<p>Uh, that’s am interesting claim. I wonder if organic food nuts ever passed their cellular bio class. GM encompasses a very large set of improvements, splicing a myriad varieties of proteins, improving shelf life, improving nitrogen fixation, streamlining resource use. It allows plants to thrive in harsh conditions, perhaps relevant in an era of climate change, and resist disease. By what mechanism do these ‘scientists’ propose all these methods yield null results?</p>
<p>Any use of Government authority to enforce harebrained utopian schemes is likely to lead to large scale political action to get rid of the politicians who supported it.</p>
<p>Nonetheless you are free to attempt to organize your own community along the lines you propose. If it is a workable model, people will copy it. If not then not.</p>
<p>I’m a libertarian. You insult me by suggesting any organisation other than one by social contract. I suggested removal of authority, i.e. stupid zoning rules.</p>
<p>^^ But a couple of posts ago you said -
</p>
<p>I meant the fed stepping in to override backwater ordinances and zoning restrictions. Hence removal of government regulation.</p>
<p>The backwater ordinances you deride are the choices of the local population. You want to use the power of the federal government to quash local decisions.</p>
<p>How is that libertarian???</p>
<p>But feel free to start your own community somewhere without any local zoning. Such places abound in the US.</p>
<p>Yes, but who wants to start a community in the middle of the desert?</p>
<p>On the other hand, I own and purchase MY property. Why shouldn’t I have the right to do what I want with it, as long as I don’t harm others? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They are not the “choices” of a local population. They are the RESTRICTIONS a population has placed on OTHER PEOPLE (not themselves). </p>
<p>Zoning laws are logical to prevent development in ecologically sensitive areas, ensure traffic harmony, prevent pollution emission in the wrong areas, and giving neighbours a say in whether a commercial shopping centre should be plonked right next to a quiet neighbourhood or not.</p>
<p>Where they infringe upon other’s property rights irrationally, then higher powers have justification to intervene and remove them. Federalism is dead; I’m not a Good Ole Boy and there’s no reason to continue carrying the illusion of states’ rights. Furthermore, just about every good and service is interlinked now. Local ignorance hurts others. </p>
<p>In this case, a federal government intervening in a local situation to remove a restriction or regulation is more justified than a local government intervening to PLACE a regulation on an individual.</p>
<p>Ah, but what if the Feds wanted to step in and forbid communal living? Considering the recent history of Federal interactions with communes this seems more likely than the converse.</p>
<p>Squalid “communes” run by cult leaders and fear and coercion…? Sure.</p>
<p>But what justifies trampling over individual rights in an arrangement organised by social contract? (or just a literal housing contract)</p>
<p>Give it a try. If it works, people will accept it. If not they won’t. That is the real strenght of the US; freedom to innovate and then succeed or fail (unless of course you become “too big to fail”, then the Feds bail you out.)</p>
<p>I suppose a developer could ignore zoning laws, build anyway, ask for the help of some group, and appeal it all the way to the Supreme Court. Or something.</p>
<p>
The mechanism they used was an analysis of twenty years of peer-reviewed research of the yield of GE crops. The report is available online and can be downloaded from here:
[Failure</a> to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops (2009) | Union of Concerned Scientists](<a href=“http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/science/failure-to-yield.html]Failure”>Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops | Union of Concerned Scientists)</p>
<p>
This was the biotech industry claim, but it turns out not to be true.</p>
<p>I’m not sure why you are questioning whether this research was done by scientists. Check the URL links.
The author of the “Failure to Yield” report is Doug Gurian-Sherman, an expert in agricultural biotechnology, with a Phd. from UC Berkeley:
[Doug</a> Gurian-Sherman | Union of Concerned Scientists](<a href=“http://www.ucsusa.org/news/experts/doug-gurian-sherman.html]Doug”>http://www.ucsusa.org/news/experts/doug-gurian-sherman.html)</p>
<p>The author of the other study cited in the Independent is Professor Barney Gordon of the Dept. of Agronomy at the University of Kansas. “The study – carried out over the past three years at the University of Kansas in the US grain belt – has found that GM soya produces about 10 per cent less food than its conventional equivalent, contradicting assertions by advocates of the technology that it increases yields.” This work confirmed earlier research done at the University of Nebraska. <a href=“Exposed: the great GM crops myth | The Independent | The Independent”>Exposed: the great GM crops myth | The Independent | The Independent;
<p>Rather than call the researchers “scientists” in quotation marks, or disparage “organic food nuts,” you might read and learn a little about this issue, rather than simply believe the industry PR you have heard:
[Failure</a> to Yield: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) | Union of Concerned Scientists](<a href=“http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/science/failure-to-yield-FAQs.html]Failure”>http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/science/failure-to-yield-FAQs.html)</p>
<p>Uhhh the paper’s PR is the thing that needs to be corrected. </p>
<p>Since when did Bt corn yield represent the myriad varieties of genetically-engineered crops (and animals)? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Scientific method and peer review, anyone? Yes, blanket statements are clearly valid here. </p>
<p>Though under supervision, I have performed several genetic crop experiments (though not in the field) since the age of 14, so it’s not just biotech PR. </p>
<p>Plus, naturally Bt crop yield won’t be that at all difference if the Bt pest stopped becoming less important and crops in general were becoming more resistant as a whole in the first place. And then there’s that other important fact: transgenic crops will mate with non-transgenic crops and transfer the appropriate genes. So if you are looking at what you think is a controlled study (e.g. wild type versus GMO), you actually have to ensure that your wild-type control isn’t actually carrying the engineered gene in the first place. </p>
