The Gene Revolution: GMO's are critical to our survival

Posted by dbhalling 8 years, 11 months ago to Science
49 comments | Share | Flag

An excellent paper that traces the amazing history of GMO's, which really goes all the way back to the beginning of the agricultural revolution.
SOURCE URL: http://cpip.gmu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Maxham-The-Gene-Revolution.pdf


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 11 months ago
    The same eco-freaks that want to ban every 20th century innovation have moved into the 21st century with a long list of ways to put us back a thousand years. Tops among these is the banning of GMOs. I doubt when it comes to food grown in the earth that they'd care to eat some of the original versions such as corn, various fruits and berries, tree fruit, etc. What they would see is shriveled and stunted compared to today's produce. Tomatoes were considered poisonous because they were related to the mandrake. A cook once tried to poison Washington by putting tomato in his salad. When he didn't die, the cook became a Washington advocate believing him to be immortal.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 8 years, 11 months ago
    Good article. One of the things that is often overlooked is that if a crop is innately resistant to a pest or weed, then you do not have to spray the crop, thus minimizing the insecticides that get into the soil and water. So GMO = pro-environmental from that perspective as well.

    I would like to hold Greenpeace accountable for the millions of deaths it has caused.

    There is a glo-plant available now too. You do not need to use UV to see it - it fluoresces.

    Jan, wants a night-light plant
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ jdg 8 years, 11 months ago
      Ultimately the argument against GMOs and similar innovations boils down to "We don't fully understand nature and never will; God knows more than we; so how dare we try to improve on nature?" In other words, it's both mysticism and a denial of the power of reason.

      Indeed, most of the environmental movement is based on that same shallow argument.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jlc 8 years, 11 months ago
        The most grounded argument re CERN that I heard was, in essence, "I am tired of hearing doomsday predictions by people whose first statement is 'well, I can't do the math, but...'. If you can't do the math, keep your mouth shut."

        As you say, the same thing applies to genetics (but...less math). Hmmm. History too, come to think of it. We cannot all know everything (just too much to know) but we can each try to grasp some basic principles of various disciplines. And you know what? Lots of doomsday predictions disappear when one does that.

        Jan
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 11 months ago
          One that disappeared along with an entire year was the millennial prediction of doom, gloom and what every Sure enough the thousandth year of 1000 just disappeared.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ jlc 8 years, 11 months ago
            Whoosh! It was gone.

            "Y2K" is a term in IT now, used to tag something that is overblown, ie "Will the new ICD10 changeover be just another Y2K?"

            Jan
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 11 months ago
              Well,imo, Y2K 'the programming fix' kept the economy going until, er, y2k. Billions were spent to make sure that there would not be any sigificant problems with software because so many programmers had coded year as 2 digits.
              Those consulting revenues helped keep other economic problems hidden until the tech boom busted starting in April 2000. It wasn't overblown at all, but hard work made it appear that way.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 11 months ago
                That's true and that was the only thing significant other than the original programmers screwed up a perfectly good system of telling time by starting at 0001 AM and counting allllllllll the way to 1159AM then finishing it with 12PM instead of 12AM. The real sad part was it only need the 24 hour system 0000.click to 2400. AM and PM after all are not designated spots on the highway of time they are just designators of before and after the meridian or zenith of the sun. I think their teachers forgot to include that in what used to be standard common ordinary world wide language.The one to 12 system came about with mechanical clocks only having enough room on the face for 12 numbers until some said duuuuhhhh why not put 13 under the one and so forth ....

                That you can work with in navigation but people who think the millennium meant 999 years are really really really .....dumbed down.

                Their first excuse is but it starts with zero. That's right dummies and the first year ends with one the thousandth ends with a thousand and Zero has no value it's just another signpost like
                AM and PM.

                The LMAO part is the hucksters and propagandists could have been celebrating 2000 all year long as the last year finishing with a reeeeeeelllleeeee big shoe (who used to say that?) and mondo fireworks and cannons and Boston Pops live.

                I'll forgive the part to make it work you would have to put the meantime through this little town in Israel and readjust for Gregorian and Julian....Otherwise the mystical formulas and incantations can't work. LMFAOx2
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ jlc 8 years, 11 months ago
                Oh boy, are you right. We had a couple of big bonus years. These helped get us through the bust that happened when the dotcom bubble burst.

                "Fear will keep the local systems in line."

                Jan
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 8 years, 11 months ago
    I could add one other significant area of genetic modification to the list: modified bacteria to produce biofuels more efficiently, which you won't find one "greenie" opposed to. Just like the green power adherents that are passionate about wind power, but will fight to the death over turbine intrusion into prairie chicken territory, anti-GMO people are selective in their outrage.

    Biological competition is the bugaboo that anti-GMO people drag out, but that exists as a matter of natural competition, commonly called "invasive species". The Asian carp, zebra mussels, "Africanized" bees are all examples of non-GMO invasions. Life isn't constant and stable - live with it, adapt, or die. This is the same dilemma that stirs so much angst over "climate change", in spite of the evidence that the climate has never been constant and stable in the world's history.

    The boogeyman that gets people nervous is GM humans. We've already started down the path of genetic alteration to eliminate inherited disorders, and the cry has gone up that this is another path to eugenics. The fear that science will create an elite class of humans with superior abilities that will subordinate the "lesser" humans in a Nazi paradise is behind part of the hysteria. Will there be an irresistible temptation to create super-beings with greater disease resistance, longer life, and extreme physical strength and speed? Unquestionably, but this is a social issue decided by economics. Reducing the medical needs for a superior race should be worth the expense of its creation. Who knows where human GM will lead, but we are in the position of controlling our own evolution.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by fosterj717 8 years, 11 months ago
    Absolutely! This demonization of GMOs is interesting and somewhat bizarre. The whole thrust for developing this class of products came about in large part due to a study completed in 1966 by the RAND Corporation, cited by the UN in the Rio Accords and promoted heavily at the request of the US government and the UN, all to alleviate the widespread starvation of millions of people around the world at the time.

