General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Neil DeGrasse Tyson Tells Bill Maher That Anti-Science Liberals Are Full of Shit Too [View all]A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)The point I'm making is that many if not most breeding methods do happen naturally. And happened naturally for millions of years. Cross pollination and hybrids, even mutations, are all natural and occur even without human intervention. I am not one that thinks all GMOs are bad, but to even compare the process to natural methods is wrong and in my opinion a diversion.
To blindly accept any science and not question it and it's consequences is anti-scientific. Remember if nobody questioned anything, how much science and progress would we have? But to blindly accept all change? That is not being pro-science.
Round-up is more complicated story than most and demands much more scrutiny. Is round-up by itself bad for humans? Maybe, maybe not, and it needs more testing, but moreover is what round-up allows to happen bad for humans indirectly? Round-up allows plants that normally would have died from a poison being administered to them to live. Normally the poison administered would kill the plant thus making it inedible. By the action of allowing a plant to absorb a poison and still live it allows the plant to then transfer the poison to any animal that eats the plant. Round-ups immunity properties are being transferred to the weeds it was designed to help eliminate, what are the long term consequences of that? I think all of that needs to be questioned.
But you are right I have gone off on a tangent so this is my last post about this under this OP.