Gyroscopic Investing

stone wrote: Something that interest me about the GMO debate is that I've never personaly come across someone who has a working knowledge of how to genetically modify and yet has these fears about GMO stuff. Does that say something about how "expertise" blinds people to real dangers or does it say something about how wider education is lacking or what?

I think your faith in "experts" needs a reality check. Never in the history of the world have mainstream medical and science experts fully understood the dangers of some their own recommendations. For example...

[align=center][/align]

[align=center][/align]

[align=center][/align]

[align=center][/align]

[align=center][/align]

[align=center][/align]

What exactly makes you think that medical and science "experts" have finally reached a point where they fully grasp the risks of some of their own recommendations?

What do animal's instincts know, that we don't?

This open pollinated organic popcorn is grown on a ridge shielded by trees and protected from cross-contamination from any genetically modified corn crops, far exceeding current USDA organic standards for buffer zones. ... Our farmers tell us that the deer in the area will bypass GMO corn fields in the area and travel great distances to get to this organic popcorn.

MachineGhost wrote: What do animal's instincts know, that we don't?

This open pollinated organic popcorn is grown on a ridge shielded by trees and protected from cross-contamination from any genetically modified corn crops, far exceeding current USDA organic standards for buffer zones. ... Our farmers tell us that the deer in the area will bypass GMO corn fields in the area and travel great distances to get to this organic popcorn.

That's a goofy anecdote, not evidence. Probably deer like having trees around them or whatever.

Nature does not transpose extraspecies or extraterrestrial genes or DNA.  Its as simple as that.  There's built in checks and balances that GE coercively overrides.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiotic_theory
Our DNA has come from very different species fusing together. The mitochondria we have in each cell and that conduct aerobic respiration, originate from bacteria that way back in our evolutionary ancestry fused with our cells and transfered some of their genes to our genome and lost other genes. Similarly the chloroplasts that conduct photosynthesis in plants came about from a transfer of genetic material between wildly different species.

Gumby

What exactly makes you think that medical and science "experts" have finally reached a point where they fully grasp the risks of some of their own recommendations?

You don't seem a total ludite regarding other branches of technology. I just don't understand why this elicits such a total shut down from you.

stone wrote: That's a goofy anecdote, not evidence. Probably deer like having trees around them or whatever.

One man's goofy anecdote is another man's observational evidence.  How many of these "goofy anecdotes" do you have to observe before you realize theres a fundamental problem with GE food?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiotic_theory
Our DNA has come from very different species fusing together. The mitochondria we have in each cell and that conduct aerobic respiration, originate from bacteria that way back in our evolutionary ancestry fused with our cells and transfered some of their genes to our genome and lost other genes. Similarly the chloroplasts that conduct photosynthesis in plants came about from a transfer of genetic material between wildly different species.

That's hundreds of millions of years in the past, not at present and certainly not artificially!  Heck all of human "junk" DNA appears to be related to the microbome.  We are encoded to be 1% shell, 99% bacteria.  Mess with it at your own peril.

stone wrote: You don't seem a total ludite regarding other branches of technology. I just don't understand why this elicits such a total shut down from you.

And we don't understand why you're being such an apologist for crony corporate interests.  Aren't you the one that believes in a post-capitalist Economic Democracy?  Sheesh.

stone wrote: Something that interest me about the GMO debate is that I've never personaly come across someone who has a working knowledge of how to genetically modify and yet has these fears about GMO stuff.

Do YOU have a working knowledge of "GMO stuff?"  You argue as if you were a consultant for Monsanto, Stone.

Most humans do not know how to make artificial modifications to plant and animal genes.  That does not mean we are all ignorant of the issues surrounding GMOs, and it does not mean that our concerns should be squelched for the sake of crony capitalism.  Most people don't know how to design or make clothing, yet they have a voice in choosing what to wear despite this lack of knowledge.  They don't know how to build an internal combustion engine, but they still have credible complaints about air pollution and concerns about Peak Oil.  They don't know how to write computer code, but they still have concerns about gangster hackers stealing credit card numbers from companies doing business online, and about privacy in social media.  

Gumby's point is an excellent one:  Scientists and related researchers don't know all there is to know about their fields, or even all the effects--intended and unintended--of their technological advancements.  With previous technologies, there was some comprehensible tradeoff between potential benefit and potential danger.  That is not the case with GMO technology.  So far, there's been no real benefit, there have already been problems, and there is the potential for some very serious dangers.

