Less than one molecule per liter? That's the homeopathic equivalent to a placebo. The strong stuff is measured in molecules per cubic lightyear. Boy, it sure is a good thing we as a civilization don't treat health problems magic water, huh?
Natural fallacy medicine and conventional medicine were roughly equivalent because, before the scientific method was used, they were both based on superstition. Actually, natural medicine worked better because conventional was actually harmful back then, and a placebo is better than a poison. Now that they're based on science, natural fallacy medicine is fairly useless. That's not to say that herbs or whatever can't have an effect, but they have varied levels of the active ingredient along with other compounds, hence the reason we purify them and package it as real medicine (like aspirin, made from willow bark compounds). No surprise, life didn't suddenly decide to spend the past couple million years evolving to be medicine. Say, speaking of the scientific method, have you ever noticed any non-'allopathic' (a bullshit term for medicine with a measurable effect, by the way) adapt when new scientific data come in? Have you ever seen an alternate medicine discredited by its practitioners? Science works, superstition doesn't.
How did such anti-science drivel get modded up on Slashdot? Listen, unless you count the made up ones, there is no connection between vaccines and the disease of the day. Wakefield, the vaccines cause autism guy, fabricated data. No other well done study ever, and I mean ever, found a link. We dropped the supposed cause, and nothing happened. So now people claim something else causes disease, like aluminum or formaldehyde or antifreeze (which isn't even in vaccines). Science is not about continuously shifting the hypothesis to fit an a priori bias, but that's what the pro-disease/anti-vaccine folks are doing. also, there is no global conspiracy to be evil by making you healthy, and when people start thinking that, guess what happens? Polio comes back after being on the edge of being wiped out. Don't believe me, look it up, some imans declared that vaccines were a western plot, polio came back, and it happens everywhere. Look at measles in the UK.
Just because you don't understand science doesn't mean its out to get you. Vaccine denialism is scientific illiteracy at this point, and not only that, but it is dangerous. It is pretty well documented that decline in immunization rates correlates with a rise in disease outbreaks, and by not vaccination you put everyone at risk. And all over some imaginary fears? Carl Sagan was right when he said that an unscientific population living in a scientific world is a recipe for disaster.
They didn't come to America because there was no America. Kinda hard to legally enter a country that doesn't exist. The analogy you're trying to make doesn't make sense because, even if there was a country that they illegally immigrated into, that still wouldn't have made it right, nor should it have any modern relevance. The founding fathers and many American ancestors had slaves, but it was wrong and their owning slaves has no logical relevance to that. Appeals to whoever are considered fallacies for a reason.
The "proper channels" set immigration limits drastically to less than what economic forces would set them to.
I've always found that to be the kicker to the illegal immigration thing. Sure, what they're doing is illegal, but that doesn't mean it isn't understandable. The proper channels (the immigration system) do need some work, and the illegal immigrants are usually just doing what will be best for them, so I can't say I blame for hopping the border illegally. Nonetheless, there are plenty of otherwise necessary rules that give some people hard times, and we can't just have people doing as they please legal or not because of it.
It has nothing to do with any of that. It is about using the proper channels to do it. That's not to say that some people aren't just bigots (some are), or that the immigration system doesn't need some work (it does), but it really isn't about not wanting immigrant to get a a better life. It is about people doing things the legal way (and stopping any other unlawful activities that cross the border).
Fighting disease is something we can, and have defeated in the past. Come on, we've damn near wiped out polio, and we actually defeated smallpox.
Just a nitpick, but I really don't think you really can compare present disease with past disease like smallpox. We eradicated smallpox with vaccines, but that was before Wakefield's Epic Trolling and the fears that mercury/aluminum/formaldehyde/anything and everything in vaccines causes autism/cancer/AIDS/diabetes/criminal behavior (I shit you not, I once read something that claimed vaccines cause criminal behavior). If you were to try a widespread vaccination program today, like the one the WHO used to get rid of smallpox, I don't think it would work. For it to be really successful, as in getting rid of something for good, I think we'd need fairly large segments of the population to get vaccinated so the disease has nowhere to go, and now, too many people think that vaccines are proof that 'they' are out to get them in some vague nefarious plot. Vaccines wiped out smallpox and have polio on the ropes, but they now, unfortunately, have way too many imaginary problems associated with them to have the same stopping power.
Not according to the FDA or ACSH. But at least The Holistic Healing Web Page is of that belief. In general, you should beware of medical advice that has its origins in fowarded emails.