    In addition, this RAND study is also one of the bedrock studies cited to promote "Sustainable Growth", however, there is also a dark side to the issue of GMOs.

    Being that the study was based on data available at the time and certain assumptions that were made and reported as gospel, again the date of the study being 1966, the population of the world was significantly less than now and the the recommendations used Malthusian Theory (population growth being exponential and food growth being arithmetic), again based upon what was known then.

    According to the study and its recommendatons, the "optimum" population for the world was 500 million, yes, million (current world population at 8 billion) and for the US, 50 million (currently at 310 million).

    Regardless of the propaganda, GMOs have kept the world eating for the most part thus making the RAND numbers all but obsolete however, the UN in its lazy manner is still using those numbers and goals as their basis for the Rio Accords, Agenda XXI and even what is seen on the Georgia Rune Stones.

    Just a little FYI.....
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 years, 11 months ago
      Many environmentalist think that is the ideal human population today, which is why I think environmentalism is greatest threat to humans in the world today far surpassing, socialism, christianity, islam, and every other form of irrationalism Note that the environmental movement in 60 years has probably been responsible for killing more people than socialism (islam, christianity) combined in all of history.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 11 months ago
        Interesting thought. Do you know if anyone has researched it? It would be pretty hard to top the 100 million socialist dictators have offed in the past 100 years...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 11 months ago
          I would have thought rather more than that. So I looked. 232 million in the XX Century is one fairly hard figure but did not include genocides and killings not as part of wars but of repression or bad science etc.

          Here's a top Ten list

          10. Yakubu Gowon (1.1 million deaths) Nigeria
          9. Mengistu Haile Mariam (400,000 – 1.5 million deaths) Ethiopia
          8. Kim Il Sung (1.6 million deaths)
          7. Pol Pot (1.7 million deaths)
          6. Ismail Enver Pasha (2.5 million deaths)
          5. Hideki Tojo (5 million deaths)
          4. Leopold II of Belgium (2-15 million deaths)
          3. Adolf Hitler (17 million deaths)
          2. Jozef Stalin (23 million deaths) He did about that same number in between wars.
          1. Mao Zedong (49-78 million deaths)

          and that's not counting LBJ and Rachel Carson.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ HeroWorship 8 years, 11 months ago
    You ain't seen nothin' yet. Remember, we used to have rules about who was allowed to read and write? That's how far back this conversation is in the process.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Esceptico 8 years, 11 months ago
    Excellent Article. Thank you for brininging it to the Gulch. I am constantly amazed at the number of people who believe GMO food will kill them and, with religious fervor, righteously rail against them. When I politely ask any questions, I get bumper sticker answers coupled with enough explanations to fill whole books of fallacy examples. Typically, in my experience, they are “spiritual” people enamored with “vortices of Sedona” (I am in Arizona, I am sure there are similar places elsewhere) and magic crystals for healing. Politically, with rare exception, they are also collectivists.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 years, 11 months ago
      Some where I ran across the argument that Monsanto had a GMO corn (or some other grain) that put out a herbicide. Now I am not going to say that would be impossible if the herbicide was very narrowtargeted, but that was not what they were saying. What I think got them confused was the herbicide resistant strains of corn.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by tkstone 8 years, 11 months ago
        I think they mean the BT corn. It is an endotxin that is toxic to cutworms.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Esceptico 8 years, 11 months ago
          I think it is the “Roundup Ready” corn, which is a breed of corn (my understanding) which is not subject to the weed killer Roundup, thus making it possible to broadly spray the corn and kill only the weeds. The argument I am given on this by the anti-GMO folks is the corn absorbs the Roundup and we all suffer. When I asked for evidence, the best I got as a reference was to a “Natural News” article which stated there is no hard evidence of any harm to humans but we should all fear it anyhow. The same with “Golden Rice,” which can save millions of children from blindness due to vitamin A deficiency. Since these folks love to live on speculation, a whimsical article is good enough for them.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 8 years, 11 months ago
    If science ever finds a danger to GMOs, which to my understanding has not happened yet and may never hppen, critics will say, "Now they're changing their story. They can't just pick one conclusion and stick to it."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 8 years, 11 months ago
    I have often commented that our use of genetic information and the ability to develop new products in the twenty-first century will be as profound as what we learned to do with electricity in the twentieth.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by $ Olduglycarl 8 years, 11 months ago
    Ah but there is a big difference doing it naturally versus today's gmo's.
    They just arrogantly figured they could do whatever and it would be safe...wrong! They have endangered life on earth.

    Read: Altered Genes, Twisted Truth
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 years, 11 months ago
      emotion without facts. Worse actually, emotion against all facts.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 8 years, 11 months ago
        The facts are in the recommended reading: Particularly pages 90/91 puts it together quite well.
        Written by someone who lived it.

        With a little common sense no emotion is needed.
        It's quantumly objective.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 8 years, 11 months ago
          Extraordinary require extraordinary evidence. Unless you can present something extraordinary, I am not going to waste my time. I don't need to read every cranks book on global warming to know it is nonsense.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 8 years, 11 months ago
            No cranks here. This is the most reasonable, historical and accurate resource available in regards to genetic modifications.
            It's taken me a long time to vet this out.
            It's worth reading for anyone willing to adapt to new knowledge...which is a Conscious Human Trait...or in our community shall I say: An Objective conscious human trait?
            This book is definitely eye opening.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo