Pope Francis Slams GMOs and Pesticides for Destroying the Earth's 'Complex Web of Ecosystems'

[bananas]

http://ecowatch.com/2015/06/26/pope-francis-pesticides-gmos/



Pope Francis Slams GMOs and Pesticides for Destroying the Earth’s ‘Complex Web of Ecosystems’
Lori Ann Burd, Center for Biological Diversity | June 26, 2015

Pope Francis’s encyclical didn’t just cover climate change, he also denounced pesticides and genetically engineered (GE) crops, declaring “the spread of these crops destroys the complex web of ecosystems, decreases diversity in production and affects the present and the future of regional economies.”

<snip>

The Pope observed that pesticide use “creates a vicious circle in which the intervention of the human being to solve a problem often worsens the situation further.” He said, “many birds and insects die out as a result of toxic pesticides created by technology … [and this] actually causes the Earth we live in to become less rich and beautiful, more and more limited and gray …”

<snip>

Like Pope Francis, I believe protecting the Earth is our moral imperative. With this encyclical, the Pope reminds us that our fates are intertwined with all species, and calls us to action.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

1. When I want to hear about science...

I always look to the mouth of religion.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

4. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

wise words

[skepticscott]

20. Saying them doesn't make them true

They try to sound profound, and pretend to be self-evident, but saying that "science without religion is lame" is just unsubstantiable horseshit. Science has no trouble getting where it goes without the slightest help from religion.

[villager]

27. And posting the word "horseshit" doesn't mean that science in the service only of profits, and

...devoid of all ethics, is somehow "above" the very fray it helps cause.

[skepticscott]

48. Science never serves only profits

Not even when that's the intention of those employing it. And science has no ethic. It tells you what can be done, not what should or must be done. Ethics have to come from outside science, but religion has zero claim to be a useful source of ethical principles for the secular world. Religion can't even keep its own house in order in that regard.

So yes, I'll stick with my original label.

[villager]

50. Kind of a naive fella for all your "skepticism," aren't ya?

n/t

[skepticscott]

52. Accusations are easy and I dismiss them

I don't pay attention to people who can't back claims and accusations up with facts and logical arguments.

Try again.

[villager]

71. Accusations must be easy, since you freely make so many of them

But, you are free to keep on with your faith-based posts.

[skepticscott]

81. You're the one who injected personal insult and ad hom

into this exchange, not me. Point that finger squarely at yourself.

[villager]

90. Says the one who first used the word "horseshit?"

I think we need to be skeptical about your veracity, Scott

[skepticscott]

93. There's a difference between insulting

an unsubstantiated claim and insulting the person who makes it because you can't attack the claim itself. You do grasp the distinction, don't you? Or can it be that you truly don't? If the latter, you might not want to embarrass yourself further by admitting it.

You, on the other hand, seem to prefer personal insults to evidence. First you call me naive, then a liar, in response to zero personal insults directed at you.

Any other ad homs you feel like flinging?

[villager]

96. So, *your* patronizing insults are okay, but it's just other people's insults that are the problem?

Not very objective of you, is it?

[skepticscott]

97. Any time you'd like to resort to facts and logic

go right ahead. I said nothing about your personal insults directed at me until you accused me of doing what you had implicitly approved of by doing it yourself.

Feel free to substantiate Einstein's claim with an actual non-fallacious argument. Though I'm not holding my breath that you'll make any better attempt than your friend.

[villager]

100. I started by mentioning that your initial sneering -- which is how you enter any dicussion here --

(replete with the word "horseshit&quot doesn't make the claim any less true, either.

It's an observation, mainly that one needs ethics and a larger context, for science. Science can give us Polio vaccines, and it can give us the horrors of nuclear weaponry (which may yet be the death of us).

When such discussions arise, you are usually emotional, caustic, and entirely non-objective in your own replies. You are also free to disagree with those words, of course, but you can't actually "disprove" them with your beloved facts, either.

I'm just asking you to grow up a little.

[skepticscott]

105. The claim is not true by default

And the burden is not on me to show that it's "less true". The burden for showing that it's true lies solely with the one making it (a burden not met by simple declaration). Neither you, SoLeft or Einstein have met that burden, or even attempted to.

And yes, sometimes claims are so silly and self-serving that they deserve to be sneered at and insulted. Especially when they keep being advanced despite always being debunked and NEVER substantiated.

Scientific discoveries are simply tools. All tools can be used for good or ill. How they are used may require ethics, but that has nothing to do with the claim being advanced, which is that religion is somehow necessary for ethical behavior and that, without religion, science is hobbled. A claim that stands as unsubstatiated horseshit, no matter how much that word bothers you.

Prove me wrong. Prove that the ethics science needs can only come from religion. And please don't waste my time with more deflections and evasions. Present the evidence in your next post or be honest and admit you can't.

[villager]

107. It's a philosophical obsevation, borne out by much 20th century history.

Your attempt to browbeat the thread into agreement with your own emotional response to it doesn't make it less of an insightful observation for the rest of us.

[skepticscott]

120. Fail.

The claim "science without religion is lame" is borne out by NOTHING in 20th century (or any other) history. As a "philosophical observation" it's horseshit, regardless of whether it validates what some people desperately need to be true. And so sorry that you consider requests for actual evidence to be "browbeating".

You were offered the chance to substantiate that claim, and to show that whatever ethics science needs MUST come from religion. You failed miserably. As I knew you would. Instead of facts and logical arguments, all you had was to lamely point at stuff "out there" somewhere. You've offered nothing in this thread but tone trolling.

We're done here. No more time to waste on you.

[villager]

124. Well, "science without ethics" would have been better phrasing

Note that I'm not really interested in "chances" granted by your own particular holiness, however.

Your emotional overreactions to these threads are a bit much, but you are, to be sure, a consistent fellow.

[skepticscott]

135. Well, be sure to tell Einstein when you see him

that he phrased it wrong. Nice to see that you're shifting the goalposts from what was actually (and indefensibly) claimed to what you think should have been claimed. A tactic of exquisite intellectual dishonesty. Feel free to admit that you were wrong any time, and to let So Left know that what they posted was horseshit.

And just so you know, the only emotion you inspire is amusement.

[villager]

137. Like a dog worrying a bone, you can't let it go.

But then we knew that about you, along with the rote predictably of your over-used-I-can't-actually-converse-with- anyone-here "ROFL" smilie.

Good luck with the condescension, the tone-deafness, the imperious postings (which I guess makes you feel better?) et al.

[ladjf]

103. Honest science follows where ever the proven evidence points. nt

[bvar22]

152. Science never serves only profits!!!!

Maybe in undergraduate school, but once you are out, the only door open is the Commercial I(industry....and they are ALL about profits.

[skepticscott]

156. Well, that and universities, government research facilities

and a host of other non-industries.

And even when people are trying to generate profits through science, they are also generating knowledge and understanding, otherwise there's nothing to make a profit off of, now is there. Or did you fail to consider that rather obvious point?

