Monsanto cannabis yes or no? The DNA Protection Act of 2013

The salmon on top grows twice as fast on half the food input, thanks to genetic engineering. This idiotic piece of proposed legislation would make it illegal for this fish to be alive within the borders of California.

Keep those Frankenfish out of my food chain!

Dr Kynes said:

BAN PATENTS FOR PLANTS! .

Click to expand...

I must apologize for the glib rude sarcasm in my first response to your posts.
Maybe its better that I should have replied concerning the area where we do agree.
The problem with what your quote suggests is that it would either take a 50/50 shot (generous odds) very long and expensive law suit or an Act of the US congress to do so and I think you can imagine what the likelihood of either of those things happening.
The US patent office was originally dead set against 'patents on life' and fought it all the way to the high courts, they lost back in (I think) 1983, and so began the race to own the genetic design of everything that could generate a profit, and at this point that means every living thing possible.

DNAprotection said:

Howdy and thanks for responding.
Actually as I read your seemingly educated yet somewhat misleading posts here I realized once again why we need "retarded" laws like this one.

Click to expand...

really? and what reasons are those?

[ ] because corporations are meanies and they are patenting their custom designed crops?

[ ] because GMO foods are dangerous to people who eat them?

[ ] because god doesnt want us fucking with his perfect creations?

[ ] because the natural world will collapse if roundup resistant soybeans are planted in bakersfeild?

[ ] because you dont know that the roundup resistant soybeans are NO DIFFERENT from other soybeans except they lack the vulnerability to roundup?

[ ] because roundup resistant crops will cause farmers to dump gigatons of herbicides on their fields since it wont hurt their crops, and herbicides are like free and shit?

[ ] because bee colonies are dying and nobody knows why so we should immediately revert to living in caves and wearing uncured hides, just in case it's cotton and housepaint thats killing the bees?

[ ] because gaia is angry and she may call for help from her children, like maybe cronus prometheus calypso and hyperion?

[ ] because some imaginary rule established in the occupation of iraq prevents iraqis from saving seeds even though they now have their own government and courts which can at their whim say "fuck you" to the imaginary rule cited?

check which ones apply

desert dude said:

The biotech revolution has ensured that we are able to continue to feed the growing multitudes. Why do you want poor people to starve?

Click to expand...

I've noticed that many of your opinions seem to be based on unquestioned assumptions which seem to be put forward by you as fact.
If you research this 'feeding the hungry through biotech' assumption (just as I linked you to the last thing you called BS and based on assumption, order 81, Iraq), then you will find that the data not only doesn't support your conclusions, but it finds that the reverse is actually more accurate, GMO crops are actually helping to cause hunger in some parts of the world already.
Maybe you should be a big boy though and go research this one for yourself, its good for the brain.

DNAprotection said:

I must apologize for the glib rude sarcasm in my first response to your posts.
Maybe its better that I should have replied concerning the area where we do agree.
The problem with what your quote suggests is that it would either take a 50/50 shot (generous odds) very long and expensive law suit or an Act of the US congress to do so and I think you can imagine what the likelihood of either of those things happening.
The US patent office was originally dead set against 'patents on life' and fought it all the way to the high courts, they lost back in (I think) 1983, and so began the race to own the genetic design of everything that could generate a profit, and at this point that means every living thing possible.

Click to expand...

the courts have ruled that the GM crops may be patented but they have not allowed the patenting of non-GM organisms and cultivars.
the only reason the GM crops are exepted from the usual prohibitions on patenting a cultivar is the extensive R&D involved in making these UNIQUELY DIFFERENT organisms. without patent protection no-one would pursue genetic research except by government grants or charitable donations, and the corporations scientists and regulators who argued for the exemption made a compelling case for the NEED for more research into GM crops.

if i created a GMO baboon that had organs which were easily transplanted into humans without the risk of rejection, i would have 2 choices, keep the baboons under wraps as a "Trade Secret" which esentially means i would have to breed raise tend, harvest and ship my baboon organs to every hospital which needed some livers hearts or lungs for transplant, and hope nobody got a sample of my 'boon's DNA so they could clone up a few of their own, ruining my monopoly, or patent my 'boons and sue the shit out of anyone who tried to cut in on my action.

trade secrets are almost impossible to keep, especially in self propagating organisms. patents exist to encourage developments in technology by creating a financial incentive to create new and useful things. without patents, nothing new would be created, save that the object would be nearly impossible to duplicate without the designs.

you obviously view patents in the same way the "Occupy Whatever I Desire" crowd does, as a greedy infringement on their right to have whatever they want for free.
the rampant piracy of movies books and software will inevitably reduce the impetus to create such works in the future since nobody likes working for free. if you ban patents on genetic technologies youll eliminate any reason to bother spending so damned much cash to create something which any asshole with a flowerpot and a watering can could duplicate on his back porch.

but then the patents of GM organisms is a canard. it's just a ploy to get the anarcho-didnt-think-it-throughists on your side by "sticking it to the man"

DNAprotection said:

I've noticed that many of your opinions seem to be based on unquestioned assumptions which seem to be put forward by you as fact.
If you research this 'feeding the hungry through biotech' assumption (just as I linked you to the last thing you called BS and based on assumption, order 81, Iraq), then you will find that the data not only doesn't support your conclusions, but it finds that the reverse is actually more accurate, GMO crops are actually helping to cause hunger in some parts of the world already.
Maybe you should be a big boy though and go research this one for yourself, its good for the brain.

Click to expand...

As Kynes already pointed out, order 81 simply says: "if you use GM seeds to produce a crop, you have to pay the IP owner for the privilege". If you want to plant old-style seeds, go right ahead, nobody is forcing anybody to plant GM crops.

You are no Norman Ernest Borlaug.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug

"Norman Ernest Borlaug (March 25, 1914 – September 12, 2009[SUP][1][/SUP]), "The Man Who Saved A Billion Lives", was an American agronomist, humanitarian, and Nobel laureate who has been called "the father of the Green Revolution".[SUP][2][/SUP] Borlaug was one of six people to have won the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal.[SUP][3][/SUP] He was awarded the Padma Vibhushan, India's second highest civilian honor.[SUP][4]"[/SUP]

DNAprotection said:

Yes sir, understood sir, I will carry out your orders to the best of my ability.
The first link I would suggest is:
here
and then:
here

Click to expand...

The first link is about Iraq. The second opens blank. cn

DNAprotection said:

OK, but would a 'proud' parent want their toddler to be attempting their first steps in a spot where there was only room to stand because there are potentially fatal cliffs or unreasonably steep stairways on all sides, or would that kind of 'pride' come before humpty dumpty falls off the wall?
Also, to your first point, I recall an experiment with two identical looking birds of the same species, one bird came from the family genetics of birds from a harsh weather region where they really had to work for a living, the other bird came from family genetics of birds from a mild easy living climate zone/region. Both birds were born and raised in separate but equal captivity environments. They then challenged each bird to a food gathering test where grubs were placed in a hole covered by a steel washer with a clear glass or plastic center so that the birds could see the grub but could not get to the grub unless they could figure out to move the washer to the side.
The bird from the more task adapted genetics scored right off and kept on eating from hole to hole.
The bird from easy street just kept banging its beak against the clear center over each whole and seemed to have no ability whatsoever to think it through and so went unfed.

Click to expand...

To the first: consider Arctic nesting birds. They kick their young out of the nest very early. Bad parents? By human standards perhaps, but by the demands of the environment they've found the way that works. I suspect that, adapting the metaphor, our current window of technical opportunity is Arctic in nature: intense but brief, and followed by an inhospitable time.

To the second, I will wager that the behavior described is not genetically occasioned but the consequence of epigenetics. Regardless, it can be described by a purely darwinian model. Every species, though seemingly very uniform, has a remarkable palette of recessive traits available in need. (The spectacular radiation of different sizes, shapes and behaviors of the dog from a very recent starting point (wolf) illustrates.) In the case of the bird from Easy Street, if his kind lived there for a few dozen generations, the recessive trait for efficient foraging will have had no selective advantage and will have been allowed to dilute out of that bird's recessives. No need to invoke Lamarck, even though humans have an emotional/sentimental stake in Lamarckian genetics holding at least a kernel of truth. It squares with our mythos of self-improvement via hard work. cn

Dr Kynes said:

really? and what reasons are those?

[ ] because corporations are meanies and they are patenting their custom designed crops?

[ ] because GMO foods are dangerous to people who eat them?

[ ] because god doesnt want us fucking with his perfect creations?

[ ] because the natural world will collapse if roundup resistant soybeans are planted in bakersfeild?

[ ] because you dont know that the roundup resistant soybeans are NO DIFFERENT from other soybeans except they lack the vulnerability to roundup?

[ ] because roundup resistant crops will cause farmers to dump gigatons of herbicides on their fields since it wont hurt their crops, and herbicides are like free and shit?

[ ] because bee colonies are dying and nobody knows why so we should immediately revert to living in caves and wearing uncured hides, just in case it's cotton and housepaint thats killing the bees?

[ ] because gaia is angry and she may call for help from her children, like maybe cronus prometheus calypso and hyperion?

[ ] because some imaginary rule established in the occupation of iraq prevents iraqis from saving seeds even though they now have their own government and courts which can at their whim say "fuck you" to the imaginary rule cited?

check which ones apply

Click to expand...

I'm sorry to say that your posts are so lacking in coherent logic and also lacking any glimmer of actual ability or inclination to engage in reasonably coherent discussion that I feel I must simply decline your proposition.
Also though you might actually look stuff up before you start listening to the voices in your head claiming things are "imaginary".
I'll (as an act of mercy and kindness) make this one easy for you (and its an expired law, not one that's still active to my knowledge):
click here
and here

DNAprotection said:

I'm sorry to say that your posts are so lacking in coherent logic and also lacking any glimmer of actual ability or inclination to engage in reasonably coherent discussion that I feel I must simply decline your proposition.
Also though you might actually look stuff up before you start listening to the voices in your head claiming things are "imaginary".
I'll (as an act of mercy and kindness) make this one easy for you (and its an expired law, not one that's still active to my knowledge):
click here
and here

Click to expand...

and it's still an imaginary rule. US laws and US dictates no longer apply (and have not for some time) in iraq.

thus the rule cited is INVALID. pretending it is valid places the issue squarely in the realm of the IMAGINATION.

cannabineer said:

To the first: consider Arctic nesting birds. They kick their young out of the nest very early. Bad parents? By human standards perhaps, but by the demands of the environment they've found the way that works. I suspect that, adapting the metaphor, our current window of technical opportunity is Arctic in nature: intense but brief, and followed by an inhospitable time.

To the second, I will wager that the behavior described is not genetically occasioned but the consequence of epigenetics. Regardless, it can be described by a purely darwinian model. Every species, though seemingly very uniform, has a remarkable palette of recessive traits available in need. (The spectacular radiation of different sizes, shapes and behaviors of the dog from a very recent starting point (wolf) illustrates.) In the case of the bird from Easy Street, if his kind lived there for a few dozen generations, the recessive trait for efficient foraging will have had no selective advantage and will have been allowed to dilute out of that bird's recessives. No need to invoke Lamarck, even though humans have an emotional/sentimental stake in Lamarckian genetics holding at least a kernel of truth. It squares with our mythos of self-improvement via hard work. cn

Click to expand...

No doubt epigenetics plays a dominant role in behavior and response functions (as clearly exampled in the differences between your posts and Dr Kynes posts), but the the experiment I referred to took great measures to try to set the boundaries in such a way as to distinguish between 'nature' and 'nurture' and so concluded that the behavior exhibited was more than likely embedded in the genetics of each bird after generations of epigenetic signals in one direction or the other, thus modifying the evolving genetics of each bird etc.
I do wonder though how many generations it takes to devolve?
Hard to know if the 'kicking out of the nest' analogy properly applies at this point though, in my mind it might be better analogized as a (corporate) vulture raiding the nest before the babes ever have the chance to attempt to fly.

Dr Kynes said:

and it's still an imaginary rule. US laws and US dictates no longer apply (and have not for some time) in iraq.

thus the rule cited is INVALID. pretending it is valid places the issue squarely in the realm of the IMAGINATION.

Click to expand...

If you actually bothered to accurately reed the original post it simply describes a test model that was absolutely put in place and implemented until it expired.
Just like the US uses 'conflicts' to test new weapons, they also use occupations to test new laws.
I don't know why I bother responding to your continued incoherence, guess I'm an old compassionate softy.

DNAprotection said:

No doubt epigenetics plays a dominant role in behavior and response functions (as clearly exampled in the differences between your posts and Dr Kynes posts), but the the experiment I referred to took great measures to try to set the boundaries in such a way as to distinguish between 'nature' and 'nurture' and so concluded that the behavior exhibited was more than likely embedded in the genetics of each bird after generations of epigenetic signals in one direction or the other, thus modifying the evolving genetics of each bird etc.
I do wonder though how many generations it takes to devolve?
Hard to know if the 'kicking out of the nest' analogy properly applies at this point though, in my mind it might be better analogized as a (corporate) vulture raiding the nest before the babes ever have the chance to attempt to fly.

