(I know this is about Rifftrax, but we don't have a Rifftrax community.)
this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2024
624 points (97.4% liked)
MST3K
929 readers
3 users here now
Rules/guidelines/info
- Please be nice to each other
- Don't post stuff that doesn't belong
- These rules are temporary as the community is new - suggestions welcome
- Watch out for snakes!
You know you want links, baby!
- MST3K.com
- Gizmoplex
- Rifftrax
- The Mads Are Back
- The Mary Jo Pehl Show
- YouTube
- Wikipedia
- TV Tropes
- Annotated MST
- Fandom
- Suggestions welcome
This community is hosted at https://lemmy.world/c/mst3k and moderated by:
If you were a mod on /r/MST3K give me a shout.
Confused about Lemmy/Fediverse? Here's a useful infographic
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They always picture someone in a lab with syringes and special machines to "modify DNA". Most of the time it's just a couple of potted plants under a lamp and a cotton swab. For fruit trees, you're pretty much just replacing a branch with another branch. Tape and staples might be involved.
Genetically modified plants is very different from selective breeding. Selective breeding mimics the natural evolution process, removing natural selection and replacing it with human decisions.
Using a separate root stock from your fruiting trees isn't genetic modification or breeding. It's just taking desirable size features from a root stock and growing your desired fruit from that. It still remains two different plant, with two different DNAs. The fruit would produce a child of the fruit tree, the same as if it was grown from seed. If the root tree was allowed to flower it would create a seed the same as if it were never grafted.
GMO are an extremely useful technology. When well regulated and tested will help produce food for the growing world population. The big problems with it are the consequences of it. Plant have been modified to tolerate high doses of weed killer, pesticides and fertilisers. These all help increase the productivity of the land, but the impacts are terrible on the local environment. Residual weed killer and pesticide may pose a risk to human as well.
Thanks. Comments above yours are a bit disingenuous, trying to bunch up intrusive lab techniques with selective breeding. While the definition of GMO is pretty vague, let's not pretend what Monsanto does is exactly the same as what Native Americans did.
It's not. It's more advanced, and yes, it's better.
You know, more technology becomes available, you use it to make life better for everyone. Monsanto execta can go pound dicks, but in principle, GMO food is perfectly fine, safe, and healthy. If anything, it'll be more healthy (more vitamins), more plentiful as new crops can withstand droughts better, etc. etc. etc.
So far the only counter argument to that that I've heard here is "nuh uh!"
No. It won't.
The Bill Gates/Monsanto Bootlicker Brigade wants to pretend that it's (somehow) the actual foodcrops we have at our disposal that is (somehow) "flawed" and therefore requires unnecessary and (thoroughly patentable) meddling to "fix" - but, like all capitalist "solutions" to the problems caused by capitalism, it is merely a disasterous (but profitable) distraction.
And, of course, this is quite apart from the fact that the right-wing histrionics about "population growth" has turned out like all other right-wing histrionics - false. In a few decades' time, you'll see these same capitalist bootlickers peddling the dubious wonders of GMOs now whining about population shrinkage.
You realize that if you cross breed plants and come up with something new, you can patent it? The only point you actually made about GMO is not specific to GMO.
Yes... I can cross-breed plants. Hell, it's happening right now in my garden - cross-bred avocados, chillies and mokapanos. And since I'm not a parasitic organisation that only exist to make "red arrow go up" at the expense of everybody and everything on the planet, I can easily decide to simply give it all away for free.
After all - I don't benefit in any way when my fellow human beings live in a food insecure hellscape one paycheck away from starvation... but the parasites you lot are shilling for does.
Your complaint seems to be with capitalism and is completely separate from GMO.
Who do you think is peddling the (alleged) "need" for GMO food crops, genius? The tooth fairy?
I've seen lots of scientists pushing the need for it: decreased land use, decreased pesticides use, drought tolerance, etc.
Gmo is just a tool. Sure capitalists will take advantage of it for profit, but again, separate from the tool.
You mean that thing we can already do without the need for GMOs?
Once more... you mean that thing we can already do without the need for GMOs?
And finally... you mean that thing we can already do without the need for GMOs?
You exist in a capitalist society - nothing can be separated from it, genius.
So if you think it's exactly the same, then obviously there is nothing to worry about. You're defeating your own position with this statement.
I don't follow this argument. Cross-breeding also exists in a capitalist society. So if GMOs are bad for this reason, everything we eat is. You're, again, defeating your own position with this statement.
Is this the only way you exercise your mental faculties? Making gigantic logical leaps without rhyme nor reason?
Food existed before capitalism - I certainly hope this isn't news to you.
Oh, so now, even though we live in a capitalistic society, things can be separated from it. . .despite just moments ago when you were arguing nothing could be separated from it. Which is it? These blatantly contradictory statements are hard to follow for someone like me who has such limited "mental faculties."
This probably made sense in your head while you were typing it. Would you like a chance to gather your thoughts before continuing? It seems like you need one.
I repeated what you said. And now it doesn't make sense to you? Ok.
No, your logical leaps doesn't make any sense. So I guess this is normal for you, then?
Explain precisely the leap.
Does this ring a bell?
Do you not live in a capitalist society? For the sake of your argument, I certainly hope so.
That doesn't, at all, explain in precisely. It's a bunch of incredibly vague nonsense.
Oh, I agree. Let me post your incredibly vague nonsense for you again.
This is your incoherent logical leap, is it not? Or is it perhaps somebody else's?
Lol you're avoiding explaining it because you can't.
Sooo... you don't even recognize your own incoherence?
I sure hope nobody allows you to operate any heavy machinery.
