish of me to deny any possibility of harm from GMO's...I can certainly see the scope for harm.

    I'd never even considered the possibilities of Geneticly modified organs and limbs...what a wonderful idea forthe kinds of diseases and ailments such thinking promises hope for!

    I think responsible government regulation is probably the only way of properly regulating these fields of industry that would use them...If only we could genetically engineer a couple of those.

  35. FundamentalClue

    Great response!!!

  36. FundamentalClue

    Well yes, and being perfectly reasonable, I do see that the motive for profit, is invariably linked to the increasing control of market share, which in this case would be food. So inadvertently there is a smidge of concern here regarding monopolizing the market - especially considering the commodity in question.

    However, an as large if not larger concern is the unknown factors in genetic engineering. The blunt truth is that science doesn't yet know how an organism is affected in its entirety when genetic modifications are made. What is known is that genetic sequences are correlative and so changing one sequence is the alteration of more than one trait or process. I'll try to find the scientific research article that explains it.

    As far as the limbs and organs are concerned, I believe a number of researchers have been working in these areas for some years now. It's a great feat if when we have the capacity to understand the depth and breadth of what we are doing in context to the changes we are making - and that goes for all GMO's. It will be an astonishing solution for millions, and great overall - so long as no one owns it.

    I agree. I believe the hammer and nail in government regulations lies squarely with corporatations.

  37. Tobias MacRobie

    Selective mutation versus random mutation. While you say selective breeding isn't GM.. I disagree. It's like a cure for cancer.. you won't ever find one because there are cancers. They too are a natural part of natural mutations, but since it isn't your impression of GM, by definition, you imply the goodness of cancers so I assume that you are with me there.

    Mate selection is another key facet, how can we say that we are not making a conscious modification to our own offspring? Because we aren't splicing the DNA of something else into it? Because it is fundamentally created by the inputs? Is it because of the "likeness" of two organisms engaged in creative process? Please, with the use of punctuation and paragraphs, try to reply in less than 3 paragraphs. Thanks.

  38. Tobias MacRobie

    Um.. so you suggest that all GM hybrids survive? I bet their experimental development team must be all-stars with a 100% success ratio! That is unheard of in science! haha

  39. batbrat

    it's unfortunate that your comment is cloaked in sarcasm and derision. anyone who has to resort to using insults in a discussion clearly has a weak and/or erroneous argument and/or doesn't fully understand the issue and/or lacks evidence for her/his position.

    my position is not based *at all* on irrational fear. my position is based on: 1. my knowledge and understanding of biological systems (i'm a wildlife biologist & herbalist with a masters in biology. i've been formally studying zoology, botany, and human health--all of which includes genetics!--for almost three decades. i haven't concocted any falsities in any of my comments on this page.); 2. scientific evidence clearly showing the biological and ecological impacts of GMOs; and 3. a deep concern and respect for the welfare of all life on this beautiful planet we all *share*.

    in response to your points:

    1. "do you fear possible cross contamination of "the wild tomatoes"?"

    A: yes (except there is no "cross" contamination, as the word "cross" as used in this context implies a 2-way interaction. a wild tomato cannot "contaminate" a GM tomato with wild genetic material. it is only genetic material that is engineered or modified in the lab that is a contamination. in fact, it is the wild tomato that contains the original genes--affected only by processes of natural selection & undistorted by humans--of the _Solanum lycopersicum_ species and subspecies.) in fact, there is already substantial evidence that pollen from GM crops have mixed with non-GM crops. this means that the non-GM crops now contain genetically engineered genes! this means that the originally non-GM crop is no longer a non-GMO! this means that genes from GMOs can transfer into non-GMO crops *and/or* wild plants. this means that if we grow many GMOs and release them into the environment, we could lose a tremendous amount of biodiversity. this is hardly a surprise to anyone who knows anything about biology and specifically plant ecology, gene transfer, pollination, sexual reproduction, population ecology, etc., because no environment is a closed system and wind-borne or animal-borne pollen transfer is inescapable, uncontrollable, ubiquitous, and irreversible.

    2. "free range wheat"?

