About GE foods - the problem is that people don't realize just how much genetic engineering is in their foods and medicines, and how long it's been going on with no problem at all. In fact, with a lot of benefit to humanity. Most modern vaccines are genetically engineered, for a start. Tons of other modern medical procedures involve a GE something or other, and currently the best hope we have for a cure for cancer is genetically engineering some of the body's white blood cells to target the tumor.
And then there's the idea to genetically infuse vital nutrients into the nutritionally barren food that people in Third World countries have to eat, thereby improving their health, extending their lifespan, and possibly helping to pull them out of crushing poverty.
I also fail to see why trying to prevent sickness by genetically engineering food to kill harmful bacteria is a bad thing.
edited 23rd Jan '11 2:46:46 PM by OnTheOtherHandle
"War doesn't prove who's right, only who's left." "Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future."GE foods can be both good and bad - but for the moment they do a lot of bad. Just because they are in a lot of things doesn't mean they are safe, either.
You misread: They are creating viruses to target things in the soil. Who knows, this might be OK, but I ''really' don't like the sound of altering the ecosystem like that.
They still use gas, and as such continue to pollute. The greatest issue with these is the fact that so much effort is being put into them when there are better car technologies that can very much replace them entirely. Many of these new technologies already work, as well.
edited 23rd Jan '11 2:58:40 PM by TheMightyAnonym
Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GOD^^Much of the GE foods have been created specifically to simply grow faster, often at great cost to its health benefits. Said foods also create consumer lock-in, by requiring the farmers to buy special pesticides - from the company that makes the GE seeds.
^That's not the point though; there are better ways which are perfectly viable right now.
edited 23rd Jan '11 3:01:24 PM by TheMightyAnonym
Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GOD> corn killing bees
[citation needed]
> viruses designed to kill harmful bacteria
And tell me now, exactly how is this harmful?
Considering the amount of stuff that people still throw out into the trash, even when it's perfectly reusable and/or recyclable, no, this has not been pushed far enough.
And for what it's worth, pushing these farther—especially "reduce" and "reuse"—can easily cut lots of cost. Several chains of discount supermarkets and wholesale club stores don't supply bags to people; instead they either supply nothing more than carts (shoppers bring their own containers) or they supply cardboard boxes. These cardboard boxes are nice for carrying things to the car, for holding things in place in trunk, and for changing engine oil when lined with other plastic bags.
...you know what, I should just start another thread for this.
Funny that you criticize GE for this, since this line of criticism is most commonly seen employed against Monsanto.
It also has something to do with taking the effort to break a routine that isn't causing any immediate personal harm to you. The plastic bag thing is a good example - I try to be green in other ways, but I keep forgetting to remind my parents to bring our own bags.
"War doesn't prove who's right, only who's left." "Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future."[citation needed]
> viruses designed to kill harmful bacteria
And tell me now, exactly how is this harmful?
GE corn:
- May be toxic to butterflies.
- May cause harm to aquatic ecosystems.
- Does a lot of other bad things.
- And, lastly, could be the cause of undue harm to bee populations, as spoken of here,
and here
.
Needless to say, there is a lot of controversy.
And relating to the virus thing, how is creating viruses and introducing them to the environment not harmful? As it is, "harmful bacteria" are still part of the ecosystem, and thus should not be so recklessly exterminated.
Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GODI assumed you were talking about if someone was really sick they are creating a virus they could introduce in them that would kill the bacteria. I really don't see why scientists would take the time and effort to create a virus and introduce it into the environment in general, anyway. What would they gain from it?
"War doesn't prove who's right, only who's left." "Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future."I heard there was some sort of project to set up giant wind turbines off the coasts to hopefully have 20% of our electricity generated by wind power by 2025 or something? Whatever happened to that?
"War doesn't prove who's right, only who's left." "Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future."^^ Yeah, but at least it's more centralized so it's easier to capture. Also, cars can be charged during the night when the electricity would essentially be wasted otherwise. Also, electric cars are just more efficient than combustion powered cars so there's even more energy savings.
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's PlayOf course, that wouldn't be a problem if we started switching to integrated fast reactor nuclear to turn our existing nuclear waste into energy at zero emissions. But it'll be a cold day in hell before the coal lobby lets that happen.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.Eat less beef. The last step in the deforestation cycle, which is the one that actually prevents the rainforest ecosystem from growing back in that area, is when the subsistence farmers exhaust the fertility of the ground and sell the land to cattle ranchers, who use it to grow pastures on which the rainforest cannot naturally encroach. Most of the beef they produce ends up in hamburgers due to the low quality. If the demand for beef were lower, less of the forest would end up converted into pasture, and it would be easier for initiatives to buy back land for reforestation to compete with the ranchers.
edited 23rd Jan '11 5:18:50 PM by Desertopa
...eventually, we will reach a maximum entropy state where nobody has their own socks or underwear, or knows who to ask to get them back.Why do you care so much about not caring? You seem to post your extreme apathy in every thread on this subject, when I would expect someone truly apathetic to not post.
edited 23rd Jan '11 5:55:23 PM by Tzetze
[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.I'm surprised that more cities don't try to do a recycling sorting device at the other end of the trash collection. You wouldn't even have to convince a significant portion of the population to sort their trash, so it doesn't even have to sit at the back of their mind.
Fight smart, not fair.Well it's on wikipedia and they have some dead tree references which don't have the relevant sections in google books. Specifically talking about
the stored energy in the car, just so we are on the same page.
There's also this for some actual measurements
for electric cars so if you have something for petrol cars and are inclined to go through it yourself, you can confirm specific numbers for yourself. In lieu of that, the page gives ~ 80% for electric versus ~15/20% for petrol/diesel.
As for your second issue, I wondered that myself once and found something about single stream recycling
. At the time it sounded new. I guess it comes down to the fact you have to add something and pay for something and you have to weigh up the money and material costs that you could make up by installing extra equipment.
edited 23rd Jan '11 6:46:10 PM by SomeSortOfTroper

How are hybrids "gimmicky"?
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play