GMOs are an unqualified good!!!

Hopefully, it won't be shut down by those who who think blogs are more reliable than peer reviewed, scientific research.

And then the usual folks will be against it.

Thanks for posting this.

Google "Lurgi Strikes Britain"

Here, I'll try here:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwayxFBIzd6aK6jCqFeIsCFqz28dWQLVc
(Scroll down a little bit. It's there.) it does not work here either!

From Auntie Beeb:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007k4l1 (apparently this does not work)

The script:
http://www.hexmaster.com/goonscripts/s05e07.pdf this works! The radio broadcast is better.

Yes, from 1954, that's Peter Sellars, Spike Milligan, and Harry Secombe. The Goon Show. And yes, Peter and Spike do all the voices except Neddie Seagoon, which is by Harry Secombe.

Sometimes ridicule is the only rational response, as the Goons well knew. (And Monty Python, too.)

On edit: Auntie Beeb keeps a tight leash. Why? I have no idea. It's not that people are clammering for a Goon Show reboot. Plus, Peter, Spike, and Harry are irreplaceable, and sadly dead.

Auntie Beeb: release the Goons already! Let everybody enjoy!

you do not apparently understand what they are.

"This, like the breakthroughs in GMO rice in the 1970s, will save ten times as many lives as all the wars being waged combined."

The GM in GMO refers to genetically modified by direct genetic engineering (cutting and splicing) of the genetic material. The first GMO rice varieties were not put into use in the USA until 2000.

The high yield rice varieties of the "Green Revolution" of the 1970s were from plant breading programs (genetic selection of phenotypes) and included cloning and hybridization but did not include genetic engineering as the technology did not exist at the time. High yield rice came into common use circa 1966 and had continued and specific success ever since. Genetic engineering technology was not a used (or available) technology for high yield rice for another 30 years. What is known as the high yield rice of the Green Revolution were not GMOs.

Note I am not offering an opinion regards to GMOs which I support in the general but not always in the specific. I agree with the four paragraphs you copied.

I do offer the opinion that one who does not acknowledge and / or understand the difference in technology between the high yield rice of the 1970s Green Revolution and genetically engineered GMO rice of the 21st century should reconsider whether you are a poster that should make OPs regards GMOs.

So criticizing more modern techniques is distinguishing without a difference. All they really do is speed up the process of creating new genotypes that exhibit desirable characteristics.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

You typed that the high yield rice in the 1970s was a GMO.

The high yield rice in the 1970 was not a GMO and was not created using genetic engineering technology.

The high yield rice of the Green Revolution was the creation and isolation of phenotypes, some unlikely to ever occur in nature specifically hybridized strains.

Genetic engineering to create GMOs directly manipulates genotypes.

You were wrong in stating that the high yield rice of the 1970s is a GMO. That is basic.

You imply a simplicity that is not there.

Why do you defend something when you made an untrue (and misleading statement) of something basic?

I support the use of GMOs and genetic engineering technology. I do not support propaganda nor mis-attribution of technology.

Just because something exists in nature does not mean something favorable - examples are Dutch Elm disease or White Pine Blister rust that began as escapees from horticulture trade and removed dominant tree species from ecologies over vast landscapes.

GMOs are at times genotypes that would never occur in nature but this does not imply that these GMOs are "bad" but rather a consideration to consider and a risk to note.

Why don't you correct yourself where you stated that the high yield rice in the 1970s Green Revolution is a GMO?

That is why I posted, that is the only point I made in my post. It is basic.

Because they don't use modern transistors. Or that diamond grit created through artificial processes isn't really chemically diamond.

Selectively breed, create alleles, crossbreed, and use mutagenics long enough, and you will eventually hit on the same genetic sequence that a horizontal gene transfer mechanism does. The only difference is speed. It's all GMO.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

GMO is genetic engineering what you describe is not genetic engineering.

You would lose a point on a True / False exam of a survey of genetics class in junior college.

Look at something as basic as the first two paragraphs of wiki.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_rice

Note that the first two sentences at wiki differentiates between genetic engineering and natural horizontal gene transfer.

What is your problem?

You stated that the high yield rice in the 1970s Green Revolution was a GMO and it is most assuredly not.

The only difference can be more than speed but I have zero desire to go there with you.

You made a mis-statement. Own it.

From your own link:

Genetically modified rice are rice strains that have been genetically modified (also called genetic engineering).

From there you get the definition:

...because of some tautology taught in Sociology 101 that claims only white people can be.

And yes, I'm sure I'd lose a point there as well. Because the teacher would most assuredly be wrong.

If you're going to define "GMO" not by the genes it contains, but rather by some arbitrary date line established in the 1980s, then by your own tautological definition, anything before the 1980s can't be a "GMO".

But if you actually know what you're talking about, you'll know that GMOs have been around since before recorded history. The exact same techniques that happen artificially in the lab, have been proven to have happened 8000 years ago on food crops.

In fact the REAL innovation of late hasn't been horizontal gene transfer using bacteria, but mutating species using radiation. That started up as late as the 1930s.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

.


This will make those who are, in the extreme poverty classification, making below $1.25 a day, dependent on purchasing seed for each crop cycle. This is akin to the same practice Monsanto and Pioneer are doing worldwide to force small farms to sell to BigAg, placing more people into poverty situations. These firms make deals with governments to offer 'free' seed to farmers for a year or two, just enough to kill off their legacy/heirloom seed supplies. Then, they are trapped with a farm an no ability to grow crops on it. Now, if they could make that rice so you can replant a portion of the crop for the next cycle, I'm onboard. But, as it stands, it just makes more and more people beholden to seed companies.


.

And even Monsanto (scapegoat of many on the far left) have never sold terminator seeds. Ever.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community