If you're the kind of idiot who equates genetic engineering with poison, there's clearly not much anyone can say to get through to you. Just like the idiots who think WiFi causes cancer aren't going to be convinced by any rational argument.
No; that's the kind of thing I would believe if I were an ignorant moron. You know, the kind of nitwit who thinks that a handful of engineered mutations are inherently more dangerous than a metric shitload of random mutations.
I do not see how GMO labeling is an exception, especially when it has 89% of the US population's support.
Because it doesn't tell you anything, and the way that it's proponents want it applied is irrational and inconsistent. "Genetically modified" applies to every single thing we eat, so only labeling a subset of those foods is idiotic. If they changed it to "genetically engineered" you might have a better case but, then, again, they want it applied inconsistently. If you buy sugar from a genetically engineered plant it's not "genetically engineered sugar", it's just sugar, yet they want it labeled. Likewise if you buy cheese it's not " genetically engineered cheese" despite the fact that genetically engineered bacteria are used in pretty much all cheese production... yet, in that case, the "label it" crowd don't want it labeled.
This kind of muddled reasoning just can't be compared with the reasoning behind things like ingredients lists and nutritional information. Those kinds of labels are applied consistently and tell you something useful. "GMO" is nebulous, meaningless, inconsistently applied, and tells you absolutely nothing about the product.
Lastly, "89% of people want it" is a silly argument. The organic industry has spent enormous sums of time and money convincing people to be afraid of this stuff; of course a lot of people will answer "yes" to the labeling question. But if you asked most people whether they wanted labels on food mutated via radiation and chemical baths, what percentage do you imagine would want it? You know full well that it would be even higher. Yet I don't see anyone asking for those labels. Why do you imagine that might be?
Are you somehow saying this is a GOOD thing? Because if you are then you're a horribly broken excuse for a human being. We should hit everyone full-on in the face with what war really is. No more desensitization!
That's a rather psychotic line of reasoning. I've argued that isolating people from the horrors of war seems to have either led to a decrease in the lethality of war, or have at least been correlated with it. In response to that, you've basically said "oh yeah? Well I WANT people to be scarred by war!"
Why? Because it will make you feel better about your preexisting beliefs?
That's more than a little nuts, and insanely inhumane.
In some cases it's ignorance; in many cases it's wilful ignorance which is indistinguishable from stupidity. You can spend all day explaining to these people that all food has been genetically modified to some extent, that genetic engineering is generally far safer than cross breeding or mutagenesis, and that "organic" doesn't mean safe or pesticide free... and after all that most of them will still say "well, I just want my food to be natural".
Uh, I did address everything you said, its the AC idiot responding to me who appears not to have read what I said. He repeats all the same shit you did:
Monsanto do prosecute innocent farmers
No they don't.
and farmer suicides have been increasing dramatically
No, they haven't.
especially among those with onerous contracts with companies like Monsanto.
Again, not true no matter how many times you repeat the lie.
The only people who make money out of growing our food these days don't work on farms.
Again, complete bullshit. I live next door to a farmer who makes very good money "growing our food". And no, it's not fucking organic. I get my roundup from him since he can get it cheaper.
People like you and the AC are just repeating lies you've never thought to question, and when anyone disagrees with you you either double down, or you pull the "hurr durr you're not addressing what I said" routine. That's silly. Why would you get defensive about things you clearly don't care enough about to verify?
Totally. No need to ban cellphones, just put "these devices emit radiation" stickers on them. Nobody will buy them and we'll all go back to using landlines.
I think the most appropriate objection to GMOs is that Monsanto (now Bayer) uses them to lock farmers into hyper-exploitative contracts and uses heavy-handed legal tactics to enforce them, leading to collateral damage (farmers being wrongly sued for using unlicensed seeds) and suicide by farmers crumpling under the pressures exerted by Monsanto/Bayer.
Even if all of this were true it would not be an objection to "GMOs"; it would be an objection to Monsanto. This is like arguing that, back in the 90s, it would have been a valid objection to computers if you pointed out that Microsoft was a monopoly which abused it's powers.
So that's just a logic fail to start with.
On top of that, though, these allegations against Monsanto are pretty much entirely bullshit. You won't find a single case where Monsanto sued an innocent farmer. The "hyper exploitative contracts" are likewise complete nonsense with zero substantiation. And, lastly, the "farmer suicides" are total bullshit made up by Vandana Shiva; an Indian "activist" who has publicly stated that she would rather see millions of Indian people starve than eat GMOs.