Seriously, next time you try being snarky and condescending, you might want to trying being right first. I've dealt with enough uninformed, thoughtless drivel in this thread. Don't be more of that.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

36. Einstein said it - but most of what he said ...

was HS - right?

What do you know about the real skeptics?

[bvf]

43. I believe you went a-Googling

for Einstein quotes. I don't believe you understood the gist of the essay. In fact, I don't believe you've even read it.

Please quit wasting everyone's time.

Thank you.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

56. It seems to me that your belief system has some problems

Senior seminar - Einstein's book Ideas and Options

Your response shows clearly that your mind jumps to unfounded conclusions - seems that you are the one wasting time.

[skepticscott]

63. In your Post 57 it was Ideas and Opinions

Apparently you never even got around to reading the title.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

64. Do you have anything to add?

All I have seen is silly higgery pokery -

Show some smarts - what do you think he was presenting?

[skepticscott]

44. Einstein said it...therefore it must be true..is that your argument?

Because he was a Famous Smart Person? "Real skeptics" know that the Argument from Authority is fallacious, dude. Einstein was far from being right about everything (e.g. quantum mechanics) and he had no evidence to support this particular claim. Neither do you. It just sounds superficially appealing to people who desperately need to argue the need for and the legitimacy of religious belief.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

57. Dude?

Name three of the "great" skeptics.

You seem to to lack their understanding of the term.

Read Ideas and Opinions then get back to me on what you think about Einstein's ideas and opinions.

Knowledge is a good thing.

[skepticscott]

58. Nice try at deflection, dude

Part of skeptical, critical thinking is recognizing flawed and falacious arguments. Go look up Argument from Authority and get back to us.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

60. Deflection???

We are talking about A quote by Einstein. You seem very unwilling to seek an understanding of what he has to offer.

Wow! Love me some of your style of critical thinking...

[skepticscott]

66. My style of critical thinking requires actual evidence

rather than "It's true cuz Einstein said so!!" So far, you've offered none..just a book you don't even know the title of.

If you want me to exert myself intellectually, you'll have to do much better. Right now, you're boring and lame.

Try again.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

67. I have seen people who have no intellectual foundation...

What do you think he was offering?

[skepticscott]

68. Yawn

We're done here. Go waste someone else's time.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

70. You have shown that you can not name even one...

philosopher in the skeptic line of reasoning - might consider changing your name

no need to yawn - I saw that you were asleep at your first post...

[Joe Chi Minh]

119. Well, that wasn't Einstein's style of critical thinking. He once pointed to a drawer in a table

at his patent office, and said that that was his research department. The same patent office in which he looked through a window at the sunlight beaming down and mused on a man sliding down a sunbeam, which led to rather more pedantically ratiocinations of a technical nature.

Francis' criticisms of GMOs will not go down at all well with the corporatist 'deep state'.

Incidentally, when asked what criterion he adopted in choosing his hypotheses, he said it was aesthetic: beauty - which, itself, is hardly the most accessible quality to study via empirical science.

[skepticscott]

121. What you're describing is not critical thinking

but scientific creativity.

Try again.

[Joe Chi Minh]

126. Sorry. Critical thinking has to result in positive thinking or it will remain sterile.

Don' bother to try again. I don't think you're quite up to critical thinking, never mind affirmative thinking. Back to the school-room for you.

[skepticscott]

134. Nice try...but incoherent

Critical thinking does not have to meet your Power of Positive Thinkin' requirements.

Thanks for playing, though.

[Joe Chi Minh]

171. My pleasure.

[bvf]

74. Hmm...

"Name three of the "great" skeptics."

Let's see...

1. The Amazing Randi

2. Emil Faber (thanks for the hint on that one!)

3. George Stefani (a kid I grew up with who refused to believe in the Toilet Monster, despite everyone's efforts to convince him otherwise)

Figure out that title yet?

[SoLeftIAmRight]

75. So...

you have nothing...

[bvf]

77. I beg to differ.

I'm having a great time here.

Wait! The guy who used to follow Uri Geller around on the late night TV talk show circuit showing how he bent spoons with his giant brain and explaining that gummed up watches could be fixed by the heat emanating from the tubes of early TV sets.

What do I win?

[SoLeftIAmRight]

78. So very very sad...

In the great shadow cast by your wisdom an Einstein quote is dimmed with the banal.

[bvf]

82. No, I don't think it was Einstein,

as he was dead long before Jack Paar's Tonight Show took to the airwaves.

There, there. Don't cry. You're entitled to be wrong once in a while...

BTW, how do you--personally--pronounce "banal"?

[SoLeftIAmRight]

85. you are so silly

bye

[bvf]

92. You are, of course, familiar

with what Einstein said about those who turn tail and walk away in the midst of an earnest argument, right?

Google away, if you have the nerve.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

104. earnest argument?

you are so silly

[bvf]

109. You just can't help yourself, can you?

Pity that. An hour spent on Google looking for something right under your nose. My work is done here, unless you have something to add, which you obviously don't.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

110. Work?

Wow - that is what you call work?

Hope you did not strain your brain

[bvf]

113. Here, let me show you how it's done,

since you seem to have trouble with even the simplest of words:

Bye.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

114. Trouble?

only with Tribbles

The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.

[progressoid]

172. Wise words? I'd go with "fatuous aphorism".

[SoLeftIAmRight]

180. Like I care!

I am sure that you know better than Albert - any words of wisdom that you would care to share?

[progressoid]

182. He also called religions "childish superstitions"

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

183. and your point is?

???

[bvf]

181. ...

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

7. The Pope worked as a scientist before going into the seminary.

He didn't take all of the graduate studies that many scientists do, but he was trained and worked in science.

Maybe you should have kept quiet and merely been thought a fool, rather than lining up with Rick Santorum to foolishly bash his science credentials and proving it.

[appalachiablue]

8. Good for the Pope! He studied chemistry I think.

[vlakitti]

21. YAY!

[bvf]

25. I had a computer science professor

who believed the earth was 6000 years old.

So the pope has the equivalent of an associate's degree in chemistry. So fucking what? He's still a homophobe and an idiot for refusing to recognize the benefits of contraception.

He really rocks that pope hat and those loafers, though.

[cprise]

30. I happen to agree with Francis this time, but this last move proves

...that the Vatican is desperate to take up just about *any* progressive cause that will attract their former flocks back to the church... EXCEPT anything that looks like feminism and reproductive rights. The patriarchy is the core Catholic identity and the rest has become negotiable.

Either that, or he is still on a mission to distance the church from the corrupt Ratzinger who approved of GMOs (and child molestation and wealthy influence peddling).

[bvf]

34. Desperate, yes.

The patriarchy is the core Catholic identity and the rest has become negotiable. 

This says it all. All the leper-hugging, foot-washing, and lip service in the world won't turn that around.

[Cal33]

47. You can believe that this Pope is wise enough to have consulted with

the appropriate scientists before making such a statement.. There are
universities run by Catholic priests in Italy, too. This has nothing to do
with Catholic Church doctrine.

[bvf]

51. All Frank had to do was pick up a newspaper and

understand that 97% > 3%.

Not much wisdom called for.

