Never Hillary

[Stoked]

but is unchecked capitalism working for all or just you?

Nothing "unchecked" works for everyone.

 

[RandyForRubio]

GMOs are completely safe for consumption, proven by years of science. The pesticides used for them aren't good, but neither are those used for non-GM crops.

GMOs being characterized as a saviour of world hunger is a marketing ploy to exploit poorer countries at the expense of the rich. Biodiverse farming practices provide a more complete repertoire of nutrition and access to food than monoculture GM crops. That's proven. Plus I think the wethical conversations surrounding GM crops are lagging behind the advancement of said sphere.


Didn't NAOS do his PhD in some sort of agra along this field? He might be the better source of info here. I'm just coming from the perspective of my GENET degree

Don't worry, no need to trust the farmer with a crop science degree. I know nothing.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Yes, I eat organic. **** DOW Jones and their "standards" of whether they consider chemicals safe or not.

I try to keep my diet as local as I can, to the extent where I can quite literally speak to and visit the farmers whom I buy stuff from. Alberta is spectacular for their agriculture, so I can basically access anything I need here. Even if I only have a 25% chance of taking in less chemicals than non-organic, shelling up the extra cash doesn't annoy me in the least of senses. I don't drink, gamble, shoot, smoke. I can afford an extra dollar for a bag of apples when they're in season

How narrow minded of you.




/fwiw, and this is a discussion better served in another topic, nothing is truly organic. It is a deeply flawed and corrupt system

 

[RandyForRubio]

I don't know what the ultimate limits of genetic engineering are, but they will be, without a question, world-changing. We barely understand how genomes work, and as scientific understanding improves, we will move well past disease resistance and minimizing pesticide use.

Companies like Monsanto act unethically, but this is not an inherent problem with genetic engineering.

But I think your post is fair overall.

Not sure we'll ever be able to move past disease resistance or accomplish just disease silencing in general. There's a very valid question as to whether we select too hard, "remove" diseases/pests and thus allow for more mutations and thus, worse diseases/pests.

The other part you nailed on the head though. GE crops will lead to lower pesticide use, and that is a great thing as long as we can still have a valid crop and chemical rotation with them. But trust me, us farmers would love to use less chemicals. They're not cheap. Unfortunately, we like to have lots of good quality crops so we can make a living.

 

[NAOS]

Not sure we'll ever be able to move past disease resistance or accomplish just disease silencing in general. There's a very valid question as to whether we select too hard, "remove" diseases/pests and thus allow for more mutations and thus, worse diseases/pests.

The other part you nailed on the head though. GE crops will lead to lower pesticide use, and that is a great thing as long as we can still have a valid crop and chemical rotation with them. But trust me, us farmers would love to use less chemicals. They're not cheap. Unfortunately, we like to have lots of good quality crops so we can make a living.

"disease" is a matter of perspective. It's called "flourishing" from another perspective. The perspective which calls it "disease" is obviously a human one in this instance; and since the mechanisms of life (conceived in the broadest terms, which is necessary here) are largely agnostic to the human perspective, and since we cannot know the full consequences of our perturbations on genetic flows, then I agree that we won't move past "disease" resistance.

(and, for the record, I didn't do my PhD research on this specific area. But my research did take me (too?) deep in to the philosophy of science and theories of life/nature)

also, welcome back [MENTION=40]Siro[/MENTION]. I haven't seen you in awhile.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Don't worry, no need to trust the farmer with a crop science degree. I know nothing.

WTF? Who's saying you know nothing? My own independent research led to those factual conclusions?

I probably still have the genetic procedure to synthesize golden rice still memorized from my undergrad days.

 

[The Thriller]

What does the GOP do for some of you?

Don't you remember the last time a repub was president? Lies to start expensive wars, tax cuts for the rich, exploding deficits, 9/11, Katrina, NCLB, torture, VP shooting people in the face, releasing cia operative names...

I get that some of you aren't huge Ds. But how can anyone with a brain support the GOP's candidate(s) and their vastly unpopular platform these days?

 

[♪alt13]

How could anyone not vote libertarian for every office. They're so much fun

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_W8D0Pcs_Y

and this

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/29/libertarian-party-chairman-candidate-strips-stage-/

 

[Dr. Jones]

Hillary's got stank

 

[RandyForRubio]

WTF? Who's saying you know nothing? My own independent research led to those factual conclusions?

I probably still have the genetic procedure to synthesize golden rice still memorized from my undergrad days.

Lolz. "Factual"

They're your biased interpretations based on what you want to see in a test result. Narrow minded.

Let's talk about pesticides not being good Dala. I would love to see us try to farm worldwide without pesticides. I hope you think an increased world hunger problem is good. But hey, don't take my word for it, I'm just a dumb hick farmer who doesn't know what he's putting on his crops.

 

[The Thriller]

Lolz. "Factual"

They're your biased interpretations based on what you want to see in a test result. Narrow minded.

Let's talk about pesticides not being good Dala. I would love to see us try to farm worldwide without pesticides. I hope you think an increased world hunger problem is good. But hey, don't take my word for it, I'm just a dumb hick farmer who doesn't know what he's putting on his crops.

I have no problem with cutting the population down. We are overpopulated as it is. Starvation, nature's birth control! If many central American and African countries don't want to use artificial birth control and sex edu, well let them starve.

