[Dual Porpoise]

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi...ull/2008/918/2

Interesting article that indicates that people hold right wing beliefs because as a response to scaring more easily.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Dual Porpoise 

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi...ull/2008/918/2

Interesting article that indicates that people hold right wing beliefs because as a response to scaring more easily.

That's why people who lean right are so scared of neo-cons, global warming, guns, McCain keeling over with a heart attack 5 minutes after inauguration leaving Palin even less than a "heartbeat away from the Presidency". I'm not sure about this, but I'm thinking that scary images are more common in one demographic than another. I'll have to look into this.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

That's why people who lean right are so scared of neo-cons, global warming, guns, McCain keeling over with a heart attack 5 minutes after inauguration leaving Palin even less than a "heartbeat away from the Presidency". I'm not sure about this, but I'm thinking that scary images are more common in one demographic than another. I'll have to look into this.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Dual Porpoise

sciencemag

First, they were attached to equipment to measure skin conductivity, which rises with emotional stress as the moisture level in skin goes up. Each participant was shown threatening images, such as a bloody face interspersed with innocuous pictures of things such as bunnies, and rise in skin conductance in response to the shocking image was measured. The other measure was the involuntary eye blink that people have in response to something startling, such as a sudden loud noise. The scientists measured the amplitude of blinks via electrodes that detected muscle contractions under people's eyes.

The researchers found that both of these responses correlated significantly with whether a person was liberal or conservative socially.

Okay. Couple of problems right off the bat here;
- Each participant was shown (in their words) "threatening" and "shocking" images of bloody faces interspersed with innocuous pictures of things such as bunnies and right wing people reacted more fearfully. You mean they reacted more like a sane individual when viewing "shocking images" of "threatening" bloody faces? Some in Nebraska must watch TV more than others I guess. Fascinating. No seriously. Next?

Hmm, interesting Hobson. With another lab we could test the reactions of rabbits to our charcoal starter here.

The right-wing reacted more drastically with eye blinks "that people have in response to something startling". No!

Conclusion; The right wingers are more normal and alert than the left wingers and they're apparently growing more than just corn in Nebraska.

[smacintush]

That study is a joke.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Okay. Couple of problems right off the bat here;
- Each participant was shown (in their words) "threatening" and "shocking" images of bloody faces interspersed with innocuous pictures of things such as bunnies and right wing people reacted more fearfully. You mean they reacted more like a sane individual when viewing "shocking images" of "threatening" bloody faces? Some in Nebraska must watch TV more than others I guess. Fascinating. No seriously. Next?

Yeah, I was wondering myself just exactly what the conclusion was supposed to be drawn from that. So would it be better to be a person who reacts the same seeing a cute fluffy bunny as they do seeing someone's face covered in blood??? Honestly, I would think there's something wrong with someone who has the same reaction to such different things, and in any type of situation, I wouldn't really want to rely on anyone who couldn't recognize the difference in -they label it "fear" but really it's: concern-level. Not that I really think there's much validity to 'studies' like this.

[Shaddim]

I think it comes down to people who are "liberal" being better able to "conceal and suppress". They're more cynical and there's less innocence about them.

[Dual Porpoise]

This is how much the body automatically respond to perceived threats with fearful knee-jerks - seems to describe the Republican Party pretty accurately to me.

[Helmling]

All you need to know about left vs. right wing politics is in this thread, but it's not the study that will help you understand it, it's the thread itself:

Hopeless over-generalization by one side leads to a knee jerk rejection without the slightest hint of introspection or self-doubt.

We all suck.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

All you need to know about left vs. right wing politics is in this thread, but it's not the study that will help you understand it, it's the thread itself:

Hopeless over-generalization by one side leads to a knee jerk rejection without the slightest hint of introspection or self-doubt.

We all suck.

Uh-oh, here come the fun police.

Where's the take-away of introspect going to come from in this hit piece? That people who lean right are more "shocked" by "shocking images" and more "startled" by "startling noises"? They react more as you'd expect one to react than those who lean left leaving one to conclude they are more susceptible to, in their words fear?

Egadz. Maybe it simply means those who lean right are more sane and alert. Who's lacking introspect?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Uh-oh, here come the fun police.

Where's the take-away of introspect going to come from in this hit piece? That people who lean right are more "shocked" by "shocking images" and more "startled" by "startling noises"? They react more as you'd expect one to react than those who lean left leaving one to conclude they are more susceptible to, in their words fear?