My bad, you're right there, I know they praised the decision, but I guess I don't have exceptionally solid evidence that it was their propaganda that directly lead to it. But yeah I like my wording too.
And I'm glad you picked shipping as an example because it shows what's right with GMOs. Say you found the genes for separability and inserted them into a Cox's Pippin. One could very well have the best of both in that case.
And the issue with superweeds now is getting serious. In my own state, pig amaranth is taking over a lot of fields that were grown with GM cotton then sprayed.
I hear a lot about Roundup and resistant strains. Why is that problem exclusive to Roundup? That couldn't happen with other sprays?
We have climate indicators, and we have health of the crop and insect indicators, and the status of our honeybees now is a good indicator or canary in the coal mine if you will. Superweeds, honeybees croaking off, vendor lockin, loss of biodiversity..you have to look at the whole picture.
No, you need to look at each individual phenomenon. Don't say 'GMOs are bad' then list a whole bunch of random problems that aren't connected.
they have no idea whatsoever what the long term consequences will be
Without omnipotence, that is indeed hard to predict. How do you solve such a problem? Halting progress indefinitly isn't a reasonable answer. Combustion engines caused global warming. Should we have halted the automobile for the past century until we knew every little thing that could go wrong. Sorry if this sounds reckless, but it simply isn't reasonable.
What GM crops are is programmed food.
I fail to see what's wrong with that.
What GM crops are is programmed food.
Again, so what? What difference does it make what 'happens in nature?' Also, given time, anything can happen in nature. How do you think those genes got there to begin with?
You think there won't be some real bad WHOOPS down the line someplace?
Maybe, but until there is evidence to indicate that, I see no reason to believe that.
I can understand a distaste for Monsanto, but I don't see why the technology itself isn't good, although I must admit that too am biased.
soon enough that will be 100% of the crops you eat; produced from GMO seed
And, why is that bad? Oh, GMOs weigh more than a duck and are therefore bad, right? Newsflash: All food you eat has been selected for certain traits. Those traits are the results of genes. The methodology is different but it really isn't that horribly different in that all either is really doing is changing genes, and there is nothing wrong with that. Sure, there is the chance that a novel trait may turn out to have a negative effect, but that happens with all technology. For example, do you really, really know that Wi-Fi doesn't somehow cause cancer? It probably doesn't, and so until there's evidence to suggest that, it is a silly connection to make. What makes altering the genes of a plant any different? That's how it works; evidence before fear. Too many people just say ZOMG, Frankenfood!!!!!1!!!eleven!! and don't think about what they're really saying.
with the "terminator" gene,
You mean that thing they currently have no plans to bring to the market? I gotta hand it to Monsanto. Genes might spread, so they're evil. They develop terminator genes to prevent accidental genetic spread, so they're evil. They're damned either way, aren't they?
fertilized with a synthetic fertilizer, and inundated with synthetic pesticides which destroy soil diversity and in fact make it impossible to grow healthy food.
Plant patents have existed for years, and what are they if not genetic patents, albeit in a less technical format? The Honeycrisp apple is patented for example. I fail to see what is inherently wrong with patenting a line of genetically modified organisms or an artificially developed gene so long as the patent is reasonable.
Remember this little stunt, when Greenpeace tried to starve a whole bunch of people to push their agenda? Reread that a few times until it sinks in. They were willing to let people starve to death for their anti-GMO goals. Yes, I realize that they only advised government officials to do that, and maybe they would have done it anyway for political purposes, but Greenpeace still supported the decision. As far as I'm concerned, monsters like that have less than zero credibility concerning genetically modified food.
What pisses me off is that there is even a divide between 'organic' and GMOs. Organic is a cultivation method. GMOs are a type of plant. They're two entirely different things. And yet, there is this luddite philosophy that whatever is natural (whatever the hell natural is supposed to mean) is somehow better and more wholesome and holistic or whatever bullshit passes for sustainable practices today.
... because mono-cultures are SO much better than diversity...
No one said that. You did.
... because they'll never abuse their monopoly license...
The RIAA does all the time. Does that reflect upon the artistic merit of a band? Monsanto abuses patents, what does that have to do with anything besides act as a red herring?
... because it's easy to keep GMOs from contaminating non-GMOs (crops/animals)...
Not yet. That's the beauty of it, there's no reason why something can't be avoided. There are still bugs to work out, yes, and those present unique issues, but has there ever been a technology that was absolutely perfected from the get-go?
... because selective breeding is such a radical and new idea...
And it may soon be archaic. We can do a lot more a lot faster. The horse and buggy wasn't bad, but the car was better. Of course, working better never stopped clueless luddites from bitching.