[Cal33]

112. That would have been a lazy man's approach. Pope Francis, I believe, is one who

sincerely believes that his church needs real change - and very badly. He is thorough in whatever
he does. Two years ago he hit the ground running, and hasn't stopped since.

[bvf]

117. He is thorough enough

to have retained seasoned PR that tells him what is safe to say in a flailing effort to stanch an alarming bleed of monied followers, while at the same time remaining able to ignore the simplest, surest way to reduce humanity's demands on the environment.

Plus (bonus!) gays still go to hell.

Wake me up when he says condoms are OK, women can enter the priesthood, and all the shuffled-about pederasts in roman collars are behind bars, or well on their way. I may then give a listen, but not a minute before.

Thus far all he's said is that puppies are adorable, and "Hey! Look at me! See any red shoes? I didn't think so!"

"Thorough," my ass.

[Cal33]

140. Believe it or not, the Pope's powers are quite limited. There are many things he

cannot touch: the area of doctrines, for example. To make any changes there
he'd have to get the whole Church involved. It would be comparable to making
changes in our Constitution of the United States. He can't simply dictate it all
on his own.

[bvf]

159. Thanks for the lecture.

This former catholic of 30+ years thanks you for telling him nothing he wasn't already well aware of.

But let Frank utter "climate change," and "Hallelujah! Now we'll see some real change around here!" goes the chorus.

Sorry he can't take time away from encouraging overpopulation and the spread of AIDS to "get the whole church involved."

Does catholic doctrine dictate the reassignment of pedophiles, btw?

[Dr Hobbitstein]

53. Actually, I line up with actual scientists.

Not politicians or religious figures.

An AS in chemistry does not a scientist make. In the meantime, science supports GMOs.

I shouldn't HAVE to note this every time, but here goes: GMO =/= Monsanto. GMO =/= RoundUp. Supporting GMOs does not mean supporting either Monsanto or RoundUp. I support the science, not ONE of many practitioners of it.

[Cal33]

46. You really don't think that the Pope does not consult with his science experts

before he makes such a statement, do you? There are universities run by Catholic
priests throughout the world, including Notre Dame and Georgetown here in the US.

[upaloopa]

76. Seems the use of the laughing smilie

has some form of special meaning these days.
To me it it looks like the poster is trying to demonstrate some level of intellectual superiority.
It is a stand in for real discussion.
A put down of sorts.

[Joe Chi Minh]

123. So Galileo, Newton, Copernicus, Pascal, Lemaitre, Planck, Einstein et al

are out with the washing as far as you're concerned. I see....

[Dr Hobbitstein]

141. Uhhhmmm....

You list a few people who were shunned by the Catholic church (one, in fact, exiled). I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. Did you possibly miss that my statement was sarcasm?

I'm opposed to religion weighing in on science and people accepting it as factual.

[Joe Chi Minh]

163. Of course, you were being sarcastic. Hence my response. You atheists

seem to have no shame that the record of great paradigm-shifting, atheist scientists is so vanishingly sparse. Only the power and wealth of the multinationals keep the atheist, university professors in their jobs, now that Evolution has been comprehensively destroyed piece-meal. If you want to learn about that, follow 'Uncommondescent.com'.

Shunned or not, those scientists were not just average believers, but what today would be termed 'religious nuts' - not least Galileo, who was only prevented from becoming a priest by his father's considerable power. Nor is that list by any manner or means exhaustive, although it does comprise the biggest names. Well, I should have mentioned the great mathematical genius, Kurt Godel, who proved mathematically that mathematics could never delineate a complete picture of everything, the so-called theory of everything or TOE.

[progressoid]

164. uh, wtf? "Evolution has been comprehensively destroyed piece-meal"

"

[Joe Chi Minh]

173. Are 'liberal' and 'progressive' terms that are meant to be the exclusive preserve of atheists?

'Liberal', I could understand, but not 'progressive'. Anyway, cheer up. Atheists are all over Christian forums and blogs. In fact, they seem to be a protected species.

[progressoid]

179. Again, WTF?

I didn't mention atheists.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

167. You sure you're in the right place?

The fundamentalists hang out at Free Republic. Evolution has been destroyed? You make me laugh.

[Joe Chi Minh]

174. '“Charles Darwin said (paraphrase), ‘If anyone could find anything that

could not be had through a number of slight, successive, modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.’ Well that condition has been met time and time again. Basically every gene, every protein fold. There is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in a gradualist way. It’s a mirage. None of it happens that way.
– Doug Axe PhD.

Moreover, away from Darwinian rhetoric, the fossil record itself is certainly not one of gradualism:'

... taken from post #3, at this link:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-robust-defense-of-intelligent-design-in-a-liberal-catholic-mag/#comment-547651

You may find this interesting, too:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/what-really-scares-the-new-atheists/

[bvf]

178. Since we're all going a-Googling (it's the latest rage!)...

http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2010/05/8-douglas-axe.html?m=1

All the kids are doing it!

[bvf]

176. Gödel demonstrated

quite rigorously that creativity would forever remain an essential component of the realm of mathematics.

Earthshaking, yes, but having zero to do with a "theory of everything." Try to keep up, will you please?

[skepticscott]

177. No, you should have mentioned that

the great mathematical genius, Kurt Godel, proved mathematically that mathematics could never delineate a complete picture of everything in mathematics. Because then that would have been accurate.

And please don't make us give you the fundy treatment on evolution. The notion that evolution has been debunked has no place on a progressive website.

[djean111]

2. Oh, he is in trouble now!

There was an Reddit AMA with a Monsanto scientist on Friday. My 20 YO grandredditor told me the gist of it was that the Monsanto scientists were pure of heart, but the management and shareholders were the Evil Roy Slades.

[Alkene]

14. My first research position...

was, among other projects, under contract to Monsanto to map the rice genome.
I'm not proud of that, and given infinite vocational possibilities I would have done otherwise.

I remember the Monsanto representatives as lab auditors- their corrosive presence wafting through the laboratory like the persimmon vapors of boiling aqua fortis.
And those eyes- soulless, "lifeless eyes, black eyes, like a doll's eye."

[cprise]

31. That is interesting...

Would like to look that one up!

[djean111]

42. here is the link - I would love to know your take on it -

https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/3b6mr4/science_ama_series_im_fred_perlak_a_long_time/

[libodem]

3. Very appropriate criticism

Good for him to speak out about the tinkering around with the handiwork of god.

[Dont call me Shirley]

5. Thank you, Pope Francis

Here come the Monsatan supporters in 3-2-1...

Already here.

[arikara]

28. Ooops... they were even faster than you

check post #1.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

54. GMO =/= Monsanto.

I support GMOs, I do not support Monsanto.

Everything is not black and white.

[Dont call me Shirley]

79. Gmos need roundup. Roundup is the point of the Pope's point.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

83. GMOs do NOT need RoundUp.

A small portion of GMO crops are "RoundUp Ready" (ie, they are resistant to the chemicals in RU). The vast majority of GMO crops are not, and do not use RoundUp.

