Top Iranian official " destruction of Israel is unnegotiable "

[OGEvilgenius]

I personally wouldn't want any theocratic government to obtain or build a nuclear weapon just as a matter of national security. I wouldn't want any government at all to have them if it was up to me

Iran hasn't attacked anyone in hundreds of years. Your country has actually dropped the bomb (for no good reason too!). I'm much less worried about Iran having nukes than I am America. Yet we're all still here.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

I wish We'd get rid of our nukes. That would show the world who is righteous

Problem though, your leadership is not righteous at all. The very polar opposite in fact. It's a nice sentiment though. Unfortunately I'm quite certain we're going extinct as a species for a lot of reasons, some of which are posted daily on this message board (intense personal hubris, gigantic egos, violent belief systems etc).

 

[Padawanbater2]

Iran hasn't attacked anyone in hundreds of years. Your country has actually dropped the bomb (for no good reason too!). I'm much less worried about Iran having nukes than I am America. Yet we're all still here.

Well, that's debatable, I think a good reason to use nuclear weapons against Japan instead of a traditional invasion was because it actually saved lives

Is your position that Iran should be able to enrich uranium to build as many nuclear bombs as they want? Do you believe there shouldn't be restrictions on who can obtain nuclear weapons?

What country are you from?

 

[OGEvilgenius]

Well, that's debatable, I think a good reason to use nuclear weapons against Japan instead of a traditional invasion was because it actually saved lives

Is your position that Iran should be able to enrich uranium to build as many nuclear bombs as they want? Do you believe there shouldn't be restrictions on who can obtain nuclear weapons?

What country are you from?

Dropping the bomb saved nothing. Full surrender was already on the table. You can believe what you want, no serious historian agrees with you except perhaps ones that are believers in American Exceptionalism (there are many of those by the way and they are all fucking insane).

I actually don't believe in centralized power. I don't believe that nuclear energy ever would have taken off without centralized efforts because of the insane liabilities (much of which are mitigated by federal programs for example in the United States). I also doubt that we'd see as much large scale war if people learned to respect one another and those who have different beliefs. But that's pretty unlikely at this point.

I see no reason why they should not be able to have them over Israel or America both of which have been very aggressive in foreign policy comparatively. Any narrative suggesting otherwise is largely xenophobic/race fueled garbage pushed by the mainstream media.

You will have a very difficult time making an argument against them having it that doesn't appeal to racist bullshit, which is about all I've seen. You even alluded to it when you labeled them jahadi extremists (they're actually fighting against ISIS... not financing and funding them... but anyway).

There are very very extreme folks on all sides of this discussion. I don't actually think it matters much anymore, I think we're way past the point of no return. I fully expect the upcoming decades to be the ones where humanity dies off. Mostly because of our own arrogance and self righteousness, but also because the very worst kind of people tend to end up in positions of power because of their willingness to do anything and most folks natural reactions to perceived threats.

GMOs are about as dangerous to the future of humanity as nuclear weapons are though... but here we go lets approve some more, courtesy watch dog FDA run by former biotech industry insiders who have more concern about power and profit than they do about anything else and believe their own bullshit anyway.

 

[Chester da Horse]

I fully expect the upcoming decades to be the ones where humanity dies off. Mostly because of our own arrogance and self righteousness, but also because the very worst kind of people tend to end up in positions of power because of their willingness to do anything and most folks natural reactions to perceived threats.

Humanity has seen darker days and lived through.

The planet hasn't however.

GMOs are about as dangerous to the future of humanity as nuclear weapons are though...

I agree GMOs are dangerous, but its a two edged sword - just like nuclear power they could be used safely for the benefit of the earth. We're just not mature enough as a society/species to wield that power responsibly.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Can someone explain to me why they think GMO's are dangerous?

 

[OGEvilgenius]

Can someone explain to me why they think GMO's are dangerous?

Because they aren't tested in nature. And because of this the chances they completely fuck the ecosystem are significantly higher than any plants created through natural means. They are a systemic risk.

Pretty good paper on the subject: http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/pp2.pdf

Article about said paper.

Nassim Taleb, a renowned New York University (NYU) professor recently raised eyebrows when he said genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have the potential to cause “an irreversible termination of life at some scale, which could be the planet.”


What effects will the genetic manipulation of nature have on our worldwide ecosystem? Photo courtesy of Shutterstock
Taleb, who specializes in risk engineering, has outlined the dangers of GMOs in The Precautionary Principle, a paper recently made available to the public.

The threat
Often, GMO seeds are favored because of their ability to yield larger harvests and avoid certain pests or weeds that usually eat up some of their productivity, reports Daily Finance.

Taleb’s primary concern isn’t that ingesting GMOs is necessarily bad for people; rather, he’s focused on what effects the genetic manipulation of nature will have on the worldwide ecosystem. While Taleb concurs the risk of any one GMO seed ruining the planet is incredibly small, he argues that people are underestimating the domino effect of risk that’s involved.

For example, if one genetically modified seed produced holds a 0.1 percent chance of causing a catastrophic breakdown of the ecosystem, then the probability of such an event will only increase with each new seed that’s developed.

Taleb writes that given enough time the “total ecocide barrier” is bound to be hit despite incredibly small odds.

The argument hinges on the fact that GMOs represent a systemic, and not localized, risk. As GMO goods continue to be exported to countries throughout the world, the idea of being able to control GMOs in nature is impossible to guarantee.

As Taleb says, “There are mathematical limitations to predictability in a complex system, ‘in the wild,’ which is why focusing on the difference between local (or isolated) and systemic threats is a central aspect of our warnings.”

Responding to critics

GMO supporters have criticized his work as GMOs have yet to significantly harm the ecosystem, but Taleb argues that point strengthens his theory.

Daily Finance reports:

The Precautionary Principle—which is what Taleb calls his warning—is all about managing risk, not about waiting for it to surface. The fact that GMOs are a systemic entity is undeniable. Taleb is equally skeptical of all entities that carry systemic risk—like too-big-to-fail banks.

We don’t, as Taleb says, argue that a game of Russian roulette is safer with each empty barrel we find. It is, in fact, more dangerous.

http://ecowatch.com/2014/03/06/nyu-gmos-destroy-planet/

 

[Chester da Horse]

Hijack off the Iranian topic but:

Most GMO agricultural products are sterile or the contract under which you access them prevents you from breeding/producing your own seeds from that stock. It is easy to imagine a future where all farmers are dependant on patented seed stock (paying dearly for it as well) because the evil megacorps introduce pathogens into the environment that disadvantage the non-GMO heirloom varieties. This already a real issue in the third world where GMO dependence by some farmers in an area can eventually force out other smaller competitors.

this possible correlation between bumblebee colony collapse disorder and GMO crops has fallen out of scientific favour in recent times, but it did present a plausible hypothesis for unintended negative consequences of introduction of Bt genes into crops to control pests.

You can't contain the pollen of GMO crops that aren't sterile, so contamination of the heirloom genetic base will occur. And monoculture of one genetically identical seedstock in an area means you can have a situation like the banana industry where a new pathogen/environmental challenge emerges and threatens to wipe out the entire global crop because there is little/no biodiversity.

Scientific history is full of stories of new things that looked promising to start with and ended up as disasters (thalidomide, DDT, asbestos, lead plumbing anyone?)

On the other hand, it has amazing potential to improve many aspects of our world. The problem is profit driven corporations are leading the charge and not publicly minded scientists.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

you're fucking dumb. really dumb.

Yeah, because manipulating genetic code we don't even completely understand surely will never lead to unintended consequences. This could happen naturally too, but that's a lot less likely. We're gambling and hoping we win. It's not like the seeds soaked in neonicotinoids aren't already decimating bee populations. Another brilliant invention from the geniuses bringing us genetically modified crops.

Nice productive response though. I'm surprised you didn't label my post racist.

 

[Padawanbater2]

http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/01/pewaaas-study-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety-stronger-than-for-global-warming/

 

[Padawanbater2]

Yeah, because manipulating genetic code we don't even completely understand surely will never lead to unintended consequences. This could happen naturally too, but that's a lot less likely. We're gambling and hoping we win.

Nice productive response though. I'm surprised you didn't label my post racist.

1. what makes you think we don't completely understand the genetic codes of these crops we farm?

2. why should we stop using GM foods when there haven't been any adverse health benefits and tens of millions of people have been saved from starvation, so it would seem a bit unusual to change the policy based on "this might happen at some point in time, we can't be sure"..

 

[OGEvilgenius]

1. what makes you think we don't completely understand the genetic codes of these crops we farm?

2. why should we stop using GM foods when there haven't been any adverse health benefits and tens of millions of people have been saved from starvation, so it would seem a bit unusual to change the policy based on "this might happen at some point in time, we can't be sure"..

There's no evidence of greatly increased yields from GM crops. Many many diseases are increasingly more frequent in populations of a huge variety. Something is causing these problems, as most of the causes are yet identified. Roundup for example has been recently found to be carcinogenic. Roundup is manufactured by some of these crops, forget being sprayed. Cancer rates are not declining (opposite).

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2013/02/do-gmo-crops-have-lower-yields

Do GMO Crops Really Have Higher Yields?
—By Tom Philpott

| Wed Feb. 13, 2013 7:06 AM EST

Rastoney/Flickr
According to the biotech industry, genetically modified (GM) crops are a boon to humanity because they allow farmers to "generate higher crop yields with fewer inputs," as the trade group Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) puts it on its web page.

Buoyed by such rhetoric, genetically modified seed giant Monsanto and its peers have managed to flood the corn, soybean, and cotton seed markets with two major traits: herbicide resistance and pesticide expression—giving plants the ability to, respectively, withstand regular lashings of particular herbicides and kill bugs with the toxic trait of Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt.

Turns out, though, that both assertions in BIO's statement are highly questionable. Washington State University researcher Charles Benbrook has demonstrated that the net effect of GMOs in the United States has been an increase in use of toxic chemical inputs. Benbrook found that while the Bt trait has indeed allowed farmers to spray dramatically lower levels of insecticides, that effect has been more than outweighed the gusher of herbicides uncorked by Monsanto's Roundup Ready technology, as weeds have rapidly adapted resistance to regular doses of Monsanto's Rounup herbicide.

And in a new paper (PDF) funded by the US Department of Agriculture, University of Wisconsin researchers have essentially negated the "more food" argument as well. The researchers looked at data from UW test plots that compared crop yields from various varieties of hybrid corn, some genetically modified and some not, between 1990 and 2010. While some GM varieties delivered small yield gains, others did not. Several even showed lower yields than non-GM counterparts. With the exception of one commonly used trait—a Bt type designed to kill the European corn borer—the authors conclude, "we were surprised not to find strongly positive transgenic yield effects." Both the glyphosate-tolerant (Roundup Ready) and the Bt trait for corn rootworm caused yields to drop.

Then there's the question of so-called "stacked-trait" crops—that is, say, corn engineered to contain multiple added genes—for example, Monsanto's "Smart Stax" product, which contains both herbicide-tolerant and pesticide-expressing genes. The authors detected what they call "gene interaction" in these crops—genes inserted into them interact with each other in ways that affect yield, often negatively. If multiple genes added to a variety didn't interact, "the [yield] effect of stacked genes would be equal to the sum of the corresponding single gene effects," the authors write. Instead, the stacked-trait crops were all over the map. "We found strong evidence of gene interactions among transgenic traits when they are stacked," they write. Most of those effects were negative—i.e., yield was reduced.

As far as not understanding what it is that we're actually doing..

Up until recently it was thought that because almost 90% of the nucleus contains non coding DNA that it was effectively junk and unused by the organism. It has no effect. It was even called junk DNA. When I was in high school we learned about this, and even then I thought to myself... junk? 90% of the nucleus and we've determined it's worthless information? Because that's exactly how my overly zealous biology teacher described it (he also deliberately picked fights with religious folks in class, it was always an entertaining class.. anyway). It felt... rash and foolish then. Still feels that way now. Especially in light of this:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hidden-treasures-in-junk-dna/

The phrase “junk DNA” has haunted human genetics ever since. In 2000, when scientists of the Human Genome Project presented the first rough draft of the sequence of bases, or code letters, in human DNA, the initial results appeared to confirm that the vast majority of the sequence—perhaps 97 percent of its 3.2 billion bases—had no apparent function. The “Book of Life,” in other words, looked like a heavily padded text.

Now, in a series of papers published in September in Nature (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group) and elsewhere, the ENCODE group has produced a stunning inventory of previously hidden switches, signals and sign posts embedded like runes throughout the entire length of human DNA. In the process, the ENCODE project is reinventing the vocabulary with which biologists study, discuss and understand human inheritance and disease.

This was in 2012. We've been playing with the genomes of various species for decades. Obviously doing it in a very ignorant way because we don't even understand what it is we're fucking with completely. Again, human ego trumps reason.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/01/pewaaas-study-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety-stronger-than-for-global-warming/

Wtf is this shit?

How about a Tufts study indicating the safety of these crops has only been confirmed by Industry funded studies in a very extensive meta analysis of all research done and that independent researchers studies actually do show cause for concern. They had studies at 50/50.

An equilibrium in the number research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was currently observed. Nevertheless, it should be noted that most of these studies have been conducted by biotechnology companies responsible of commercializing these GM plants. These findings suggest a notable advance in comparison with the lack of studies published in recent years in scientific journals by those companies. All this recent information is herein critically reviewed.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21296423

They noted the lack of studies done on safety as well early on.

But you're citing some poll of scientists who of course have absolute faith in their fellow scientists (everyone has a religion of some form its simply in our wiring, whether you deny it or not) - forget what the actual research says, because most of those polled probably haven't read or seen much of any of it given they are likely to be focused on their own areas of study and life which goes for most humans, not just scientists. I wonder if asked, Have you done an exhaustive study of the safety research conducted on GMO crops they would probably have to answer no.

 

[Padawanbater2]

There's no evidence of greatly increased yields from GM crops. Many many diseases are increasingly more frequent in populations of a huge variety. Something is causing these problems, as most of the causes are yet identified. Roundup for example has been recently found to be carcinogenic. Roundup is manufactured by some of these crops, forget being sprayed. Cancer rates are not declining (opposite).

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2013/02/do-gmo-crops-have-lower-yields

As far as not understanding what it is that we're actually doing..

Up until recently it was thought that because almost 90% of the nucleus contains non coding DNA that it was effectively junk and unused by the organism. It has no effect. It was even called junk DNA. When I was in high school we learned about this, and even then I thought to myself... junk? 90% of the nucleus and we've determined it's worthless information? Because that's exactly how my overly zealous biology teacher described it (he also deliberately picked fights with religious folks in class, it was always an entertaining class.. anyway). It felt... rash and foolish then. Still feels that way now. Especially in light of this:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hidden-treasures-in-junk-dna/

This was in 2012. We've been playing with the genomes of various species for decades. Obviously doing it in a very ignorant way because we don't even understand what it is we're fucking with completely. Again, human ego trumps reason.

Wtf is this shit?

How about a Tufts study indicating the safety of these crops has only been confirmed by Industry funded studies in a very extensive meta analysis of all research done and that independent researchers studies actually do show cause for concern. They had studies at 50/50.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21296423

They noted the lack of studies done on safety as well early on.

But you're citing some poll of scientists who of course have absolute faith in their fellow scientists (everyone has a religion of some form its simply in our wiring, whether you deny it or not) - forget what the actual research says, because most of those polled probably haven't read or seen much of any of it given they are likely to be focused on their own areas of study and life which goes for most humans, not just scientists. I wonder if asked, Have you done an exhaustive study of the safety research conducted on GMO crops they would probably have to answer no.

Lol.. OK, man.. I can tell where this is going already.. So I'm going to choose not to participate

 

[Chester da Horse]

so we've managed to reach an impasse on the Iranian nuclear deal and GMOs inside of 24hrs

I nominate RIU for the nobel peace prize [not]

hahaha I'm out too.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

Lol.. OK, man.. I can tell where this is going already.. So I'm going to choose not to participate

In other words, tune out anything you don't want to hear. Surveys are worth jack shit. You hold up a survey, I'll hold up a scientific review of the studies done indicating there is much cause for concern on a number of levels (lack of study or conflicting results in studies done where industry dominated research appears favorable continually in contrast to other papers).

 

[Padawanbater2]

In other words, tune out anything you don't want to hear. Surveys are worth jack shit. You hold up a survey, I'll hold up a scientific review of the studies done indicating there is much cause for concern on a number of levels (lack of study or conflicting results in studies done where industry dominated research appears favorable continually in contrast to other papers).

88% of scientists agree that GMO foods are safe

This "debate" is no different than the anthropogenic climate change "debate", go search some of those threads and see how much progress is made..

The fact is, I believe the majority of scientists (the majority of which are independent researchers not affiliated with any corporations looking to gain financially from pushing GMO foods) when it comes to these kinds of things, you don't seem to which means any of the valid scientific evidence I could provide wouldn't be acknowledged and can ultimately be discarded because you think everyone's in on the conspiracy..

So forgive me if I'd rather not waste my time. Feel free to believe whatever you want, but you should know that your position isn't validated by the scientific community and the overwhelming majority of scientists believe GMO's are completely safe

 

[OGEvilgenius]

88% of scientists agree that GMO foods are safe

This "debate" is no different than the anthropogenic climate change "debate", go search some of those threads and see how much progress is made..

The fact is, I believe the majority of scientists (the majority of which are independent researchers not affiliated with any corporations looking to gain financially from pushing GMO foods) when it comes to these kinds of things, you don't seem to which means any of the valid scientific evidence I could provide wouldn't be acknowledged and can ultimately be discarded because you think everyone's in on the conspiracy..

So forgive me if I'd rather not waste my time. Feel free to believe whatever you want, but you should know that your position isn't validated by the scientific community and the overwhelming majority of scientists believe GMO's are completely safe

I just posted a comprehensive and recent meta analysis which I quoted which clearly stated that half of all studies done (yes, they went ahead and reviewed all the studies they could find and startlingly couldn't find much of any pre 2006 despite GMOs being on the market since the 90's) demonstrate cause for concern.

You posted a broad survey of scientists. Which holds more weight? Nothing you posted, that's for sure.

Sugar was an indicated toxin (yes, toxin) by research done in the 50's and 60's (and more since). Then the food industry paid a bunch of scientists to indicate it was animal fat making people fat and causing the increases in heart attacks (not the increased consumption of sugar heavy processed food... which has also increased dramatically). Since the same people involved in that industry also are involved in the communications industry (and closely connected to all levels of government) which narrative got pushed? And what's happening with peoples general levels of health?

Why sugar? It's a preservative, it causes people to eat more and it's a lot cheaper than animal fat is. Or fat in general. Plus it seems very logical on the surface.... eating fat makes you fat. But of course the opposite is true because turning fat into usable energy requires much higher metabolic output than sugar, complex carbohydrates or protein.

That was a 'conspiracy' as you put it, that happened recently. But of course that couldn't happen again.

 

[Padawanbater2]

http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf

http://www.genetics.org/content/188/1/11.long

http://www.aaas.org/news/aaas-board-directors-legally-mandating-gm-food-labels-could-“mislead-and-falsely-alarm

http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/

http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/Y5160E/y5160e10.htm#P3_1651The

http://www.isaaa.org/kc/Publications/htm/articles/Position/fas.htm

http://www.fwi.co.uk/business/scientific-consensus-on-gm-crops-safety-overwhelming.htm

"And GMOs are often associated with large, unpopular corporations."

http://www.vox.com/2014/11/3/7150703/GMO-labeling-colorado-oregon-ballot-initiative-genetically-modified-foods

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10977&page=R1

http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/101/6/290.full

"Here's what AAAS concluded in its 2012 statement: "The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe." The European Commission agreed, after sifting through 25 years of research. So did the American Medical Association — although the latter is in favor of stricter pre-market safety testing."

http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf

....

 

[Padawanbater2]

I just posted a comprehensive and recent meta analysis which I quoted which clearly stated that half of all studies done (yes, they went ahead and reviewed all the studies they could find and startlingly couldn't find much of any pre 2006 despite GMOs being on the market since the 90's) demonstrate cause for concern.

You posted a broad survey of scientists. Which holds more weight? Nothing you posted, that's for sure.

Sugar was an indicated toxin (yes, toxin) by research done in the 50's and 60's (and more since). Then the food industry paid a bunch of scientists to indicate it was animal fat making people fat and causing the increases in heart attacks (not the increased consumption of sugar heavy processed food... which has also increased dramatically). Since the same people involved in that industry also are involved in the communications industry (and closely connected to all levels of government) which narrative got pushed? And what's happening with peoples general levels of health?

Why sugar? It's a preservative, it causes people to eat more and it's a lot cheaper than animal fat is. Or fat in general. Plus it seems very logical on the surface.... eating fat makes you fat. But of course the opposite is true because turning fat into usable energy requires much higher metabolic output than sugar, complex carbohydrates or protein.

That was a 'conspiracy' as you put it, that happened recently. But of course that couldn't happen again.

The conspiracy being you believe isolated incidents somehow invalidates all the rest of the science that contradicts your opinion

Similar to how opponents cherry pick piltdown man to discredit the theory of evolution..

OK, so maybe they lied about sugar, for the sake of argument lets say you're right, they did. How does that invalidate the decades of scientific study done since?