While Monsanto certainly wasn't perfect, I guarantee that 90% of the allegations you've heard about them are baseless bullshit. Some of it was invented by well-meaning but deeply misguided idiots, and much of it was funded by the organic lobby, but regardless of source it's still all bullshit.
I used to be opposed to idiotic labels like those, until I realised that they'll have the exact opposite effect of what the fearmongers want. "GMO" labels will eventually turn out the same as California's "everything causes cancer" labels. It's going to reach such heights of absurdity that people will completely ignore them.
I think the "organic" shills realise this to some extent which is why they've intentionally avoided labeling things like cheese and insulin. My bet is they're trying to walk a thin line, steering people into buying overprices fruits and veggies while not overwhelming them by labeling products with which they can't compete. It's a losing proposition in the long run, though.
There is no reason to reinvent food, just get rid of all the junk food and GMO. Nobody fucking wants it.
I'm always astounded by the number of geniuses who want to ban things which nobody wants. Maybe next you can ban porn on the internet, because nobody wants that either.
Worse, it'll completely insulate people from the horror that is war -- all except the victims, of course.
I keep seeing people say this as if it were some horrible thing to be avoided at all costs but, other than that their gut feeling that it's "bad" and "will leas to more wars", I've seen nobody offer any actual evidence that it's likely to lead to a negative outcome.
The fact of the matter is that we have been progressively "insulating people from the horrors of war" for centuries now, yet the number of war deaths per capita have steadily declined. This isn't inherently causitive, of course, but it certainly doesn't support the idea that more isolation equals more death and destruction.
Why not structure it like the international mine treaty? You know, the one that pretty much everyone except the USA has agreed to.
You know that you're full of shit when your "almost everyone" doesn't include China, India, Pakistan, Russia, and both Koreas, amongst a list of 30+ countries. You know, only about half of the planet.
You know you're doubly full of shit when out of that list of 30 countries the only one you specifically name is also the only one which has publicly stated that they will abide by the terms of the treaty even though they will not officially ratify it.
Amazingly enough, despite all that, you're still not as full of shit as the countries which HAVE ratified the agreement yet continue to stockpile dual-use antipersonnel landmines such as the claymore, because these are apparently "OK". Particularly entertaining is the fact that Canada - the nation which originated the treaty - still stockpiles claymore mines.
But hey, why waste a good opportunity to ignorantly bash the US, right?
I agree that the article is biased, but so are the claims of nuclear reactor decommissioning costs. In-situ dicomissioning is many times cheaper than the methods they use for those estimates; for instance the Savannah site was in-situ decommissioned at a cost of $73 million for 2 reactors whereas the "traditional" approach would have cost about $500 million.
Furthermore the costs of decommissioning existing reactors are inflated by decades of poor storage practices; something which wouldn't apply to reactors built today (we've improved our storage standards). Lastly, new generations of reactors would not only have far lower decommissioning costs but could also reduce the decommissioning costs of current reactors since a large part of the estimates provided is the cost of processing and storing existing "waste". This waste could instead be turned into fuel for new reactors, which drastically changes the equation.
Tldr: I wasn't actually suggesting that windmills will have the same decommissioning costs as reactors (though it's certainly not impossible); I was merely pointing out how easy it is to just make up nonsensical cost estimates when you're willing to cherry-pick worst case scenarios.
It's not going to help with building a lunar outpost - there's precious little to be gained by stopping in orbit on your way to/from the surface. At most you might want a refueling depot for the trip home, or just a BFR tanker ship.
That's essentially the idea. NASA doesn't want it as a gateway to the moon, they want it to serve as a gateway to the rest of the solar system. It wouldn't provide much benefit to a lunar colony other than possibly being able to launch quick rescue missions if needed.
Even if what you say were 100% true it would be entirely irrelevant since the claim I was addressing was that reduced costs don't get passed on to the consumer. How exactly those reductions are achieved is irrelevant to the question of whether or not they're being passed on.
1. You shouldn't underestimate them just based on that, and 2. What they've accomplished so far has zero bearing on whether or not a lunar base makes more sense than an orbital station.
