Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Bill Gates wants 1 Billion dead.

Options
1246712

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    fontanalis wrote: »
    Where would these amorous dogs have come from, pray tell?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Bernard_(dog)#Related_breeds


    EDIT:
    What I'm saying is, it is a dog, it is all dog, it isn't the result of some scientific experiment, two breed's of DOG mated, like 2 humans can mate, 2 horses can also, they are of the same species.

    Stop writing crap here please, your trying to distract it from the start, if you had anything to add that would be better.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭fontanalis


    uprising2 wrote: »

    And where did the related breeds come from? Without human intervention would they have given rise to St Bernards? You do see where I'm going with this?!


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,225 ✭✭✭Yitzhak Rabin


    This is a nice 10 min vid about GE Crops. Although its by that d1ckhead Penn Gillette, I still agree totally with its message.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 426 ✭✭Kepti


    fontanalis wrote: »
    And where did the related breeds come from? Without human intervention would they have given rise to St Bernards? You do see where I'm going with this?!

    It's possible that dogs wouldn't exist at all without human intervention.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭fontanalis


    Kepti wrote: »
    It's possible that dogs wouldn't exist at all without human intervention.

    Yes through artificial selection, which could be argued is messing with genetics.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 426 ✭✭Kepti


    fontanalis wrote: »
    Yes through artificial selection, which could be argued is messing with genetics.

    It definitely is messing with genetics. I was just adding to your point.


    That video is great yekahs.

    Science: Saves 1 Billion+ lives
    Greenpeace: Scares African countries into rejecting food aid.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,225 ✭✭✭Yitzhak Rabin


    Kepti wrote: »
    It definitely is messing with genetics. I was just adding to your point.


    That video is great yekahs.

    Science: Saves 1 Billion+ lives
    Greenpeace: Scares African countries into rejecting food aid.

    Yeah, it really puts the damage certain CT's can do. For the mostpart CT's are fine, and I enjoy exploring them, but certain ones piss me off. When it involves people spreading bullsh1t, which involves people dying. Ones like scaring people about vaccines, food than can save lives, or proponents of unproven and dangerous alternative treatments for serious diesease really just get my goat.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 494 ✭✭Truthrevolution


    yekahs wrote: »
    Yeah, it really puts the damage certain CT's can do. For the mostpart CT's are fine, and I enjoy exploring them, but certain ones piss me off. When it involves people spreading bullsh1t, which involves people dying. Ones like scaring people about vaccines, food than can save lives, or proponents of unproven and dangerous alternative treatments for serious diesease really just get my goat.

    What really gets my goat is people saying that certain vaccines are 100% safe when they are not!


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭robtri


    What really gets my goat is people saying that certain vaccines are 100% safe when they are not!

    where you hear that? is that from medical personal???

    no vaccine is 100% safe


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 494 ✭✭Truthrevolution


    robtri wrote: »

    no vaccine is 100% safe

    Glad you agree robtri


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 582 ✭✭✭RoboClam


    For that matter, no medication is 100% safe. It comes with the territory.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    RoboClam wrote: »
    For that matter, no medication is 100% safe. It comes with the territory.

    I'm trying of think of anything that is 100% safe.

    So far, I can't think of anything that couldn't potentially be dangerous.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 426 ✭✭Kepti


    robtri wrote: »
    no vaccine is 100% safe

    This is true. All the same, one could make a pretty good argument that vaccines were one of the most important discoveries in the history of medicine.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 494 ✭✭Truthrevolution


    Rite, i see where youse are going with this.....

    Well i suppose when you think about it even consuming water isnt 100% safe!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    Kepti wrote: »
    It definitely is messing with genetics. I was just adding to your point.


    That video is great yekahs.

    Science: Saves 1 Billion+ lives
    Greenpeace: Scares African countries into rejecting food aid.

    By keeping dogs and the possibility that they might have sex and have puppies doesnt mess with genetics, its called nature, if people were trying to get a dog to hump a chicken or whatever, something that wasn't part of the canine species, I'd agree they were trying to mess with genetics, but they wouldn't be successful, but thats not what were talking about, were talking about opening up DNA adding and subtracting from it, with unknown longterm affect.

    Can you show me some links to these 1 billion saved, doesnt fit in with the eugenics program, or better still start a thread about the greenpeace conspiracy.

    I have plenty of questions about greenpeace and others motives, but its a different subject.


  • Registered Users Posts: 582 ✭✭✭RoboClam


    uprising2 wrote: »
    By keeping dogs and the possibility that they might have sex and have puppies doesnt mess with genetics, its called nature, if people were trying to get a dog to hump a chicken or whatever, something that wasn't part of the canine species, I'd agree they were trying to mess with genetics, but they wouldn't be successful, but thats not what were talking about, were talking about opening up DNA adding and subtracting from it, with unknown longterm affect.

    The concept of "messing with genetics" is interesting. It really doesn't mean much, because by having a child you are essentially creating a new DNA strand from two separate strands. You're right, it's nature. But just because it's nature, does this make it inherently right? Why should it be wrong for us to manipulate the natural course of things? We light our houses using electricity, which we manipulate from nature for example.

    People talk about DNA without knowing what it really does. All genes really do is encode protein. That protein can then be modified further and can then act in a certain way. This is the same in bacteria, fungi, plants, dogs, chickens and humans. Protein encoding genes are simply moved from one species to another. Recombinant DNA technology has been used to great benefit, for example in the use of insulin production.

    We can determine how these proteins will interact with others, using a variety of boring procedures (MALDI-TOF MS). But we DO know what these proteins can do. We know that altering certain aspects of DNA will achieve certain results.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 426 ✭✭Kepti


    uprising2 wrote: »
    By keeping dogs and the possibility that they might have sex and have puppies doesnt mess with genetics, its called nature, if people were trying to get a dog to hump a chicken or whatever, something that wasn't part of the canine species, I'd agree they were trying to mess with genetics, but they wouldn't be successful, but thats not what were talking about, were talking about opening up DNA adding and subtracting from it, with unknown longterm affect.

    All of the separate pure breeds dog have been created by human influence. It's not the same as adding or removing genes, but breeding for certain traits certainly can be defined as messing with genetics.

    In my opinion it's a weak argument to vehemently oppose anything because of some vague unknown longterm effect. If you have concerns, that's perfectly acceptable, but add some meat to them.
    Can you show me some links to these 1 billion saved, doesnt fit in with the eugenics program, or better still start a thread about the greenpeace conspiracy.

    The billion saved figure was pulled from yekahs video. Did you watch it?

    I never suggested a greenpeace conspiracy. If you watch the video, I think it's fair to accuse them of ignorant scaremongering.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    Here's a few good video's about the dangers of GM crops.

    Unatural Selection Dangers of GMO foods. 7 parts















    The Genetic Conspiracy - about Monsanto Part 1 of 3



    Part 2

    Part 3

    The Health Dangers of Genetically Modified Foods part 1



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    Can none of the concerned pro GM advocates here not see the reality behind GM foods and how they are intended not to save people but enslave them even more, yekahs video is propaganda and bullsh1t.
    yekahs what happens when these terminator seed's are introduced to an area, and the farmers down the road suddenly find that they too are the proud owners of the ever expanding crop with sterile seed's, they can then starve or borrow money to get more.


    Terminator Seeds Threaten an End to Farming
    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Transnational_corps/TerminatorSeeds_Monsanto.html

    The 12,000-year-old practice in which farm families save their best seed from one year's harvest for the next season's planting may be coming to an end by the year 2000. In March 1998, Delta ~ Pine Land Co. arid the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced they had received a US patent on a new genetic technology designed to prevent unauthorized seed-saving by farmers.

    Ethical Investing

    Monsanto Terminator Technology -- Worldwide Famine & Starvation
    http://www.ethicalinvesting.com/monsanto/terminator.shtml

    Bill Gates and co want to fukking sterilize everything, control everything, be tomorrows masters of mankind.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    Myths & Realities of GE Crops

    MYTH #1: Genetic engineering is merely an extension of traditional breeding.
    REALITY: Genetic engineering is a new technology that has been developed to overcome the limitations of traditional breeding. Traditional breeders have never been capable of crossing fish genes with strawberries. But genetically engineered “fishberries” are already in the field.