Egadz. Maybe it simply means those who lean right are more sane and alert. Who's lacking introspect?

I just meant that neither side of the ideological spectrum would ever seriously consider that there might be something fundamentally wrong with the way they see the world. I hate to sound like a broken record, but people are powerfully programmed to defend their beliefs once they're adopted. I wasn't trying to single out the right. I think the pattern of response would've been identical if one of our right wing denizens had posted a study saying that left wingers are more likely to display poor judgement or something like that.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

I think the pattern of response would've been identical if one of our right wing denizens had posted a study saying that left wingers are more likely to display poor judgement or something like that.

Fair enough. My only point was that studies like these are tired and in most cases absolutely worthless. For example, a study was posted not long ago suggesting the "right-wing" are less receptive to new incoming information of course suggesting there's some meaningful, predisposed resistance to "change" among the right. It would have been just as easy to conclude of course that the left have a shorter attention span and favor change for the sake of it and/or display more "impulsive" behavior in general. i.e. lacking judgement. There's a wealth of these kinds of studies including those posted here that suggest religious people are less intelligent than non-religious people. Their intentions generally seem more clear than their conclusions or the methodology used to extrapolate them.

I see no such studies posted by those on the right. I'm just sayin'.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Dual Porpoise 

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi...ull/2008/918/2

Interesting article that indicates that people hold right wing beliefs because as a response to scaring more easily.

Fear is what keeps you moving forward. It's what makes you want to defend yourself, loved ones, your nation and your freedom. Fear is what makes you go to work. Fear is why you eat.

Fear of oppression, disease, crime, starvation. homelessness, suffering and death is why you you get off your ass and do something to avoid it.

Liberal pacifism induces complacency and docile human behaviour. People who do not fear the loss of their freedom will sleepwalk into fascist rule and deserve to lose everything. A true human is the feared and fearful at the same time.

He who does not fear or is not feared will be crushed by others. That's what liberals, commies, hippies and Greens have been trying to do for years. They have been trying to create this pansy pacifist sheepish humanity who are easy to dictate, who will really believe idiotic things like talking animals, celebrity power, tree spirits, dolphin rights, the beauty of being a poor simple African who has no education or or clean water developed community, like some poxy amount of carbon will destroy the world, etc

Grow a pair of nuts.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Fear is what keeps you moving forward. It's what makes you want to defend yourself, loved ones, your nation and your freedom. Fear is what makes you go to work. Fear is why you eat.

Fear of oppression, disease, crime, starvation. homelessness, suffering and death is why you you get off your ass and do something to avoid it.

Liberal pacifism induces complacency and docile human behaviour. People who do not fear the loss of their freedom will sleepwalk into fascist rule and deserve to lose everything. A true human is the feared and fearful at the same time.

He who does not fear or is not feared will be crushed by others. That's what liberals, commies, hippies and Greens have been trying to do for years. They have been trying to create this pansy pacifist sheepish humanity who are easy to dictate, who will really believe idiotic things like talking animals, celebrity power, tree spirits, dolphin rights, the beauty of being a poor simple African who has no education or or clean water developed community, like some poxy amount of carbon will destroy the world, etc

Grow a pair of nuts.

huh ... I always thought that *liberalism* is always moving forward and seeking change while *conservatism* induces complacency by seeking to maintain the status quo. I'd say those who don't question the status quo are easier to control than those who are inclined to question everything.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

We all suck.

Speak for yourself! I rock.

[stupendousman]

It's stuff like this that gives "science" a bad name.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

huh ... I always thought that *liberalism* is always moving forward and seeking change while *conservatism* induces complacency by seeking to maintain the status quo.

That's nonsense that only Hollywood and white American pot smoking idealist university students believe. They're the type of idiots who put a woman (cold witch in Hillary's case) and an (empty) black candidate for president just for the cool factor (even then they would never pick an ACTUAL black man).

You take a closer look. It was liberals who forced Chamberlain to reduce British armament production just when the German war machine was growing. A conservative called William Churchill turned that around.

It is liberal pacificists who are condemned by Orwell in all his wartime and post-war writings.

It is liberals who are more interested in knowing what Angelina and Brad's baby will be called instead of supporting the overthrow of Saddam. It is liberals who attack GM crop tests when it is proven that GM crops are safe and the best solution to feeding the world.

