[–] [deleted] 7 points 37 points (+44|-7) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

2
12

[–] Jubal_FatherOfAll 2 points 12 points (+14|-2) ago 

So the argument against vaccines and GMOs most people mention are dumb. However there is one real threat of GMOs. Currently something like 80% of the world food is GMO and all of this food is resulting from only a few strains of seeds. The potential danger is that with so little genetic diversity between the few seeds being used for the world entire food supply, if a disease comes along that effects one of these seeds the while world's food source could be in jeopardy.

There is a giant seed bank I forget where, but by the time new crops are grown it will already be a disaster.

1
17

[–] noblefool 1 points 17 points (+18|-1) ago 

That comes down to the bit I mentioned about Monsato's shady practices though. They're doing their absolute best to strangle anyone else out of so much as thinking about doing anything with seeds. That's not inherently a problem with GMO's, that's a problem with Monsato and the structuring of the industry itself.

1
7

[–] hambrehombre 1 points 7 points (+8|-1) ago 

However there is one real threat of GMOs. Currently something like 80% of the world food is GMO and all of this food is resulting from only a few strains of seeds.

This isn't a real threat; it's a real common misconception. GM traits are transformed into regional germplasm. If anything, this actually increases biodiversity when compared to conventional agriculture without GMOs.

0
5

[–] rwbj 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago  (edited ago)

What you're stating is inaccurate. Nearly all food in the USA is genetically engineered but that is extremely unique among the developed world. These data are from 2007 but the ballparks are still going to be comparable. The US not only consumes but grows the most GMOs in the world by a landslide with 57.7 million hectares of land. The second and third are Argentina and Brazil with 19.1 million and 15 million hectares. Monsanto traits being present in 85% of global GMO crop hectares.

This is one of the reasons the US is pushing so hard for things like the TPP and TTIP. Currently 64 countries have partially or completely prohibited GMOs, many more have labeling laws and requirements which means consumers voluntarily tend to choose to not purchase them. The TTIP and TPP would help big argi-tech force their products into more areas that have governments currently listening to will of their people.

0
1

[–] sp2902iu 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

norway

11
6

[–] qwop 11 points 6 points (+17|-11) ago  (edited ago)

I'm no expert in Biology...

Yes..sorry, but things are rarely as simple and as clear cut as you initially may think, and this holds for most any subject, but especially ones where you are not an expert :-/ It's just a fact of life...but it usually takes some experience to realize this..

Here's a statement from some actual biologists and scientists:
http://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1

Here's an actual MD and Ph.D in genetics giving his opinion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFPVviqOJ6Q

Don't always believe the platitudes and simplifications you hear on the main stream media. You're on Vote for one thing, so you're probably already more informed than the average person.

Therefore you should already know that you can't believe what the MSM tells you about anything, why would you suddenly believe what they tell you about GMOs and vaccines then?

I give you a small hint; they tell you made up stories about those things too, just as they do with everything else.

5
7

[–] hambrehombre 5 points 7 points (+12|-5) ago 

Here's a statement from some actual biologists and scientists: http://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1

Oh, you mean a statement from "scientists" in the poor-reputation, pay-to-publish journal that has an infamous anti-GMO bias and has re-published the retracted work from Seralini without having him change a thing? That journal is a joke.

Here's an actual MD and Ph.D in genetics giving his opinion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFPVviqOJ6QYouTube

So one guy VS the entire scientific consensus?

2000+ studies have found GMOs to be safe without a single reasonable study otherwise.

Over 240 scientific and health organizations find GMOs to be safe without a credible organization stating otherwise.

Currently, there's a 51% gap between the consensus among scientists and the general public regarding the safety of GMOs. There simply isn't another scientific issue with such a gaping disparity. This disparity is unfortunate, considering GMOs are demonstrated to:

-Increase yield

-Increase farmer profits (especially in developing countries)

-Increase shelf lives (reducing food waste)

-Increase nutrient levels in plants

-Increase tolerance to extreme climate/weather

-Reduce pesticide use

-Reduce fertilizer use

-Reduce irrigation

-Reduce fuel/oil use

-Reduce tilling

-Reduce runoff

-Reduce agricultural land demand

-Reduce CO2 emissions

I also find it ironic that anti-GMO activists support the random mutagenesis of entire genomes, potentially causing unpredictable mutations in (tens of) thousands of genes, but somehow manipulating a single gene is an outrage. Somehow, they think these crops don't need a label, but manipulation of a single gene does.

Take off the tinfoil hat.

Therefore you should already know that you can't believe what the MSM tells you about anything, why would you suddenly believe what they tell you about GMOs and vaccines then?

Because I trust the overwhelming global consensus scientists, physicians, farmers, and governmental organizations.

I give you a small hint; they tell you made up stories about those things too, just as they do with everything else.

I'll give you a hint; you're citing a few fringe "scientists" instead of the huge consensus on the issue.

[–] [deleted] 7 points 7 points (+14|-7) ago 

[Deleted]

[–] [deleted] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

2
1

[–] hambrehombre 2 points 1 points (+3|-2) ago  (edited ago)

It's completely absurd that the general public considers GMOs to be the only "genetically modified" foods that we eat. There are many other breeding techniques that produce more far more unpredictable and disruptive changes in the genomes of crops.

For instance, I find it ironic that anti-GMO activists like you support the random mutagenesis of entire genomes, potentially causing unpredictable mutations in tens of thousands of genes, but somehow manipulating a single gene is an outrage.