MachineGhost wrote:

stone wrote: You don't seem a total ludite regarding other branches of technology. I just don't understand why this elicits such a total shut down from you.

And we don't understand why you're being such an apologist for crony corporate interests.  Aren't you the one that believes in a post-capitalist Economic Democracy?  Sheesh.

Machine Ghost, I'm genuinely also puzzled at how my attitude to this is so at odds with that of you guys. To me genetic engineering is not at all synonymous with crony capitalism. It is just a straightforward application of knowledge in order to provide for ourselves in a more effective manner. You seem delighted by space exploration etc and yet genetic engineering elicits a response close to revulsion. It saddens me because I see it as a technology that holds up so much possibility  for good and yet seems to be being strangled at birth by seemingly (to me) irrational public revulsion.

stone wrote: Machine Ghost, I'm genuinely also puzzled at how my attitude to this is so at odds with that of you guys. To me genetic engineering is not at all synonymous with crony capitalism. It is just a straightforward application of knowledge in order to provide for ourselves in a more effective manner. You seem delighted by space exploration etc and yet genetic engineering elicits a response close to revulsion. It saddens me because I see it as a technology that holds up so much possibility  for good and yet seems to be being strangled at birth by seemingly (to me) irrational public revulsion.

I had a similar beliefs regarding GE in the beginning before I learned about the negative facts over time.  Especially since I viewed all the anti-GE proponents as a bunch of deluded Communist watermelons and Neo-Luddites that never found a Big Business they didn't hate.

I think it comes down to are we going to allow v1 of buggy GE technology to be foistered opaquely on an unsuspecting innocent public or wouldn't it be prudent to wait for v2 or v3 when safety can be irrevocably demonstrated?  I can't help but think of the parallels between the Bikini Atoll or unsuspecting military personnel that were irradiated without their knowledge.

I don't know where you see so much potential with GE.  I don't see that we have any serious situation in the world that GE technology solves.  What is it supposed to offer us other than integrated pesticide factories so far?  The emphasis seems to be on helping everyone make more profit rather than promoting better health and even that is in dispute as it increasingly looks like the farmers are the victim-suckers.  We're not going to overrule physics so we can get a complete meal in a pill, but overruling the laws of nature already has already shown its unintended consequences.  So given the questionable rewards vs demonstrated risks, I just don't see that it is a good bet.

Smurff

Do YOU have a working knowledge of "GMO stuff?"  You argue as if you were a consultant for Monsanto, Stone.

I have never done anything with GMO plants but I do work in biomedical science and genetically engineer bacteria and fish a lot (they never leave the lab except in an incineration bin/bleach). Trying to do biology without using genetic engineering would be like trying to do astronomy without using a telescope.

With previous technologies, there was some comprehensible tradeoff between potential benefit and potential danger.  That is not the case with GMO technology.  So far, there's been no real benefit, there have already been problems, and there is the potential for some very serious dangers.

The first uses of internal combustion engines or electricity were pretty useless. Cars from 1900 were just novelty items of no real use. Electricity had no apparent practical use. Remember the quote from Faraday when asked what use electricity might be
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Michael_Faraday

One day sir, you may tax it.
* Faraday's reply to William Gladstone, then British Chancellor of the Exchequer (minister of finance), when asked of the practical value of electricity (1850), as quoted in The Harvest of a Quiet Eye : A Selection of Scientific Quotations (1977), p. 56

Machine Ghost

I don't see that we have any serious situation in the world that GE technology solves.

What about peak oil, soil degradation, lack of fresh water etc etc. We basically will need to produce enough food, fuel and plastics etc for 9B people from the oceans. I guess that will entail seaweed and some GE schenanagans to convert the seaweed into what we need. BUT of course it probably will turn out to be quite different. One thing I'm certain of though is that we have to think long and hard before strangling at birth possibly the key technology we require.

stone wrote: Gumby

What exactly makes you think that medical and science "experts" have finally reached a point where they fully grasp the risks of some of their own recommendations?

You don't seem a total ludite regarding other branches of technology. I just don't understand why this elicits such a total shut down from you.

Stone, do you really think that people are "Luddites" for avoiding the technological advances of cigarettes, cocaine and heroin?

Really??

Give me a break.

Gumby wrote:

stone wrote: Gumby

What exactly makes you think that medical and science "experts" have finally reached a point where they fully grasp the risks of some of their own recommendations?

You don't seem a total ludite regarding other branches of technology. I just don't understand why this elicits such a total shut down from you.

Stone, do you really think that people are "Luddites" for avoiding the technological advances of cigarettes, cocaine and heroin?
Really??
Give me a break.

I don't see how you have somehow conflated cigarettes, cocaine and heroin with genetic engineering. I do see cigarettes, cocaine and heroin as hazardous and those examples do make me wary of pharmacology. They don't make me any more wary  or genetic engineering than of computors, mobile phones or any thing else that is new.

You don't consume computers or mobile phones. GE and pharmacology are both examples of technology that you consume and therefore require caution.

If my mobile phone has a problem, I wind up at JC Penny instead of Target. No big deal. If my food or medicine has a problem my health is at risk.

How do you not see the difference??

Machine Ghost

I think it comes down to are we going to allow v1 of buggy GE technology to be foistered opaquely on an unsuspecting innocent public or wouldn't it be prudent to wait for v2 or v3 when safety can be irrevocably demonstrated?  I can't help but think of the parallels between the Bikini Atoll or unsuspecting military personnel that were irradiated without their knowledge.

The Bikini Atoll scandal is something to keep reminding ourselves of. I'm just really really struggling to comprehend how genetic engineering could pose a credible health risk. When you talk about waiting for v2 or v3, I can't help wondering about what would have become of electricity or the internet or whatever if they had stayed in the lab. My guess is that almost all of the realization of the potential of those technologies was dependent on them having to cut it in the commercial world.

Gumby says that his objection to GMO is that they are eaten. However how is it different spraying Bt on crops rather than having it produced by the crops? http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1567

organic farmers will use litres of BT spray (BT is a 'natural' pesticide made by the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis), yet they often demonise the genetically modified (GM) cotton crops that carry an inbuilt supply of BT, and which therefore require less spraying.

Gumby even says that he has a blanket objection even if no transgene expression occurs in the parts of the plant that are eaten. What about GM cotton? We don't eat that.

stone wrote: Gumby says that his objection to GMO is that they are eaten. However how is it different spraying Bt on crops rather than having it produced by the crops?

Not sure about you, but I object to eating any pesticides if I can help it. If I can wash it off, that is somewhat acceptable. But for a crop to be a producer of pesticide is a whole different story. Again, it's mind-boggling that you don't understand this.

When we swallow DNA that is designed to produce Bt toxin, there is a potential for bacteria in our intestinal tract to be altered to contain genetically engineered genes designed to produce pesticides. That would make our stomachs into Bt toxin producing factories. This may not be something that happens overnight, but perhaps over many years as explained in the following links...

http://www.naturalnews.com/032800_GMOs_ ... teria.html

http://www.anh-usa.org/genetically-engi ... e-systems/

http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v22/n ... bt934.html

http://www.academicjournals.org/ajb/PDF ... aurthy.pdf

stone wrote:Gumby even says that he has a blanket objection even if no transgene expression occurs in the parts of the plant that are eaten. What about GM cotton? We don't eat that.

I consider the well-documented allergenic responses to GMO cotton to be transdermal consumption of allergens. If the allergens weren't transdermally absorbed, there wouldn't have been any documented allergenic responses. Furthermore, cotton pesticides from GE plants are turning up in water supplies around the world (i.e. consumption).

Again, to compare these issues with the glitches and bugs in computers and mobile phones is a total joke.

Gumby, there is nothing to suggest that any gut microbe has ever expressed Bt toxin from a transgenic plant transgene is there? It is also very much in doubt whether Bt toxin is hazardous to humans. It would provide the gut microbe with no selective advantage to be expressing Bt toxin. Gut microbes live a tough life. Any given individual gut microbe has to compete hard against billions of others. They can't afford to be expressing Bt toxin for no apparent purpose just in order to live out some extended convoluted sequence of "what if" scenarios in order to create problems for us.

stone wrote: Gumby, there is nothing to suggest that any gut microbe has ever expressed Bt toxin from a transgenic plant transgene is there? It is also very much in doubt whether Bt toxin is hazardous to humans. It would provide the gut microbe with no selective advantage to be expressing Bt toxin. Gut microbes live a tough life. Any given individual gut microbe has to compete hard against billions of others. They can't afford to be expressing Bt toxin for no apparent purpose just in order to live out some extended convoluted sequence of "what if" scenarios in order to create problems for us.

