Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 02:24:40 UTC No. 16227821

>>16227784
>the more evil sides of humanity
There's nothing inherently evil about GMOs.
They are modified organisms made to be more adaptable to suboptimal environments, to yield more per acre, to be more nutritious and/or to be more resistant to pests - which lowers the need for using certain pesticides.
They are - usually, but not always - made by corporations who seek profit. Most jurisdictions around the world recognize their intellectual property over these seeds. They hold patents, meaning a monopoly, on the production of their seeds. As a means of protecting their market share and revenues, these corporations also (always, as far as I know) make these seeds sterile, meaning that the farmer can't separate a fraction of the harvest for the next sowing, as they traditionally do. The farmers then have to buy new seeds from the corporation every season.
This is the reason behind most of the seethe towards GMO. It's why the Indians banned them. The people who think they've been screwed by these corporations joined forces with the nutritional nutjobs (who have been abundant throughout the ages) who are paranoid about GMO effects on the body. So far, there are no effects.
It's mostly an economical issue. Farmers would've been perfectly fine with GMO seeds that aren't sterile after harvest, but there would be little economic incentive for their research on a commercial level. A new strain of the almost extinct American Chestnut is GMO, made to be more resistant and, obviously, fertile. They plan to cross-breed them with other natural strains to make them viable. I think it's a fantastic use of GMOs. It is, of course, public research.
I understand that showing nutritional nutjobs the result of research on GMOs foods (perfectly safe) is futile because they're paranoid and already distrutst academia and research institutions, not to mention international organizations, so there's not much to do about it.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 02:27:41 UTC No. 16227825

>>16227821
economic issue*, sorry.

there are state-owned companies and public universities doing research on GMOs, by the way.

🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 03:06:32 UTC No. 16227862

>>16227821
>>16227825
Everything you just said is surface value. I am asking if there's anything which isn't surface value.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 03:08:30 UTC No. 16227864

>>16227821
>>16227825
Yes, that's the straight-forward side of them. Essentially, I'm asking if there are any less straightforward and more evil sides to them.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 03:27:52 UTC No. 16227878

>>16227864
what... do you think motivates corporate research and development? do you think it's talmudic demonic magic meant to poison the goyim cattle?
it's money. you have an excellent product which you can monopolize for 20 years and you make it so that your buyer is dependent on you. excellent revenue stream.
In any case, there is a good number of schizophrenics here itching to share their unhinged opinions. you'll find what you're looking for.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 03:29:11 UTC No. 16227881

>>16227864
Sometimes things can go wrong. I remember reading about a GMO corn plant which had pesticides present in its leaves as a result of the modification. Eventually it was determined that the corn itself was not fit for human consumption.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 04:35:24 UTC No. 16227949

>>16227878
You have a scoffer's attitude. Scoffers are the best dupes. Even so, I'm not some anti-Semitic /pol/ poster. I am just pragmatic and above averagely informed of the evil which takes place on earth. Money motivates normies. There are people whose motives are beyond money. Money comes too easily for them to be concerned with it.

>>16227881
That's interesting and perhaps concerning, but not the sort of concern which would require my avoidance of GMOs altogether.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 05:00:16 UTC No. 16227969

One thing to note is that GMOs are designed to be pest repellent needing less fuck off spray to keep bugs/etc away. Organics aren't like that obviously so will end up taking a greater amount of pesticides per crop than GMOs. Is that good or bad? Dunno

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 05:55:53 UTC No. 16228015

>>16227784
I don't eat GMO's they containe genes

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:32:47 UTC No. 16228664

>>16227949
>There are people whose motives are beyond money
you see, you've been reading too many young adult novels. companies do very much care about money and there isn't enough of it. If you ever run a business, you'll understand. Nobody except unemployable schizos care about demonics and unqualified mentions of "evil". You call me a dupe, but you just throw that word "evil" around and expect me to swallow it uncritically.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 18:08:34 UTC No. 16228754

>>16227784
GMOs are made in mind by industrial pressures and you have more to argue with on the intents and purposes of industry than a given export crop that is digested by many ethnic groups in many biomes to some upset stomachs and other economically boosted happy customers.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 11:48:51 UTC No. 16230146

>>16228664
You couldn't be more wrong. I read classics, financial reports, textbooks, and banking whitepapers. Eat shit, you pretentious goon.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 11:53:36 UTC No. 16230161

>>16230146
I'm sorry, anon, but Ovid and Aeschylus won't help you to deal with the modern world.
But what kind of insight on the problem of evil did you get by reading "financial reports" and "banking whitepapers"? because they're usually pretty anodyne documents.