    A: if you understood the meaning of the term "free range", you would understand that wheat cannot be free range. this term only applies to livestock and not plant crops. free range means an animals has the freedom and ability to roam (i.e., move or travel aimlessly) freely (albeit usually within a bounded space such as a bird pen or pasture). that is, an animal that is "free range" does not have restricted mobility (in contrast to livestock that isn't free range and is instead either confined to a tiny cage and/or chained to a wall or post. both conditions imprison the animal and often prevent it from moving at all. this would be the equivalent of a human who is either imprisoned in a cell that is just barely larger than her/his body and/or shackled to a wall with a short chain of approximately 2 or 3 feet in length. most livestock are treated the way prisoners are treated in despotic and/or economically underdeveloped countries. most livestock are treated with the same injustices that people decry as inhumane and deplorable treatment for some persons. but this is another issue.)

    as for contamination with any form of wheat crop, the answer once again is yes. i do fear this. not because i am delusional or ignorantly alarmist, but because it is an inescapable reality. see point #1 above.

    3. "perhaps the "aboriginal cows"?"

    A: once again, you are remiss in your insulating comment. in your opinion, what is an "aboriginal cow"? are you speaking about cows or are you extending your slander to denigrate Indigenous Peoples? if the former, then my answer is: currently, there are no GM cows out to pasture. if the latter, then my answer is: you are far more ignorant and bigoted than i had originally realized. & that is unfortunate.

  40. Harry Nutzack

    for someone so well educated, you certainly miss the obvious.

    ALL my examples are plants or creatures that have been steered by artificial selection into examples that are no longer co-fertile with ANY wild organism (with the possible exception of pigs). there is no "danger to the environment", there is only potential danger of genetic contamination of agricultural products. now, once again, how is that ANY danger at all? if the genetic modification didn't make the GMO tomato poisonous, how could the pollen of that organism possibly cause the non-GMO tomato to become so?

    your ONLY point is "it's been altered, so it MUST be dangerous". you offer no proof of ANY danger, only vague innuendo of "some animals, and some people, in some studies, had vaguely defined reactions". were the animals compared treated EXACTLY the same, aside from the GMO feedstock? were the people compared treated EXACTLY the same, aside from the GMO food? how large were these studies? were they double blind? what EXACTLY were the "immunological reactions"? what EXACTLY were the "health disorders", and how much did they "increase"? NOBODY has ever answered those inquiries for me, and you have ducked doing so.

    why should i take YOUR innuendo any more seriously than that of those who spew forth about the dangers of "chem-trails"? YOU claim danger, PROVE IT. so far, you have ONLY offered up "i believe this is dangerous, so you should too". obviously much of the continent of australia holds an opinion on the subject that is completely divergent from yours, why should i take YOURS as gospel, and theirs as worthy of rejection?

  41. Olivia LaRosa

    Perhaps you should read my comment again, Mr. Scientist. There is not even the implication that all GM hybrids survive. You can use someone's else's comments to misinterpret in the future, thank you.

  42. Tobias MacRobie

    Ok, so I'm confused. You said, "GMOs are not like natural hybrids. They are bred to survive even if their genes cause harm and death." If you want people to understand what you mean that you don't say, then perhaps they wouldn't misinterpret what you do say should you simply say what you are trying to convey. Lol! Thank you for permitting me to comment according to your assertions. My liege. *grovel /scrape*

  43. disqus_KaGdwj0Fv8

    You have the patience of a saint, a saint of science.

  44. ShamelessLakerFan

    Just to clarify the title, or rather the cliche, every species that has ever lived on this planet has adapted, most are extinct. Adaptation is a reaction to present conditions, a gamble that the present is more important then the future. It is also the only means of change for a system based on cause and effect. Humans can do something different, we can plan. So, plan or die. Adapt if you don't care about the final results and just want to 'do something'.

    Also, Batbrat is right, and anyone complaining about a 'wall of text' is being an i*iot... Do you have any idea how much you would need to read to make an informed decision on genetic modification? No you obviously don't, because your scared of words and complain about 'walls of text'. Seriously if you can't read the mans thought's and understand them YOU HAVE ZERO ARGUMENT.

