0
0

[–] tomlinas ago 

They're patented. Monsanto has never even produced them. It's kind of a straw man to attack them for patenting innovation they've performed in their area of operation, even if you think terminator genes are a bad idea.

Even more than this being a crappy reward, you can't prove a negative. There's no way to prove that GMOs are "safe" any more than you can prove that weaing blue jeans is "safe." What you can prove, and has proven over and over and over and over is a lack of risk. At this point the anti GMO crowd either hates science because they don't understand it, or hates the third world and wants people to starve.

0
0

[–] Climhazzard ago 

Not every anti-GMO person is against all GMOs. There are many anti-GMO people that see the potential good from such technology, but they think the science is lacking. They are not anti-science, they are pro-science. They want more testing and research to be done so as to better understand the potential consequences (like bees dying off). They believe the technology is ahead of the ethics. It is the lack of science on many things that lead us to be stupid with those things: mercury tonics, lobotomies, etc.

0
0

[–] casper ago  (edited ago)

The main culprit for the bee thing are neon ocotillos, which have nothing at all to do with GMOs. This illustrates my main objection with your argument actually. Most folks who are positing that more science is needed aren't even vaguely aware of the existing science.

Zero risk = zero innovation. I'm not claiming science has it all figured out (an impossibility) but it does have this stuff figured out well enough to take some tiny risks here and there.