There are thousands of mutagenically bred plants in existence and nobody bats an eye. Unlike GMOs, these certified organic organic, heirloom, and GMO-free mutagenesis breeding crops aren't tested for their safety, which is why some have actually proven to be allergenic to humans unlike any commercial GMO.

Not to mention that a huge percentage of plants are probably transgenic, and we just haven't linked these transgenes to other organisms evolutionary. A few examples:

8,000 years ago the sweet potato had a pesticide gene randomly inserted into its genome.

Not to mention that plant to animal gene transferred has been documented.

Humans are thought to have over a hundred genes from other organisms.

Animal-to-plant DNA transfer has been observed in pine trees, spruces, and other conifers.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

2
8

[–] hambrehombre 2 points 8 points (+10|-2) ago 

Most of the reasons people are against Monsanto turn out to be myths. Why do you care so much about them and not the other biotech players like Syngenta, Dow, BASF, DuPont, Nunhems, Bayer, Pioneer, etc.?

0
3

[–] noblefool 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I do care about those other companies because they're (typically from what I've seen) just as complicit in the shady business practices, but Monsato is a household name and it's easier to explain exactly what I'm against with it. I don't approve of their shouldering smaller entities out of the market, I don't approve of their patent bullying, and I don't approve of the acts of government that strongly facilitate their behavior. If any of those companies do not act like that, I have no problem with them, but of the companies I've heard of that you just listed (and that you provided a graphic for elsewhere in this thread), the ones I know about act in questionable manners, which I disagree with.

1
7

[–] ChicagoSunroof 1 points 7 points (+8|-1) ago 

Facebook responds to bullying. You get enough people to complain about anything or anyone, and they'll take it down.

0
6

[–] Grunge 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

unless you are that fat whore tess holiday, I remember a bunch of people were reporting the disgusting nude photos of herself she posted on facebook and we all got the 'nothing wrong here' message or whatever.

0
2

[–] Pawn 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

the fat itself covers up anything nude unless she deliberately moves her fat to expose nasty.

13
7

[–] qwop 13 points 7 points (+20|-13) ago  (edited ago)

One big problem is that science today has been mostly hijacked by corporate interests. When you hear "science" today on any main stream media outlet, what you should instantly think is "corporate propaganda".

Science today is not what real science used to be. It's been hijacked as a marketing and brain washing tool by the big multinational corporations, and even politicians.

This is because corporations and politicians have noticed that people "bow to science". When people start to trust a topic almost blindly, it becomes ripe for manipulation, and this is exactly what is happening now.

Editor In Chief Of World’s Best Known Medical Journal: Half Of All The Literature Is False
"Science has taken a turn towards Darkness":
http://www.globalresearch.ca/editor-in-chief-of-worlds-best-known-medical-journal-half-of-all-the-literature-is-false/5451305

170 Scientific Studies Retracted Since 2013 for Blatant Fraud, Rigged Peer Reviews:
http://sgtreport.com/2015/03/170-scientific-studies-retracted-since-2013-for-blatant-fraud-rigged-peer-reviews/

Gross scientific misconduct- How GMO scientists lied about GM corn to engineer a fake consumer choice study:
http://www.naturalnews.com/054267_GMO_corn_fraudulent_study_wormy_scandal.html

Message to a new generation of true science/medical reporters:
https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2015/03/31/message-to-a-new-generation-of-true-sciencemedical-reporters/

News Vs. Sub-News: How The Game Works:
http://www.activistpost.com/2015/03/news-vs-sub-news-how-game-works.html

2
1

[–] Zenogias 2 points 1 points (+3|-2) ago 

Yeah, I feel like voat is currently being astroturfed with redditors and threads like this one are why.

There is one sentence that allows you to find the truth behind any topic, "Follow the money".

2
0

[–] Virtueandanarchy 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago  (edited ago)

Yep the brainwash is obvious man. Its like the CIA decided the populace needed a new religion so they hired a few Bill Nye types to creat one.

I cant have a simple disagreement about anything today without some asshole talking about "i only care about the science and facts" like that means anything at all. All it means is that you only care about what some expert said and it also has to be the right expert because the others that go against me are all quacks.

2
-2

[–] profanion 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

Remember when germ theory was rejected for being "too depressing"?

6
3

[–] Unreasonable 6 points 3 points (+9|-6) ago 

"Anti-Science" is a dogmatic attack only used by Science Evangelists and Preachers.

1
3

[–] Laurentius_the_pyro 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

And calling people evangelists isn't a dogmatic attack?

3
0

[–] Virtueandanarchy 3 points 0 points (+3|-3) ago  (edited ago)

No I think its pretty apt descriptive of the type of person who treats science like a religion. What other word can you use for that phenomenon?

2
-1

[–] Unreasonable 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago 

I didn't say I was a scientist. Dogmatic attacks are fine in my philosophy.

0
2

[–] salmonela 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

If enough people report it, it is removed till a human can review it. Activists are just abusing the system.

0
2

[–] schwanstucker 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

No free speech. Everyone is censoring opinions they don't like. Not good. AND I am anti-GMO. Free flow of information is good. We NEED information, not censorship.

1
2

[–] hambrehombre 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

Everybody on Voat allows opinions to be heard on GMOs except the biggest anti-GMO activist on Voat, HenryCorp.

Just try posting a well-sourced pro-GMO argument in one of his subs and await your ban.

0
2

[–] twentyfive 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

explain how can one be anti science?

load more comments ▼ (11 remaining)