Daniel ([info]bellydancindan) wrote,
@ 2006-03-14 01:50:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Current mood:Fucking mad!
Current music:Clean--Depeche Mode

Blargh
*yawn* I need to go to bed, and i will very soon. My day was weird. I got up way too early and went to chem lab which got out super early (we were only there for an hour!!!) and so I went and studied by the duck pond. Which was pleasant. I found a small typo in my zoology book (they used a capitalization in the wrong part of the worD. Like that.) I also found something that pissed me off alot. I'm on a chapter all about arthropods (yay! I LOVE arthropods! and I know most of this stuff already so double yay!) anyway, it was in eveitably talking about pest managament regarding insects and how you can genetically engineer crops to produce a natural toxin that acts a pesticide. they then proceeded to mention "concerns about genetically modified crops have arisen, especially in Europe, but such fears are supported by little or no scientific evidence" WTF?! That is completely not true! I have been learning about genetically modified crops since 12th grade and there are always plenty of intelligent arguments against it. I'm sure there have been actual instances of these problems as well (as well as studies) I don't have any off hand nor am I gonna look em up. Good examples of ways genetic engineering can REALLY FUCK SHIT UP are that plants CROSS POLLINATE OFTEN and if you have a crop that has a pesticide built in, the wind (or a bug whatever) can easily pollinate another plant far away from the actual crops that this pesticide is meant to protect and then this plant can produce plants with the pesticide built in. It's offspring produce more offspring and before you know it you have pesticide plants in the wild. I actually remember reading in HS about how this happened and started fucking with butterfly populations in the wild. There are other problems with genetic engineering as well but I won't get into those, the bottom line is that genetic engineering CAN cause problems and it is a VERY NEW science and it is UNDER SCRUTINY and it is NOT JUST IN FUCKING EUROPE. They just wrote off the serious concerns with genetic engineering as something foreigners are getting freaked out about. This makes me so mad, this book is supposed to represent a unbiased and scientific view on things so that we can really learn about the issues at hand and it totally cops out and hell, it goes beyond just copping out it actually LIES. For christ's sake, genetically engineered crops can potentially harm non-target arthropod species! I'm not saying I'm against genetically engineered crops either, I think it's a fascinating science and it has tremendous potential, however, like an intelligent person I think that there are still alot of things we don't know about it, there are alot of kinks in it, and it should be really understood and researched before we assume it is A OK. God damn that pissed me off.


(27 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Moron
(Anonymous)
2006-03-14 02:35 pm UTC (link)
You're a fucking idiot. And you listen to Depeche Mode.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: Moron
[info]wolf_cry
2006-03-14 11:13 pm UTC (link)
What brilliant backing. I must applaude you, and your brass to reply to this with your name.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]divinelybereft
2006-03-14 06:00 pm UTC (link)
I was really tempted to just write "Frankenfood" and leave it at that. Lol.

I agree with your frustration... I mean, when you find something so blatantly incorrect and biased in a text book like that, you start doubting the whole text book. At least I do. How can you pay attention and feel right remembering what a potentially dangerously biased book has in it?

(Reply to this)

bad meth day?
(Anonymous)
2006-03-14 09:37 pm UTC (link)
you must be a really bright boy to know that your book is wrong even though you don't know any studies "off hand nor am I gonna look em up." you are so bright i don't see how you need to study anything at all. get pissed off and you will get it right every time. right.

if you were really, really smart you would find yourself a different meth dealer. someone spiked your shit dude!

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: bad meth day?
[info]wolf_cry
2006-03-14 11:23 pm UTC (link)
You know, ironically enough, I do believe Daniel primarily had his friends in mind when he wrote this. Considering we mainly aren't collegues that he's trying to convince otherwise, I highly doubt he really had a need to go through and list his sources. I also think that those of us that primarily read this would know that Daniel generally doesn't just spew misinformed opinions. As for the possibility of 'misinforming' anyone, as much as we love Daniel, I do think it'd be a fool move for some other student to qoute some random guy's livejournal.