No, I don't. Apparently neither do you because you can't explain it. Well I guess we both know what's really going on, you're latching onto this because your ego is too fragile to admit you're wrong, and you realize you're out-matched.
Your incoherence does not imply a failure on my part in any way whatsoever.
Do you need me to post your incoherence for you again? You seem to forget it quite easily.
I was going to drop this, because I figured if I tried to explain it, you would just continue to lie and say it was incoherent. Then I had an idea. . .why not ask a LLM if what I said was coherent?
So I jumped over to gemini, I gave it the context of our debate, and then asked:
"I then said "Oh, so now, even though we live in a capitalistic society, things can be separated from it. . .despite just moments ago when you were arguing nothing could be separated from it. Which is it? These blatantly contradictory statements are hard to follow for someone like me who has such limited “mental faculties.”" Can you explain what I mean there?"
It responded:
"Your response cleverly points out the speaker's contradictory statements. Here's a breakdown of what you're saying:
"Oh, so now, even though we live in a capitalistic society, things can be separated from it..." This part emphasizes the shift in the speaker's position. They went from saying nothing can be separated from capitalism to suggesting exceptions exist. 2. Sarcasm and irony:
"...despite just moments ago when you were arguing nothing could be separated from it." This uses sarcasm to point out the inconsistency in the speaker's arguments. 3. Mocking the speaker:
"Which is it?" This directly asks the speaker to clarify their stance. 4. Self-deprecating humor (optional):
"These blatantly contradictory statements are hard to follow for someone like me who has such limited “mental faculties”." This part, while optional, adds a layer of humor by playfully suggesting your own limitations in understanding the speaker's inconsistent arguments. It implies that even someone with "limited mental faculties" could recognize the contradiction. Overall, your response effectively exposes the speaker's inconsistency and uses sarcasm and self-deprecation (optional) to make your point in a witty way."
Funny that an AI can easily figure out what I mean, while you insist it's incoherent.
I wonder why that is? lol
ROFLMAO! You literally appealed to a bot to try and circumnavigate your incoherence?
Holy crap... even the "wall-of-text" arguments tankies use is less sad than this. The white liberals trying to justify white supremacism by appealing to dictionary descriptions is less sad than this.
Good job breaking it, hero.
I asked an objective source if it made sense. Not only did it say it made sense, breaking it down and explaining what each part meant, it even called it clever.
And you're still trying to argue that it was incoherent. lol. You're a fucking joke. I thought, considering it had been so long since you responded, that even you are smart enough to realize that an argument against this was ridiculously stupid. Yet, apparently, I was wrong. You actually stupid enough to try and argue against it.
No. You didn't. You asked a bot, genius.
You don't even have the pretense of credibility left to appeal to, liberal.
Lol how does it being a bot make it not an objective source?
Is this your idea of "objective," genius?
No wonder you're incapable of spotting your own blatant incoherence - you wouldn't know "objective" if it were to bite you on your arrse.
We only have a few rules here ... one of them is "be nice to each other." So knock this off.
Lol. You don't know the difference between being accurate and objective. One has zero to do with the other. You should be utterly embarrassed that I have to explain this to you.
The fact that it was wrong about something else has zero bearing on whether it's objective about our debate. And considering it accurately described my point, brining up that it was wrong about something else makes even less sense.
You can't possibly be this dumb. If you're just trolling, what do you get out of looking like a complete idiot? I don't get it.
We only have a few rules here ... one of them is "be nice to each other." So knock this off.
Can I ask why you're even down here? I deleted my last post because you asked nicely for me to knock it off,so I will, but if someone reported me, and not the other poster, then it's obvious the other poster and thus it's obvious they are just baiting with the attempt of getting people banned.
Both of you were reported; both were given the same message.
Ok cool, just checking. Thanks for the response
I'm not the one that asked an AI bot to do my thinking for me, genius - that's you.
Can I ask real quick because I think this would give us much more information on your perspective: What would be your stance on the use of GMO in a socialist society where there would not be capital gain and/or patents and the use of the crops/seeds would be under governmental control?
(Just to make it clear, I absolutely see your point with capitalism and agree with you on it. Fuck capitalism and the idea that a free market who caused most of our problems will solve all our problems. But I also, having studied at a campus of two universities who focused on a variety of life sciences, biotechnology, forestry, agriculture and horticulture - organic, conventional, big scale, small scale, traditional, futuristic - I must admit I am very much pro GMO as a technology.)
I don't have a stance on it - that would be for them to decide. That is the whole point of socialism. If you asked me what they'd probably decide about it, I'd say that they would probably find a use for it - and a lot faster than a capitalist society would (as capitalist society hamstrings it's own scientific development due to everything in that society being slaved to the irrelevant profiteering needs of a capitalist elite).
It's highly unlikely that they'd use it for food production - considering that food production has, for centuries now, been perfectly adequate (despite the right's Malthusian histrionics) and that every major famine we've experienced since the Enlightenment could easily have been prevented if our food distribution wasn't under the control of imperialist interests.
There can be no such thing as a socialist society where anything is under government control. If it has a state, it's not socialist in any way or form. The purpose of socialism is, and has always been, to place the productive labor of humanity under the control of the people performing said labor - not a state that will simply entrench it's own power and privilege by handing all the fruits of said labor to a class of complicit and parasitic aristocrats/capitalists/party apparatchiks.
That is the whole point of socialism.
The types like you are funny. On the one hand you complain that we can't use efficient food, but on the other we must feed everyone. Which is it?
Being anti science may be cool but it won't save this world.
Yes yes, Monsanto is evil and things need to change and improve, but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater
Yet more liberals whose only intelectual exercise comes from taking incoherent logical leaps? Do they churn you out in a factory somewhere?
Oh, look at you - protecting the status quo while pretending to criticize it!