>>7640669 About as bad as people's comprehension of basic ecology, evolution, and glyphosate's degradation rate. Have fun dumping on more and more to combat an increasingly resistant population. Have fun with that soil accumulation.
Round-up ready is garbage, laughable, infantile engineering. Genetic engineering has potential as of yet far untapped. This fucking irresponsible joke is not something to applaud, it's a disgrace. It's banal. It's shameful.. Unfortunately, real innovations like won't often come from the private sector. I don't fully know where or how, but as it is now, it's all completely pathetic.
>>7640738 What does that have to do with anything I just said? Again, scientific facts are not a religion. They are simply the result of rational empirical inquiry. Your devotion to preconceived notions which counter the facts, on the other hand, is a religion.
>>7640750 "I can't see something, therefore, there is nothing to be seen." I can't help with that anon, I'm sorry. It's a personal problem you're going to need to work on.
In the form of a list of discrete and explicit points: -Glyphosate is Monsanto's proprietary herbicide. The financial and economic leverage, as well as motive behind this, is obvious. And net detrimental. -Joy, you made a plant that's mighty gosh darn resistant. Good to go right? Of course not. This isn't the 1800's, we know how populations respond to this sort of selective killing, and we know how traits become selected for and then overexpressed over time. Unless you want to deny hundreds of years of scientific research, unless you want to deny antibiotic resistant bacteria. Unless you want to deny even L-Form bacteria that are emerging and showing they're surprisingly durable. Unless you want to deny the underpinnings of your own existence, as as product of the human species. Really, who here is a luddite again? You have near omnipresent evidence of how the world works right under your nose. But you just read it, tribalistically scribble out the lines you don't like, crumple it up, and throw it away. It's ridiculous, and I'm gettin' real sick of it. -Glyphosate is fairly non-toxic, right? Perhaps if you're eating in trace amounts. But now we've put ourselves in a position where we're slowly using more herbicide to produce the same effect. Glyphosate isn't actually that biodegradable, and it does accumulate in soil. Root systems of typical crops like soybean don't give half a shit, they've got as much affinity for it as they do arsenic or polonium. They suck it up in some amount. -Genetic engineer has vast potential, but it's being squandered. You numb fucks are jumping to defend practices and entities that are not only a disgrace and not in your interest, but just plain underwhelming. This is not the right path. This is just another broken on purpose joke.
>>7640784 Ran out of characters. Anyone inclined to respond, I have a few things to do and will likely be back within the hour. A response will probably come, but will certainly not be immediate. I might just stop giving a shit between point A and point B though. That's always a possibility.
>>7640793 >Go ahead and take that as evidence that you must be right though. Nah. I'll just drop it as substanceless clutter. It says far more about you than me. Relative to my perspective, no substantial contrast to what I've laid out has been formed. Who would bother thinking it means anything?
>>7640784 >Glyphosate is Monsanto's proprietary herbicide. The financial and economic leverage, as well as motive behind this, is obvious. And net detrimental. Ah we're off to a good start. Your info is a *little* out of date. Their patent ran out 15 years ago and there are hundreds of formulations being sold by different companies right now. Why exactly is a proprietary product bad and what is the "obvious motive"?
>Joy, you made a plant that's mighty gosh darn resistant. Good to go right? Of course not. How exactly does this make glyphosate bad? Are antibiotics bad because overuse creates immunity? Of course not. This is a reason to use antibiotics carefully. But it is not a reason to stop using glyphosate. In fact if you actually think glyphosate is bad you should be happy that overuse makes it obsolete.
>Glyphosate is fairly non-toxic, right? Perhaps if you're eating in trace amounts. But now we've put ourselves in a position where we're slowly using more herbicide to produce the same effect. Yeah there's this thing where we can think about future use of glyphosate and determine whether that level of use is harmful right now. This has already been done.
So let's review, we have the retarded "MUH MONSANTO and therefore bad" meme. We have "glyphosate is like antibiotics and therefore bad" . And "glyphosate is not toxic in the amounts we but is toxic in the amounts we don't eat and therefore bad". That's about what I thought.
>Genetic engineer has vast potential, but it's being squandered. You numb fucks are jumping to defend practices and entities that are not only a disgrace and not in your interest, but just plain underwhelming. This is not the right path. This is just another broken on purpose joke. It's being squandered by your fear mongering and misinformation you idiot. Monsanto is not stopping innovation in biotech. But fools like you are.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at email@example.com with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.