Everything is NOT black and white. One can support GMOs while disapproving of Monsanto and their business practices.

[Dont call me Shirley]

86. They are destroying the natural diversity, they're like kudzu-takeover.

That's another point the Pope made.

Gmos are bad, no matter how you try to dress them up in lipstick and a pretty bow or handsome tie, they are bastards.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

88. Golden Rice

http://www.goldenrice.org
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice

Tell me again how all GMOs are bad.

You're opposed to RoundUp and Monsanto. Monsanto is not the be-all-end-all of GMOs. They are but one player. They do not make all the GMOs, and all GMOs are not bad. In fact, most are good, and are NOT harmful to the environment. BT-ready plants are far superior to RoundUp Ready. BT is a natural pesticide, used in organic farming. It occurs naturally in some plants and the soil. GMO BT crops produce this pesticide, in smaller concentrations than one would use with organic farming.

[Dont call me Shirley]

91. Bullpucky!

[Dr Hobbitstein]

111. OK.

[progressoid]

165. Insulin is genetically modified

[Dr Hobbitstein]

168. I think this one is deliberately obtuse.

Either that or too biased to even consider anything other than their own opinion.

[Dont call me Shirley]

170. Ditto...

[cprise]

33. He is setting up the church for a glaring contradiction Re:

...birth control and overpopulation (Monty Python's Meaning of Life stated it quite well). But I will cautiously thank Francis in this case; hopefully the church will see that issues are interconnected as well as life forms.

Picking and choosing a progressive agenda is even more difficult than picking a conservative one. The former has a much better cohesiveness and consistency than even many supporters realize; The more the pressure mounts and foggy thinking dissipates, the more common interests are (re)discovered by various progressive causes.

[Dont call me Shirley]

169. It would behoove churches to begin to preach birth control for the salvation of our species

Let's see if Francis has the guts to do it.

[bvf]

175. He doesn't.

See #140 for hilariously lame apologia.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

6. Poison the insects and you poison or starve all of the smaller animals that eat them.

Poison or starve those animals, and you poison or starve the larger animals that eat them.

You can't simply wipe out a critical link in the ecoweb and expect it to have no effect on the rest of the chain.

[Enthusiast]

12. +1!

[jeff47]

69. Which doesn't require genetic modifications.

DDT was and is quite effective at what you describe. Doesn't require any genetic modifications.

One approach that does require genetic modification is to have the plant produce Bt toxin. Bt toxin is commonly used as a pesticide in organic farming. The GM version means far, far less Bt toxin is dumped into the environment. The organic version requires spraying a much larger quantity all over the field.

Genetic modification, like all tools, can be used for both good and evil.

[cprise]

129. Organic use of Bt doesn't give it chances to reproduce

...and establish footholds at points in an ecosystem where there is little or no adaptation (resistance) to it. The risks of this *kind* of genetic engineering -- agricultural products from low in the food chain that inherit all or most of the potential to reproduce quickly -- are comparable to geo-engineering.

Genetic modification, like all tools, can be used for both good and evil.

Its more a matter of greed and negligence, IMO, pushing nasty technical shortcuts and expensive parlour tricks on the environment where the old "better living through chemistry" bandwagon is no longer acceptable.

[jeff47]

143. That boat sailed 10,000 years ago.

The plants we now call "carrots" and "corn" and everything else in the supermarket are utterly unlike the wild plants we domesticated. The only difference is it took us longer to genetically modify those plants.

The risks of this *kind* of genetic engineering -- agricultural products from low in the food chain that inherit all or most of the potential to reproduce quickly -- are comparable to geo-engineering.

You mean like we already did for thousands of years? Golly, the planet must be destroyed by now.

Also, dumping lots of Bt toxin on fields all over the world has far more of a "geo-engineering' effect than a plant 'getting loose'.

Its more a matter of greed and negligence, IMO, pushing nasty technical shortcuts and expensive parlour tricks on the environment where the old "better living through chemistry" bandwagon is no longer acceptable.

Again, it depends on what you are engineering. Golden rice isn't a nasty technical shortcut. RoundUp ready is. Both are genetically modified.

Not to mention "genetically modified' is a bizarre definition. Bombard a plant with gamma rays and see what happens. That's how we made red grapefruit. Didn't require testing, and can be sold as "all-natural". Dump a chemical mutagen on watermelon and control the breeding of the subsequent plants, and you get seedless watermelon. Again, "all-natural", no testing. But having precise control of the genes instead of random radioactive/chemical change is the dangerous approach?.

Drawing the "line in the sand" at "GMO" makes no sense. If the problem is chemicals like RoundUp, then go after chemicals like RoundUp.

[bvar22]

144. ...and THAT is the problem with GMOs.

As you said:

"You mean like we already did for thousands of years?"

NO, not like WE did for thousands of years, but as nature did for thousands of years.

Nature has its own proctectors (Fail Safes) in place. Since it takes thousands of years for evolution or "genetic selection", each natural generation will be a small variation of the original that has to be sustainable and reproduce on its own. Most of the time, there is no detectable variation.

Another "Fail Safe" nature has in place is that two species can't cross breed unless they are the same species, and relatively close in size, constitution, and growing limits.
If nature makes a mistake, it gets zapped by nature before 1 generation.

GMO lobbies are trying desperately to connect what they do with nature's Natural Selection....and that is the BIG LIE.

I can put a Salmon and a Tomato in my barn overnight, and those two will NEVER share genes.
GMO is something NEW, not at all like Natural Selection.
(You can even see some of that propaganda in THIS thread.)



GMO has NOT been tested by our FDA or USDA, but was approved by our politicians under a Grandfather clause...because it looked like the original, so our politicians (NOT our scientists) approved its use,... and because the Monsanto lobbyists filled their pockets with money, and also have captured the USDA (Tom VIlsack) and the FDA (Micheal Taylor).

Before I approve of GMO. I want to see a 20 year, peer reviewed study published in a credible Scientific Journal.
Remember....Monsanto brought us Agent Orange, and those problems and cancers didn't show up for years or decades, and it was also declard "SAFE" by Monsanto & our government.

Let the testing of GMO begin under fool proof containment conditions by independent sources.




[font color = red]

NOTE (for the bees):
Bt, which was also mentioned upthread, kills soft bodied larvae.
Bees begin their life as a soft bodied larvae.
Do NOT spray bt during the daytime (when bees are active), but after dark,
and do NOT use the Bt powder which can be picked up by a bee and carried back to the hive.[/font]

[jeff47]

147. No, nature did it for 4.3 billion years.

Humans showed up and started manipulating plants 10,000 years ago.

Nature has its own proctectors (Fail Safes) in place.

Nope.

The oxygen now in our atmosphere nearly wiped out all life a few billion years ago. It's a toxic waste product from photosynthesis, and was deadly to almost every lifeform on Earth when cyanobactiera started dumping it into the atmosphere.

There was no "failsafe" or other protections. Lots and lots and lots of things died. A few things figured out how to withstand oxygen. And much later figured out how to use oxygen in respiration.

Since it takes thousands of years for evolution or "genetic selection", each natural generation will be a small variation of the original that has to be sustainable and reproduce on its own. Most of the time, there is no detectable variation.

Until humans showed up.

What is natural about grafting one apple tree onto another apple tree? It's how every single apple in the supermarket (and "all-natural, local organic farmer's market) is grown. Where's the tiny step in cutting off the top of one tree and sticking it on the bottom of another?

Another "Fail Safe" nature has in place is that two species can't cross breed unless they are the same species, and relatively close in size, constitution, and growing limits.

The creatures known as Mules say "Hi".

Also, there's lots of bacteria that breed across species boundaries, thanks to things like the F' plasmid.

GMO lobbies are trying desperately to connect what they do with nature's Natural Selection....and that is the BIG LIE.

There are many big lies involved. Some are being told by "GMO lobbies". Others are being told by "natural food" companies.

GMO is something NEW, not at all like Natural Selection.

How is bombarding pink grapefruit with gamma rays until it grows red grape fruit not "NEW"?

How is dumping a chemical mutagen on watermelon, causing it to produce 4 copies of its DNA instead of 2 not "NEW"?

GMO has NOT been tested by our FDA or USDA, but was approved by our politicians under a Grandfather clause...because it looked like the original

And here's where the "natural food" people are lying to you. People producing GMO crops have to demonstrate that the crop is not nutritionally different from the "natural" crop. Thus there is actual testing and FDA and USDA approvals.

But gamma rays on grapefruit? No testing. No approvals. Sell it as all-natural. Chemical mutagens on watermelon? Again, no testing, no approvals, sell it as all-natural.

Heck, I could use traditional hybridization techniques to combine nightshade and tomato plants. And I can sell it immediately. Sure, nightshade may mean the fruit is poisonous, but I can sell it. As all natural. And organic.

If lack of testing is your fear, you need to be worried about much more than just GMOs.

Do NOT spray bt during the daytime (when bees are active), but after dark,
and do NOT use the Bt powder which can be picked up by a bee and carried back to the hive.

Even better, have the plant make a much smaller concentration of Bt that can not get on the bee. Because it's inside the plant's tissues, not dumped all over the plant's flowers, nectar or pollen.

Oh, the toxin also lasts for much longer than one day. So doing it at night isn't terribly helpful.

[bvar22]

148. Oh....and can Mules reproduce?

Didn't think so.
They are incapable of existing on their own.
Nature's "Fail Safe" at work....and you can't even see it.

Believe it or not, donkeys and horses are very, VERY similar (You apparently have no experience with either or you wouldn't have brought up this ridiculous Red Herring). NO problem with the mechanics of reproduction. Yes. We can do that,
but it is entirely different from Gene Splicing and creating a very new, invasive, form of life
that is protected from nature's wisdom, and forced on the environment.

I can put a tomato and a Salmon in my barn overnight,
and there will be NO gene sharing. a lab is necessary to create that new life form.

That is all I'm going to address in your treatise,
but ONE GLARING piece of BULLSHIT is all I need to trash can the whole thing,

THE BIG LIE from the GMO supporters.

Gene Splicing = Natural Selection

[font size=4]BULLSHIT[/font]



As for the bees, they have no interest in Broccoli, Cauliflower, Cabbage or like veggies.
They will not be attracted, or gather pollen. Selective spraying at night WILL make it possible for a honey bee to land on the Cabbage the next day without picking up Bt in its pollen bags.
The spray, which has dried, poses no threat to the bees, while the powder is very persistent, and can be collected by Bees for weeks in their pollen bags if they just stop for a little rest.

We keep healthy bees.
We KNOW.


I have challenged you to provide long tern, peer reviewed research, published in a Scientific Journal, on the safety of GMO. Why have you failed?

[jeff47]

151. I chose mules because people know what they are. People who didn't take much biology don't know

what the F' plasmid is.

They are incapable of existing on their own.

So's the plant we call "corn". Without humans, those giant kernels on giant cobs would fall to the base of the parent plant. Where all of them would compete for nutrients, and none would get enough to reproduce.

THE BIG LIE from the GMO supporters.

Gene Splicing = Natural Selection

BULLSHIT

The big lie is claiming that is what I said.

Another big lie is claiming that farmed products are from natural selection. They are from artificial selection. Humans picked plants that can not survive without human intervention, thus completely thwarting natural selection.

Thus your claim that traditional farming is just like natural selection is actually completely false.

My actual claim is GMOs are another form of artificial selection.

Selective spraying at night WILL make it possible for a honey bee to land on the Cabbage the next day without picking up Bt in its pollen bags

Take a moment to think about how Bt is used. It doesn't kill pests only when it is sprayed. It kills pests for some time. For that to work, Bt has to still be on the plant when the pest eats it. Meaning it gets on the bees too.

Just not enough to kill the colony.

Wouldn't it be better to put the Bt inside the plant, where it only affects insects that actually eat the plant?

[bvar22]

154. DO you have any experience with Honey Bees?...

...or did you pull that right out of you ass like everything else you have posted in this thread.

We Keep Two Healthy Colonies of Honey Bees, and grow a good bit of our own food.
We KNOW what works.

If you are going to grow cabbage, cauliflower, or Broccoli, use the spray at night after the Bees have gone to bed.
The spray will dry, and will NOT be carried back to the hive in the very specialized Pollen Sacks on a Bees hind legs, like the powder will.

They guy above doesn't know what he is talking about.

[cprise]

150. Indeed

We are finding out there are genes that not only help repair DNA, but which also regulate the type and scope of genetic changes that are allowed during reproduction and even from horizontal gene transfer. GE bypasses checks and balances that exist in cellular reproductive processes.

GMO lobbies are trying desperately to connect what they do with nature's Natural Selection....and that is the BIG LIE.

That is not the only one. They liken genetic code to computer code (so its a simple matter of selecting desired features in a computer) when the reality is that an organism is much more complex than just its DNA. The idea that DNA describes the whole organism is a false dogma that the GE industry has helped propagate. The emerging field of proteomics says otherwise but GE advocates ignore it the way they do Ecology... they are slipping into the domain of pseudo-science not unlike followers of Lysenko.

[cprise]

145. That 'breeding is just like GE' line got old in the 2000s.

The carrots and corn you cite are by themselves low risk to the environment *because* traditional breeding manipulates natural processes; it doesn't cut severely across the grain of nature the way genetic engineering does. Traits that are wildly inconsistent with an organism's ecological niche are not economically attainable with breeding (hence, the 'need' for GE).

Being dismissive of the risks doesn't help your argument, and this is just nonsense:

You mean like we already did for thousands of years? Golly, the planet must be destroyed by now.

Also, dumping lots of Bt toxin on fields all over the world has far more of a "geo-engineering' effect than a plant 'getting loose'.

Yes, industry terms are 'bizarre' and everything is really the same as everything else. Hence, billions of dollars are spent to develop GE techniques. And the "climate is changing all the time" so stop bellyaching about greenhouse gasses.

A is normal, so A*1000 and A+X are fine.

Golden rice isn't a nasty technical shortcut.

How do you know?

That's how we made red grapefruit. Didn't require testing, and can be sold as "all-natural".

That's a strawman, because 'natural' is unregulated. It doesn't mean anything on a product label.


I'm not drawing a line at genetic research or even genetic engineering. I'm drawing a line at the mass production and environmental exposure aspect.

GE firms are not reserved in the application of their techniques; at least the frivolity of GMOs is on the rise. They are not grappling with the Precautionary Principle and insist on self-administered, minimal testing of products. They are even blind to the fact that their own products continue to rely on cross-breeding efforts to maintain their levels of productivity. This is why people like me are against GMOs in the supermarkets, but in favor of other forms of biotech like reparative application of stem cells; The former are dressing up a pattern of greed and derangement simply as "science" the same way the nuclear power and chemical industries did in the past.

[jeff47]

149. Yes, it does "cut severely across the grain of nature"

Corn can not replicate without human intervention. Those giant cobs with tons of seeds means the following generation will be attempting to sprout all from one, small pile at the base of the parent plant. Where none of the seeds have enough room or nutrients to grow into a viable plant.

Every apple sold is grown on a tree where the bottom half is one plant, and the top half is another. That's quite literally "cutting across the grain", because to top of one tree is cut off and stuck onto another.

"The old ways" of farming are not nearly as benign as you seem to believe.

Golden rice isn't a nasty technical shortcut.

How do you know?

Because of what it is. It's rice that produces vitamin A. It was engineered by a non-profit to combat malnutrition among the extremely poor of the world.

Where's the shortcut?

That's a strawman, because 'natural' is unregulated. It doesn't mean anything on a product label.

Yes, it was entirely the word "natural". It was not at all an example of agricultural techniques that are not GMOs that radically alter the plant.

I'm not drawing a line at genetic research or even genetic engineering. I'm drawing a line at the mass production and environmental exposure aspect.

Then you're around 8,000 years too late.

We have been genetically modifying the hell out of plants and animals for a very, very, very long time. We have been dumping the results haphazardly on the environment. We have been using risky processes like monoculture. And we did it long before we even knew what DNA was.

You are insisting it is now dangerous because you appear to not understand just how radical "traditional" techniques alter the plants and animals they are used on. You treat them as safe and settled, despite the fact that they have all the dangers you fear from GMOs and have zero testing instead of at least having the minimal testing GMO products must face.

Why does bombarding a plant with gamma rays require no testing of the resulting mutations? It isn't GMO, because it is completely and utterly imprecise. We have no idea what happened to the plant.

If we are going to address the problems you are concerned about, we're going to have to start with reality and not the fears used to market "natural" products.

[cprise]

158. A word about reality

I'm not drawing a line at genetic research or even genetic engineering. I'm drawing a line at the mass production and environmental exposure aspect.

Then you're around 8,000 years too late.

Very old and tired, indeed. And intellectually dishonest as well. You might as well admit its been tested for 8,000 years.

I'll also add that those early agricultural societies were fairly isolated: The ones that went too far with dangerous techniques and policies were weeded out. In the globalized era, that's a recipe for adding to the problems of unsustainability to the entire biosphere.

Re: the GMO rice you love. The shortcut around sexual reproduction means we can feed more of the world with rice and worry less about distributing other nutritious foodstuffs to the needy as the rest of us continue wasting more of our food despite overall surpluses. More rice will be produced to feed humanity, and so agriculture will release more methane into the atmosphere (rice is methane-intensive) resulting in even greater entrenchment against carbon taxes to curb global warming.

That's not even getting into the question of intensifying existing monoculture that this raises.

That's not even touching on disasters-waiting-to-happen like GMO salmon.

Treat living organisms like machines with pushbuttons, and you get nasty side-effects from the shortcuts in discipline and thinking that you took. Of course, we can be spared the exercise of considering these unintended effects because of the charitable aura around "Golden Rice".

Why does bombarding a plant with gamma rays require no testing of the resulting mutations?

You tell me. As far as I'm concerned, aiming gamma rays at seeds ought to be considered a form of GE.

If we are going to address the problems you are concerned about, we're going to have to start with reality and not the fears used to market "natural" products.

How perfectly paternalistic. Love the tone. You get the GE industry to consider long-term ecological impacts first, then we'll talk about what is "real" (and your insinuation that natural processes aren't "real&quot . OTOH, if ecology isn't "real" enough of a science to you, then let me introduce you to "scientist" Trofim Lysenko (and also remind you that the industry boast about post-1990 productivity increases from GMOs was a lie).

[Treant]

9. Birth control would help

So, y'know, start spending those Sunday offerings on pills and condoms for your flock and we won't need the GMOs. Pesticide reliance will also come down as our need for every square inch of arable land drops.

[pnwmom]

19. The main purpose of the GMO's is greater profit for Monsanto.

They're not a bunch of do-gooders, selflessly working for humanity. They're trying to corner the market on seeds.

[Treant]

35. Not responsive to the statement at hand

True, but does not apply to the statement I made, which was more about the Pope's constant hypocrisy when it comes to women's (and men's) reproductive choices.

[pnwmom]

37. American Catholics are MORE likely to use artificial birth control than Americans in general.

So his influence in that area is limited.

[skepticscott]

49. And yet people still argue

That he's magically going to have a wonderful and profound influence on people all over the world with regard to THIS issue. Despite the fact that his two predecessors advocated the same principles, to no particular effect.

[pnwmom]

59. The difference is that in the case of the global environment,

he's working with an extraordinary group or scientists and activists, such as Naomi Klein. The science in the Encyclical was informed by these scientists, who contributed their efforts to the Pontifical Commission.

He isn't going it alone this time.

I don't think he will magically accomplish anything, but I would much rather have him on our side than the reverse. And the Rethugs like Santorum can no longer pretend that their views represent the "real" Catholic Church and campaign as "real" Catholics.

[skepticscott]

61. You mean the same scientists

who've been warning people about the dire consequences of global warming for decades? And that the pope decided to make a PR play on the back of? The last two popes accomplished nothing, though if they had preached as hard on this issue all over the world as they did against birth control (adding to the problem as they did so), something might have been accomplished before it was too late for anything but a PR stunt.

Sorry, but the RCC deserves no credit on this issue.

[pnwmom]

62. I'm saying that I hope the Church and the scientific establishment working TOGETHER

can accomplish more than either did apart.

[skepticscott]

65. Then let the church change its stance

on artificial contraception. Until they do, they can't be taken seriously on this issue. Are you going to push hard for them to do that?

Yeah...sure you are

[pnwmom]

73. They can and will be taken seriously on the issue of the global environment because

on this issue, unlike on artificial birth control, they will have the world's leading scientists on their side. There is also an upcoming UN conference on global warming that will happen next fall, in addition to the Pope's address to Congress.

When the world's largest Churches, and leading scientists, and the UN all speak urgently on a topic with a loud and unified voice, we have the best hope we've ever had to get people to listen.

That's why Naomi Klein was thrilled to join this group, even though she's not Catholic and doesn't agree with all of its positions (like most Catholics).

P.S. The Church's position on abc has been disputed ever since it was released, with many theologians and most parish priests advising that abc was ultimately a matter of individual conscience. This won't be happening with the encyclical on the environment. There is a sense of urgency and whole-heartedness about the Church's approach to this that never happened with abc.

[skepticscott]

80. Um, no...as long as the RCC continues to oppose

artificial contraception, they are part of the problem of global warming, and can't be taken as anything but hypocritical and opportunistic in now trying to appear to be part of the solution.

And no, climate scientists are not on the church's side. The church has decided they'll look less foolish if they appear to be on the side of science. In no sense has the church been the leader and science the johnny-come-lately follower on this issue.

The question stands: Are you going to advocate that the CC change its position on artificial contraception as a means to help reduce global warming? Yes or no?

[pnwmom]

84. I have always advocated that the CC change its position on artificial contraception. n/t

[skepticscott]

87. Good for you. Then you should understand the hypocrisy

of pretending to fight a problem to which overpopulation is an important contributing factor while at the same time fighting tooth and nail against a simple and effective means to reduce overpopulation.

Or maybe you don't.

[progressoid]

166. The claim that 98 percent of Catholic women use contraception: a media foul

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-claim-that-98-percent-of-catholic-women-use-contraception-a-media-foul/2012/02/16/gIQAkPeqIR_blog.html

[freshwest]

10. Not a fan of monoculture, pesticides, etc. It's been said often by natives it's all interconnected.

That was narrated by Russell Means. It descibes what a more natural view of life is.

It is only the desire for power or profit that goes toward another direction and we may commit suicide if we don't lighten up.

Some native prophecies say that our current 'civilization' have so far crossed the line that life on Earth for any human being is going to be extremely bleak and hostile for perhaps thousands of years. And it's not necessary.

Listen to what Means says.

He knew exactly what we have been moving toward. Not from trade treaties in recent memory, but something much larger. This is what has happened to nations and peoples of the world over the last 40 years and more. It is in effect, 'the culture of death.' Everything is considered dead or soon to be dead, and to be used for profit. That includes people as well.

Corporations don't care about what we do. But remember, it is people that achieve what they want by being a member of a corporation - mainly financial wealth. They seem to be a breed apart, who care little for diversity or anything alive.

Just because an idea is old or doesn't give one the rush of power many see from technical achievements, does not make it right or good for the long term. And it degrades those who have the power, just like the ones that it crushes. Like war, the so called winner also loses.

It's said by some natives there will have to be a melding of the different peoples to either head off or survive the catastrophe mankind has created with greed and bigotry.

The way that we treat water and land and living creatures of all kinds, reflect our values.

JHMO.

[Enthusiast]

11. Kicked and recommended to the Max!

[BrotherIvan]

13. I agree with the Pope

Lack of diversity is a disaster waiting to happen. But until he sanctions birth control, it's all smoke. If he does, then his message will have weight. Until then, he is avoiding a huge part of the problem.

[pnwmom]

38. Poverty is the root problem. Birth rates are lower in wealthier countries,

because in poor countries having children is the only way to provide for your old age.

[BrotherIvan]

39. Oh good lord

It burns.

[skepticscott]

94. Please tell us you're not arguing

that poverty is a separate problem from birth rate. You can't possibly be that out of touch.

[pnwmom]

95. That's the opposite of what I'm saying. n/t

[skepticscott]

99. You argued that poverty is the root problem

not birth rates. As if they are separable. They aren't.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

15. FOX "News" will now claim this guy is a commie.

[jwirr]

16. Thank you, Pope Francis.

[Uncle Joe]

17. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, bananas.

[cantbeserious]

18. Thank You For Sharing

eom

[fasttense]

22. He is correct about how pesticides and Round Up destroy the web

When we first got our farm, we were stupid. We used pesticides and bags of fertilizers. We sprayed Round Up and other chemicals.Then we started reading. That was about 15 years ago.

When we stopped using all those poisons, at first the insects were worse. We got every bug in the world eating our vegtables. We had waves of stink bugs, Colorado beetles, cucumber beetles and green caterpillars everywhere. But after 2 years, the onslaught died down and the birds started visiting regularly. I think what happened was that the chemicals killed every bug, which caused the birds to leave, then the area was cleared for the bad bugs to come in swarms making them more difficult to kill. A less determined person would have gone back to using chemicals but we stuck it out and cut back on growing the more delicate vegtables. Now, 15 years after giving up chemicals, we can grow just about anything with very little insect damage and now we have just about every bird in the area come by for a snack.

I think when you first give up chemicals there is a rebound affect that takes years before things go back to equilibrium. The chemicals disrupt the natural cycles. But it really is worth sticking out the bad years. The beauty of getting the birds back alone is worth the problems of the waves of destructive insects.

[arikara]

29. Good for you

I'm impressed, I wish more people would do that.

[cprise]

101. Bravo to you!

I admire anyone who has that level of ecological awareness and is willing to endure periods of hardship so they can put it to work.

[sorechasm]

160. Thank you fast tense. That's all the scientific proof I would need to....

...validate the Pope's statement. You sacrificed two years of crops to prove that birds are the long term solution to insect invasions when compared to the the potential devastation of many pesticides.

It should be no mystery that ecological cycles have a million-year jump start on artificial pesticides.

[fasttense]

162. Well thank you for putting me in my place

I don't know what I would have done if your rude sarcasm had not been posted to counteract my homily. Who knows where I would be now? Sharing other positive information and living my life with out concern.

But of course you being a farmer have experienced this first hand too? I bow down to your great and powerful knowledge and belittling statements. You are all knowing and my farm experince is such a waste to share.

Personal experience always adds details to a scientific truth but hay you know so much more than anyone else and your rudeness is such a compliment to an open discussion.

[Chemisse]

23. This pope continues to amaze.

He is leading on the most important issues of our day. And he can have great impact.

[Submariner]

26. Pope Franky is the Vatican's "Hail Mary Pass"

in a desperate try to stem the ravaging tide of catholics (and Sunday offering basket donors) that have exited in droves since the child rape scandal broke. It won't work in the long run. There is no forgiveness for their assaults on children worldwide.

I'm all for this Vatican attitude change. I'll applaud any changes that improve our environment. But, its just too bad that so many thousands of child rapes had to occur to spawn this change of heart by that church.

[shrike]

115. Has nothing to do with child rapes

The Vatican, and the church, have held these views regarding the environment for generations.

Francis either has a better publicist or the media just like him better. But nothing he says, repeat nothing, is anything new regarding where the church stands on these issues.

[Thespian2]

24. K & R

The Pope disappoints people who do not like scientific proof...

[blackspade]

32. Oh shit, the GOP won't like this at all.

[kestrel91316]

40. I love Pope Francis, and I am anything but Catholic.

[Judi Lynn]

41. So good to see the stand he has taken. He's so right to do it. n/t

[Cha]

45. The Pope knows more than Bill Nye and MdT on the safety of GMOs, imho. mahalo bananas.

[cprise]

108. Apart from the honorary degrees, isn't Nye a Mechanical Engineer??

An engineer who was very impressed when he toured Monsanto's facilities - an event that changed his long-held views about GMOs.