It is bourgois white rich liberals who go around saying we should spend trillions (not an exaggeration) of dollars combating a human induced climate change (a theory that has been disproven but massively suppressed by the liberal media, such as by Richard Black at the BBC) because they would love to see the collapse of the working class economy, which would mean devastation for the poor and for developing countries thus keeping their rich white Californian and New York asses safer. You see it everywhere nowadays, Go Green - Consume Less BUT Pay More. No better way to keep the poor down.

And you go to a peace march or anti-war protest, whatever they call themselves these days, you see Greens, liberals and Islamists marching side by side as brethren. Put them in charge and kiss your personal liberty and all common sense goodbye.

George Carlin said it best:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw

And so did Hitchens when he blew away that closet Islamo-fascist George Galloway:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChIVX...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igzm5...eature=related

When you hear the world liberal, think of people being liberal with facts, not people who want to conserve liberty.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

It is liberals who attack GM crop tests when it is proven that GM crops are safe and the best solution to feeding the world.

Point of order. I'm against GM too. But not for the same reasons as the libs.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

When you hear the world liberal, think of people being liberal with facts, not people who want to conserve liberty.

Liberty? Based on observation of political decisions since 2001, there's only one political group in American that appears to be concerned about liberty, and it's not the Democrats or the Republicans.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Fair enough. My only point was that studies like these are tired and in most cases absolutely worthless. For example, a study was posted not long ago suggesting the "right-wing" are less receptive to new incoming information of course suggesting there's some meaningful, predisposed resistance to "change" among the right. It would have been just as easy to conclude of course that the left have a shorter attention span and favor change for the sake of it and/or display more "impulsive" behavior in general. i.e. lacking judgement. There's a wealth of these kinds of studies including those posted here that suggest religious people are less intelligent than non-religious people. Their intentions generally seem more clear than their conclusions or the methodology used to extrapolate them.

I see no such studies posted by those on the right. I'm just sayin'.

That's easy enough to explain, ebuddy.

Everybody on the right hates science and thinks dinosaurs were around 4,000 years ago. Duh.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Liberty? Based on observation of political decisions since 2001, there's only one political group in American that appears to be concerned about liberty, and it's not the Democrats or the Republicans.

If you mean Libertarians then of course you are correct. But libertarians recognise the value of having realistic fears to safeguard freedom.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Point of order. I'm against GM too. But not for the same reasons as the libs.

There's no need to be against GM. GM meams crops can grow quicker, be more resilient to weather and bugs, and be more nutritious. That means we can get good nutrition out of eating less volume. That means food for everyone. If you're worried about the genetic aspect, when food is digested it is stripped of all genetic information and broken into its constituent parts - proteins, carbs, vitamins, minerals etc to be absorbed by the body. No genetic information survives the digestive process. Your body doesn't care where food came from or how it was made, just what nutrition it can derive from the food.

Green campaigners are against it only for economical and political reasons. They want to break scientific and capitalist achievement and turn back the clock to when communism was on the rise. No conspiracy here, they openly admit it. Patrick Moore, ecologist and Greenpeace co-founder, has said that the whole Green movement is a communist anti-progressive movement that has no rationale behind it except to turn back the clock.

A little history for those who don't know it already. The org called itself Greenpeace because they were made up of North American communists on the run and needed to rebrand themselves because up until then they were labelled a Red Menace. Moore also states that after the fall of the Berlin Wall, communist comrades from Eastern Europe joined the Green movement to help expand the anti-freedom and anti-capitalist movement. This whole schtick about man made global warming, saving the whales and the trees is just to keep money flowing from society's gullible wimps and those suffering from liberal white guilt.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

There's no need to be against GM.

I don't want my food source to be reliant on Monsanto (terminator gene, etc.) any more than I want my money or healthcare reliant on government. My being against GM is my safeguarding my freedom as far as food supply goes.

Don't get me wrong - I detest greenies with the best of them (and realise that most of their drive is from commie political motives), but this is one area where I agree with them.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Green campaigners are against it only for economical and political reasons. They want to break scientific and capitalist achievement and turn back the clock to when communism was on the rise. No conspiracy here, they openly admit it. Patrick Moore, ecologist and Greenpeace co-founder, has said that the whole Green movement is a communist anti-progressive movement that has no rationale behind it except to turn back the clock.

Lol!!! And, what's your comment when "green campaigners" are asking for electric cars?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Lol!!!

'Tis true. Most environmentalists (here, at least) are raving lefties who've refocused their efforts away from hardcore communism onto environmental issues in order to further their agenda.

Stuff like government issued carbon credit tokens is a wet dream for these people, because they mean that everyone is paid the same. Just how commies like it.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

'Tis true. Most environmentalists (here, at least) are raving lefties who've refocused their efforts away from hardcore communism onto environmental issues in order to further their agenda.

Stuff like government issued carbon credit tokens is a wet dream for these people, because they mean that everyone is paid the same. Just how commies like it.

Just look at their love of using C words. Congestion Charge, Carbon Credits, Credit Crunch, etc that is very much in vogue with them. What next, CCCP?

And they are trying to destabilise developed nations by paying off the UN and scientists to say that we have to give trillions of dollars to developing nations because they are suffering from our "carbon" output. Bullshit. Carbon doesn't do a thing except feed plants. This is an attempt to line the pockets of autocrats in developing countries whose accounts are very secretive and aren't accountable to their populations at all. The Greens likewise are making billions out of this and will use that money to lobby further, bribe more, and make hard hitting political campaigns to win votes and power.

[PaperNotes]

And on the subject of fear, who uses inflated fears more as a tool? From the left we've seen everything from their Bushitler paranoid delusions to the end of the world because of carbon.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I don't want my food source to be reliant on Monsanto (terminator gene, etc.) any more than I want my money or healthcare reliant on government. My being against GM is my safeguarding my freedom as far as food supply goes.

I agree with you in that it would be great if we could rely on small scale natural farming forever but the reality is that as more people around the world are coming out of poverty and their deitary demands have increased, or if famine were to increase then there is increased demand too, so there needs to be a solution. There will be more options, both naturally sourced and GM yields. As a consumer you simply make the decision what you want to consume by reading the label. For most people in developing countries, naturally sourced food isn't always an option and GM provides the only solution to ending hunger where it is difficult to grow the food stuffs they need. Not everyone lives in a lovely suburbia with a farmer's market around the corner. Millions upon millions live in arid, drought infected or frozen parts of the world.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

And on the subject of fear, who uses inflated fears more as a tool? From the left we've seen everything from their Bushitler paranoid delusions to the end of the world because of carbon.

But, I thought fear was good and that Liberals are complacent pacifists who don't fear.

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Fear is what keeps you moving forward. It's what makes you want to defend yourself, loved ones, your nation and your freedom. Fear is what makes you go to work. Fear is why you eat.

Fear of oppression, disease, crime, starvation. homelessness, suffering and death is why you you get off your ass and do something to avoid it.

Liberal pacifism induces complacency and docile human behaviour. People who do not fear the loss of their freedom will sleepwalk into fascist rule and deserve to lose everything. A true human is the feared and fearful at the same time.

He who does not fear or is not feared will be crushed by others. That's what liberals, commies, hippies and Greens have been trying to do for years. They have been trying to create this pansy pacifist sheepish humanity who are easy to dictate, who will really believe idiotic things like talking animals, celebrity power, tree spirits, dolphin rights, the beauty of being a poor simple African who has no education or or clean water developed community, like some poxy amount of carbon will destroy the world, etc

Grow a pair of nuts.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Lol!!! And, what's your comment when "green campaigners" are asking for electric cars?

Judging from those shitty little boxes that I've seen being driven around by people who want to be Green or avoid the taxes brought to us by communists such as Ken Livingstone (openly communist, tried to turn London into a communist city-state, openly supportive of Islamism and openly anti-Semitic), reminds me of the crap mobiles that were being driven around in East Germany and Russia before 1989.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

But, I thought fear was good and that Liberals are complacent pacifists who don't fear.

Read EVERYTHING I wrote above. You will find I made a big difference between realistic fears that a libertarian should have , versus the unfounded fears about the end of the world and Bushitler that the left spreads about.

I'll give you another example, the fear and lies that were spread by Greens about the MMR vaccine. Thousands of children victims because of that lie. Or lies about DDT. Millions of dead Africans and Asians because of that one.

And then Greenpeace tried to have chlorine banned! lol. Chlorine! Patrick Moore was so shocked that he left the organisation to start Green Spirit.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

I agree with you in that it would be great if we could rely on small scale natural farming forever but the reality is that as more people around the world are coming out of poverty and their deitary demands have increased, or if famine were to increase then there is increased demand too, so there needs to be a solution. There will be more options, both naturally sourced and GM yields. As a consumer you simply make the decision what you want to consume by reading the label. For most people in developing countries, naturally sourced food isn't always an option and GM provides the only solution to ending hunger where it is difficult to grow the food stuffs they need. Not everyone lives in a lovely suburbia with a farmer's market around the corner. Millions upon millions live in arid, drought infected or frozen parts of the world.

That one's easy. Less people. Especially in parts of the world which don't naturally support huge populations of people because you can't grow food there.

The problem with GM is that if someone puts GM crop into the field next to mine, it tends to contaminate my organic crop.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

The problem with GM is that if someone puts GM crop into the field next to mine, it tends to contaminate my organic crop.

Everything is organic. Changing some gene sequences doesn't make something robotic.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Judging from those shitty little boxes that I've seen being driven around by people who want to be Green or avoid the taxes brought to us by communists such as Ken Livingstone (openly communist, tried to turn London into a communist city-state, openly supportive of Islamism and openly anti-Semitic), reminds me of the crap mobiles that were being driven around in East Germany and Russia before 1989.

Except that the late-80s crapmobiles were much more fun than the modern commiemobiles. Engines in back - wooh, cheap 911.

Red Ken eh? You must be a Brit.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Everything is organic. Changing some gene sequences doesn't make something robotic.

I still don't want that crap infecting my crap.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Read EVERYTHING I wrote above. You will find I made a big difference between realistic fears that a libertarian should have , versus the unfounded fears about the end of the world and Bushitler that the left spreads about.

End-of-the-world as in "OMG!1!!!1! Saddam has vast stockpiles of WMD and can invade us within 40 minutes!!!!11!!!1! (and was behind 9/11!!!1!11!!)" and "we need a no-fly list because terrorists might fly using their real names" and "bottled water could be used to bring down an airplane"?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Judging from those shitty little boxes that I've seen being driven around by people who want to be Green or avoid the taxes brought to us by communists such as Ken Livingstone (openly communist, tried to turn London into a communist city-state, openly supportive of Islamism and openly anti-Semitic), reminds me of the crap mobiles that were being driven around in East Germany and Russia before 1989.

Wow! You criticized the "people who want to avoid the taxes" *and* the taxes in the same breath! That's amazing double-think!

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Everything is organic. Changing some gene sequences doesn't make something robotic.

I don't think Doofy is necessarily concerned about the "organicness". Monsanto has brought lawsuits against neighboring crops for having Monsanto GM growth without paying Monsanto. The problem is that the GM seeds blew into the fields (as seeds tend to be designed to do). It's kinda like me putting the keys of my car into your house and claiming that you stole my car. I guess Monsanto expects non-Monsanto farmers to identify Monsanto growth and pull it out by hand.

Really, I think the issue of GM food transcends politics. In many ways, genetically modifying our food could be considered "liberal" and there are people on both sides of the political fence for and against it.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Wow! You criticized the "people who want to avoid the taxes" *and* the taxes in the same breath! That's amazing double-think!

I think it's more a matter of "Love the sinner, hate their car."

[subego]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I still don't want that crap infecting my crap.

I live in a a city, so I'm not as up on farming as I should be...

Is there something about GMing a plant that makes it "infect" your crop more so than non GMed plant which has been developed through "plant husbandry" or whatever you call it?

Edit: and what exactly do you mean by "infected"? Are their plants ****ing your plants, or is it more his chocolate in your peanut butter?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Wow! You criticized the "people who want to avoid the taxes" *and* the taxes in the same breath! That's amazing double-think!

No it's not. It makes perfect sense to anyone who knows what he's on about.

Which is:

Greenies all think everyone should drive around in small cars. So there's taxes on large cars. Which greenies avoid by driving small crapboxes.
Basically, the people who avoid the taxes by driving small cars are generally the ones who support the taxes for large cars. And it's all driven by the politics of envy. Which are on the left. Which is kind of his point.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I don't think Doofy is necessarily concerned about the "organicness".

Well... I likes me organic food, but it's not essential.

What Is essential is that my food source continues to come from something which isn't under some kind of patent from some hyper-corp and that I continue to have a choice as to what I eat (whether that be organic, regular or GM). GM's like the Borg once you let it loose into the wild.

