(I know this is about Rifftrax, but we don't have a Rifftrax community.)
this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2024
315 points (100.0% liked)
MST3K
1038 readers
1 users here now
Rules/guidelines/info
- Please be nice to each other
- Don't post stuff that doesn't belong
- These rules are temporary as the community is new - suggestions welcome
- Watch out for snakes!
You know you want links, baby!
- MST3K.com
- Gizmoplex
- Rifftrax
- The Mads Are Back
- The Mary Jo Pehl Show
- YouTube
- Wikipedia
- TV Tropes
- Annotated MST
- Fandom
- Suggestions welcome
This community is hosted at https://lemmy.world/c/mst3k and moderated by:
If you were a mod on /r/MST3K give me a shout.
Confused about Lemmy/Fediverse? Here's a useful infographic
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is what these non GMO types always seem to forget: we've been modifying the crap out of everything for the past thousands of years. We're now justuch more efficient and smart about it.
You're right. It's far more precise, quick, and predictable.
How so
An arbitrary distinction based on timeline and ease of methodology
I wanted to understand what the difference between the two approaches is, I have no idea what you mean by sealioning
And you sound pretty defensive about your stance for no good reason. Usually people are happy to expand on a thought but you just instantly resort to hostility
Also just looked up the definition of sealioning which boils down to trolling/harassment. If being asked a singular and simple question counts as harassment, then you've got some real problems when it comes to civil discussion
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
https://lemmy.world/post/Sealioning
That's not what sealioning is, but the fact that you instantly resorted to crying 'sealion' that when asked to expound on your opinion shows you know it's not all that different from GMO in the first place.
You clearly don't know what that word means.
What's the difference?
They always picture someone in a lab with syringes and special machines to "modify DNA". Most of the time it's just a couple of potted plants under a lamp and a cotton swab. For fruit trees, you're pretty much just replacing a branch with another branch. Tape and staples might be involved.
Genetically modified plants is very different from selective breeding. Selective breeding mimics the natural evolution process, removing natural selection and replacing it with human decisions.
Using a separate root stock from your fruiting trees isn't genetic modification or breeding. It's just taking desirable size features from a root stock and growing your desired fruit from that. It still remains two different plant, with two different DNAs. The fruit would produce a child of the fruit tree, the same as if it was grown from seed. If the root tree was allowed to flower it would create a seed the same as if it were never grafted.
GMO are an extremely useful technology. When well regulated and tested will help produce food for the growing world population. The big problems with it are the consequences of it. Plant have been modified to tolerate high doses of weed killer, pesticides and fertilisers. These all help increase the productivity of the land, but the impacts are terrible on the local environment. Residual weed killer and pesticide may pose a risk to human as well.
No. It won't.
The Bill Gates/Monsanto Bootlicker Brigade wants to pretend that it's (somehow) the actual foodcrops we have at our disposal that is (somehow) "flawed" and therefore requires unnecessary and (thoroughly patentable) meddling to "fix" - but, like all capitalist "solutions" to the problems caused by capitalism, it is merely a disasterous (but profitable) distraction.
And, of course, this is quite apart from the fact that the right-wing histrionics about "population growth" has turned out like all other right-wing histrionics - false. In a few decades' time, you'll see these same capitalist bootlickers peddling the dubious wonders of GMOs now whining about population shrinkage.
You realize that if you cross breed plants and come up with something new, you can patent it? The only point you actually made about GMO is not specific to GMO.
Yes... I can cross-breed plants. Hell, it's happening right now in my garden - cross-bred avocados, chillies and mokapanos. And since I'm not a parasitic organisation that only exist to make "red arrow go up" at the expense of everybody and everything on the planet, I can easily decide to simply give it all away for free.
After all - I don't benefit in any way when my fellow human beings live in a food insecure hellscape one paycheck away from starvation... but the parasites you lot are shilling for does.
Your complaint seems to be with capitalism and is completely separate from GMO.
Who do you think is peddling the (alleged) "need" for GMO food crops, genius? The tooth fairy?
I've seen lots of scientists pushing the need for it: decreased land use, decreased pesticides use, drought tolerance, etc.
Gmo is just a tool. Sure capitalists will take advantage of it for profit, but again, separate from the tool.
Thanks. Comments above yours are a bit disingenuous, trying to bunch up intrusive lab techniques with selective breeding. While the definition of GMO is pretty vague, let's not pretend what Monsanto does is exactly the same as what Native Americans did.
It's not. It's more advanced, and yes, it's better.
You know, more technology becomes available, you use it to make life better for everyone. Monsanto execta can go pound dicks, but in principle, GMO food is perfectly fine, safe, and healthy. If anything, it'll be more healthy (more vitamins), more plentiful as new crops can withstand droughts better, etc. etc. etc.
So far the only counter argument to that that I've heard here is "nuh uh!"
Made me think immediately about GMO and non-GMO anti-science scaredy cats.
This is what these nauseating pro-GMO types always seem to forget - developing a food crop for thousands of years to become useful to humanity is not the same thing as destroying food security through capitalist monocropping with the aid of a few dodgy genes injected into something that never needed it in the first place.
Yeah, all scientists are evil, all corporations are evil, all people working there are evil, it's all evil.
Oh look... the bootlicker brigade has shown up.
This has very little to do with GMOs.
Yes, while monocultures aren't great, GMO crops just speed up the process you mentioned first. Developing a food crop over thousands of years. If we can speed up that process and generate better crops, why wouldn't anyone want that?
The whole politics around GMOs and greedy companies is something I wish didn't exist, but GMOs is the way to go.
No. It doesn't. It shits all over the process I mentioned first and then it gets called "progress" by techbros like you.
Why would we want that when our food crops have already been developed for us over thousands of years before our food supply was hijacked by a class of profiteering parasites?
Are you listening to yourself?
No. It isn't. Unless you're a fan of everybody but the ultra-rich suffering famine - then it's pretty much a ready-made recipe for you.
You literally make one argument: "nuh-uh!"
Maybe read into GMO, what it does?
Yeah, companies like Monsanto can suck dicks, but it's not the only one and even they make loads of advanced too. Blame the managers, not the biologists. Changes to tomato DNA makes it that they stay good much longer, those are the results of GMO, these are the things that people like you are trying to stop.
If the world is to survive the coming climate change disaster, we'll NEED GMO more than anything but we can rest easy knowing that people like you will be on the line to stop that and make sure we'll continue to go hungry.
Learn a little, become less extremist.
Do you think the Native Americans hundreds of years ago were wearing lab coats in clean rooms, CRISPRing fucking maize? Selective breeding is different than genetic modification. If you don't even know what it is or what you're talking about about AT ALL, to the point where you're conflating two completely dissimilar terms, maybe you should keep your opinions to yourself.
GMO is not monocropping either.
Monocropping sucks for other reasons
Sorry, but it doesn't seem like you know what you're talking about. It's essentially the same process, the GMO process is just faster. Also, it was done well before CRISPR was a big thing.
So you should indeed keep your opinion to yourself, then.
Hilariously ironic of you
I know what you're saying in a way but with crispr you can change single genes and have specific targets. A cross changes thousands of genes at a time
Nope. Both are genetic modifications.
Also not true. CRISPR is bacteria mechanism and is not used in plants.
CRISPR would work for other organisms wouldn't it?
It would if they had it. AFAIR usually viral vector is used. I recommend you watching thisl channel.
I can't imagine an organism (other than a virus) that doesn't have a virial vector to exploit.
Viral vector is virus that can't self-replicate
I thought it was the method a virus uses to splice itself into the hosts DNA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_vector