And it's fairly interesting for you to accuse Daniel of meth use. I'm not sure where you are from (I don't even know your screen name, because you're such a big shot you can leave insulting anonymous comments in someone else's livejournal), but I know where I live, meth use is a serious problem. As such, the effects of meth use have been taught to the communities in a preventive measure. I hardly think that, though slightly scattered, Daniel would have had the capacity or interest to come on livejournal and speak about a college class and subject.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Anonymous)
2006-03-14 10:33 pm UTC (link)
Congrats (...), you've made it to pro-GM walhalla http://www.agbioworld.org/newsletter_wm/index.php?caseid=archive&newsid=2508

"Anti-GM bloggers indulging in rational and civil discourse...."

Just for a laugh, check their first topic ("Why GM is Good for Us - 'may be greener than organic'") for rational and civil elements.

Um, I'm afraid that you ARE offering your bare neck to the wolves with your rant... if you find time, please add some examples of the um, sound science we are talking about.

Chris

(Reply to this) (Thread)

(Anonymous)
2006-03-14 10:47 pm UTC (link)
i don't need sound science because i am pissed off. oh and also i already learned everything in the 12th grade anyhow. that was where i learned to be pissed off. you are pissing me off. someone spiked your shit too i bet.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]wolf_cry
2006-03-14 11:42 pm UTC (link)
I might say this again and sound redundant, but this is not a highly public livejournal. Last I knew, Daniel was not being advertised as some be all end all debater of science.

Last I knew, Daniel wrote livejournal updates because he felt like it, and he had friends who read it. We friends being people who know Daniel, and understand where he is coming from.

What I mean to say is, I highly doubt this was really meant for anyone else. We can argue, I'm sure, about the fact that this is a public post. But honestly, this is livejournal with how many public posts made a minute?

For crying out loud, don't you have something better to do than go after a 19 year old college student sharing his view with his friends? I don't know who you are. At least you put your name, I'll give you that much. Daniel is one of the most decent human beings I have ever met; and I really lose faith in people if someone can turn around and do such an idiotic thing as post a link to his livejournal. If your pro-GM site really has to resort to taking from a rant of a student, I can't say I'd have much hope in that.

This was not a paper written to sway the reader's opinion, it was not written for some science journal, it was not written to be given to loads of people. You know how I know? Because Daniel is one of my best friends, I know who he is. I also know that if he honestly, truly meant for this to be taken seriously and used as some anti-GM persuasion, he would have written in a professional manner, with his sources listed and his studies checked. So please, save your high and mighty 'please add some examples of the um, sound science' cuteness for something that is truly meant to be used for a scientific audience, rather than a post to friends.

I can't say I'm at all informed enough to say whether I am pro or anti GM. But I am informed enough to know that someone has done a pretty idiotic wrong to a member of my pack. Offering his bare neck to the wolves is probably the worst rationing for what was done. You should be worried about the idiot who feels the need to use Daniel to make some point.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Anonymous)
2006-03-15 01:47 pm UTC (link)
Hi wolf_cry/Nicole,
my post was meant in a highly sarcastic way, as for me it is clear that the people that linked to him are pro-GM extremists. They are trying to poison the debate by pretending what they say is making Miracles happen, and anyone who has a slightly different view must be mass murderers (by withholding this miracle from Africa) and surely, according to these people, have no clue.
The term 'sound science' was also meant sarcastically, as this is what these people try to pretend they stand for, as in the learning book that this topic started with in the first place.
Sorry for causing this misunderstanding.
Chris

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]wolf_cry
2006-03-15 02:12 pm UTC (link)
Chris,

I'm incredibly sorry I jumped at you like I had. And I forgot to thank you incredibly for letting us know where all these anon. comments were coming from.

There is really no excuse for how badly I went off. It's just, it broke my heart to suddenly find all sorts of crap thrown at Daniel; while no one really needs that, he needs it least of all. I don't like LJ drama, as weird as that sounds after my massive comments here. I'm just incredibly protective, and after everything, it blinded me from reading more carefully and realizing where you were coming from. The fact that you had so helpfully alerted us of the site should have alerted me.

And the funniest part? Daniel never said he was against it. He said in the post that he wasn't against it, just wanted more information. That's what got me the most.

Thank you so much, for your very polite and respectful reply when I rather surely did not deserve it after not slowing down and realizing your sarcasm. I see it now.