    MYTH #2: Genetic engineering can make foods better, more nutritious, longer-lasting and better-tasting.
    REALITY: The reason for the 70 million acres of GE crops grown in this country today has nothing to do with nutrition, flavor or any other consumer benefit. There is little benefit aside from the financial gains reaped by the firms producing GE crops.

    MYTH #3: GE crops eliminate pesticides and are necessary for environmentally sustainable farming.
    REALITY: Farmers who grow GE crops actually use more herbicide, not less.

    MYTH #4: The Government ensures that genetic engineering is safe for the environment and human health.
    REALITY: Neither the FDA4, the Department of Agriculture (USDA)5, nor the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)6 has done any long-term human health or environmental impact studies of GE foods or crops, nor has any mandatory regulation specific to GE food been established.

    MYTH #5: There is no scientific evidence that GE foods harm people or the environment
    REALITY: There is no long-term study showing that GE foods or crops are safe, yet the biotech industry and government have allowed our environment and our families to become guinea pigs in these experiments.

    MYTH #6: GE foods are necessary to feed the developing worlds growing population.
    REALITY: In 1998, African scientists at a United Nations conference strongly objected to Monsanto’s promotional GE campaign that used photos of starving African children under the headline “Let the Harvest Begin.” The scientists, who represented many of the nations affected by poverty and hunger, said gene technologies would undermine the nations’ capacities to feed themselves by destroying established diversity, local knowledge and sustainable agricultural systems7. Genetic engineering could actually lead to an increase in hunger and starvation.
    http://truefoodnow.org/campaigns/genetically-engineered-foods/ge-crops/myths-realities-of-ge-crops/


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,831 ✭✭✭Torakx


    Was saying to a mate the other day in a way can you blame them?
    The human mind seems to be built to be controlled.If an organism allows itself to be controlled then maybe that is just nature taking its course.
    I am nearly at a stage where i understand nihilism and why people subscribe to that thought pattern.
    People have been dumbed down so much that they dont see the simple things.
    Did you ever see natives on documentaries in places like Haiti before the quake or india where a government or corperation want to buy their land, trees, food and resources whichever applies at the time and the natives are standing there saying "What will we do with this paper?We cannot eat it!"
    Its so very simple that i think we have been the simple minded ones too caught up in our own fantasies.


    Ps. Are those fishberries actually real? I thought that was a joke picture!


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,858 ✭✭✭Undergod


    uprising2 wrote: »
    Can none of the concerned pro GM advocates here not see the reality behind GM foods and how they are intended not to save people but enslave them even more, yekahs video is propaganda and bullsh1t.
    yekahs what happens when these terminator seed's are introduced to an area, and the farmers down the road suddenly find that they too are the proud owners of the ever expanding crop with sterile seed's, they can then starve or borrow money to get more.

    I'm just saying GM crops aren't inherently a bad idea, if they are well tested then there's no real danger, the only problem then would be the nature of the business that sells them.

    How does the plant spread if it has sterile seeds?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,831 ✭✭✭Torakx


    Undergod wrote: »
    I'm just saying GM crops aren't inherently a bad idea, if they are well tested then there's no real danger, the only problem then would be the nature of the business that sells them.

    How does the plant spread if it has sterile seeds?


    I could be wrong now.
    But when the pollen from a male GM plant pollenates a female the hybrid will have traits from both genetics therefore creating a new strain which would be unatural to start with since the male was manufactured by man.

    This isnt to say they dont have GM seeds which do create useable seeds.I dont know about that one.
    I do know the tactic used by Monsanto in america was to pay people to spread the seeds amongst "rebel" farmers crops so in a couple of months they could sue them for patent breaking.
    The farmers crops are periodically tested by some agency i would think, who check for modified genetics in the crops and pass the info on so Monsanto can take them to court etc.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    Undergod wrote: »
    I'm just saying GM crops aren't inherently a bad idea, if they are well tested then there's no real danger, the only problem then would be the nature of the business that sells them.

    How does the plant spread if it has sterile seeds?

    The plant needs to be pollinated by wind, bird or insect before a seed even begins, so when cross pollination occurs the resulting seed will also be a terminator seed, as will most crops for 15-20 years after.

