- 2016.08.15, 10:27
- "In the U.S. and Europe, “organic” food companies are selling more and more products precisely because of the minority rule and because ordinary and unlabeled food may be seen by some to contain pesticides, herbicides, and transgenic genetically modified organisms, “GMOs” with, according to them, unknown risks. (What we call GMOs in this context means transgenic food, entailing the transfer of genes from a foreign organism or species). Or it could be for some existential reasons, cautious behavior, or Burkean conservatism – some may not want to venture too far too fast from what their grandparents ate. Labeling something “organic” is a way to say that it contains no transgenic GMOs.
"In promoting genetically modified food via all manner of lobbying, purchasing of congressmen, and overt scientific propaganda (with smear campaigns against such persons as yours truly), the big agricultural companies foolishly believed that all they needed was to win the majority. No, you idiots. As I said, your snap “scientific” judgment is too naive in these type of decisions."
[...]
"And the price difference appears to be small enough to be negligible as (perishable) food costs in America are largely, about up to eighty or ninety percent, determined by distribution and storage, not the cost at the agricultural level. And as organic food (and designations such as “natural”) is in higher demand, from the minority rule, distribution costs decrease and the minority rule ends up accelerating in its effect.
"Big Ag (the large agricultural firms) did not realize that this is the equivalent of entering a game in which one needed to not just win more points than the adversary, but win ninety-seven percent of the total points just to be safe. It is strange, once again, to see Big Ag who spent hundreds of millions of dollars on research cum smear campaigns, with hundreds of these scientists who think of themselves as more intelligent than the rest of the population, miss such an elementary point about asymmetric choices."
Kā mans komentārs Ksenijas komentāram par to "kas ir un kas nav GMO". Apakšā kaut kāda tāda "zemstraumes" attieksme - "ja tu esi racionāls, tad priecīgi ņukāsi GMO barību iekšā tā ka ausis kust". "GMO ir zinātne, GMO ir lieliski".
Tas, ko es neesmu sapratis, ir "priekš kam?". Priekš kam tās GMO lauksaimniecības tehnoloģijas vispār vajag? Tas ir, lai sasniegtu efektīvāku industriālās agrikultūras darbu? Lai padarītu pārtiku lētāku un ar lētākām izmaksām varētu pabarot vairāk cilvēkus? Lai varētu izaudzēt vairāk pārtikas un pabarot vairāk miljardus cilvēku? Lai ļautu uz zemes eksistēt vairāk miljardiem cilvēku? Nodrošināt ilgtspējīgu agrikultūras industriālo nestspēju barot 10, 15, 20 miljardus?
Kur ir globālā stratēģija? Kāds īsti būtu tas GMO tehnoloģiju gala mērķis. Es varu saredzēt scenāriju kā uz zemes savairojas 20 miljardi, padzīvo - zemi noplicinot līdz tuksnesim kā siseņi, līdz cilvēce apsprāgst badā, atstājot kosmosā aiz sevis tikai pliku, apgrauztu akmens gabalu. - 22 rakstair doma
- 15.8.16 17:06 #
-
ĢMO klasiskajā nozīmē drīz būs noiets etaps. CRISPR/Cas paver iespējas relatīvi lētai un vieglai manipulācijai ar gēniem bez vajadzības krustot tomātu ar zivi - burtiski veidot genomu mākslīgi tā vietā lai izmantotu gabalus no citu organismu gēniem. Potenciālās problēmas ar dīvainajiem hibrīdiem atrisināsies pašas no sevis, pēc tiem vairs nebūs vajadzības. Protams, vietā nāks citas problēmas, varbūt pat lielākas.
- Atbildēt