[vmarks]

Patent isn't the issue. License fees for the patent are. that's a detail without much distinction, I know.

Choice is the other issue, and if you can't find some successful way of preventing the unintentional spread, then there's a problem. I mean, one of the points of a vibrant market is the ability to choose.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I live in a a city, so I'm not as up on farming as I should be...

Is there something about GMing a plant that makes it "infect" your crop more so than non GMed plant which has been developed through "plant husbandry" or whatever you call it?

Edit: and what exactly do you mean by "infected"? Are their plants ****ing your plants, or is it more his chocolate in your peanut butter?

Well, we still have things called "bees" in this country, so what tends to happen is the bees carry matter from the GM crop to non-GM crop. This cross-pollinates with the non-GM crop and before you know it your field's full of Monsanto.

And that's before we mention the weeds. GM tends to create hyperweeds, which then spread to your field. The hyperweeds in the GM field can only be killed with a Monsanto-supplied weedkiller which is engineered to kill anything not Monsanto. Of course, to get rid of the straying hyperweeds in the infected non-GM field, you can either use the Monsanto killer, in which case your crops will die too (since they're not keyed to the weedkiller) or you can spend loads of money employing immigrants to pull 'em by hand (thus bringing your overheads up which renders you less competitive with the GM stuff).

This is why buffer zones between GM crop and "organic certified" crop has to be at least 3 miles. Planting GM really is like taking a big old crap in the middle of everything - it's screws everything for miles.

If you want a parallel to the GM industry, just peer into the monopolistic dealings of a Redmond-based software company.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Well, we still have things called "bees" in this country, so what tends to happen is the bees carry matter from the GM crop to non-GM crop. This cross-pollinates with the non-GM crop and before you know it your field's full of Monsanto.

But the question is: Would this not be the case even if the plants had been genetically modified in the traditional way rather than the new way that we've finally recognized as "GM"?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

But the question is: Would this not be the case even if the plants had been genetically modified in the traditional way rather than the new way that we've finally recognized as "GM"?

I definitely got good information from Doofy's post (had no idea about the weed issue), but yes, I'm still a little sketchy on this part.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

But the question is: Would this not be the case even if the plants had been genetically modified in the traditional way rather than the new way that we've finally recognized as "GM"?

Yes. But there's a few differences, such as the weeds issue and the speed of development. Generally, plants modified in the traditional way have been the results of slow, steady progress in the real world. A new breed is introduced over a good few decades and any problems which might occur don't have the impact that a sudden mass introduction does.
It's like immigration. A few thousand immigrants turf up each year, the country slowly adapts to its new occupants - no problem. A couple of million turf up in their longboats and decide they're the dominant culture, you've got problems.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yes. But there's a few differences, such as the weeds issue and the speed of development. Generally, plants modified in the traditional way have been the results of slow, steady progress in the real world. A new breed is introduced over a good few decades and any problems which might occur don't have the impact that a sudden mass introduction does.

Well, excepting the weeds for now (one thing at a time, you know), are you arguing the potential for a problem (which could happen anyway, only slower) outweighs the realized benefits in production?


Edit: in anticipation of addressing the weed issue, can you give me the proper name for them so I can plug the right terms into the google?

Or will "hyper-weeds" do?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Well, excepting the weeds for now (one thing at a time, you know), are you arguing the potential for a problem (which could happen anyway, only slower) outweighs the realized benefits in production?

The problem is already showing itself in places (soy production in some South American country or other - can't remember which) but as far as I can tell that's just the tip of the iceberg. While the problem exists in a small-medium way right now, the potential is for a major cluster-f.

I don't believe we need more food production. I believe we need less people.

Originally Posted by subego 

Edit: in anticipation of addressing the weed issue, can you give me the proper name for them so I can plug the right terms into the google?

Or will "hyper-weeds" do?

Try "GM superweeds".

[subego]

I will do some googling, but one more question occurred to me...

Originally Posted by Doofy 

This is why buffer zones between GM crop and "organic certified" crop has to be at least 3 miles. Planting GM really is like taking a big old crap in the middle of everything - it's screws everything for miles.

Just to be clear, are you saying that you still have cross-pollination and weed problems even with the 3 mile buffer?

Even if you do, how much overhead are you incurring for taking care of that vs. the overhead of having to own a 3 mile buffer zone?

Of course, if the GM planters don't have to own that buffer, well then that's the problem.