|
|
|
|
|
|
by ZeroGravitas
1431 days ago
|
|
|
What about people who think that patents on food crops are a bad idea for reasons unrelated to immediate health problems? I can think the world's IT running on Windows, or all social media belonging to Facebook, or all video paying rent to a cabal of patent holders is a bad thing without those having immediate, terminal effects (I do think they have long term ill effects, some of which we've already seen, but it would probably be hard to prove with science) |
|
|
Unfortunately, those people don't have entire divisions of professional propagandists monitoring the internet for conversations like this.
They don't have a massive war chest which they use to corrupt systems; lobbying politicians, purchasing professors, burying and twisting and smearing anything that might hurt their next quarter's numbers.
Nor do they have the ability to do their own research to counter claims. Abuse of IP law, prohibitive costs, the capture of regulatory agencies - none of that is accidental.
Finally, let's not skip past the fact that the science on GMO's direct and indirect health effects is *not* as settled and final as the link claims. https://www.marksdailyapple.com/gmo-monsanto/ has a decent write-up with sourced examples, some of which are from Monsanto's own data.
There are many other examples of unintended side effects from genetic manipulation, which - and I cannot over-state this - we don't understand. It's wild hubris, absolutely bonkers dipshit crazy fuckery, to think that we understand the effects of genetic manipulation not possible through natural selection. We can't so much as predict with confidence the effect of a single molecule on a single person, much less a population, much less a biosphere. The belief that GMOs are safe because "science" is sheer scientism; it's stupid and it's dangerous.