Most sincerely,
Nicole

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Read before you blog
(Anonymous)
2006-03-14 10:41 pm UTC (link)
Hmmm. Where to start? The science of GM is hardly new and as for GM crops they've been commercialized for 10 years now with over a billion acres in production with no proven adverse health affects to humans. Genetic modification takes place in nature all the time thru mutation and natural selection. Humans have been genetically modifying plants and animals since first domestication thousands of years ago. They did it by breeding and selecting for certain mutations that gave the target species a favored trait. Now, GM is done with precision in a lab, not thru decades of trial and error breeding and cross breeding in "nature".

Hate to tell you but the genetic modification for adding pesticides to a plant came from.....well, a plant. In fact, plants are the biggest producers of pesticides and the first pesticides used by man were based on those naturally occurring pesticides in plants. By the way, your daily intake of pesticides comes primarily from plant pesticides and not from man-made ones, unless you are a farmer in a very poor country with no pesticide controls. If that is the case, then genetically modified crops producing pesticides have shown to tremendously reduce the amount of human-applied pesticides needed, thereby reducing the environmental load as well as the health affects to the farmers. As to having plants with pesticides built in, nature already built them in. GM is a more precise way of helping out.

GM crops are always under scientific and regulatory scrutiny but mostly under attack by the Environmental groups. These groups have put out a lot of literature and scaremongering on the subject but have no real alternatives.

Your book was being even handed because out of all the "GM" products in world, there have been no ill health effects. Now, it's possible to modify plants to get rid of food allergens that kill thousands per year, to add vitamins to rice for the poor to keep children from going blind, to create animals that reduce their pollutant loads from their own waste products, and many other things. All should be carefully studied. All should be regulated. And all should be given and up/down vote based on their merits, not on fearmongering.

The butterfly flap was determined not to be a result of GM.

You sound like a young college student. If so, please don't have kids because at the current rate of population increase, we won't be able to feed the next generation or so without new technologies like pesticides and genetic modifications. Or else apply yourself to finding us a way to do it.

Regards,

a Farmer.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: Read before you blog
(Anonymous)
2006-03-14 10:58 pm UTC (link)
farmer he dont sound like a college student cause 'fuck shit up' isnt college talk even if he can spell arthropod. i hope he dont have kids casue the kids will grow up pissed off and not have to read stuff just like him and be that ignorant sort of smart. this kid is a grocery bagger or swabs out locker rooms or something so he can buy meth. its bad meth too probablt spiked with dust.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Read before you blog
[info]wolf_cry
2006-03-14 11:55 pm UTC (link)
I must say, this anonymous comment amused me to no end. If it weren't for the fact that the above comments have severely lowed my expectations of the human race, I would have hardly believed you had the gall to insinuate that Daniel is not in college when it appears you have hardly passed ninth grade English.

As for 'fuck shit up' not being college talk, have you by chance been on a college campus lately? Because a phrase like that is nothing compared to what I've heard on campus lately.

I would like to revert attention to my above response to the meth comments.

Again, as well, I don't believe whether or not Daniel has children is really any of your business, nor is it really the 'topic' at hand.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re: Read before you blog
[info]wolf_cry
2006-03-14 11:51 pm UTC (link)
Did you read before you commented? Or did you come here with a retort in mind before even clicking on the link to his post?

He did not seem to mention hazards to human health at all.

I would like to direct you to my above comments, though, as I'm not in the mood to recap what I have written. That is, if you even have the brass to return here and see if you received a reply.

I must admit, your comment was very well written, and while I may disagree with the methods in which you found out about Daniel's livejournal, or your inane reasoning behind leaving a comment at what was obviously not a post made for scientific argument, but a young man venting to his friends, you had my respect.

And then you lost it completely, when you decided to end with a personal attack on Daniel himself, and the need you apparently felt to direct him on whether or not he should procreate.

I don't need to be told, though, that I, too, am getting personal. I'm not trying to argue anything, I am writing with intent to attack those who've wronged my own.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Read before you blog
(Anonymous)
2006-03-15 01:46 am UTC (link)
Ladies and gentlemen,

Posting in a blog isn't a private activity, and this blog popped up rather prominently in Technorati. It is now an indelible part of public opinion. It's even included in Technorati's running database of topics.

The meth comments are interesting. Meth use is associated with paranoia, aggression and delusions of grandeur, which might typify claims that being "pissed off" makes it unnecessary to do any homework.

What I can tell you for certain is that a great deal of hatred and unreason motivates opponents of progress in many fields, from genetic engineering, to fluoridated water, to cell phones, to pasteurized milk, to vaccinations for mumps.

It's largely a cultural alienation similar to that suffered by the protagonist in 'Catcher in the Rye,' only worse--because in the postmodern genre, these people also torch research laboratories and call it "free speech."

Maybe your friend Daniel is a great guy--I'll take your word for it. But he sure touched a live wire with remarks that read, on the face of them, like gut-busting rage that's heedless of reason or scholarship.

I hope there's a take-home lesson here for everyone involved. Blogging *is* a public forum, and being pissed is not considered to be authoritative in a contentious field.

Regards,

Schiller.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Read before you blog
[info]quirkyguy18
2006-03-15 11:14 pm UTC (link)
Finally! It's great to know where all these people with opinions are coming from! And can I add that it is majorly creepy that people take your LJ posts and post them about elsewhere? FREAKY! I don't mind that LJ is public...it gives the whole thing this sort of titillating exhibitionist quality (because who out there doesn't have any sort of exhibistionist in them?), but what freaks me out is that people don't necessarily have to stumble upon what I've (or more to the point and in this case, Daniel) has said. Instead it's being broadcast by some other party for the masses to see. Let's be honest, there's millions of LJs. How many people see them? Generally the friends of the LJ owners and that's about it. That said, I get freaked out when third parties decide to spread what I (or others) are saying for me (them). It's just weird. And that's just my opinion.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re: Read before you blog
[info]governorbaji
2006-03-16 05:05 pm UTC (link)
Schiller,

You are obviously very well-spoken and intelligent. I understand what you are saying; the link to this livejournal appeared in the signature line of a comment that was posted in an active debate. Yes, people have every right to come here and post attacks against opinions expressed in what is clearly a personal diary.

But just because people can do something doesn't mean they should. It's a matter of common decency and respect. Anonymity via the internet doesn't give people a license to be a jerk. I'm refering to the first couple anonymous comments made in response to this post.

Let's say Daniel was standing on a street corner with a group of friends, ranting about the same thing that he is in this post. A group of passers-by who overheard his conversation would have the legal right to butt in, call him a "fucking idiot" and accuse him of being a drug user. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's a good thing to do. I really don't see how the internet medium makes this situation okay.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re: Read before you blog
(Anonymous)
2006-03-15 02:18 pm UTC (link)
hi a_farmer,
interesting things you bring up. I would like to show my view on them, and hope you are willing to respond.

1. HEALTH EFFECTS
"The science of GM is hardly new and as for GM crops they've been commercialized for 10 years now with over a billion acres in production with no proven adverse health affects to humans."

That's an interesting claim, often heard but rarely backed by evidence.

The only health checks that I know of for GMOs are the ones done before introduction. This usually consists of feeding the target content (e.g. vitamin A) on rats, while you may be aware that the techniques used for GM have a certain randomness in them. For instance, they checked 3 strands of 'Golden Rice' and every strand made different extra metabolites (chemicals). This is not looked at in the usual tests.

Rarely have complete GMO plants been fed over a longer period of time, or even controlling the reproduction, and the results were not univocally positive, to put it mildly.

BTW you should know that there HAVE been incidents with GMO's. Goes a bit too far to go into details now, but if you reply with facts in stead of claims, I will dig i my library for them.

Seeing there is no control program, how can you prove health effects if you do not have a program to check for them?

2. GE IS PRECISE
"GM is done with precision in a lab, not thru decades of trial and error breeding and cross breeding in "nature".
and later:
"GM is a more precise way of helping out."

Precisision is not the word that comes to mind when hundreds or thousands of cells are bombarded or infected, only a few of them have the gene ready, part of which seems to be suffering from 'gene-silencing' in later generations, and rarely is the nett effect in every strain the same. Like with the 'golden rice'.


3. PESTICIDE GENES COME FROM A PLANT
"Hate to tell you but the genetic modification for adding pesticides to a plant came from.....well, a plant."

Hmm, that's interesting, as this is a different claim than usually made in the books. The most comon pesticide in use are variants of the poison made by the Bacillus thuringiensis, considered by most biologists not to be a plant (but hey, opinions differ..).


4. PLANT ARE POISONOUS, SO ... (?)
"In fact, plants are the biggest producers of pesticides and the first pesticides used by man were based on those naturally occurring pesticides in plants."
By which you mean to say that we as humans should not worry about Bt?

5. INSERTING NATURAL GENES IS NATURAL
"As to having plants with pesticides built in, nature already built them in."
The usual gene in a plant is part of a balanced genome. It is switched on on a specific part of the plant at a specific time. In the GMOs now on the field, the gene is usually swiched ON constantly, with sometimes adverse effects on yields and, opposite to the usual situation, inducing resistance.

Yes, there are mutations, but a mutation is something different than steering the plant to make something new by changing the biochemical pathways.

6. SCIENCE vs ENVIRONMENTALISTS
"GM crops are always under scientific and regulatory scrutiny but mostly under attack by the Environmental groups."


7. ENVIROs ARE ONLY OUT TO SCARE PEOPLE, HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE
"These groups have put out a lot of literature and scaremongering on the subject but have no real alternatives."

For Europe, this is absolutely incorrect. For at least since 1998, when i joined the debate, have we been stressing that GE is an alternative where quite usually there are dozens of options.
If you take any problem that GE proposes to solve, look at the backgrounds of the problem, and check what other options you have, nine out of ten cases you would choose for another option.
I could give examples if you reply to this.



"All should be carefully studied. All should be regulated. And all should be given and up/down vote based on their merits, not on fearmongering."

Now to this, I fully agree, but my experience is that GErs will do everything to promote their science. They are not out to find the truth or the best solution, but to get it their way. A good example are all the claims you made, which in my eyes are coming from the pro-GM lobbying, who ignore every comment they ever get on them.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Read before you blog
(Anonymous)
2006-03-15 02:21 pm UTC (link)
[I forgot to mention that I am the same Chris that posted earlier, and I wrote the comment that starts with 'hi a_farmer,' and ends with 'ever get on them']

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Read before you blog
(Anonymous)
2006-03-16 01:38 pm UTC (link)
Ok so 'a farmer' has not replied, I will leave you in peace among each other now.
Chris

(Reply to this) (Parent)
What the shit?
[info]divinelybereft
2006-03-15 01:54 am UTC (link)
Who the fuck are all these people?

Begone? Scram?

Holy shit.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: What the shit?
[info]governorbaji
2006-03-15 03:11 pm UTC (link)
Seconded.

This is lame.

Go get your own life, anonymasturbators, and stop flaming personal journals.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]divinelybereft
2006-03-15 04:02 pm UTC (link)
I found a comment that felt poignant to this "conversation"

"It's like everything else in science, you learn something about one thing, and it raises more questions somewhere else. So we can't write all the answers right now, it's just great we have new mysteries to worry about now."
-Stardust scientist Mike Zolensky about the Stardust mission

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/03/14/stardust.results/index.html

The goal of science is not to determine absolute right or wrong, the goal of science is discovery, and that should never be forgotten.

(Reply to this)


[info]quirkyguy18
2006-03-15 11:19 pm UTC (link)
You know...I read this before anyone had commented and I was like "Okay" and moved on. It's not really that offensive or anything...it's just exceedingly rant-y. And then BLAM! Angry comments out the ass! I'm SO jealous. I mean, I've posted really outrageous and offensive stuff (can anyone say FAD/LUFAH?) and I never had anyone get pissed off like this at me. It makes me sad is all...I want to cause stupid controversy too.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
suggestions
(Anonymous)
2006-03-16 12:00 am UTC (link)
Easy, choose an extreme position on either or all of the subjects to follow, do not forget to link to it from some wacko site, preferably related. Suggestions between brackets.

* whether or not some tv celebrity has had surgical enhancements
* America vs The World [michaelmoore.com?]
* should creation be taught in Biology class? [atheism.org]
* why Microsoft is Better Than Unix/Linux [slashdot !]
* are homeopathy, Oil Peak, organic labeling, Climate Change etc. real?
* some conspiracy involving a widely known food seller (Wal-Mart, McD, KFC, etc), Aliens and French Cheese
Etc.. :), as long as it is a subject on which most people have chosen sides, and have strong opinions on


Chris-ononymous

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: suggestions
[info]governorbaji
2006-03-16 01:19 am UTC (link)
What site did you come from, Chris-ononymous?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: suggestions
(Anonymous)
2006-03-16 01:37 pm UTC (link)
^
|
|
See (Anonymous) 2006-03-14 10:33 pm

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(27 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…