Here is an update. The latest article in Furrow concerning soybean's. Not many years back an acre yielded 100 bushels without added nitrogen. That same acre today will only yield 60. Soybean's once upon a time produced their own nitrogen. Now farmers must add nitrogen or take a loss. It cost more to produce a bushel of soybean's today than it did 5 years ago. Let allow for inflation and you still loose. The modified soybeans are failing as farmers and researchers are at a loss, they say that the math does not carry over to the field. The truth is in the results. Now add cross pollination issues into the wild and you can begin to actually see what their GMO's are doing for the world. Thought some of you might enjoy hearing about this update. The publication is called the furrow. One I believe all should subscribe to.

Look at the real unemployment rates right now, around the world. Sure, there are jobs, but either a) no ones to do them, b) they aren't skilled enough to fill those jobs.
We are creating an environment that deincentivizes work, personal achievement, or responsibility. This leads to other BIG issue, How much of a capable, productive population does it require to support the useless masses?

If the population of low-skilled workers was less (at lot less) then McD's might actually have to pay a higher wage for the burger flipper. Supply and demand.
It all feeds back onto itself. If people that can't afford to feed themselves, didn't have children, then the population would be regulated. But, we don't discourage them from that, We actually encourage them to replicate.

this is straying pretty far from the original topic.
To try to bring it back to that, if we spay/neutered that bottom 20% of this country, we wouldn't need GMO, unemployment would be near zero, we wouldn't worry about climate change, the debt/deficit wouldn't be an issue, wages would be higher, the cost of living would be less, and it's very likely Zippy wouldn't be in the White House.

Just because we can feed and house 7 billion+ people - should we? As the population increases, the quality of life for everyone decreases. I'm not looking for a philosophical discussion as to who determines who's worthy or not.
I don't know about you, but I do not want to have to live in Alaska because the government says that's the only place with room for me to live.

Also, we should not ever remove ourselves so far from the land, that we rely on industry for our very existence. Just incase something really bad happens, and we need to resort to those old-ways of living.

Another population determining factor is jobs. When you have more people than jobs, you're population is too large.
Maybe, that means too many people for a region of the world - and the population needs to be dispersed.

The difference is, if aspirin was found to be harmful, we can stop making and taking it.
This is genetic. Once it's released to the outdoors, it's free to propagate, uncontrolled.
A perfect example of science gone wrong.. The African "Killer" honey Bee.
OOOPS! Can't recall that, and it's creating huge problems.
Correct, you can't prove a negative. But, 10 years is not always sufficient to determine the safety of something. GMO food could be one. First, we do not fully understand genetics, or nutrition, so , we're effectively guessing. It might take a generation of people eating this food to determine the impacts of it. I don't think it's wise to convert ALL our crops to GMO and hope they got it right.
these are the same people that told us, Butter, and eggs were bad for us, and now they say, Margarine is worse than butter, and eggs might actually be healthy.

"small concentrations..." that's the basis for homeopathy, "like cures like". It's also how vaccinations work to some extent.
I'm not against the potential good of GMO. My problem is, I don't trust the FDA, I don't trust Monsanto, and we're releasing a man-made genetic modification on the world when we know very little of the science.

Oh, I certainly may be wrong, but the newspaper article I recently read said that the destruction of milkweed is largely the result of areas that have been cleared for human habitation.

I love the monarchs; I would not support actions that would or could lead to their extinction. But the decisions and economics for your example just don't fit a 'Monsanto and the goodness of their heart' discussion.

Companies exist to make profits. If there were a 'profit in saving the milkweed plants,' Monsanto might look into it.

If you want to save the Monarch Butterflies, you must convince developers (and their clients) that Monarchs are more "something they should want to protect" than whatever their reasons for building or buying a home in 'milkweed territory.'

Are the Monarchs on a par with the famous Snail Darters? I think so, but...

and that goes to the position that 'nothing should be allowed which has not been proven 100% safe in all situations over infinite time', too.

How can anyone know or make that decision? Have you ever heard of the J-Curve? Some dangerous substances, in SMALL concentrations are actually beneficial to the 'victim.' They're only toxic at very LOW OR HIGH levels.

There was an old joke that Aspirin, taken by humans over a span of twenty generations, produces 100% sterility in all offspring. Can't prove it's not true, y'know... Shall we make aspirin illegal?

If your goal is 100% safety, you're going to keep a LOT of good things 'off the market' because you'll never allow the 'testing' to be "complete."

You want 100% safety and predictability? I think you may have landed on the wrong planet... or in the wrong universe.

Humans have not survived even as well as we have by being "safe." We've survived by being ADAPTABLE TO CHANGES in our environment.

You're essentially trying to bring change down to zero in the name of 'safety.'

There will be opposition. :)

However, I think the evidence on glyphosate http://www.truthabouttrade.org/2013/11/1...
Being horrible killer is at best overblown.

Good points. Not sure about glyphosate

Yes. There are some GMO seed, they are called hybrids that have improved over time. The problem is how cross-pollination is creating a more serious problem. Plants have always shed their seed and more plants grow with the next season. With the cross-pollination there are fewer every year. Not only that but also the genetically altered plants also have herbicides and pesticides built into them. That is where the bee population loss comes into the picture. Without bees we all loose. herbicides were one thing but to add pesticides is a more serious problem. Monsanto ignores the scientific results . They are not held responsible. Bees are being shipped in from other countries to pollinate our crops now because we have lost our bees. The situation is getting worse. The goal is to control all food production. Our government is aware, the UN is aware, so why is it being allowed to continue? World wide control of our food supplies and the people do what ever they are told. Monsanto did not come up with this one their own. They were ask to do what they are doing. It started after WWll.

As I have said several times before, this is about MONSANTO's Roundup GMOs, not all GMO technology. You don't know what technology will be developed to feed people in the near future. I don't accept that MONSANTO's Roundup GMOs are a valid way to feed people because they arguably contain harmful glyphosate. The soil sprayed with Roundup arguably contains glyphosate that may be absorbed by the next crop, and that also may be harmful.
Stop assuming that my opposition to Monsanto's Roundup GMOs indicates opposition to all new technology.
I sell new chemical technology (but not directly related to food production.)
In the real world, I see corporate corruption on a nearly daily basis that prevents acceptance of new technology (combined with corporate disincentives to employees taking any risk on new technology.)
Ayn Rand's praise for private business must be tempered by a recognition that in real life power corrupts in nearly every case. In real life no one in a position of power is as good as Rearden or Rourke. Discussions here all too often naively assume that just because it appears to be capitalism that it must be defended to the death. While I will defend the concept of free markets til the cows come home, I recognize that in real life people in positions of power are almost never the heroic figures that Rand's novels portray them to be, and that limiting competition (by any means including bribes) is more important to corporations than creating better products. That said, I still believe that free markets have the potential to deliver the best results for mankind and new technology is hope for the future.
Sorry for rambling off topic.

I assume that when you say GMO plants you mean Monsanto Roundup GMO plants.
I think there is a lot of unneccessary disagreement here because all GMO plants are not flawed the way that Monsanto's roundup GMO plants are flawed. I do not oppose all GMO plants or the technology, but I do think all need much more extensive long term testing and that the companies with the IP should be held completely responsible for the results. As it is, Monsanto gets the rewards but is not held legally responsible for some of the results.

Destruction of milk weed is now being blamed for the drastic decrease of the Monarch butterfly which feeds on it. These butter flies cause no damage to commercial crops. They are just things of intrinsic beauty in our world. Do you think Monsanto might be willing to develop a Round-up resistant strain of milk weed out of the goodness of their heart?

Robbie, I do understand your points and once I would have defended the system in a similar way but then I'd be guilty of Einstein's definition of insanity: Repeating the same actions and expecting different results.
I cannot force people to open their eyes, ignore their media programming, use a rational process of thought on the available data. Nor do I have a fortune or unlimited time to waste on lawyers in a justice system that fails to deliver justice.
American media frequently criticize governments overseas for their corruption while rarely using the word in reference to the US federal system. Experience outside the influence of US media has the potential to give one freedom of thought. Once I heard the corruption in 'banana republics' described in a unique way: it is 'equal opportunity corruption', everyone has access and can afford a bit. In the US system corruption is unspoken, nearly invisible and for the elite insiders only (including corporate looters who game the system.)
imo, only the naive think that your points 4 and 5 are productive actions in the current US feudal system.
To me the recent rash of suicides among bankers is very suspicious. Perhaps to you its just a coincidence.
Sorry to ramble. We may just have to agree to disagree. With respect.

What that they produce more food, require less pesticides and it would be impossible to feed all the people in the world without GMOs

How about Robert Heinlein's "Methusla's Children"
where long-lived people were paid to breed with selected others to produce a strain of very long-lived people.

The audience is intelligent enough to be able to consider the studies into the effects of Monsantos Roundup GMOs and simultaneously consider Monsantos unethical behavior as a reason to be critical about Monsanto's claims that they are groundless.
Discussing this with you is a waste of my time and I won't reply again.

And you are free to complain, complain, complain that in your opinion anyone who provides information about the faults in an existing product or system is somehow responsible for them unless he can provide a solution. I have no more patience for this. That's all.

John Galt would say to allow the matter to be decided between buyer and seller as it should be. If one party of the transaction knowingly deceived the other then the Judge would sort it out. If it happened to be Monsanto then they would probably be out of business in a John Galt world as people would flock to a competitor. No Government intrusions gonzo309.

I agree in a John Galt world, but the reality is that we live in a corporatocracy (fascist) where the Monsantos of the world control the government, giving them almost carte blanche access to the legislative and regulative processes to meet their goals.

If you run for office, let me know and I'll vote for you! 8-)

Monsanto is smart. They priced high to create intrigue. It worked. Any time you have a product, price it high, make it desirable, you profit in the end. The seed is not harmed by roundup but due to the poisons they do contain, bees are dying by the thousands. If you ever have the opportunity to watch a bee harvest pollen from a GMO plant you will see that bee become confused, turn around in circles as if it is lost, they try their best to get the pollen off of their bodies. It is horrible. Bees do not act that way on none GMO plants. The poison implanted within the seeds DNA causes this horrific problem with the very creature that was created to pollinate our plants. This is what they never took into account. Thank you for allowing to post about a very serious world wide problem.

So, your argument is, we can have a population of any size, without limits?

Free-market, fine. Free-market also means the government doesn't pick winners and losers. In the case of Monsanto, the gov't clearly is siding with them. Let the free-market determine if they want GMO or not, as opposed to having it forced on us. Why is Monsanto so resistant to labeling their GMO products???

IF we could trust the FDA, I might side with you. the fact is, we can't. the FDA is loaded with industry executives pushing their goods, fudging data. Releasing GMO into the environment is like releasing a super-virus on the world. There's no going back once it's out.

When have I said that I wanted to prevent evolution? Either you are ignore reality or you just do not understand evolution. Evolution, the changing mixing of genes happens without human intervention. But you demand that Monsanto stop this law of evolution. Nonsense


You have mentioned the law, you want to be able to sue people whose crops cross pollinate with your crops. How are you going to prove that? Perhaps Monsanto should be able to sue you for your crops cross pollinating with their crops.

What you want is a law against evolution.

"shared resources" - exactly you are not for property rights, you are clearly a collectivist, environmentalist who thinks technology is bad.

Absolutely, you refuse to separate two separate issues, which means you purposely want to confuse your audience or you are confused yourself.