    Poor-Washing, the Gates Foundation & the 'Green Revolution' in Africa
    "Poor-washing" is the common public relations tactic of concealing bitterly unfair and predatory trade policies that create and deepen hunger and poverty with clouds of hypocritical noise about feeding the hungry and alleviating poverty. It's hard to imagine a better case of media poor-washing than the hype around the recently announced $150 million "gifts" of the Gates and Rockerfeller Foundations to the cause of reforming African agriculture, feeding that continent's impoverished millions and sparking an African "Green Revolution"
    http://www.africaspeaks.com/articles/2007/07062.html

    EDIT:
    Like a friend of mine in Amsterdam grows his own herbs, he needs to find the male plant's early and remove them from his garden before the males pollinate the females and instead of nice bud he gets seeds, or if he want's to breed them and introduce a new strain he gets a male from one variety and puts it with a female of another variety and crossbreeds.
    Lots of people here seem to have difficulty seperating cross breeding from genetically modifying, they are two different processes completely, one is natural, the other artificial.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    Kepti wrote: »

    Science: Saves 1 Billion+ lives
    Greenpeace: Scares African countries into rejecting food aid.
    Kepti wrote: »
    The billion saved figure was pulled from yekahs video. Did you watch it?

    I never suggested a greenpeace conspiracy. If you watch the video, I think it's fair to accuse them of ignorant scaremongering.
    Yes I watched it and it's a great propaganda video, lacking any reality, great poorwashing scenes, facts pulled from Gates and Co's rectum.
    I think it's fair to accuse you of ignorant false fact promoting.


    So there's no evidence that 1 billion people were saved by science and GM crap.

    If you look into facts I think its fair to accuse GM advocates of promoting bolllox, and a new form of slavery and total dependance.

    Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach him how to fish and he'll eat forever.

    Give/Sell a man some GM seeds and he'll probably eat for a year, but if he doesn't buy more GM seeds next year he'll starve along with his family.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    uprising2 wrote: »

    So there's no evidence that 1 billion people were saved by science and GM crap.

    Norman Borlaug's dwarf wheat? High yield wheat pretty much stopped famine in the entire Indian sub continent.
    If you look into facts I think its fair to accuse GM advocates of promoting bolllox, and a new form of slavery and total dependance.

    Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach him how to fish and he'll eat forever.

    Out of curiousity whats your solution to sort out how we're going to provide food for an ever expanding global population?
    Give/Sell a man some GM seeds and he'll probably eat for a year, but if he doesn't buy more GM seeds next year he'll starve along with his family.


    I'm not advocating GM crops per see. But consider your friend in Amsterdam. The vast majority of people in the world don't have the opportunity or ability to grow crops for pleasure or entertainment. They grow to provide food for themselves and their family. You have the luxury of growing crops for fun and eating organic food.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    Di0genes wrote: »
    Norman Borlaug's dwarf wheat? High yield wheat pretty much stopped famine in the entire Indian sub continent.

    That's a widely accepted myth, there is no proof anywhere that 1 billion people were saved because of Norman Borlaug, he left behind a legacy of poisoned land and heavy debt.

    Quote:
    Borlaug's emphasis on technological solutions for increased production ignores the broader social context and economic realities that determine hunger.
    A third of the world's hungry live in India - a country which has a surfeit of food with which to feed its population; yet nutritional norms have actually worsened for those below the poverty line since the Green Revolution. Borlaug himself acknowledges this problem, stating in an interview in Reason magazine:
    India has produced enough and sometimes has a surplus in grain. The problem is to get it into the stomachs of the hungry. There's a lack of purchasing power
    by too large a part of the population... The grain is there in the warehouses, but it doesn't find its way into the stomachs of the hungry.

