The OP’s attitude is exactly why I’m voting against the CA proposition about labeling GM foods. We’d just get OMG the FrankenFruit is going to kill us!! - and from people a lot older than 14. There are some other problems with it also.
I agree about the concern with patenting seed and. We had point source failures (like the potato famine) before GM foods.
It reminds me of the “chemicals are bad” discussion in the '70s. This whole thing is another result of rampant scientific illiteracy.
The frustrating part is that it comes from people who pride themselves on being “pro-science” when they’re arguing with, say, Creationists.
[QUOTE=septimus]
The argument that early man cultivated cereals, cauliflower, etc., therefore GM is good doesn’t pass the sniff test. One might as well claim that if a glass of wine is good, then we should all drink a barrel of whiskey.
[/QUOTE]
Leaving aside your extremely poor analogy, which part of this doesn’t ‘pass the sniff test’ in your mind? Or, to put it another way, what do you see as the critical difference between cross breeding, breeding for specific traits and inter-species grafting/cross pollination and whatever you think that GM is?
If it was good enough for pre-agricultural hunter-gatherers, it’s good enough for me! Who needs this civilization stuff, anyway?
Marley,
I don’t understand your decision here at all about the mod notes. Please note I am not asking for anyone at all to be warned or anyone to be sanctioned or anything like that. But I cannot see how finding out the OP resembles the hypotehtical poster attacked in the posts makes the mod notes less justified. If anything, they’re more justified because it’s obvious they’re an attack on the poster. That’s why I had removed my statement about the OP sounding like it was posted by a 14 year old before I posted my reply.
To the OP, I give you Norman Borlaug, developer of dwarf wheat
This is one of those “stupid liberal ideas of the day” topics.
In other words, Borlaug decided that “natural” was the worst thing on the planet, and rather than letting a billion people die by eating only “natural” foods, he set out to create food that could actually sustain life:
It’s natural to die. Very.
The guy was an unnatural bastard and should be dug up and shot!!
I’ve successfully used Norman Borlaug’s wiki article to silence people whining about GM foods. Many times. The ignorant assholes who campaign against GM foods have caused third-world leaders to turn away free food.
I honestly think Penn and Teller put it best: Unless you and yours are starving, you need to shut the fuck up.
Another classic combination of comment and username. 
Today, a Los Angeles radio talk show host was arguing against genetic therapy for humans – basically, making small changes to mitochondrial DNA to prevent certain nasty genetic illnesses – because, since the method involves swapping in small segments of donated DNA – kids would have three parents! The donors would sue in court to take custody of the children! It means the breakup of the FAMILY! Ohmagawd!
And, yes, he also said that we shouldn’t interfere with nature; if a kid is “naturally” going to have a heart-attack at age 30, how can we “play God” and alter this?
(I wonder if he brushes his teeth?)
Well, Whole Foods is running ads in support of the proposition, and in my understanding Whole Foods is owned by conservatives. But they aren’t supporting it for liberal or conservative principles, they are supporting it because scaring people away from GM foods will drive business to supposedly healthier organic foods.
There is significant opposition from Nobel Laureate scientists - many of whom I am sure qualify as liberals. And of course many liberals support it and many conservatives oppose it. I don’t think this is a liberal versus conservative issue. You can’t say this is an encroachment by government unless you say nutrition labeling is also.
Well, purslane and dandelion (both of which make excellent salads). Many mushrooms, and most seafood. Deer, elk, moose, and bison. Possibly sugar maples-- The long generation time would make selective breeding difficult. Some berries, and some nuts. There are a few natural foods out there, but you’re right that very few people live entirely on them.
You eat bison and dandelion on a regular basis?? I occasionally have elk, but I have a lot of hunter friends…I wouldn’t think that most folks have access to most of your list unless at a restaurant or they have pretty eclectic tastes and large pocketbooks…or really, really small ones.
Cooking food is pretty unnatural, too. Mankind’s been eating the raw stuff for most of our time on the planet.
Of course mankind used to die a lot younger, often due at least in part to poor nutrition.
Nature really wants us dead.
As long as we pop out a few kids before shuffling off, I suppose nature is ok with us living those short, brutish lives before becoming panther chow or dying in any number of other horrible ways (well, in fact I suppose ‘nature’ doesn’t actually give a shit one way or the other if we all shuffle off or a few of us manage to carry on).
Looks like we had better cook it if we want to continue to support our big brains.
Not all of us have them, however.
Sure, let’s abolish GM food - there are too many humans anyway. Let’s get rid of vaccinations, hand washing in hospitals, seatbelts, insulin, antibiotics, chemotherapy, and child car seats, too.
The strongest argument against GM plants and animals is that they are the underpinning to an exploding population.
And, (AGW enthusiasts to the contrary), an exploding population is overwhelmingly our worst environmental nightmare.
If we’re just worried about keeping Gaia as “naturally” self-regulating as possible, we need to get rid of GM foods, let a bunch of people croak from starvation, and get back to basics.
I am not sure this is perceived as the greatest good for humanity (at least in the short term). Too much unrestrained altruism running amok. It’s certainly not the greatest good for any individual starvee.
So it aint’ gonna happen.