Isn't the topic "I Eat Organic" and the hoopla was about GM foods?

Oh I do. I just like to see people back up their claims with some sources if I'm going to consider their stance valid. That's what people are supposed to do when having a debate. It doesn't mean I think another's opinion isn't valid, but it's hard to think of another's view as more than uneducated ranting when they don't provide sources to the claim. I showed you mine, now you show me yours. Call me old fashioned.

By the way, the Rollins show ROCKED. Spoken word show. And free. My friend Mike knows his old BF bandmate (who lives here in Laramie) so I got nosed in. Below is my treasure. Autographed dollar. Cause the whole town was out of Rollins stuff, I didn't have enough money to buy at the show, and the stuff I have of his are *ahem* copies others made for me.

(/brag)

I am still more impressed by you handing Spankling's loudmouth ass to him. (The ass is loudmouthed because Spankling talks out of it).

(His ass I mean).

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

I don't see anyone getting their ass handed to them at all here, MaKK. I see a rational debate, for fucking once, with both sides making some valid points. You and I are in agreement on certain things here, so stop being an asshole.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

I don't think you'd find a biologist who agrees with this statement.

....which is basically all parts.

You can say it's a non-issue, but no one seriously involved in the GMO biz, pro- or con-, takes that position. I think virtually everyone involved recognizes issues like introduced species and habitat destruction (which are not the sole province of GMOs, but are among the issues raised in the GMO debate).

quote:

---

And you might have children later in life as a reuslt of knowing you will tend to live longer, but I don't think it means you will have MORE children (even if longevity had a genetic link), or that your children would definitely tend to survive better than others (unless there's something to be said for more mature parenting).

---

We're the most "fit" species in the history of life on this planet. Too successful, really. Our success will probably be the death of us.

Amen.

quote:

---

The nature of a mutation is sudden change.

---

quote:

---

I think the trend in affluent, industrialized societies, where people are living longer, is to have fewer children. Longevity and Reproductive Success (RS) are not necessarily correlated. In fact, evolution doesn't seem to give a damn how long you live, as long as you have grandchildren. In fact, evolution doesn't seem to give a damn about you at all.
So why aren't the affluent leaving behind more grandchildren?

---

It is expensive to have children, yes, but low-income families often have several children. Perhaps this is a situational/geographical scenario, but people who aren't even earning enough to support themselves reproduce all the time, and in lots of areas they do it in quantity.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

Which comes back around to being unfit again. It's a loop. I just hope the final remnant of civilization ISN'T a copy of Battlefield Earth. Can you imagine the alien archeologists laughing at us?

Well yeah, but too many people see "irradiated" and instantly freak out. They're the same people who won't let their children in my apartment for fear of radiation poisoning.

Well, if they wanted to get rid of all that cobalt, they can always give it to me...

To us it's an agonizing long time. To the big picture it's not. We're just a sneeze on the timescale.

Yes, I am saying that while the long run doesn't give a rat's ass if we kill all the red squirrels or not, it can make our lifetime most unpleasant (though my mother would happily see all squirrels extinct). I'd rather not live in a desolate pit, but I don't think I'll see that in my lifetime.

I'm always torn between fear of the good/fun parts of our society disappearing in the future and the realization that change is natural. On one hand, I fear a future where Stargate doesn't exist, but on the other, I know eventually everything ends. To me, it's how we live in the now. It's a very selfish attitude of me to tell future generations they'll have to adapt to the changes while I comfortably sit in my rocking chair amidst 80 cats, but I am only human.

Yes, poor farming techniques contributed to it, as well as the dustbowl during the Depression. That's why I support GM foods so highly, because they seek high-yield crops to combat the clearing of other ecosystems for farmland and the overfarming of the land that is already there.

I don't think we can claim that. Think about it, we haven't even catalogued half of the expected species in existence, so how do we know when some are supposedly wiped out? I remember hearing some report that several hundred species were becoming extinct per year. At that rate, we'll be here for ages. Hell, the insect kingdon alone will take forever. When people hear a hundred species become extinct every year, they think lions and tigers, and ladyslippers, and owls, and condors, etc. It's an emotional gut reaction. People don't seem to realize just how much is on this planet. The diversity of what we have now is mind-boggling. There's just SO MUCH. And we can't ever make an accurate count of what is dying out because we don't know what's here to begin with. Had the megamouth become extinct before it's rediscovery, we never would have noticed.

True, but the comet/asteroid sped up the proccess. In every major extinction event the earth has had, there's evidence of an impact of some kind. And they're cyclic, happening, while not perfectly, close to every hundred million years. That's not counting the minor extinction events. Impacts are cyclic all throughout history. I recently read an article that said every 700,000 years, an impact will occur that won't be pretty to human civilization. Not sure if that's accurate, but I figure I can always wander over to the astronomy department and see what they say.