Monsanto is nothing if not an engineering shop with a muscular propaganda arm. Nye's current career is that of media personality.

I'm not certain that is more qualified than a pope who studied chemistry.

[yurbud]

55. He's a couple of truths away from someone putting something in his bedtime tea

[jeff47]

72. He's only about 10,000 years too late.

Disrupt complex web of ecosystems? Monoculture (aka "diversity in production&quot ? We started those when we invented farming 10,000 years ago.

Nothing he describes requires genetic modification. All of it started long before we even knew what DNA is. We can not fix the problems he describes by pretending it is all about some GMOs. We have thousands of years of harm to fix.

Like all tools, genetic modification can be used for good and evil.

[get the red out]

89. Criticism of big chemical tech companies is NOT allowed

Other large companies that don't give a shit about anything but $$$, we may proceed. But this is off limits!!!!!

[MisterP]

98. get ready for a LOT of Dan Brown-level stuff from certain "scientific" circles

[ladjf]

102. This Pope says lots of constructive things about how to

live on Earth. I'm not religious, but , I don't mind joining forces with good thinkers regardless of the religious affiliations.

[raouldukelives]

106. K&R I am not totally opposed to GMO, nor any potentially beneficial science.

But just like anything else, I don't trust it in the hands of private corporations who wish to race into production.

GMO's, like nuclear power, would be all fine with me, as long as they can account for each any and every variable and explain the safeguards and provisions for each and every one before unleashing it upon the world at large.

And of course, be 100% responsible for remediation should events not go as planned.

[bvar22]

118. I would settle for a 20 year, Peer Reviewed, Double Blind experiment on GMOs,

.....and the effect on life forms that eat that shit, and are forced to grow next to it.


Didn't it take 10 - 20 years befor the damage from Agent Orange showed up?
BTW: Agent Orange was "tested", and found safe.

[raouldukelives]

142. Exactly. We are not against science. Far from.

We just know from experience, from our lying eyes, from our destroyed lives, from our warming world.

That science, world changing science, in the hands of and in the service of corporations is a very dangerous thing.

Far more dangerous in my mind than any terrorist organization. Far more deadly than any dirty bomb. Is the power of consolidated wealth in hands of the global 1% and those who daily toil to bring them just a bit more with no care or thought to the consequences.

[cprise]

146. Lets reprogram life according to the priorities of the 0.1%

And lets create a class of genetic venture capitalists and programmer Bro's -- What could possibly go wrong?

[bvar22]

155. Right There !

*

[Rosa Luxemburg]

116. Fabulous Pope Francis

[saidsimplesimon]

122. Answering the call to action

Je t'aime Jesuit Pope Francis.

There is much support among stewards of the environment, across the religion spectrum. I will never deny my evangelical friends the opportunity to be remembered as one of those who stood against the tide of greedy industrial destroyers, exploiters.

[Fred Friendlier]

125. This post is a lie

The Papal Encyclical "Laudato Si'" does not contain the alleged quote plastered over the Pope's face at the very top, and if you actually read the encyclical, which is trivial to access:

http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.pdf

you will immediately see that the blather presented by EcoWatch is a serious distortion of a thoughtful argument. Which just goes to show that EcoWatch and Natural News and their allied disinformation sites will lie to your face, the better to catapult their propaganda.

Which is nothing new, but it still turns my stomach to see how eagerly self-styled skeptics will lap up the most obvious nonsense when it flatters their dearly held beliefs.

[shrike]

127. Interesting

The church has supported environmentalists for years, so the pope coming out with a call to action should be a surprise to no one. But no one, including myself, read the actual encyclical.

Thanks for pointing it out. Yeah, we all do seek out meanings that support our own prejudices, don't we?

[bananas]

132. It's not a lie, it's just a different translation.

The official English translation says:

The expansion of these crops has the effect of destroying the complex network of ecosystems, diminishing the diversity of production and affecting regional economies, now and in the future.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html

That's not any different from what's in the article.

The encyclical was first available in Latin, the author may have used that as a basis, or they may have based it on one of the other translations - for example, if the author is a native speaker of Spanish, they may have read it in Spanish and translated that sentence to English themselves.

[HuckleB]

128. Good post, but please don't confuse actual skeptics with denialists.

Denialists will do anything to support their claims that climate change is not real, the evolution is fiction, and the GMOs are the devil. Skeptics look at the actual science on these issues, and they base their views, which can change with further evidence, on the evidence.

[bananas]

133. It's not a lie, it's just a different translation.

The official English translation says:

The expansion of these crops has the effect of destroying the complex network of ecosystems, diminishing the diversity of production and affecting regional economies, now and in the future.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html

That's not any different from what's in the article.

The encyclical was first available in Latin, the author may have used that as a basis, or they may have based it on one of the other translations - for example, if the author is a native speaker of Spanish, they may have read it in Spanish and translated that sentence to English themselves.

[HuckleB]

138. What does that have to do with my post?

It only continues to show how you have no actual science behind your anti-GMO claims.

No one who actually cares about the planet actually cares about your anti-GMO claims. PERIOD.

[bananas]

161. You thought an easily debunked sleazy attack was a "good post".

Can't believe I had to explain that to you.

[bananas]

131. It's not a lie, it's just a different translation.

The official English translation says:

The expansion of these crops has the effect of destroying the complex network of ecosystems, diminishing the diversity of production and affecting regional economies, now and in the future.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html

That's not any different from what's in the article.

The encyclical was first available in Latin, the author may have used that as a basis, or they may have based it on one of the other translations - for example, if the author is a native speaker of Spanish, they may have read it in Spanish and translated that sentence to English themselves.

[bananas]

136. It's similar to the Google translation from the original Latin.

Last edited Tue Jun 30, 2015, 03:56 AM - Edit history (2)

I just plugged the original Latin sentence into translate.google.com and out came the phrasing in the OP:

https://translate.google.com/#auto/en/L%E2%80%99estendersi%20di%20queste%20coltivazioni%20distrugge%20la%20complessa%20trama%20degli%20ecosistemi%2C%20diminuisce%20la%20diversit%C3%A0%20nella%20produzione%20e%20colpisce%20il%20presente%20o%20il%20futuro%20delle%20economie%20regionali.

L’estendersi di queste coltivazioni distrugge la complessa trama degli ecosistemi, diminuisce la diversità nella produzione e colpisce il presente o il futuro delle economie regionali.

The spread of these crops destroys the complex web of ecosystems, decreases diversity in production and affects the present or the future of regional economies.

[HuckleB]

139. Do you understand how funny this post is?

WOW!

[bvar22]

153. I don't think it is funny.

I believe it to be prescience.

[polly7]

130. Good for him.

I have many Catholic friends who love this Pope and are very encouraged by what he's been saying. He may not be great on all issues, but I admire him for this.

[get the red out]

157. I agree

But U.S. Liberals are supposed to worship at the Church of Monsanto aren't we?