    I don't care if the TeaParty said you waz smartz n stuffs. Your a total dips*it if you are complaining about volume of written material in regards to cellular biology, genetics, industrial agriculture or any of the many other areas of scientific research that contribute to this issue. That you believe those that tell you its simple and safe (Faux News) is due to your gullible nature, which is a product of your ego and inability to accept your own intellectual limitations. you are right wing America, determined to never accept the world is any more complicated then you yourself can explain while drunk.

    Face palm, and turning off the computer. I am so sick of you people.

  45. ShamelessLakerFan

    So by your argument, the lack of information is a clear indication of their being no danger? Logic much or is it always based on what your emotions need to believe, vs reality?

    Also, you never offered 'examples' you vaguely mentioned generically "GMO tomatoes, corn, and wheat. or cows and hogs for that matter".

    Faux news smart is not enough on the actual internet, Brat is ripping your short paragraph knee jerk cliche corporate responses you get from right wing media to shreds. Its rather hilarious. Don't stop making a fool of yourself on my account though, by all means continue.

  46. ShamelessLakerFan

    Actually, what you should do is first understand that was a ridiculous analogy. You have no idea what your talking about. A better analogy would be, many chemicals, and many materials used in various industries have been recalled after causing birth defects, chronic fatal illnesses, and many other horrible things. Not just on a small scale but in tens or hundreds of thousands of deaths.

    Your entire statement can be translated as "I am ignorant and scared, and my 'go to' reaction for that is denial".

  47. ShamelessLakerFan

    The fact that 'giving up something you like' is such a radical concept to you, pretty much sums up how we are going to go extinct.

  48. johnBas5

    It's thinking, not awareness or level of awareness.

    "The world we have created today as a result of our thinking thus far has
    problems which cannot be solved by thinking the way we thought when we
    created them,"

  49. aam641

    For every chemical that caused 1000s of deaths, I could give you 100 that did not. Even in complete absence of information, it's not 50/50 whether a new product will be the next asbestos. And there is a plenty of information saying that GMO as a technique does not have any such problems.

    Is it possible to unintentionally create a GMOs that will have negative effects on health or environment? Definitely! Should the technique be banned based on the unlikely chance that something somewhere may go wrong? No!

  50. Gerard Pavlovich

    As soon as I saw this link, I knew the real entertainment would be in the comments. The anti and pro GMO camps incite cyber riots with the best of them. The extreme positions taken in many of the point, counter point sessions, that you'll see in threads such as these, are no different than the absurdity found in the rhetoric of our politicians, as well as their respective mouth-piece "news" organizations. And, as usual, reality lies somewhere in between the rabid, screaming faces of the true believers.

    The anti GMO folks see the technology itself as an almost blasphemous, and certainly dangerous perversion of nature. Before they bother to really try and understand the technology, their phobia has already compelled them to gather the villagers, pitchforks, and torches to burn the motherf--ker down. They'll tout their "research", and mock your "brainwashed" perception if you disagree with them. In fact, how dare you? They have degrees in Youtube AND Google, so don't you ever question their authority on the subject.

    The pro GMO folks will insist that the scientific method is infallible. That peer review processes keep any manipulation out of data collection and test results. They see all scientific advancement as progress, and anyone who suggests caution as an illiterate barbarian. Their belief that all scientific institutions are only interested in things that benefit humanity is just as silly as the anti camp's belief that all scientific institutions exist only to enslave and destroy us all.

    The truth is that, like any technology, it can be used in positive, progressive, beneficial ways, or it can be used as a tool for destruction and oppression. The key is to embrace the technology with strong regulations. Monsanto is clearly a bastard, but they aren't the technology itself, and they don't represent the only way it can be used.

  51. terrasodium

    so really a gene gun is just the same as a BB gun, only instead of acidentally having your eye shot out by not respecting the gun , one of them removes the eye before it can be taken out, It looks like the wild west all over again first to draw patenting on splices maintains the standing after high noon, but I get it , it's all just harmless exploration right?
    Edit, you do know that all regulations are precursers to monopoly, state monopoly by proxy.

  52. Justin D. Whitehead

    As opposed to the international Corporate monopolies that already exist? lol... Adam Smith's theory of economics made sense in the wake of the monopolies of mercantilism, but it doesn't hold up today. The monopolies have just switched from state-owned to privately owned and are still just as dangerous.