... because they'll never take a naturally-occurring species and slip a patent on it...
Red herring. This has nothing to do with GMOs.
After all, what could possibly go wrong?
With what? Fire? Arson. Chemistry? Explosives. Computer networks? Cybercrime.
Perhaps you don't get this, but everything is what it is because of genetics. A Red Delicious apple is sweeter than a wild apple for one reason alone: genetics. You control that and we could massively increase what land is usable for farmland and can cut back on a shitload of resources. What could possibly go wrong if we use GMOs? Not as much as what could go wrong if we don't.
(Ubuntu user here, sorry for the tired old joke:P )
No, a tired old joke would be making a comment on Duke Nukem Forever's release date. Then again, when something has been in development that long, everything about it (jokes, developers, the earth on a geologic timescale) gets pretty old.
Pragmatically, India might not be the best place to study because of how many people there already speak English. That's not to say learning one of India's languages won't be useful, or that the cultural aspects aren't worth learning (personally, when I get up to the main campus of my university, I have every intention of taking the Hindi course), but if you're doing it for your career, unless you're really into India (or you're just a language freak like me), you'd probably be better off learning something else.
Come on? Isn't is obvious? Go for a semester anywhere.
Fixed it for you. Communication is important, and being able to speak to others without a translator in their language will probably give you major brownie points if you ever have to work with someone from another country. Even if you never have to do international work, it's still cool to know. Every language has something worth reading or watching or listening to or even posting on (don't forget that English is not the only language on the net).
Personally, I've never understood the appeal of studying somewhere that speaks your native language. I suppose it would be much easier, but you won't walk away fluent in another language to write down on your CV.
But it is irrational to assume that all or most life must be water-based.
I wouldn't say that. Water's pretty handy when it comes to making stuff. Same with carbon. Read all about it here. I'm not saying lifeforms based on something else are verifiably impossible, but if there's life out there, odds are it is water and carbon based. Of course, some electric lifeform or black cloud or whatever could be common outside our little system, but at this point that's even more speculative.
Slashdot Mirror
Less than one molecule per liter? That's the homeopathic equivalent to a placebo. The strong stuff is measured in molecules per cubic lightyear. Boy, it sure is a good thing we as a civilization don't treat health problems magic water, huh?
Natural fallacy medicine and conventional medicine were roughly equivalent because, before the scientific method was used, they were both based on superstition. Actually, natural medicine worked better because conventional was actually harmful back then, and a placebo is better than a poison. Now that they're based on science, natural fallacy medicine is fairly useless. That's not to say that herbs or whatever can't have an effect, but they have varied levels of the active ingredient along with other compounds, hence the reason we purify them and package it as real medicine (like aspirin, made from willow bark compounds). No surprise, life didn't suddenly decide to spend the past couple million years evolving to be medicine. Say, speaking of the scientific method, have you ever noticed any non-'allopathic' (a bullshit term for medicine with a measurable effect, by the way) adapt when new scientific data come in? Have you ever seen an alternate medicine discredited by its practitioners? Science works, superstition doesn't.
The mercury-autism thing was pulled directly out of Wakefield's ass.
How did such anti-science drivel get modded up on Slashdot? Listen, unless you count the made up ones, there is no connection between vaccines and the disease of the day. Wakefield, the vaccines cause autism guy, fabricated data. No other well done study ever, and I mean ever, found a link. We dropped the supposed cause, and nothing happened. So now people claim something else causes disease, like aluminum or formaldehyde or antifreeze (which isn't even in vaccines). Science is not about continuously shifting the hypothesis to fit an a priori bias, but that's what the pro-disease/anti-vaccine folks are doing. also, there is no global conspiracy to be evil by making you healthy, and when people start thinking that, guess what happens? Polio comes back after being on the edge of being wiped out. Don't believe me, look it up, some imans declared that vaccines were a western plot, polio came back, and it happens everywhere. Look at measles in the UK.
Just because you don't understand science doesn't mean its out to get you. Vaccine denialism is scientific illiteracy at this point, and not only that, but it is dangerous. It is pretty well documented that decline in immunization rates correlates with a rise in disease outbreaks, and by not vaccination you put everyone at risk. And all over some imaginary fears? Carl Sagan was right when he said that an unscientific population living in a scientific world is a recipe for disaster.
Just like when our ancestors came to America
They didn't come to America because there was no America. Kinda hard to legally enter a country that doesn't exist. The analogy you're trying to make doesn't make sense because, even if there was a country that they illegally immigrated into, that still wouldn't have made it right, nor should it have any modern relevance. The founding fathers and many American ancestors had slaves, but it was wrong and their owning slaves has no logical relevance to that. Appeals to whoever are considered fallacies for a reason.
The "proper channels" set immigration limits drastically to less than what economic forces would set them to.
I've always found that to be the kicker to the illegal immigration thing. Sure, what they're doing is illegal, but that doesn't mean it isn't understandable. The proper channels (the immigration system) do need some work, and the illegal immigrants are usually just doing what will be best for them, so I can't say I blame for hopping the border illegally. Nonetheless, there are plenty of otherwise necessary rules that give some people hard times, and we can't just have people doing as they please legal or not because of it.
It has nothing to do with any of that. It is about using the proper channels to do it. That's not to say that some people aren't just bigots (some are), or that the immigration system doesn't need some work (it does), but it really isn't about not wanting immigrant to get a a better life. It is about people doing things the legal way (and stopping any other unlawful activities that cross the border).
Someone should do a study to see if it is socially possible to stop it with vaccinations. Something tells me that is a better question.
Fighting disease is something we can, and have defeated in the past. Come on, we've damn near wiped out polio, and we actually defeated smallpox.
Just a nitpick, but I really don't think you really can compare present disease with past disease like smallpox. We eradicated smallpox with vaccines, but that was before Wakefield's Epic Trolling and the fears that mercury/aluminum/formaldehyde/anything and everything in vaccines causes autism/cancer/AIDS/diabetes/criminal behavior (I shit you not, I once read something that claimed vaccines cause criminal behavior). If you were to try a widespread vaccination program today, like the one the WHO used to get rid of smallpox, I don't think it would work. For it to be really successful, as in getting rid of something for good, I think we'd need fairly large segments of the population to get vaccinated so the disease has nowhere to go, and now, too many people think that vaccines are proof that 'they' are out to get them in some vague nefarious plot. Vaccines wiped out smallpox and have polio on the ropes, but they now, unfortunately, have way too many imaginary problems associated with them to have the same stopping power.
makers of the cancerous Aspartame
Not according to the FDA or ACSH. But at least The Holistic Healing Web Page is of that belief. In general, you should beware of medical advice that has its origins in fowarded emails.
My bad, you're right there, I know they praised the decision, but I guess I don't have exceptionally solid evidence that it was their propaganda that directly lead to it. But yeah I like my wording too.
And I'm glad you picked shipping as an example because it shows what's right with GMOs. Say you found the genes for separability and inserted them into a Cox's Pippin. One could very well have the best of both in that case.
And the issue with superweeds now is getting serious. In my own state, pig amaranth is taking over a lot of fields that were grown with GM cotton then sprayed.
I hear a lot about Roundup and resistant strains. Why is that problem exclusive to Roundup? That couldn't happen with other sprays?
We have climate indicators, and we have health of the crop and insect indicators, and the status of our honeybees now is a good indicator or canary in the coal mine if you will. Superweeds, honeybees croaking off, vendor lockin, loss of biodiversity..you have to look at the whole picture.
No, you need to look at each individual phenomenon. Don't say 'GMOs are bad' then list a whole bunch of random problems that aren't connected.
they have no idea whatsoever what the long term consequences will be
Without omnipotence, that is indeed hard to predict. How do you solve such a problem? Halting progress indefinitly isn't a reasonable answer. Combustion engines caused global warming. Should we have halted the automobile for the past century until we knew every little thing that could go wrong. Sorry if this sounds reckless, but it simply isn't reasonable.
What GM crops are is programmed food.
I fail to see what's wrong with that.
What GM crops are is programmed food.
Again, so what? What difference does it make what 'happens in nature?' Also, given time, anything can happen in nature. How do you think those genes got there to begin with?
You think there won't be some real bad WHOOPS down the line someplace?
Maybe, but until there is evidence to indicate that, I see no reason to believe that.
