World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Any plant or animal that has been domesticated has been genetically modified.
You aren't exactly the first person to misunderstand this. But congrats I guess.
It all depends what your definition of genetic modification is.
My opinion isn’t exactly a fringe theory.
No it doesn't.
It's a completely disingenuous argument and a false equivalency. We know that we are referring to GMO vs selective breeding. These are completely different mechanisms and in the latter case we understand the consequences and implications because humans have been doing it for millennia. In the former case we have not been doing it very long at all and do not yet fully understand the consequences and implications. I'm not saying that makes it inherently wrong, but it is a vast area of unknown ramifications. And given human's already long history of fucking with nature and finding out my money is on those ramifications being less than ideal.
It is selecting genes through breeding or doing the same thing in a laboratory.
It is a completely different mechanism. The best way to simply describe this is perhaps to say that in selective breeding you are allowing random mutations to happen naturally - IOW allowing the plant to naturally "adapt" to it's environment. This is crucially different in that you are not going in and saying "oh these genes are the ones we want let's only bring those out" but rather "these are the characteristics I want, let's select the organisms that display those".
To put it another way: in selective breeding you are selecting for a collection of characteristics. A great example is saving seed from a crop you have grown. Those seeds will always do better in your specific environment than commercially purchased seeds of the exact same cultivar. Why? Because there are small random mutations across a number of genes that are better adapted to your specific environment to produce the characteristics you want. Those genes are often not actually understood nor is the effect of different combinations of genes. By working backward from exhibited characteristics you are working from known successful combinations.
It’s like you’re trying to explain to me muscle mass growth from going to the gym vs hard work as a farmer.
It’s the same outcome and you’re not getting that.
I just explained how it's not and you're not getting that.
Here, educate yourself: http://www.differencebetween.net/science/difference-between-gmo-and-selective-breeding/
Here’s one that proves my point.
It really doesn't though. If you point is... um... what exactly? That somehow the end result is the same? LOL. Only if you squint real hard and pretend to misunderstand words.
Technically, yes. That's true. Through DIFFERENT mechanisms.
But what do you expect when it's brought to you by Cargill, Bayer, Syngenta, Nutrien, BASF... among others.
I think this conversation is over and it could have always been this simple but you just wanted to argue and get pedantic for whatever reason.
You are the pedantic one. Have a nice day.
No u?
That’s what you choose to end this seven hour conversation?
Yes. Because this did not qualify as a conversation.
You have strange definitions for things.
not modified; selected
Is that selection not modification?
Selection technically isn't modification, since the modification had to have already occurred for it to be selected for. However, modification certainly did occur, and all crops are genetically modified. Indeed, all living creatures are genetically modified, as without modification, evolution can't occur.
The public fear of GMO's is largely due to Monsanto, who aggressively protect their GMO crop patents to the point where farmers who just happened to have some seeds blow into their fields have been sued.
The issue with GMO's isn't the modification, it's the lax patent laws that allow companies like Monsanto to exploit people for profit, giving a bad name to the field as a whole, in spite of the immense potential good it can do, for which Golden Rice is a prime example.
Their concern is not solely based on the gene modification. The impact of introducing a new crop is bigger than that. The golden rice is patented and that often comes with a ton of regulations the local farmers have no control over.
While I wish for there to be a good way to solve the food problem AND find a good use for gene modification, I don't think that this particular instance is it....
The question here is whether to give farmers the freedom to choose to grow it - most will continue growing other varieties. Idk what uncontrollable regulations you are referring to, but no regulation will force you to grow something.
I also want to solve the problem and this is a great solution. It's worth enacting it, unless you have a better idea - children have been dying, die right now, and could continue to die if something isn't done.
All plant cultivars are patented, including all organic and heirloom cultivars.
The scientists that developed Golden rice have been distributing it for free via NGOs.
This. Read an article a while back about American farmers getting sued because there was GM crop growing in their fields when they didn’t plant it. It had cross pollinated from neighboring farms. Being able to sue over patented GM crops is just a bad idea.