Click to expand...

I'm taking a longer perspective, beyond ephemera like corporations. In fact, I worry that ephemera like corporations could be influencing our destiny by having otherwise soundminded folk like you see only danger (and attempt blockade) where I see a refreshing shot at survival for our species, or more precisely the first flush of posthumans. We're a breed of midwives in my concept. cn

desert dude said:

As Kynes already pointed out, order 81 simply says: "if you use GM seeds to produce a crop, you have to pay the IP owner for the privilege". If you want to plant old-style seeds, go right ahead, nobody is forcing anybody to plant GM crops.

You are no Norman Ernest Borlaug.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug

"Norman Ernest Borlaug (March 25, 1914 – September 12, 2009[SUP][1][/SUP]), "The Man Who Saved A Billion Lives", was an American agronomist, humanitarian, and Nobel laureate who has been called "the father of the Green Revolution".[SUP][2][/SUP] Borlaug was one of six people to have won the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal.[SUP][3][/SUP] He was awarded the Padma Vibhushan, India's second highest civilian honor.[SUP][4]"[/SUP]

Click to expand...

OK dd, but weigh that against all the links here.
Also, prov order 81 put in place a gov permit/certification process whereby seeds could not be planted unless certified and permitted by the prov gov etc and the contract to provide the 'certified' seed belonged to Monsanto.
Here's a link to info on gmo cannabis, when you get the google page just click on gmo cannabis watch.

cannabineer said:

I'm taking a longer perspective, beyond ephemera like corporations. In fact, I worry that ephemera like corporations could be influencing our destiny by having otherwise soundminded folk like you see only danger (and attempt blockade) where I see a refreshing shot at survival for our species, or more precisely the first flush of posthumans. We're a breed of midwives in my concept. cn

Click to expand...

OK please forgive me for this, but at this point I've gotta play the Hitler card, because if that is true then H is one of the founding midwife's of the whole midwifery analogy, I mean GE was his greatest dream and goal, also backed and encouraged by corporate interests that are still at play to this day.

DNAprotection said:

OK please forgive me for this, but at this point I've gotta play the Hitler card, because if that is true then H is one of the founding midwife's of the whole midwifery analogy, I mean GE was his greatest dream and goal, also backed and encouraged by corporate interests that are still at play to this day.

Click to expand...

hitler had nothing to do with General Electric, perhaps you mean IBM, but he was merely a devoted customer of that company, not a stakeholder and definitely not the founder.

youre getting wackier by the minute.

DNAprotection said:

OK dd, but weigh that against all the links here.
Also, prov order 81 put in place a gov permit/certification process whereby seeds could not be planted unless certified and permitted by the prov gov etc and the contract to provide the 'certified' seed belonged to Monsanto.
Here's a link to info on gmo cannabis, when you get the google page just click on gmo cannabis watch.

Click to expand...

weigh all those google results depicting fear and insanity to the information found HERE:

a list of every person ever harmed by eating GMO food.

http://www.nosh.com/404

Dr Kynes said:

hitler had nothing to do with General Electric, .

Click to expand...

"General Electric"
That was a joke right? Either way thanks for the lol...just in case it wasn't a joke then GE means Genetic Engineering and the subject being referred to in that conversation is called Eugenics.
If you must be in this thread then how about be useful and tell me how I load an avatar?
Thanks again<3

DNAprotection said:

OK please forgive me for this, but at this point I've gotta play the Hitler card, because if that is true then H is one of the founding midwife's of the whole midwifery analogy, I mean GE was his greatest dream and goal, also backed and encouraged by corporate interests that are still at play to this day.

Click to expand...

Thread Godwin'd!!

The analogy collapses. Hitler and his eugenicist confrères were into selective breeding of humans, the way we've done to pets, livestock and crops.
Genetic engineering is an entirely different toolset and technique. It no longer relies on the recessive palette.

Want half of my ham&cheese? cn

<add> to load an avatar, go to "My Rollitup" and select Edit Avatar on the left. You can then ctrl V an image (including a gif, if its size does not exceed the site's limit) directly in.