    In the light of this, Borlaug's support for the "gene revolution" on the assumption (as of 2009 unsupported by evidence) that GM crops will feed the hungry seems questionable.
    He states: "We have to have this new technology [GM] if we are to meet the growing food needs for the next 25 years.
    The Indian physicist, activist and organic farmer Dr Vandana Shiva made an extensive critique of Borlaug's "Green Revolution" in her book,
    The Violence of the Green Revolution: Ecological Degradation and Political Conflict (Zed Books, 1991).
    Shiva states that while Punjab was considered the great success of the Green Revolution, after two decades of the Green Revolution, Punjab is
    neither a land of prosperity, nor peace. It is a region riddled with discontent and violence. Instead of abundance, Punjab has been left with diseased soils, pest-infected crops, waterlogged deserts and indebted and discontented farmers.
    http://www.spinprofiles.org/index.php/Norman_Borlaug#Criticism_of_the_.22Green_Revolution.22

    One of the most ironic things I see in Borlaug obits is the idea that his innovations made countries like Mexico and India "self-sufficient" in food production.
    Actually, these nations became perilously dependent on foreign input suppliers for their food security.
    Today in India's grain belt, less than 40 years after Borlaug's Nobel triumph, the water table has been nearly completely tapped out by massive irrigation projects, farmers are in severe economic crisis, and cancer rates, seemingly related to agrichemical use, are tragically high.
    In other words, to generate the massive yield gains that won Borlaug his Nobel, the nation sacrificed its most productive farmland and a generation of farmers.
    Meanwhile, as in Mexico, urban poverty and malnutrition in India's urban centers remained stubbornly persistent.
    http://www.grist.org/article/2009-09-14-thoughts-on-the-legacy-of-norman-borlaug/
    Assessing the Legacy of Norman Borlaug: Did the Green Revolution Prevent Famines?
    “Father of green revolution saved millions of lives” reads one headline. “The Nobel winner who fed the world” reads another.
    It would seem that any claim that a single human being could have achieved these miracles, let alone a technician – should arouse at least a measure of skepticism.
    Although some of the commentary that appeared following the announcement of Borlaug’s death admitted that the green revolution has had its critics – it has after all, increased poverty in the world, widened the gap between rich and poor, caused water tables to drop to dangerous levels, caused widespread chemical contamination, and led to staggering losses of topsoil and soil fertility – the claim that Borlaug’s innovations in plant genetics “saved millions of lives” has gone by virtually without challenge.
    What, however, is the basis for the claim that the green revolution saved millions of lives? It is repeated often enough, although source documentation is never provided – it is as generally accepted as, for instance, the claim that the civil war ended the institution of slavery
    in the United States. No source documentation is needed. But how do you measure, scientifically speaking, what would have happened?
    Have the alternatives to the agricultural model that prevailed be taken into account? Is it possible that – given that the predicted famines did not occur –that these projections were flawed? Can we assume that there were no alternatives to ramping up food production in the industrial style?
    Is it impossible that there might be another explanation to India’s avoidance of widespread famines since Independence,
    other than the intervention of the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations and Borlaug’s miracle seeds?
    After two billion dollars in aid from the United States over ten years, India had established an industrial agriculture system with a complex of dams, irrigation systems, roads, grain elevators, and petrochemical plants. India became one of the leading wheat producers in the world. What remains invisible behind the statistics of its enormous wheat production is the enormous social, economic and ecological disruption that this transformation had caused, and which, in fact, increased poverty and hunger rather than reduced it. “The food systems that have maintained humankind through most of its history are disintegrating,” wrote Andrew Pearse, the author of the United Nation’s fifteen- nation study of the results of the green revolution, who concluded that “emergence of more capital intensive farming,” and the “dissolution of self provisioning agriculture” where the leading causes of the “crisis of livelihood” – in other words, poverty – in the developing world.
    http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/1710/64/
    Di0genes wrote: »
    Out of curiousity whats your solution to sort out how we're going to provide food for an ever expanding global population?

    For starters I'd stop paying farmers not to grow food, there's millions and millions of acre's of great land lying dormant around the world, including Ireland where farmers are paid NOT TO GROW CROPS/FOOD, so this myth that the world can't feed itself is BS.
    This world is not about life or wellbeing, it's ruled by a truly evil system, where money, power and control are more important than precious life.
    Anybody who cannot see this cannot be really looking or simply looking away and whistling.