 

[The Thriller]

I bet if we build a wall, invade the Middle East again, give billionaires tax cuts, and repeal Obamacare we will make America great again

 

[♪alt13]

I have no problem with cutting the population down. We are overpopulated as it is. Starvation, nature's birth control! If many central American and African countries don't want to use artificial birth control and sex edu, well let them starve.

lmao

The idea that African babies are eating up the worlds resources is ****ing ridiculous.

Good one, Trump

 

[The Thriller]

lmao

The idea that African babies are eating up the worlds resources is ****ing ridiculous.

Good one, Trump

The wall just got higher

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I have no problem with cutting the population down. We are overpopulated as it is. Starvation, nature's birth control! If many central American and African countries don't want to use artificial birth control and sex edu, well let them starve.

Actually, many women DO want to use artificial birth control, it's the men, or the existing power structures (often religious but not necessarily) that impede their ability to do so. Oh, and the whole being very poor and not necessarily having access to birth control thing as well.

I think you were just saying stuff for the sake of being outlandish and didn't really mean what you wrote. (If you did mean it, which I doubt, you are a Scroogish dick.) Unfortunately, there are many people who actually think like that, most of whom have no idea of the social, economic and power dynamics in play that trap so millions of poor women into serial pregnancies.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

With all due respect, your views on not eating GMO's are narrow minded, and reject all the science on the subject. As do most of your views on organic farming.

That's just one example.





/love ya
//I think we're all narrow minded to a point. Just human nature.

As a completely total aside, I am not sure how I feel about GMO labeling laws. On the one hand, I am aware of the science, which concludes (as best I can tell), that GMOs are not harmful to humans. So, some oppose GMO labeling laws because they see them as, essentially, codifying bad science and thus giving in to the anti-GMO hysteria. On the other hand, what is wrong with providing consumers with information so they can make choices for themselves? Other products list ingredients that aren't necessarily harmful to humans, but they are there under the principle of full disclosure. Thus, while I am sympathetic to those who oppose GMO labeling, I do believe in transparency and full disclosure as a general principle, and I'm not convinced that GMO labeling merits an exception to this general principle. I'm interested in what others think.

 

[Scat]

The tomato plants I bought for the garden this year have tags in them stating that they are non-GMO plants.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Nobody is free when others are oppressed.

This has an awfully clicheish ring to it.

 

[RandyForRubio]

As a completely total aside, I am not sure how I feel about GMO labeling laws. On the one hand, I am aware of the science, which concludes (as best I can tell), that GMOs are not harmful to humans. So, some oppose GMO labeling laws because they see them as, essentially, codifying bad science and thus giving in to the anti-GMO hysteria. On the other hand, what is wrong with providing consumers with information so they can make choices for themselves? Other products list ingredients that aren't necessarily harmful to humans, but they are there under the principle of full disclosure. Thus, while I am sympathetic to those who oppose GMO labeling, I do believe in transparency and full disclosure as a general principle, and I'm not convinced that GMO labeling merits an exception to this general principle. I'm interested in what others think.

On a general basis, I don't have an issue with GMO labeling. However, as a farmer (and I don't even grow GE crops) it terrifies me because the general population is a bunch of idiots who fall into the anti-GMO crowd because they just don't understand it. So it increases prices, probably lowers sales/demands...I understand why people are against it.

 

[fishonjazz]

Good article on the energizer bernie. https://www.yahoo.com/news/energizer-bernie-does-sanders-keep-000000095.html
It was well past lunch on a highway in California near the start of Memorial Day weekend, and the reporters on the Bernie Sanders press van were basically begging their handler for some downtime. Maybe after the next event we could swing by the hotel, they asked the press aide. And to each other they wondered, Doesn’t this 74-year-old ever get tired?

But there is rarely time for a break in the Sanders campaign, as staffers and reporters follow a candidate who doesn’t ever seem to slow down. His opponents might consider the relentless pace a metaphor — why doesn’t he just stop running already? But the Vermont senator is currently barnstorming California, a delegate-rich state he sees as his last hope to slow Hillary Clinton’s path to the nomination.On this holiday weekend when Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, had scheduledjust one public event and Hillary Clinton, the most likely Democratic nominee, had nothing public on her schedule, Sanders held one rally after another, interspersed with TV appearances. Ventura, Pomona, and Jimmy Kimmel on Thursday; Long Beach, Inglewood, the Young Turks and Bill Maher on Friday; Santa Barbara, Santa Maria and Bakersfield on Saturday; Visalia and Fresno on Sunday; a few stops in Oakland on Monday.

As he points out at each event, this is the kind of primary campaign this state has never seen. Usually the race is decided by the time California votes. But Sanders is hoping that a big win here, while not enough to overcome Clinton’s lead in pledged delegates, will somehow convince unbound superdelegates to throw their support his way. “We are doing something that to the best of my knowledge has never been done in California political history, holding rallies just like this up and down this state,” he says again and again. “By the end of this, I am confident we will have personally met and spoken to over 200,000 Californians. We will win here, and we will go to the Democratic National Convention with the momentum to make our case.”

So as his staff catnapped in the motorcade and the press hoped for at least a coffee stop, the man himself — call him the Energizer Bernie — was completely “on” at one event after the next, giving his one-hour stump speech at what seemed like full volume over and over again.

“He runs the 25-year-old staffers into the ground,” says one former aide who recently left the campaign, which has shedded team members as Clinton has closed in on the nomination.

Another ex-staffer expressed similar surprise at Sanders’ grueling pace.

“Most candidates half his age would strain under the weight of that schedule. There was one day where he hit five or six states in a single day. I really don’t understand how he does it,” the staffer said.

Dat work ethic doe

#feel the bern.