    I would suggest doing more research into the massive groups of companies that are owned by a very small group of umbrella corporations. Also your point regarding regulations and monopolies is just nonsensical in light of the facts.

  53. ShamelessLakerFan

    The reality is all species adapt and the far greater percentage that have existed are extinct.

    To survive as a species the organism must find a stable niche in an existing ecology and use less then or equal to the existing renewable resources. To expand to every available finite resource (coal, oil, natural gas, charcoal in some areas) will prolong survival but eventually ensure extinction. To negatively effect the environment lowers the species chances of survival.

    Planning consumption needs against reliable renewable resources is the only way to create the prospect of indefinite success as a species.

    As far as our ability to manage the temptation of profit over the safety margins of genetically modifying biology, we have not successfully avoided negative long term results in most every industry due to profit margins. Genetic modification as anything more then experimental science, i.e. for profit, is far to premature to not shift things very negatively in respect to reliability of these crops. A GMO corporation gains nothing from a crop being better surviving long term generation to generation for the individual farmer. Their is no logic or reason in hoping that a corporations modification of a crop will allow more farmers to grow more easily over multiple generations, and help humanity survive.

    Adaptation to exploit finite resources one after another is a low form of adaptation and the historical example is 100% extinction rate. To modify renewable resources to be finite such as some GMO crops being made sterile is purely for profit and reduces the species chances of survival enormously. That is the reality behind the cliche 'adapt or die'. The truth is 'Plan consumption carefully. If you are going to experiment with your essential resources do it very cautiously, or go extinct, likely very painfully'.

  54. TruThBTold

    HaHa!! I love you!!

  55. DustUp

    Harry Nutzsack and a_no_n are premium examples of arrogant ignorance and lack of investigation passing as superior thinkers. The lazy minded will go for the easy dig when marched off at gun point to dig their own grave.

    If you listened to the statements of the person who began monsanto then you would know that is exactly what they are after, control of the food supply just like they had gained a fair measure of control over the energy supply or DeBeers over diamond supply (otherwise the super plentiful diamonds would be very cheap). monsanto seed tech means you have to come to monsanto on your knees for seed every year rather than keeping your own fine strain for seed which gets wiped out by monsanto pollen infecting the rest, by design. Suppose they decide there are too many lazy minds?

    Further, why not investigate WHAT modifications they are doing which can cause you harm?
    Or is that too difficult for the rose colored glasses ego centric they wouldn't do me harm or govt would protect me type world viewers? So automatically they can't be doing anything bad, right?
    In corn the genetic Mod is the addition of genetic pesticide which eats out the guts of the corn bore pest. monsanto claimed it was totally safe for humans. FDA let is pass like they do all sorts of killer drugs until the company sells enough to recoup its investment then takes it off the market. How did monsanto know their franken plants were safe without feeding it to humans? They didn't, they flat out lied. Now we have all sorts of intestinal disorders such as leaky gut syndrome, much higher rates of diabetes(which has more causes than just sugar), lots more asthma and allergies, etc. Are they all scientifically "proven" to be caused by GMO? Extremely difficult to claim unless you take a bunch of children, have a control group fed non GMO food and the rest the GMO (internally pesticized) "food". All other inputs identical. Keep doing that for several years. Who is going to volunteer their kids for that? And if they did, they could have them taken away by the socialist super statists for over subjecting your kids to known harmful foods (the question is, why don't you know it?) However, since you haven't forced proper labeling you technically don't know you are eating GMO so then presumably okay to feed toxic food to your kids... For those whose brains haven't been eaten out by GMO yet they may take the unscientific but logical leap that if pesticide eats out the guts of insects, that it just may cause you damage over time, especially when young and growing or older and less active. And I'm sure you feel all snuggy in your cotton pesticide clothing too. I have no idea what they did to make their franken plants resistant to glyphosate(roundup, an herbicide of monsanto). However, I'm sure it is good for you too. cough cough.

    Does the brain trust understand what causes disease including cancer? Toxins and microbes. Pesticide is a toxin.

Leave a comment / review: