Philosophical Vegan Forum

(THIS IS NOT MEANT TO START ARGUMENTS, BUT RATHER I JUST WANT TO HEAR PEOPLES OPINIONS) I personally, despite preferring to eat organic when possible, don't really have much of an opinion on GMO's

ThunderXray wrote:(THIS IS NOT MEANT TO START ARGUMENTS, BUT RATHER I JUST WANT TO HEAR PEOPLES OPINIONS)

Why not? Debate is an excellent system of sorting out which position is the correct one.

I personally, despite preferring to eat organic when possible, don't really have much of an opinion on GMO's

From what I am aware of, there is little to no evidence of them being bad for humans if consumed, but can contaminate other crops non-GMOs with their pollen. I learned about this approximately a year or so ago, so if my information is inaccurate due to new research or failure on memory's part, please correct me and cite multiple sources! Thanks!

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: From what I am aware of, there is little to no evidence of them being bad for humans if consumed, but can contaminate other crops non-GMOs with their pollen. I learned about this approximately a year or so ago, so if my information is inaccurate due to new research or failure on memory's part, please correct me and cite multiple sources! Thanks!

Yes, but when the happens (pollination), Monsanto has to foot the bill to clean it up, and restore the field to non-GMO status.
That's what they did in the famous case.

There was a farmer growing (I think) corn which was cross pollinated with a neighbor, Monsanto sued to make him stop growing it, and they realized he wasn't doing it on purpose, so they settled out of court and Monsanto agreed to pay for all the cleanup (I think the cleanup was probably cheaper than the PR issue they would have had). It's a really uncommon situation.
I may have the details wrong, take that with a grain of salt.

Cross contamination isn't really something to worry about.


It's very important to avoid eating organic, though. Organic is really bad, and both the farming practice and the lobby is responsible for a lot of animal cruelty and profit for animal agriculture, in addition to massive environmental destruction.

brimstoneSalad wrote: It's very important to avoid eating organic, though. Organic is really bad, and both the farming practice and the lobby is responsible for a lot of animal cruelty and profit for animal agriculture, in addition to massive environmental destruction.

How so? I wasn't aware of this. I know that organic animal agriculture is bad for the environment, but I wasn't aware that organic plant agriculture is bad for the environment too!

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: How so? I wasn't aware of this. I know that organic animal agriculture is bad for the environment, but I wasn't aware that organic plant agriculture is bad for the environment too!

It requires a lot more land for the same yield of essentially the same product. Huge waste.

Want organic? OK, let's clear cut the rest of the rain forests so we have room to grow our grains/beans.

It also supports animal agriculture, since organic farms buy manure, bone meal, and that kind of stuff for the fields more.
And potentially spray their fields with more pesticides (just more dangerous and less effective ones).

Unfortunately, it's an issue of consumer demand. It's not the farmers' fault.

My opinion of GMOs is that they ought not be trusted and are unnecessary. People ought to look beyond whether or not they are safe for human consumption. Every living thing is part of an ecosystem, and there is no telling what genetic modification will do to the various ecosystems in which it is introduced, especially long-term.

As I like to say: nature knows better. Whatever exists naturally is almost certainly better than anything humans can conceive of, because it exists in the balance between organisms and ecosystems, rather than in the short-sighted (often destructive) self-interest of humans. My general attitude towards mucking about with nature is opposition; the Earth should be left mostly as each generation finds it as a responsibility to future generations.

The idea that it is acceptable to pursue something because there are no scientific studies indicating its harmfulness (as I have noticed many people cite as justification for use of GMOs and other questionable practices) seems short-sighted and downright backwards.

Imagine I have a home lab in which I cook up some new, unknown chemical with some benefit or other. I sprinkle it on some plants and offer the food up for consumption. When I'm questioned about its safety, I respond that there are no scientific studies showing that my creation is harmful. What sort of person would willingly consume it? Not knowing how something could be harmful, a lack of knowledge, is a reason to not try something, not a justification for going ahead with it, particularly something that could clearly have wide-reaching consequences.

The mere fact that we have to rely on other people at all, let alone their years of specialized training, to tell us what is or is not safe to eat should be a wake-up call. Choosing safe food is far too fundamental and too frequent a biological necessity to be outsourced. We're already relying on others to keep feeding us; accepting GMOs is accepting enrollment as guinea pigs in the next gigantic biology experiment, for someone else's profit at that.

That ended up much longer than intended.

brimstoneSalad wrote: It requires a lot more land for the same yield of essentially the same product. Huge waste.

Want organic? OK, let's clear cut the rest of the rain forests so we have room to grow our grains/beans.

That problem is not caused by organic farming; it is a result of trying to feed huge numbers of people with agricultural products. People have eaten organic agricultural products for thousands of years without having to clear entire rainforests.

linux_vegan wrote:

brimstoneSalad wrote: It requires a lot more land for the same yield of essentially the same product. Huge waste.

Want organic? OK, let's clear cut the rest of the rain forests so we have room to grow our grains/beans.

That problem is not caused by organic farming; it is a result of trying to feed huge numbers of people with agricultural products. People have eaten organic agricultural products for thousands of years without having to clear entire rainforests.

It doesn't matter what the source of the problem is, you can point fingers all day. There are three solutions:

1. GMO and conventional high tech farming practices.

2. Clear all of the rainforests for organic farming.

3. Mass genocide, to reduce the population so it can be fed with organic farming.


Which do you most prefer?

For me, the answer is obvious. I can not support genocide or environmental destruction. I don't believe any vegan should.

linux_vegan wrote:My opinion of GMOs is that they ought not be trusted and are unnecessary.

They are unnecessary if we are willing to clear all of the rainforests and/or commit mass genocide.

linux_vegan wrote:Every living thing is part of an ecosystem, and there is no telling what genetic modification will do to the various ecosystems in which it is introduced, especially long-term.

It's quite easy to tell, actually. You gave a hint here:

linux_vegan wrote:As I like to say: nature knows better.

Our genetic tinkering is purpose built to make these plants suitable for a human made environment.
When these plants, or their genes, get into the wild, they are weak.

For example, glyphosate resistance.
In a field which is being sprayed with glyphosate, the resistant plant is the king of the mountain -- it will grow where no others can. Take away the glyphosate, however, and that resistant plant now has a useless "superpower" that is only slowing its growth compared to other plants.

Nothing is free in biology. Useless traits carry metabolic costs.

Please take some time to consider what you're saying, and the absurd notion that man has or even plausibly could design a plant that would out compete those that have evolved in the natural environment on their own turf.
We're making plants that grow better in the man-made environment of the field. Not the wild. As soon as these super crops leave the field, they are the most pathetic plants you've ever seen.

These are plants that grow fast, with little resistance to pests.
They're plants paying metabolic costs for herbicides that no longer exist in the environment.
They're plants with larger, softer, more macro nutrient rich seeds that get eaten by birds and mice preferentially because they're delicious junk food in the natural environment.
These are plants that can not and will not survive in nature.

Seriously, don't worry about nature holding her own against GMO. Human modification is a joke in the wild; it only works to increase yield and fitness in the field.

linux_vegan wrote:The idea that it is acceptable to pursue something because there are no scientific studies indicating its harmfulness (as I have noticed many people cite as justification for use of GMOs and other questionable practices) seems short-sighted and downright backwards.

That's a straw man argument, it's also a huge misunderstanding of science and medicine.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

These things have been studied extensively. The fact that no harm has been discovered after such rigorous safety testing indicates that they aren't harmful, but more than that, we understand the theory behind these things. There's no reason to think they might be harmful.

You could say the same thing about wearing clothing. It's unnatural, and maybe it's the reason people don't live hundreds of years like in the bible?
And how about blended fabrics? God said no! How do we know it's not causing cancer to blend cotton and linen, or other fabrics? Maybe weaving them together creates magical cancer fields by confusing the spiritual cotton and linen particles making them fight and zapping them off at high speeds to maliciously influence the nearby tissue.

How do we know? Because these are unreasonable claims, based on profound ignorance.
A basic knowledge of physics, chemistry, and biology shows us these things can not reasonably be true. That's all you need.

linux_vegan wrote:Imagine I have a home lab in which I cook up some new, unknown chemical with some benefit or other. I sprinkle it on some plants and offer the food up for consumption. When I'm questioned about its safety, I respond that there are no scientific studies showing that my creation is harmful.

That's not how it works.

Again, you are making a straw man argument. This is both unethical and intellectually dishonest on your part. Please do not do this.

Government requires extensive safety testing for new substances.
Are you familiar with some of the tests required?
Have you even looked into it honestly, seeking out unbiased sources? Please try.

Government is far from perfect, but neither is it that incompetent.
Both safety AND efficacy need to be established for new substances.


The problem is less in new chemicals, which are actually tested, but rather in OLD chemicals.
Are you familiar with "grandfather" clauses?

Basically, a lot of the poisonous and carcinogenic chemicals that used to be used can still be used because they're grandfathered in. These are the chemicals used in organic farming; "natural" poisons, which are both less potent against insects, and more dangerous to humans beings.

Interestingly, it's the "natural" surfactants in these sprays (often made from animal products, ick) that can tend to be more dangerous than the active ingredients.

linux_vegan wrote:accepting GMOs is accepting enrollment as guinea pigs in the next gigantic biology experiment, for someone else's profit at that.

That's not at all true. GMO has been going on since the dawn of civilization; any time we breed two plants together, we are modifying them. Sometimes the result is poisonous, when the other two plants were fine, since a gene was expressed too much. Think about that.

We actually TEST GMOs that are made. Checking for any possible toxic products that may be more expressed.
Given even basic testing, GMO is extremely safe.

However, it's this kind of fear mongering that's causing animal suffering, by passing laws to mandate more (unreasonable) testing of GMOs on animals. This is something that needs to stop ASAP, since it does no good.

brimstoneSalad wrote:

linux_vegan wrote:

brimstoneSalad wrote: It requires a lot more land for the same yield of essentially the same product. Huge waste.

Want organic? OK, let's clear cut the rest of the rain forests so we have room to grow our grains/beans.

That problem is not caused by organic farming; it is a result of trying to feed huge numbers of people with agricultural products. People have eaten organic agricultural products for thousands of years without having to clear entire rainforests.

It doesn't matter what the source of the problem is, you can point fingers all day.

Contradicts:

It's very important to avoid eating organic, though. Organic is really bad, and both the farming practice and the lobby is responsible for a lot of animal cruelty and profit for animal agriculture, in addition to massive environmental destruction.

What's the point of saying "organic is really bad" and going to the trouble of explaining how if it doesn't matter whether or not it's the source of the problem? Didn't it matter to you when you posted it?

linux_vegan wrote: What's the point of saying "organic is really bad" and going to the trouble of explaining how if it doesn't matter whether or not it's the source of the problem? Didn't it matter to you when you posted it?

I was only talking about yield (with regards to the problem with two causes). Not all problems lack a clear and single dominant contributing source.

But in that respect:

It doesn't matter if it's THE source, because it's A source.
And more importantly, because organic is a source we can actually do something about -- by not buying it.
Every day we can make that choice.

The population explosion in the developing world is also a serious problem, it's hard to feed all of those people, but unless you're suggesting genocide as a solution, there's no reason to point the finger at that and pretend organic is the solution to everything.

Organic can not feed the world. This is because of the low yield of organic farming, and the large world population. Two problems, one solution: Conventional farming practices and GMO to increase yield, protect the environment, AND feed those people.
The green revolution has already saved some billion human lives.

Comparing organic to conventional agriculture, organic is more environmentally destructive, and causes more cruelty to animals, too, which isn't related to the large world population, but to organic farming practices themselves in using large amounts of animal products and the lobby passing laws to mandate more unnecessary animal testing.

http://www.nature.com/news/organic-farming-is-rarely-enough-1.10519


http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogsscientificamericancomscience-sushi20110718mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/