Not even a blip. Blip is longer than 200 yars. Blip is like a sneeze. 10,000.

Another topic. Have you noticed how odd human history is? For 10,000 years (just counting most recent here) progress has been agonizing slow in human terms. Even the Renaissance, didn't speed things up too much (other than art, music, and philosophy). Suddenly BAM! Industrial revolution! and in an incredibly incredibly INCREDIBLY short time, we have space travel.

Personally, I think it's aliens.

Oh no prob. I'm rather enjoying this. And I can always claim it's homework. Advantage of never leaving school: everything is now homework. I even got class credit for going to Rollins last night.

I don't think you'd find a biologist who agrees with this statement.

Yet again you seem to only be able to argue against me when you take half of my argument, or half of my sentence, boorite.

If you had read any one of my many recent posts you'd see I'm saying we don't have natural selection without some degree of influence by man, if (in the context of GM food) you seperate the designs of man from the natural order.

Can you disagree with that? Well maybe if you copy and paste this

boorite: ah HA! An incorrect statement!!! You are so dumb I have read many books and know for a fact your are dumb here is the proof.

....which is basically all parts.

Yes I now feel the need to qualify all statements since you are tedious to an unconstructive degree. I think it's ironic you pointlessly needle at my qualifier, when I was trying to avoid you pointlessly needling at an asserstion that man's influence might not spread quite everywhere.

quote:

---

quote:

---

so complaining about what goes on in the lab versus what goes on outside seems like a non-issue.

---

You can say it's a non-issue, but no one seriously involved in the GMO biz, pro- or con-, takes that position. I think virtually everyone involved recognizes issues like introduced species and habitat destruction (which are not the sole province of GMOs, but are among the issues raised in the GMO debate).

---

I read a story once where stupid people had bred so much they took over the planet and there was a teeny tiny group of smart people who spent their lives making sure the idiots didn't fuck up the systems. That future scares me. Which is why I'm planning on sterilizing everyone who exhibits the Stupidity Gene. Perhaps the Asshole Gene too so I have an excuse to eradicate Fred Phelps.

Yeah, it always makes me laugh when people have the ego to think we can destroy the earth. Unless someone builds a Death Star, I ain't too worried about the longevity of the planet.

It is expensive to have children, yes, but low-income families often have several children. Perhaps this is a situational/geographical scenario, but people who aren't even earning enough to support themselves reproduce all the time, and in lots of areas they do it in quantity.

Plus, they also have less, little, or no birth control as compared to a country like the United States.

---
You know you totally missed me!

The future is now!

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Basically, yeah. Roughly speaking, in agrarian economies, kids are economic assets. In advanced industrial economies, they're economic liabilities. Plus, you don't need to have as many kids as a hedge against infant mortality. Plus, there's so much other cool stuff to spend my money on for ME ME ME.

See "ME ME ME," above. But seriously, rich people tend to be more educated, see themselves as having choices, and may choose to spend a greater part of their lives on activities other than sprogging. And although selection has equipped people with a number of drives that tend to result in babies, that was in the EEA. Change the environment, and the old drives are likely to be satisfied in novel ways. Pet ownership, par example. (*blink blink*)

quote:

---

That's what the Darwin Awards are for.

---

AHA! You discovered my reason for not having kids! Okay, OTHER than not wanting to contribute to the population since I think there's way too many people inthe world and in fact, can't stand the 50,000 people around me right now anyway...it's all about me. Kids would be an economic liability for me and I'm a selfish bitch and want all my money to go to me. Okay, sure I spend half my paycheck on the cats *cough* but they also entertain me and aren't an economic liability. And I'm a softie when it comes to cats. Babies, blech. Kittens yay!

Ahhh...to be one of the idle rich...

I would go skydiving EVERY DAY!

I refuse to believe that having pets is me substituting the reproduction desire. Not on a general human basis, I agree with you there, but not me specifically. It probably is, but I have to maintain that I have no reproductive desire whatsoever so I can face my parents when they bug me about grandchildren. Only 6 more years to go and I'll be past the family threshold...

You're right. It means he's a fucking moron!

But I'm also not worried that it will come to that point in my lifetime. Even at 100 species a year, it will take generations and generations to be felt and in the meantime, other species will arise to take their place.

Barring nuclear war of course. Then we can just look forward to mutant barbarians and horse-sized cats with telepathic abilities.

Which comes back around to being unfit again. It's a loop.

Yes, proving the Taoist maxim that anything taken to an extreme becomes its opposite. As it says in the Tao Teh Ching, "Too much success is not an advantage."

I can and have. At least I won't be around to see it.

quote:

---

Well, if they wanted to get rid of all that cobalt, they can always give it to me...

---

I was TALKING about the United States, nicejohnson. And profylactics in the urban areas, at least in New York, are available for free at Planned Parenthood centers, and are fairly cheap at your corner bodega.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

*huff puff* I just got back from sky diving, what did I miss?

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

I can and have. At least I won't be around to see it.

Yeah, but the embarrassment. "Those humans thought WHAT?? They built a religion from WHO? Ah ha ha ha ha ha!"

Oh god...we'd be the fart joke of the universe...

When it comes to radiation, I'm very predictable. You should see my collection of Americium I gleaned from smoke detectors.

I'm going to hold off on the Wyoming jokes.

It only looks desolate from the air. And in the dead of winter when there's no snow. But it really is beautiful. We're surrounded by mountains on all sides. The Snowy Range is breathtaking and on clear days, I can see the Rockies. And we have a national forest 10 miles form here (uphill). Then there's Vedauwoo. Ok I'll have to put up pictures sometime and you people have to come visit. Free lodging in Ivytopia. Transportation is up to you.

Yeah, that one is a tough area to predict because it can't be predicted. And it's highly dependant on the mindset of those who have the power. The best thing is to talk to the people in power about their intentions without immediately screaming "GM crops are bad!" Show there's an interest to learn more with the concern for the environment and they'll be more receptive. Human nature makes us too defensive when we're confronted so agribiz folk get cranky when they're being yelled at.

Biologists (of every variety) that I've heard from around here don't think it's near as big as the KT extinction. Especially the bug people. I spend too much time with entomologists.

Also, what sort of timescale is he working on? If the ice age is being counted, I think that's a bit unfair to the stats since the climate change was the main contributer to those extinctions. The animals built for cold couldn't handle the warmer temps and the predators that fed on them died out as well. It's simplistic, but it was the main cause. There just wasn't enough humans to wipe them out.

Still, if you look at the immense diversity we have now, compared to the Mesozoic, the gap is freaking huge. Losing 90% of Mesozoic diversity is just a small dent compared to what we have. Losing 90% of our diversity would be the biggest extinction event in earth's history that we know of, but without an external force (asteroid, comet, aliens, climate shift, etc) suddenly changing everything, the extinction rate is minute, even on a geologic timescale. Yes, we are due for another extinction event, but based on past history, it will be a minor event percentage-wise. And yes, it could suck for us depending on what disappears, but in our lifetime, we won't feel the effects. We'd have to rape and pillage crusader-style to feel the effects. But it is part of the natural cycle of the earth. We are part of it and what we do is part of it, whether we use technology or throw a rock at a bison.

Suddenly I remember a cartoon I saw once. A trike was holding a sign that said "Repent! The Cenozoic is near!"

Ah ha ha ha ha haaa! Ahhh...geology humor.

Well, he did create some to clean up all the shit left behind. I think he needs more.

I think it's weird still. I'm using a human timescale for this, but it's still so sudden. I wonder if anyone else has researched this...hrm...

quote:

---

quote:

---

Personally, I think it's aliens.

---

I think the aliens are us.

---

I don't think you'd find a biologist who agrees with this statement.

Yet again you seem to only be able to argue against me when you take half of my argument, or half of my sentence, boorite.

No, I'll stand by it for the whole statement. You said "A in terms of B." I said I don't think a biologist would agree with A. I say so regardless of B. "We don't have natural selection at all anymore in terms of what parts of the earth humans are dominant." Well, humans are dominant all over the Earth. So you're basically saying there's no natural selection anymore. Even if this weren't the case, natural selection is still occurring in environments dominated by humans. So the statement fails on all counts, as far as I can see.

No joke. But I don't know what the following clause means:

Sorry, that went past me.

That's not what I said, but I have indeed read many books, and you are at least acting dumb.

I think there are also sound reasons, which have to do with who intends to use what technologies, for what, to whose benefit, and at whose cost. And as far as I can tell, GMOs aren't singled out, but are one of many issues the greenies are on about. Maybe GMOs are singled out in the sense that they pose their own special concerns that merit special discussion. Often, when making public policy, it is useful to distinguish between one thing and another, even if large words must be used.

quote:

---

You seem to miss my point, that I am arguing humanity has changed itself to something that wouldn't exist in "a state of nature" (what I have called a weaker state) but we are better for it as a society.

---

No, I'm not saying that, and you're ignoring my many posts where I explain my position to come to this conclusion.

No joke. But I don't know what the following clause means:

Wait so now you're agreeing with me?

Sorry, that went past me.

This is related to my post talking about humanity's designs now entering into the equation of evolution instead of just "nature". And I began by asking Spankling how some things we do which affect the "natural order" are ok to go by without inordinate protest, but GM crosses the line for some reason. And I think that reason is ignorance and political talking points (which are frequently synonymous things).

quote:

---

quote:

---

boorite: ah HA! An incorrect statement!!! You are so dumb I have read many books and know for a fact your are dumb here is the proof.

---

That's not what I said, but I have indeed read many books, and you are at least acting dumb.

---

No, I'm not saying that, and you're ignoring my many posts where I explain my position to come to this conclusion.

You're not saying what I quoted verbatim, and I'm ignoring your posts where you explain your position to come to this conclusion? I can't really parse that. But you did say, "We don't have natural selection at all anymore in terms of what parts of the earth humans are dominant." I think we still have natural selection all over the place. Whatever.

No joke....

Wait so now you're agreeing with me?

I agree with the obvious truism that humans influence the environment (probably more so than any other species), which in turn influences selective pressures that bear on other species. So yes, of course. But that doesn't mean "we don't have natural selection anymore, in terms of..." anything!

I don't think anyone who is really concerned for the environment would take that position as you've presented it. But there's sound reason to be cautious, even downright alarmed, about letting "humanity's designs" out into "nature." The following example is deliberately cartoonish but will do.

Again, let's take an ecosystem consisting of cheetahs and gazelles. Both are very fast, and they got that way by co-evolving in what Dawkins refers to as an "arms race." Rewind the clock to Flinstones Time. Flintstones cheetahs had to be only so fast, because the Flintstones gazelles were only so fast. But still, some were faster than others, and a little extra speed conferred a decided reproductive advantage on the faster gazelles, the upper end of the bell curve. So after some generations, the norm for gazelles was faster. And so in turn the genes for slower cheetahs came to a dead end, and cheetahs got faster on average. And so on, over many generations, until we have these very special cats that can sprint at 70 mph, and gazelles that are, I don't know, fast. All this took a very long time.

Now imagine that Genes-R-Us comes along and engineers a super-cheetah, for some perverse reason, like winning in the high-stakes world of cheetah racing. Or something. These cheetahs can go 90 mph. And some of them get out into wild breeding populations and start passing their badass genes on to their offspring, who naturally enjoy this competitive advantage to the fullest extent possible. What we have is a sudden jump in the capabilies of cheetahs.

Now what do you suppose happens to the gazelles? The population co-evolved alongside 70 mph cheetahs. It can't cope with 90 mph cheetahs.

Very soon, the cheetah population goes way up, and the gazelle population goes way down. Then the last gazelle is eaten, and the cheetah population goes way down. And bang, like that, the cheetah-gazelle axis is gone from the world. This is what biologists mean when they get all poetic about the delicate web of nature.

Again, the super-cheetah is a silly example, but not at all far-fetched. It's the same complaint we hear about super-salmon, just simplified. And it's really not much different from other kinds of invasive species problems. So GMOs aren't necessarily singled out here. Anyway, if you're asking how artificial selection is different from natural selection, there's your answer.

quote:

---

Here's an example of you taking me literally to argue a point thaty doesn't matter. I think you can assume I meant the society that is humanity, a meta-society, unless you are just being argumentative.

---

I keep saying, if you consider natural selection to exclude mankind, we don't have natural selection. And you keep saying:

or some variation of that. GIve it a rest, take a deep breath, and read what I said.

No, I refuse to accept that example because it is ridiculous.

And here you throw ecology right out the window:

The two species die at once? You've never heard of predators starving or moving on when their prey dwindles?

Yes, it is that far-fetched.

Then why not give an example with something our science might be interested in doing? Oh that's right, because we aren't breeding wheat to hunt down and eat other species.

Ok, if you can't imagine that the international community is in itself a society, then I change what I was saying to just read "the human race is better for all societies which help its weaker members (which includes EVERY society)". Do you really have such a deficit in your personal life that you have to get that anal about an concept if it doesn't come from a text book?

I never said we should assume we have an imperitive to destroy all other non-humans.

Here's another example of you claiming in a round-about way to have more knowledge of a subject, because instead of using the jargon "fit to survive" I used my own term "physically fit" and you somehow need to point out I'm not part of the cool people's jargon club.

Humans fill the niche predators no longer do instead of letting populations run out of control. The imblanace is adjusted by issuing a set amount of hunting licenses and quotas based on calculations of what a normal population should be. It's a pretty simple idea.

quote:

---

So now they're just less polluted. Which is fixing the ecological equilibrium. So I guess that means the current extinction rate should have reversed itself and headed toward background extinction rates. Oops! Wrong! It's still 2-3 orders of magnitude higher.

Again, I haven't noticed our ability to fix ecosystems we've fucked up.

---

I don't think you'd find a biologist who agrees with this statement.

Sound familiar mak? Same thing you do.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

If I mistake you, you're always welcome to clarify Spankling. I've clarified this several times, and I thought boorite was smart enough to understand what I was saying, so I can only assume he's being argumentative.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008