<p>I’m bit skeptical at how exactly they exclude the majority of the 28% crop yield over the years as “not attributable to GE” – it’s almost hand waving, it seems, and the report was not very clear on that. In fact, I can’t even see their data set. On the other hand, I have seen plenty of other data sets in my (admittedly short) lifetime that say otherwise. Don’t worry, I’m not a Monsanto rat either and I don’t particularly like patents on genes that aren’t actually synthesised (Bt isn’t a synthetic gene).</p>
<p>And on the other hand, there are many many other crops out there. I mean if you look at maybe relevant traits like FROST resistance or DROUGHT tolerance, that seems way more important than immunity to one possible pest. I mean, if I have the ability to grow a crop in say, Somalia, that would that otherwise be devastated by drought, that seems way more important than avoiding some other pest that there are alternative methods of control anyways. </p>
<p>(And hey, I like how my rose is resistant to black spot disease!) </p>
<p>And herbicide tolerance? Wth? The most devastating diseases are caused by algae, mould, yeasts and fungi and other organisms that induce rot. And we’re researching methods to introduce genetic resistance or tolerance for such diseases. It’s not surprising that having the option to kill that tiny dandelion growing at the foot of your corn stalk with Roundup only increases yield by 3% (and after factoring things like post-engineering genetic transmission).</p>
<p>The paper made very sweeping claims and implicated all of GE crops and made it seem their analysed studies was representative of everything relevant to GE.</p>
<p>Also </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>because naturally these are still in the lab. </p>
<p>I don’t expect to get to commercially exploiting modifications to cell biochemistry and nutrient uptake with 20 years of research. Plus in my mind, even breeding is tampering with genes, so breeding improvements are essentially GE improvements. The thing that remains is to jump from a phenotypical recognition of what varieties are good to mate with for yield to a genotypical recognition of what those genes actually are. They are actually bound to be complexes. Bt after all, confers single proteins, and so do most genetic improvements so far. To modify biochemistry (as I imagine husbandry does), you need changes in gene complexes – multiple genes, because it takes several genes to mediate a biochemical pathway. </p>
<p>So if there is some metabolite off the Acetyl-CoA cycle that enhances yield, and is produced by one variety but not the other, you will probably need the addition of several genes. Haha, it’s uncanny in how I’m introducing this, but I’ve thought of ways to introduce THC production from cannabis to dandelion via gene splicing, but it would require using more complex techniques than what is currently used commercially, because you are transferring an entire gene complex, and you need to ensure that gene complex stays together in one locus on one chromosome (to prevent splitups via crossover and independent assortment via meiosis).</p>
<p>It’s easier when you already have an established allele frequency. Again, take the introduction of Medea-coupled anti-malarial/dengue genes into mosquito populations. It’s very successful in the lab, starting with say an initial population of 25% already having the Medea gene. But it’s only still in the lab because the selfish gene ends up hurting its own propagation if the initial allele frequency is too low. It’s classic ESS game theory; ESS’s are good invaders and resist invasion. So now you have to find a gene that is a good invader (Medea resists invasion but is a poor invader). </p>
<p>I suspect all of these caps will be lifted in my generation.</p>
<p>And I really dislike the labels the paper uses – it’s an unethical red herring, a bait and switch and I suspect they know it. GM Soya is not the same thing as “Soya with a herbicide-tolerance gene”, just like mortals are not Socrates. Just because a new crop variety has a transgenic element in it does not suddenly make it representative of all crop varieties with genetic modifications. </p>
<p>And naturally I note the decreased yield for one of the studies is probably because herbicide has been used on the soya and the resistance gene was only 90% effective at preventing anti-growth effects of whatever wide-spectrum herbicide they used. Clearly, if weeds aren’t generally a problem and aren’t causing you to suffer great losses in yields, don’t use wide-spectrum herbicides. GEEZ. It doesn’t imply that GE crops don’t increase (field) yield. The conclusion: maybe the varieties they studied didn’t have dramatically increased yields because weeds weren’t a problem in the first place??? I like how the paper never considered this interpretation.</p>
<p>These varieties are useful for places in a field infested with weeds that would otherwise cause dramatic losses in yield (30-40%, say). And that’s what GE crops are also useful for: growing crops easily in a place where it would be hard to grow them. You would rather take the 10% hit than a 30% hit (or not being able to grow it at all). And here’s the other smart thing: after you’ve cleared the field for weeds – if they’ll take years to come back, SKIP the herbicide next year. Geez!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wasn’t suggesting no religion at all. </p>
<p>You want efficiency, you say. It would be more efficient if everyone in a society adhered to the same religion, so… you join my religion. If you aren’t willing to do that, then you might have some understanding of why people would not want to live in Galoisien Estates.</p>
<p>Or you can ignore my religion and claim you don’t see how it applies here, which still makes my point.</p>
<p>Typo. I meant to say that it would be more efficient if everyone were atheist. And no, atheism is not a religion. Indeed, this is why we have free speech and the free marketplace of ideas, so the best idea can win. Because not all religious ideas are equal in benefit (and all of them pose various degrees of harm to society), unlike languages or driving on one side of the road, the game theory matrix is different from what you suggest.</p>
<p>And still, you make my point, though it appears to have escaped you completely.</p>
<p>Well there’s the self-interest element. And the invisible hand. You join something if it benefits you. Chances are, banding together cuts down on costs, globally and for the individual.</p>