W00t!

THIS is the shit we should be concentrating on... Fuck you, you elitist assholes and your problems with GM crops.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...ng-biofuel

I've always been an advocate of GM foods.

---

And this is just awesome

Technically all domesticated crops are GM...most just weren't developed in a lab. A lot of the organics fucktards forget that. I'm so glad I ran across this today - now I have another source for my paper.

Anything with the 'ability to sequester excess atmospheric carbon' is a good idea.

(November 19, 2010 at 9:12 pm)ib.me.ub Wrote: Anything with the 'ability to sequester excess atmospheric carbon' is a good idea.

Yeah, it's easier to burn them when they are concentrated in one place.

(November 19, 2010 at 9:12 pm)ib.me.ub Wrote: Anything with the 'ability to sequester excess atmospheric carbon' is a good idea.

Yes, it's called a tree.

(November 19, 2010 at 9:12 pm)ib.me.ub Wrote: Anything with the 'ability to sequester excess atmospheric carbon' is a good idea.

As long as they don't cut down rainforests to plant GM crops...

(November 21, 2010 at 5:48 am)ib.me.ub Wrote:

(November 19, 2010 at 9:12 pm)ib.me.ub Wrote: Anything with the 'ability to sequester excess atmospheric carbon' is a good idea.

As long as they don't cut down rainforests to plant GM crops...

GM crops are (among other things) an attempt to use less space more effectively. There was also an article out of New Scientist that discussed manipulating genes in relation to the amount of chlorophyll in the plant - apparently plants actually produce too much in some cases and don't process sunlight as efficiently as they could. I wish I could provide the link to the full article but New Scientist has relegated it to its back issues and you need a subscription to see it - it's in the September archive I think.

At any rate - there have also been studies that suggest that the rainforests don't help quite as much as environmentalists would have you believe. Not that it's any reason to go cutting them down - I was a Ferngully child myself. But it's funny that a lot of the people you see who are FOR saving the rainforest are AGAINST GM crops because they don't live in reality. More efficient crops means less space needed, less competition against cattle (which are their own problem), less viable land sought after.

It's such a ridiculous thing to fight against - these scientists are using a laboratory to eliminate thousands of years of cross breeding to produce strains that will survive in just about any climate imaginable. Imagine the ills we could wipe off this planet if the dumbasses in Green Peace and the organics movement and the like didn't keep nay-saying tested products because of their own ideological beliefs.

Hungry people are angry people, and also easily manipulated. Take away the constant struggle for food, and you'd see a lot of problems in the world start to disappear.

thesummerqueen Wrote:At any rate - there have also been studies that suggest that the rainforests don't help quite as much as environmentalists would have you believe.

Wikipedia Wrote:by the University of Leeds, shows tropical forests absorb about 18% of all carbon dioxide added by fossil fuels.[17]

thesummerqueen Wrote:But it's funny that a lot of the people you see who are FOR saving the rainforest are AGAINST GM crops because they don't live in reality. More efficient crops means less space needed, less competition against cattle (which are their own problem), less viable land sought after.

Well, I don't know much about GM crops, but I am for the Rainforests. I don't support any crops, GM or not, that are going to destroy the Natural Eco-Systems of the World.

thesummerqueen Wrote:It's such a ridiculous thing to fight against - these scientists are using a laboratory to eliminate thousands of years of cross breeding to produce strains that will survive in just about any climate imaginable. Imagine the ills we could wipe off this planet if the dumbasses in Green Peace and the organics movement and the like didn't keep nay-saying tested products because of their own ideological beliefs.

Hungry people are angry people, and also easily manipulated. Take away the constant struggle for food, and you'd see a lot of problems in the world start to disappear.

It will, but do you really think this will ever happen in reality. As if the food produced goes to the correct place.

Quote:Genetic Engineering does not feed the world. 99.5 percent of farmers around the world do not grow Genetically Engineered crops.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/...acts-vers/

The problem is too many people, the polution they produce, and the resources they use.

---

This is the Greenpeace view, not mine, I really don't know much about it.

GreenPeace Wrote:We believe:

GMOs should not be released into the environment since there is not an adequate scientific understanding of their impact on the environment and human health.

We advocate immediate interim measures such as labelling of GE ingredients, and the segregation of genetically engineered crops and seeds from conventional ones.

We also oppose all patents on plants, animals and humans, as well as patents on their genes. Life is not an industrial commodity. When we force life forms and our world's food supply to conform to human economic models rather than their natural ones, we do so at our own peril.

---

I do know one thing though, we only have one Planet. Once it is done, there isn't another one to replace it.

Greenpeace can fuck off in this case. If we Genetically Modify crops so that they are more xerophytic and give a higher yield we could feed a lot more people. They can also become more pest resistant so less harmful chemicals need be administered. This means they would be cheaper for poorer farmers in LEDCs and more likely to survive.

Basically, they are just better.