(Please) Prove it.

I just gave you four links that suggest otherwise.

You still sound like a scientist from previous generations recommending cigarettes, heroin or cocaine because there was "nothing to suggest" that they were harmful at the time they were being promoted.

Gumby, do you think you could tone down the rhetoric a bit? I find this debate fascinating, but I feel that your combative attitude is a turn-off, despite the soundness of your arguments.

Pointedstick wrote: Gumby, do you think you could tone down the rhetoric a bit? I find this debate fascinating, but I feel that your combative attitude is a turn-off, despite the soundness of your arguments.

My apologies. I will.

Gumby, I realise you are articulating distrust that lots and lots of people have with biotechnology- fair enough.  Your link http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v22/n ... bt934.html is the heart of your concern isn't it? Don't you agree that it claims that a fragment of plant transgene DNA was present in a gut microbe genome? There is a massive gulf between that and the transgene being expressed by the microbe in significant amounts to produce an active protein that gets out into the gut and then harms us. Presumably you mean that this microbe then becomes prevalent in human guts. It is hard work for a bacteria to make and secrete a protein. They need a good reason to be doing it.

I know you don't like analogies but please excuse my saying that we really are in the realms of the movie "Terminator" with this. You prove to me that cookies from you web sites are not going to splice together bits of code so as to turn the whole world's PCs into a self aware, parallel processing, end of days, killer machine.

stone wrote:Don't you agree that it claims that a fragment of plant transgene DNA was present in a gut microbe genome? There is a massive gulf between that and the transgene being expressed by the microbe in significant amounts to produce an active protein that gets out into the gut and then harms us.  Presumably you mean that this microbe then becomes prevalent in human guts.

It's not that it propagates and becomes prevalent. The theory is that years of consumption would eventually displace enough normal bacteria in the gut to begin causing problems. There's a wide gulf between consuming a few meals of GMOs and consuming a lifetime of GMOs. Nobody's ever studied what happens after years of GMO consumption.

stone wrote:I know you don't like analogies but please excuse my saying that we really are in the realms of the movie "Terminator" with this. You prove to me that cookies from you web sites are not going to splice together bits of code so as to turn the whole world's PCs into a self aware, parallel processing, end of days, killer machine.

I can't prove it. In fact, I freely admit that a bunch of 1s and 0s could come together to create a sentient killing machine. You should arm yourself accordingly.

So, now it's you're turn. (Please) prove to me that a lifetime of consuming GMOs isn't harmful.

Gumby

It's not that it propagates and becomes prevalent. The theory is that years of consumption would eventually displace enough normal bacteria in the gut to begin causing problems. There's a wide gulf between consuming a few meals of GMOs and consuming a lifetime of GMOs. Nobody's ever studied what happens after years of GMO consumption.

Your link http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v22/n ... bt934.html actually found that the microbes with the fragments of transgene DNA were pre-existing from before the experiment and so had arisen due to previous eating of the GM soya presumably over an extended period.  These bacteria made up a tiny proportion of those in the gut flora. The authors grew them up under conditions favorable to them and only then did they make up "1–3 copies of the transgene per million bacteria". Why on earth would these bacteria start to displace "normal bacteria"? Selective pressure can cause very rare events to prevail and take over a population but that selective pressure has to be very strong. Otherwise it is just a crazy crazy coincidence. Let's face it, it is merely chance that protects us from spontaneous human combustion. All the heat could transfer from a cool room to our bodies and so cause us to get hotter and hotter and the room to get colder. It is merely chance that means that heat gets transfered more from hot stuff to cold stuff rather than the other way around- there is nothing strictly deterministic about it. When you get to sufficiently implausible "what if" sequences it has to be acknowledged that at some point the freaky coincidences required render something as "not going to happen".

Still waiting on that proof (please).

Gumby wrote: Still waiting on that proof (please).

Surely you get the point that in the real world there are only degrees of implausibility. There is no such thing as "proof" in the real world. My way of "arming myself accordingly" against sentient computers taking over is to see the "accordingly" as not at all since it is nonsense. I also don't worry too much about spontaneous human combustion.