Nah read into it, the guy had planned all-GM and had kicked up a shitstorm with the "cross-pollination" theory to try and get away with it. Unfortunately reality matters in court so he hit sued (Greenpeace never told you that part)
Oh hey. I didn't realize anyone was still pushing that long since debunked canard.
The guy in question was a lying hack, who purposefully set up his fields next to a farmer who grew the GM crop and then purposefully harvested the crops that were along the connecting edge of the field so he could replant them without having to have bought them. When he was called out on that, he lied and blamed cross-contamination, but there was no way for his subsequent harvest to be 99+% the GM crop from cross-contamination unless he had collected and planted them on purpose.
So, yeah, he was sued. Including by his neighboring farmer for theft.
Fuck the neighbor, as long as he didn't harvest the neighbors' crops directly and it came on to his property it's his.
He did harvest his neighbors crops directly. He purposefully cut and took crops through the fence bordering the property. He did all of that completely on purpose.
Your whole comment is based on the assumption that what that guy did was theft, and morally reprehensible. It fucking isn't though. Intellectual property of the generic material of plants is just capitalist made up bullshit.
What does intellectual property have to do with stealing crops from your neighbor? In fact, the guy in question was purposefully working for the organic food companies in order to try and have such a lawsuit happen.
The funny thing being that he completely lost the case.
Can I patent my DNA so if I knock someone up I can sue them?
The GM crop was Roundup Ready. Unlike non-GM crops, it won't be killed by a Roundup, an herbicide. So unless you are using GM seeds, it would be madness to spray Roundup on your crops.
All of those farmers were sued when they used Roundup on their fields. Why would they do so if they didn't secretly plant Roundup Ready seeds?
And hence why his fields were 99+% GM crops. Him trying to claim cross-contamination after that was laughably dumb.
The huge difference is who holds the patent. The example you gave involves Monsanto, the patent holder for several GMO crops, and a terrible company that does everything in its power to make money by exploiting people. Golden Rice, however, is patented by the scientists who designed it, who likely only patented it so that a company like Monsanto couldn't just make some similar GMO and patent it instead, using it to exploit people even more.
This same thing happened back when genes themselves were able to be patented; some companies like Myriad Genetics would patent genes like the BRCA gene, a common source of inherited breast cancer predisposition, so that they could charge an arm and a leg for testing. So, researchers and non-profits would patent genes that they found just ensure they could be fairly studied and tested for.
I don’t think that is important really. The big problem is that patents can be sold so the good guy(s) with the patent could turn out to be not as good as we hoped when someone offers them a bucket load of money.
Well, yes, but that's kinda my point. If you don't patent, you get exploited, like how the discoverers of insulin synthesis decided not to patent, so companies patented similar, but not exact methods, and now it's incredibly expensive. But, as you said, if you do patent, there is still a risk of exploitation if the patent holder sells to an exploitative company. However, that exploitation is still less likely than when not patenting, so I support the practice so long as patenting is still possible.
I worked at a small nonprofit back when genes were still able to be patented; we mostly studied the condition Pseudoxanthoma Elasticum, and held the patents to a few of the genes associated with it. However, we still allowed people to research them freely - we only patented them to prevent a company like Myriad Genetics, who had been patenting genes so that they could sell expensive genetic tests, from patenting it instead. We celebrated when genes were no longer able to be patented; I imagine that the researchers working with golden rice will do the same if we're ever lucky enough for GMO's to no longer be able to be patented.
Relying on a hope that someone will do good is, and always has been, a terrible idea. We need to fix that shit at its core.
I wholeheartedly agree. I was working for a small genetics nonprofit when they removed the ability to patent genes, and the whole office had a party to celebrate. It was mostly a celebration about freedom to research and test, but we were also very excited to no longer have to deal with having a bunch of patents. Even though we let people research the genes freely, we still had a bunch of paperwork that needed to be done any time someone wanted to do so.