I think the Chinese may very well be right as far as cost/benefit is concerned. The thing is, there are a lot of problems to work out with actually living on the moon, whereas space stations are to some degree a "solved problem" at this point... and NASA is very risk averse these days. For what it's worth, this may be the best solution; NASA can work on an "orbital gateway" while China takes greater risks with a lunar base. We get the benefit of learning from their mistakes, while they get the benefit of having a transfer station close by.
And don't deluded yourself. Whether the Americans , Russians or Chinese hit lunar soil first, the bulk of that ships gonna be Chinese tech anyway
Funny, I didn't realise Boing, SoaceX, Lockheed Martin, etc. were Chinese companies. I guess they weren't satisfied with stealing western tech; now they're stealing western names too!
About 10% of all accidents occur while at least one vehicle is reversing, and they result in about 2,400 children being run over every year (in the USA). If you actually could entirely eliminate the need to back up it would have a decent impact on total damage, deaths, and injuries.
Yeah. That isn't how the real world works. How much "savings" have you received lately?
Metric buttloads. An equivalent TV to the one I purchased 3 years ago can now be had for less than half the price. The average car costs less today (when adjusted for inflation) than the average car did in 1999, despite having far more features, more power, and much better fuel economy. A decent computer costs half as much today as it did in 1999, even when not adjusted for inflation, and again with far better performance. Air travel is cheaper than ever. Gasoline prices (ignoring increased taxes, and adjusting for inflation) have held surprisingly steady despite growing demand and the depletion of easy-to-access sources. Most consumer goods have dropped in price, and the price of home delivery is now so low that it's "free" (ie. bundled into the price of the goods, which are still somehow cheaper or as cheap as buying them in a physical store).
Just about the only thing that has gotten significantly more expensive over time is housing, and this is an issue of supply and demand (ie. not really amiable to cost savings via increased efficiency).
But yeah, aside from all that, you're right, savings NEVER get passed on to the consumer...
Slashdot Mirror
If you're the kind of idiot who equates genetic engineering with poison, there's clearly not much anyone can say to get through to you. Just like the idiots who think WiFi causes cancer aren't going to be convinced by any rational argument.
No; that's the kind of thing I would believe if I were an ignorant moron. You know, the kind of nitwit who thinks that a handful of engineered mutations are inherently more dangerous than a metric shitload of random mutations.
I do not see how GMO labeling is an exception, especially when it has 89% of the US population's support.
Because it doesn't tell you anything, and the way that it's proponents want it applied is irrational and inconsistent. "Genetically modified" applies to every single thing we eat, so only labeling a subset of those foods is idiotic. If they changed it to "genetically engineered" you might have a better case but, then, again, they want it applied inconsistently. If you buy sugar from a genetically engineered plant it's not "genetically engineered sugar", it's just sugar, yet they want it labeled. Likewise if you buy cheese it's not " genetically engineered cheese" despite the fact that genetically engineered bacteria are used in pretty much all cheese production ... yet, in that case, the "label it" crowd don't want it labeled.
This kind of muddled reasoning just can't be compared with the reasoning behind things like ingredients lists and nutritional information. Those kinds of labels are applied consistently and tell you something useful. "GMO" is nebulous, meaningless, inconsistently applied, and tells you absolutely nothing about the product.
Lastly, "89% of people want it" is a silly argument. The organic industry has spent enormous sums of time and money convincing people to be afraid of this stuff; of course a lot of people will answer "yes" to the labeling question. But if you asked most people whether they wanted labels on food mutated via radiation and chemical baths, what percentage do you imagine would want it? You know full well that it would be even higher. Yet I don't see anyone asking for those labels. Why do you imagine that might be?
Are you somehow saying this is a GOOD thing? Because if you are then you're a horribly broken excuse for a human being. We should hit everyone full-on in the face with what war really is. No more desensitization!
That's a rather psychotic line of reasoning. I've argued that isolating people from the horrors of war seems to have either led to a decrease in the lethality of war, or have at least been correlated with it. In response to that, you've basically said "oh yeah? Well I WANT people to be scarred by war!"
Why? Because it will make you feel better about your preexisting beliefs?
That's more than a little nuts, and insanely inhumane.
Well let's give it a try and see what happens.
California happens.
In some cases it's ignorance; in many cases it's wilful ignorance which is indistinguishable from stupidity. You can spend all day explaining to these people that all food has been genetically modified to some extent, that genetic engineering is generally far safer than cross breeding or mutagenesis, and that "organic" doesn't mean safe or pesticide free ... and after all that most of them will still say "well, I just want my food to be natural".
That's not just ignorance.
Why are you so afraid of having to buy stuff labeled "non-gmo"?
Uh, I did address everything you said, its the AC idiot responding to me who appears not to have read what I said. He repeats all the same shit you did:
Monsanto do prosecute innocent farmers
No they don't.
and farmer suicides have been increasing dramatically
No, they haven't.
especially among those with onerous contracts with companies like Monsanto.
Again, not true no matter how many times you repeat the lie.
The only people who make money out of growing our food these days don't work on farms.
Again, complete bullshit. I live next door to a farmer who makes very good money "growing our food". And no, it's not fucking organic. I get my roundup from him since he can get it cheaper.
People like you and the AC are just repeating lies you've never thought to question, and when anyone disagrees with you you either double down, or you pull the "hurr durr you're not addressing what I said" routine. That's silly. Why would you get defensive about things you clearly don't care enough about to verify?
Totally. No need to ban cellphones, just put "these devices emit radiation" stickers on them. Nobody will buy them and we'll all go back to using landlines.
For the reason of having choice, that's all you have to worry about.
That's idiotic. Your "I want choice" can be used as an argument for absolutely anything.
"I want to know all of the produce which was picked by left handed redheads"
"Why?"
"Because I want choice, that's all you have to worry about."
Yeah, OK. I'll get around to that just as soon as I finish labeling all the stuff that was touched by black people. The KKK wants choice too.
I think the most appropriate objection to GMOs is that Monsanto (now Bayer) uses them to lock farmers into hyper-exploitative contracts and uses heavy-handed legal tactics to enforce them, leading to collateral damage (farmers being wrongly sued for using unlicensed seeds) and suicide by farmers crumpling under the pressures exerted by Monsanto/Bayer.
Even if all of this were true it would not be an objection to "GMOs"; it would be an objection to Monsanto. This is like arguing that, back in the 90s, it would have been a valid objection to computers if you pointed out that Microsoft was a monopoly which abused it's powers.
So that's just a logic fail to start with.
On top of that, though, these allegations against Monsanto are pretty much entirely bullshit. You won't find a single case where Monsanto sued an innocent farmer. The "hyper exploitative contracts" are likewise complete nonsense with zero substantiation. And, lastly, the "farmer suicides" are total bullshit made up by Vandana Shiva; an Indian "activist" who has publicly stated that she would rather see millions of Indian people starve than eat GMOs.
While Monsanto certainly wasn't perfect, I guarantee that 90% of the allegations you've heard about them are baseless bullshit. Some of it was invented by well-meaning but deeply misguided idiots, and much of it was funded by the organic lobby, but regardless of source it's still all bullshit.
I used to be opposed to idiotic labels like those, until I realised that they'll have the exact opposite effect of what the fearmongers want. "GMO" labels will eventually turn out the same as California's "everything causes cancer" labels. It's going to reach such heights of absurdity that people will completely ignore them.
I think the "organic" shills realise this to some extent which is why they've intentionally avoided labeling things like cheese and insulin. My bet is they're trying to walk a thin line, steering people into buying overprices fruits and veggies while not overwhelming them by labeling products with which they can't compete. It's a losing proposition in the long run, though.
There is no reason to reinvent food, just get rid of all the junk food and GMO. Nobody fucking wants it.
I'm always astounded by the number of geniuses who want to ban things which nobody wants. Maybe next you can ban porn on the internet, because nobody wants that either.
Worse, it'll completely insulate people from the horror that is war -- all except the victims, of course.
I keep seeing people say this as if it were some horrible thing to be avoided at all costs but, other than that their gut feeling that it's "bad" and "will leas to more wars", I've seen nobody offer any actual evidence that it's likely to lead to a negative outcome.
The fact of the matter is that we have been progressively "insulating people from the horrors of war" for centuries now, yet the number of war deaths per capita have steadily declined. This isn't inherently causitive, of course, but it certainly doesn't support the idea that more isolation equals more death and destruction.
Why not structure it like the international mine treaty? You know, the one that pretty much everyone except the USA has agreed to.
You know that you're full of shit when your "almost everyone" doesn't include China, India, Pakistan, Russia, and both Koreas, amongst a list of 30+ countries. You know, only about half of the planet.
You know you're doubly full of shit when out of that list of 30 countries the only one you specifically name is also the only one which has publicly stated that they will abide by the terms of the treaty even though they will not officially ratify it.
Amazingly enough, despite all that, you're still not as full of shit as the countries which HAVE ratified the agreement yet continue to stockpile dual-use antipersonnel landmines such as the claymore, because these are apparently "OK". Particularly entertaining is the fact that Canada - the nation which originated the treaty - still stockpiles claymore mines.
But hey, why waste a good opportunity to ignorantly bash the US, right?
Dude. You just had a brainfart that can be smelled around the world.
I agree that the article is biased, but so are the claims of nuclear reactor decommissioning costs. In-situ dicomissioning is many times cheaper than the methods they use for those estimates; for instance the Savannah site was in-situ decommissioned at a cost of $73 million for 2 reactors whereas the "traditional" approach would have cost about $500 million.
Furthermore the costs of decommissioning existing reactors are inflated by decades of poor storage practices; something which wouldn't apply to reactors built today (we've improved our storage standards). Lastly, new generations of reactors would not only have far lower decommissioning costs but could also reduce the decommissioning costs of current reactors since a large part of the estimates provided is the cost of processing and storing existing "waste". This waste could instead be turned into fuel for new reactors, which drastically changes the equation.
Tldr: I wasn't actually suggesting that windmills will have the same decommissioning costs as reactors (though it's certainly not impossible); I was merely pointing out how easy it is to just make up nonsensical cost estimates when you're willing to cherry-pick worst case scenarios.
We wouldn't need 117% of the jails if we just made up more statistics.
It's not going to help with building a lunar outpost - there's precious little to be gained by stopping in orbit on your way to/from the surface. At most you might want a refueling depot for the trip home, or just a BFR tanker ship.
That's essentially the idea. NASA doesn't want it as a gateway to the moon, they want it to serve as a gateway to the rest of the solar system. It wouldn't provide much benefit to a lunar colony other than possibly being able to launch quick rescue missions if needed.
Even if what you say were 100% true it would be entirely irrelevant since the claim I was addressing was that reduced costs don't get passed on to the consumer. How exactly those reductions are achieved is irrelevant to the question of whether or not they're being passed on.
That's true, but:
1. You shouldn't underestimate them just based on that, and
2. What they've accomplished so far has zero bearing on whether or not a lunar base makes more sense than an orbital station.
I think the Chinese may very well be right as far as cost/benefit is concerned. The thing is, there are a lot of problems to work out with actually living on the moon, whereas space stations are to some degree a "solved problem" at this point ... and NASA is very risk averse these days. For what it's worth, this may be the best solution; NASA can work on an "orbital gateway" while China takes greater risks with a lunar base. We get the benefit of learning from their mistakes, while they get the benefit of having a transfer station close by.
And don't deluded yourself. Whether the Americans , Russians or Chinese hit lunar soil first, the bulk of that ships gonna be Chinese tech anyway
Funny, I didn't realise Boing, SoaceX, Lockheed Martin, etc. were Chinese companies. I guess they weren't satisfied with stealing western tech; now they're stealing western names too!
About 10% of all accidents occur while at least one vehicle is reversing, and they result in about 2,400 children being run over every year (in the USA). If you actually could entirely eliminate the need to back up it would have a decent impact on total damage, deaths, and injuries.
Yeah. That isn't how the real world works. How much "savings" have you received lately?
Metric buttloads. An equivalent TV to the one I purchased 3 years ago can now be had for less than half the price. The average car costs less today (when adjusted for inflation) than the average car did in 1999, despite having far more features, more power, and much better fuel economy. A decent computer costs half as much today as it did in 1999, even when not adjusted for inflation, and again with far better performance. Air travel is cheaper than ever. Gasoline prices (ignoring increased taxes, and adjusting for inflation) have held surprisingly steady despite growing demand and the depletion of easy-to-access sources. Most consumer goods have dropped in price, and the price of home delivery is now so low that it's "free" (ie. bundled into the price of the goods, which are still somehow cheaper or as cheap as buying them in a physical store).
Just about the only thing that has gotten significantly more expensive over time is housing, and this is an issue of supply and demand (ie. not really amiable to cost savings via increased efficiency).
But yeah, aside from all that, you're right, savings NEVER get passed on to the consumer ...
The type that kills you. Duh.