I can understand a distaste for Monsanto, but I don't see why the technology itself isn't good, although I must admit that too am biased.
soon enough that will be 100% of the crops you eat; produced from GMO seed
And, why is that bad? Oh, GMOs weigh more than a duck and are therefore bad, right? Newsflash: All food you eat has been selected for certain traits. Those traits are the results of genes. The methodology is different but it really isn't that horribly different in that all either is really doing is changing genes, and there is nothing wrong with that. Sure, there is the chance that a novel trait may turn out to have a negative effect, but that happens with all technology. For example, do you really, really know that Wi-Fi doesn't somehow cause cancer? It probably doesn't, and so until there's evidence to suggest that, it is a silly connection to make. What makes altering the genes of a plant any different? That's how it works; evidence before fear. Too many people just say ZOMG, Frankenfood!!!!!1!!!eleven!! and don't think about what they're really saying.
with the "terminator" gene,
You mean that thing they currently have no plans to bring to the market? I gotta hand it to Monsanto. Genes might spread, so they're evil. They develop terminator genes to prevent accidental genetic spread, so they're evil. They're damned either way, aren't they?
fertilized with a synthetic fertilizer, and inundated with synthetic pesticides which destroy soil diversity and in fact make it impossible to grow healthy food.
Unnatural=unhealthy? Citation needed.
Same thing could be said for Greenpeace.
Plant patents have existed for years, and what are they if not genetic patents, albeit in a less technical format? The Honeycrisp apple is patented for example. I fail to see what is inherently wrong with patenting a line of genetically modified organisms or an artificially developed gene so long as the patent is reasonable.
Remember this little stunt, when Greenpeace tried to starve a whole bunch of people to push their agenda? Reread that a few times until it sinks in. They were willing to let people starve to death for their anti-GMO goals. Yes, I realize that they only advised government officials to do that, and maybe they would have done it anyway for political purposes, but Greenpeace still supported the decision. As far as I'm concerned, monsters like that have less than zero credibility concerning genetically modified food.
What pisses me off is that there is even a divide between 'organic' and GMOs. Organic is a cultivation method. GMOs are a type of plant. They're two entirely different things. And yet, there is this luddite philosophy that whatever is natural (whatever the hell natural is supposed to mean) is somehow better and more wholesome and holistic or whatever bullshit passes for sustainable practices today.
... because mono-cultures are SO much better than diversity ...
No one said that. You did.
... because they'll never abuse their monopoly license ...
The RIAA does all the time. Does that reflect upon the artistic merit of a band? Monsanto abuses patents, what does that have to do with anything besides act as a red herring?
... because it's easy to keep GMOs from contaminating non-GMOs (crops/animals) ...
Not yet. That's the beauty of it, there's no reason why something can't be avoided. There are still bugs to work out, yes, and those present unique issues, but has there ever been a technology that was absolutely perfected from the get-go?
... because selective breeding is such a radical and new idea ...
And it may soon be archaic. We can do a lot more a lot faster. The horse and buggy wasn't bad, but the car was better. Of course, working better never stopped clueless luddites from bitching.
... because they'll never take a naturally-occurring species and slip a patent on it ...
Red herring. This has nothing to do with GMOs.
After all, what could possibly go wrong?
With what? Fire? Arson. Chemistry? Explosives. Computer networks? Cybercrime.
Perhaps you don't get this, but everything is what it is because of genetics. A Red Delicious apple is sweeter than a wild apple for one reason alone: genetics. You control that and we could massively increase what land is usable for farmland and can cut back on a shitload of resources. What could possibly go wrong if we use GMOs? Not as much as what could go wrong if we don't.
(Ubuntu user here, sorry for the tired old joke :P )
No, a tired old joke would be making a comment on Duke Nukem Forever's release date. Then again, when something has been in development that long, everything about it (jokes, developers, the earth on a geologic timescale) gets pretty old.
Pragmatically, India might not be the best place to study because of how many people there already speak English. That's not to say learning one of India's languages won't be useful, or that the cultural aspects aren't worth learning (personally, when I get up to the main campus of my university, I have every intention of taking the Hindi course), but if you're doing it for your career, unless you're really into India (or you're just a language freak like me), you'd probably be better off learning something else.
Come on? Isn't is obvious? Go for a semester anywhere.
Fixed it for you. Communication is important, and being able to speak to others without a translator in their language will probably give you major brownie points if you ever have to work with someone from another country. Even if you never have to do international work, it's still cool to know. Every language has something worth reading or watching or listening to or even posting on (don't forget that English is not the only language on the net).
Personally, I've never understood the appeal of studying somewhere that speaks your native language. I suppose it would be much easier, but you won't walk away fluent in another language to write down on your CV.
Here is an artist's rendition of the new train currently being planned.
But it is irrational to assume that all or most life must be water-based.
I wouldn't say that. Water's pretty handy when it comes to making stuff. Same with carbon. Read all about it here. I'm not saying lifeforms based on something else are verifiably impossible, but if there's life out there, odds are it is water and carbon based. Of course, some electric lifeform or black cloud or whatever could be common outside our little system, but at this point that's even more speculative.