    To grow or not to grow?
    Anyone who hasn't been asleep in a cave for 50 years knows the U.S. government pays farmers not to grow crops.
    http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/25260459.html

    Rice shortage? U.S. paid millions to farmers to not plant it.
    Following on our post on the food riots story: It has since escalated to actual rice rationing here in the Pacific Northwest,
    Imagine, then, that our federal government paid hundreds of millions of dollars in 2006 to keep farmers from growing rice.
    http://blog.seattlepi.com/environment/archives/137608.asp

    USDA Urged To End Paying Farmers Not To Grow Crops.
    At issue is the Conservation Reserve Program, under which the government has paid farmers to stop growing row crops, such as corn and soybeans, on 34 million acres across the country.
    http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/jul/11/na-usda-urged-to-end-paying-farmers-not-to-grow-cr/


    Di0genes wrote: »
    I'm not advocating GM crops per see. But consider your friend in Amsterdam. The vast majority of people in the world don't have the opportunity or ability to grow crops for pleasure or entertainment. They grow to provide food for themselves and their family. You have the luxury of growing crops for fun and eating organic food.

    I don't really get what it is your saying here, I know not everybody has the luxury of fertile land under their feet, but there is a lot of it around, take this little island we live on, drive from any city to another and look out the window, there is enough life giving land on this planet to feed it.
    There was enough excess food discarded today worldwide, thrown into bins to feed millions of people, this whole world functions wrong, this is a sad fact me or you are powerless to change, but it is wrong.
    Basically what I'm saying is there is no need for GM seeds/crops, their only funtion is to control, and given time these GM crops will spread, its something that could threaten horticulture and possibly even destroy it as we know it, I could be totally wrong but I don't know that and neither do these mad scientists or rockerfeller, gates and co.



    SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF GMO RISKS
    "Modern man does not experience himself as part of nature, but as an outside force destined to dominate and conquer it. He even talks of a battle with nature – forgetting that, if he won the battle, he would find himself on the losing side."
    – Fritz Schumacher, Small is Beautiful


    http://www.gmfreeireland.org/resources/documents/science/index.php


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    Undergod wrote: »
    I'm just saying GM crops aren't inherently a bad idea, if they are well tested then there's no real danger, the only problem then would be the nature of the business that sells them.

    How does the plant spread if it has sterile seeds?


    Lol....

    Are you taking the piss? GM food not a bad idea. What can you respond to that/ Thats like saying man should replace nature to be incharge of this planet. No fupping way dude.

    Nature is above man. It will always be the case. If we keep continuing to support this insanity of this mass produced drone eating society, we are going down the potty. We are eating food that is turning us into zombies as it is.

    And if man continues to disrespect nature by a corrupt means to make more money, your going down a very very wrong path in reality.

    GM foods was created as a way to make growing food more profitable. More money to the rich and more **** mass produced modified food to the masses.

    Thats is exactly whats its here for no other notion should ever be mentioned. The very thought of just assuming its not a bad idea is a statement that is ignorant in my view,. It is actually scary to tell you the truth.

    GM food is a dangerous because your tampering with nature just to gain profits. This is exactly why I'm starting to grow my own food. I don't want to be a drone eating mass produced crap.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭robtri


    mysterious wrote: »
    Lol....

    This is exactly why I'm starting to grow my own food. I don't want to be a drone eating mass produced crap.

    where are you geeting your seeds from???? to grow your own...

    you do realise that if you buying them, the are selectively bred over generations to force nature to produce better crops and better products....
    Done by farmers and scientists over the years to help produce better food and more resiliant foods than what nature offered (exact same as GM foods)...

    its not a huge step away from GM food...... in reality its virtually the same...


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    robtri wrote: »
    where are you geeting your seeds from???? to grow your own...

    you do realise that if you buying them, the are selectively bred over generations to force nature to produce better crops and better products....
    Done by farmers and scientists over the years to help produce better food and more resiliant foods than what nature offered (exact same as GM foods)...

    its not a huge step away from GM food...... in reality its virtually the same...

    Organic?, just maybe, do you think mysterious would not look into what he wants to grow.

    And again confusing what nature does naturally and what genetic manipulation does artificially, have a read of this, clear your confusion.
    http://www.theorganiccentre.ie/what_is_organic

    http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Genetic+manipulation


Advertisement