you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 112 points 4 months ago (45 children)

My favorite is the people who rail against GMOs. Bitch, every food you eat has been genetically modified by humans. Either by selective breeding over a long period of time, or what they used to do in the early 20th century: bomb seeds with radiation and see what came out, toss the weird stuff, keep the neat stuff.

Everything is GMO. What's being done now is actually safer than before, because they actually know what they're trying to create, and are far more surgical in the process.

  • source
  • hideshow 45 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 4 months ago (8 children)

    Botanist dragging a barrel of glowing green fluid across the tiles of the station floor

    Security Chief: "Botanist! What the ABSOLUTE HELL are you doing with 50 liters of radium?"

    Botanist: "Mutating the corn so it's blight and drought resistant"

    Chief: "????"

    Botanist: "I've also mutated a species of hobby lemon to fill itself with sugary lemonade instead of citric acid"

    Chief: "Oh, holy crap okay go right ahead"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    Pretty much. Except that there was zero plan about what was going to come out the other end. It was just "irradiate, plant, see what happens."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Lemons are an artificial creation by genetic splice of the bitter orange and citron :)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 15 points 4 months ago

    every food you eat

    okay i was all ready to devil's advocat you but you had to say FOOD. punk.

    i was about to go eat, i don't know, a car or something to prove you wrong. I haven't had coffee yet i haven't thought this through

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 59 points 4 months ago (23 children)

    GMOs aren't dangerous because of the genetic manipulation. They're dangerous because of everything around it. Now it's possible to create vegetables that survive a centimetre of glyphosate coating. And if the farmers reuse seeds, they're breaching copyright law. With this, plants are copyrightable, would you like all of the cancer of contemporary American IP law applied to your food?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 45 points 4 months ago (16 children)

    this is actually such a big problem in tissue culture

    no one should be able to copyright LIVING BEINGS

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 4 months ago (13 children)

    But then if you can’t copyright it companies wouldn’t invest money in it since it wouldn’t be profitable. That’s kinda the whole point of copyright, so that there’s an incentive for innovation. Why invest in R&D when you can just let your competitor do it and immediately steal it from then?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    Copyright doesn't create incentives for innovation it creates incentives for stagnation. It's a guaranteed profit window for a static solution. Competition is what breeds innovation as you need to have the best product for its cost to capture market share. As copyright is inherently an anti-competitive practice only there to minimize risk it reduces innovation in favor of stable profits. Just because r&d costs money it doesnt mean that supply chains and production are handed to competitors for free. Its just a tool to minimize risk for venture capital because those who lobbied for it wanted to protect their assets from risk exposure and did so at the expense of consumers and innovation through lobbying. Removing it wouldnt stop people from creating solutions or trying to invent new products. Those who do the r & d always have a leg up as they have the research available to them for tweaking there process or final output that a competitor would not.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (9 children)

    "steal it" you cannot steal knowledge

    copyrighting living beings is bad

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago (8 children)

    You’re not stealing knowledge, you’re stealing someone else’s time, effort and money. There’s a reason there’s IP laws everywhere.

    What then do you suggest as the alternative? Or is your suggestion just to stop innovation?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago

    free is good

    "time effort and money"

    im sorry but innovation will be sustained without copyright

    no one is just gonna go "I cant make obscene amounts of money on this, better not do it at all" if they actually care about it

    free is good only hurts the rich

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    "no ones gonna do it if they cant exploit it for money" - very serious business human

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    Yes, this is exactly what happens. Lone humans just can’t do much on their own, you need money to fund you, and money doesn’t fund anything that isn’t going to make them more money.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Innovation happened before money as a concept existed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    You think? Because the vast majority of innovation (beyond the first few) was done by men who either had money (or priviliege, which in that time was the same thing) or men who were paid (or rewarded in some way) by those who did, resulting in the same thing. People who had no money/privilege and were not paid/sponsored did not have time to innovate, they had to spend their day trying to survive.

    If you were “paid” by your king/warlord or whoever, you think they allowed you to just go do the same for their enemy right after?

    Besides, I think we can all agree that innovation has been incredibly fast since capitalism came along, though whether it’s a cause or correlation is debatable. If your argument is that they came up with fire without copyright, then I’m afraid it’s not a very good one.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago*

    Copyright suffocate to death innovation by preventing people to use that technology and build on it, it's just a dick move to make money.

    Humans can innovate without shitright too, that's what we have always done
    Innovation is for making humanity greater, or at least it should be

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    The Epa was the only way we got them to stop with DDT.

    They keep ratcheting the poison further and further up to keep weeds out. They basically carpet bombed the South with ddt to kill off something and that killed off the birds and fishes and sucked up anyone that ate it for twenty years.

    Which was a lot of the South, but now hunting is a rich mans privilege down here. Wheras only rich folk ate cattle with any frequency, now it's pretty common food.

    I've often thought that Monsanto was the only thing wrong with GMOs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 22 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

    The problem is that the way GMO is used in practice is to maximize profits: get giant fruits that weigh a lot and catch eyes on the shelf, but are low in nutritional value and have shitty taste/texture.

    Like huge strawberries that taste like water, or taste unripe even when they're ripe. Or giant asparagus that's as tough as sisal twine.

    I have a theory that if you GMO to prioritize nutritional density, it'll taste better, because the photonutrients phytonutrients are the stuff that taste good.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    nutritional value

    Is not a consideration either way (and that's part of the problem) time and "viability" from pick to market are even more important than that and even flavor. Hence, hothouse tomatoes, the most tasteless tomato on the planet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    I think the argument against GMO (for me) isn't so much the yields and other benefits, but rather the potential for single blight to wipe entire crops (did to the lack of variety, despite their claims to blight resilience) and the shady stuff that gmo companies do - sterilised seeds, patent wars, etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    It's already happened to bananas. That's why banana candy tastes NOTHING like the bananas you can buy today, it tastes like the bananas that died out from a fungus.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago

    It's more that banana flavoring is a simple chemical (isoamyl acetate) that when tasted was kinda closer to bananas (and pears apparently) than anything else in their minds. Old bananas had more of it than modern ones, but it isn't like it was ever a faithful recreation.

    It's similar to how some grapes taste more or less like methyl anthranilate, but the chemical itself really just distinctly tastes like artificial grape.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago

    Yeah ancestral plants that became many crops look almost nothing like their descendants in many cases

    The funniest I think are secondary crops like oats and rye. Our forebears weren’t even trying to grow a better version of those, those started off as just weeds that people were trying to get rid of in their wheatfields. In the course of purging them they accidentally selected for more wheat-like plants that people would be less likely to rip out until they became actual decent crops on their own, while also maintaining hardiness in areas that wheat couldn’t handle such that they spun off and became popular on their own rights.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago

    Yeah the discussion has to be clear. I'm not in love with splicing genes very unrelated to the destination organism and not seeing what the long-term effects are. Also splicing genes specifically to make crops more resistant to Roundup so we can kill everything but the crop even harder and be unconcerned of the wider environmental impact the pesticide has.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -5 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    bomb seeds with radiation and see what came out

    are far more surgical in the process.

    ...right...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments