Science of GM vs Climate Change vs Evolution

[Llama]

An interesting observation I've made:

People that don't support the science behind climate change and evolution, tend to support genetically modified crops etc

Vocal anti-GM people tend to support the science of climate change and evolution.

I would assume that the quiet majority support the science behind all three "issues", but it strikes me as odd how some people just pick and choose which science best suits them...

 

[MacLeod]

We've been genetically modifying crops for decades if not centuries.

 

[Gov Kodos]

I am not sure if the issue is the science so much as the politics, at least in the US. The three could be differently allocated by saying climate change, and evolution are natural processes, while GM foods are human alteration of a natural substance. Some folks are skeptical of human intervention in natural processes. Unwillingness of folks to accept GM foods is easy to understand when folks are already critical of human impact on the environment. Folks for GM foods can often be pro-business and that is common on the right wing where many fundamentalists currently congregate. The climate issue is another which divides more clearly as a business and political issue. Evolution gets debated in left right terms only because so many fundamentalists sit in the right wing currently, not because it's divisible as the other two issues can be.

 

[Mr. B]

People erroneously conflate "evolution" with abiogenesis/big bang theory, the latter of which is much more debatable than the former.

Similarly, the mere existence of global warming is not wildly contested, but its supposed anthropogenic origin is not a settled matter, even though there is "scientific consensus."

That leaves genetically modified crops, a largely undeniable necessity for agriculture to feed billions of people.

 

[Davros]

Similarly, the mere existence of global warming is not wildly contested, but its supposed anthropogenic origin is not a settled matter, even though there is "scientific consensus."

There is nothing "supposed" about it, it's real.

That leaves genetically modified crops, a largely undeniable necessity for agriculture to feed billions of people.

A wildly unsupported claim.

 

[scotpens]

The three could be differently allocated by saying climate change, and evolution are natural processes, while GM foods are human alteration of a natural substance. Some folks are skeptical of human intervention in natural processes.

Humans have been intervening in natural processes and improving upon nature ever since we learned to make fire. That's what we have thumbs for.

 

[Gov Kodos]

The three could be differently allocated by saying climate change, and evolution are natural processes, while GM foods are human alteration of a natural substance. Some folks are skeptical of human intervention in natural processes.

Humans have been intervening in natural processes and improving upon nature ever since we learned to make fire. That's what we have thumbs for.

None the less, regarding the OP's question about how folks fall on the 3 issues, I am going to stick by what I wrote.

 

[JarodRussell]

The way I see it, the only difference between cross-breeding and genetic manipulation is that the latter takes less time. After thousands of years of breeding crops and animals, we created animals that are SO incredibly different from their original ancestors. Cross-breeding, just like genetic manipulation, also results sometimes in unwanted results. Crops that produce toxins for example. Both methods also take advantage of the processes the result in evolution. Instead of random gene mutation and natural selection we have controlled gene mutation and artificial selection. But it's the same basic process.

The greatest problem is patenting of genetic manipulations. I don't believe it's right to do that.


The whole climate change debate is extremely funny. We base our data on roughly 100 years of continous weather observations, and thousands of years of fractions of what some random dudes wrote down. We don't understand the mechanics of all of it enough to be able to say that humans are responsible. But we start to panic anyways. It could be a natural cycle, caused by the sun, magma currents, or whatever. If you're right at the beginning of a new cycle without knowing it, and extrapolate your data linearly, you'll end up with catastrophic predictions. And that's what most climate change predictions seem to do.
If we were at the point of the last ice age and suddenly all those glaciers covering all of Europe were going to melt down, we'd panic thinking we were responsible.

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ There's far more science behind climate change than a hundred years of record keeping.

But the divisiveness behind these issues are definitely political rather than rational. The Right Wing denies climate change and evolution because of religion-- god created the world and nobody can mess with it or question it. They support genetically modified food because it's big business. The Left Wing accepts the science behind climate change and evolution because it supports their belief that people are damn dirty apes that are screwing up the world. They oppose genetically modified food because it's big business.

 

[Llama]

Extensive research exists proving the safety and environmental benefits of GM crops based on scientific fact, not emotion. Significant reductions in pesticide use, soil disturbance and damage, fossil fuels and carbon emissions have already been achieved with crops such as Bt cotton and Roundup Ready canola. An ever increasing range of productive crops delivering health, environmental and food security benefits are achievable. Another "ex-ideologue", Mark Lynas, agrees. His book The God Species records that his anti-GM "approach was unsupported by science and largely founded in ignorance about genetics in general". Lynas who was once so motivated as to destroy GM crops, now considers his previous ignorance akin to that of the climate change sceptics he scorns.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/an...-the-hungry-20130703-2pc2u.html#ixzz2Y1u3pv2k

An interesting article written by Nicolle Flint, a PhD candidate at Flinders University who is studying the political representation of Australian farmers in the context of environmentalism and animal activism.

 

[JarodRussell]

The greatest misconception about the whole GM thing is that food somehow changes your DNA (apparently because people take the saying "you are what you eat" literally). That's why genetic manipulated food is soooo dangerous. Who knows what's going to happen when you eat it?

In fact, nothing is going to happen. Unless the genetic code makes crops produce toxins or something. But then it's the toxin that affects you, and not a change of your own DNA.

 

[publiusr]

I seem to remember an arstechnica article about the left having blind spots to nuclear power in the same way the right has a blind spot with regards to AGW.

 

[marksound]

Nature has been cross-breeding and improving crops since the beginning of time. Modern genetically modified crops should be able to reproduce unaided by anything but nature. If they can do that, no problem.

In other words, mules are great. But unless something has changed since I took biology they can't get together and make more mules.