It's not inhumane ('humane' being another oxymoron, because it's meaning, and acting like a normal human, are opposites) because 1)they have a life at all, which they would not if not given the opportunity by my family 2) they have a place to live that life, which they would not if not given the use of the land and 3) nature also creates barriers to movement, so it's not unnatural for an animal to live it's entire lifespan in one place...perhaps for cattle, but not the rest. Farm animals are not humans, and those that have an aversion to being stationary have no place on a farm. You could say that not being nomadic is 'inhumane', as our natural state is not sedentary, but few would argue it's 'cruel'.
'Animals' are not humans, so are not slaves. That idea makes you sound ridiculous. See the South Park episode for a good example.
Stopping suffering is not within our scope.
There are many reasons why stopping meat eating is not reasonable, but the one you should be the most interested in is, if humans didn't eat cattle, they might be extinct. The same goes for many animals we eat, and if we didn't eat things like pork, the ecological disaster feral pigs create would be almost as bad as what humans do.
It would be easier and cheaper to change the conditions in the slums of India and elsewhere than it would be to eradicate the meat production (edit:and consumption) of the entire planet. What do the people do now that no longer have jobs? What do you do with all the animals that no longer have a 'use' and don't own property to move onto? How do you control their numbers so they don't destroy what's left of the planet?
Technically, yes, all humans are animals. Mentally handicapped humans are not TREATED 'like animals', by which you MEAN treated poorly and without thought for their comfort and well being, which in fact is NOT how most animals are treated in our first world society, no matter how much you think so. Factory farms are a different matter.
When dolphins take control, they can treat mentally handicapped dolphins better than average humans. It's not arbitrary to treat your own species as the most important, it's an evolutionary trait almost all species likely possess.
No, I can't eat an entire vegan diet. I've tried many vegan foods, and found them ALL inedible, some made me sick.

You made blanket statements about how ALL animals are treated, and how ALL meat is produced and then defended that blanket statement. I'm glad you now admit your mistake, I hope you can see it through and stop blanket blaming ALL meat eaters.

What other people eat is farther outside your influence than how they treat their children.

Without the calorie dense food that is 'meat', we would still be nomadic gatherers, if we could exist at all. Eating meat is one of the things that gave us the energy to evolve those 'higher brains' that can choose our actions and determine what's 'rational'.
You will never see a vegan Olympic athlete. (Edit: well, maybe in Olympic curling...)

Daesh has brought about change...a change that THEY see as positive. That's not a good argument.

Yes, you are a monster for supporting such unabashed, unproductive carnivores ;-)...and I would hazard a guess that you don't feed them only free range, gmo free turkey carcasses, so you sound worse than me, the unashamed meat eater that pays the extra money for proper animal treatment....not just for them but because it's healthier meat too.

I did my part for the animals and the planet by not having children. ;-) Too bad I'm such a minority that it won't make a whit of difference.

No, you're absolutely right

I pay attention to what you and others on this site say because I've read what you've written in the past, and I think there are some smart people here who have interesting things to say.

But we can get in depth here. It's not just a soundbite; it's a discussion where people are forced to defend their arguments.

That just doesn't work with a tweet on a news show. It doesn't add anything to the conversation.

Especially with complex topics.

I couldn't care less what Joe Public thinks about climate change/ universal healthcare / GMOs. Get me someone educated. Sure, we can discuss it after, but on a limited time format, it's just noise.

My family owns and operates a farm, wheat and corn, in Kansas. We use Roundup herbicides sometimes.

Specifically, there is a GMO variant of field corn called "Roundup Ready" where the corn is genetically resistant to the herbicide. Plant a field of that corn, then after it emerges but well before harvesting (obviously) spray it with Roundup, diluted to an appropriate level. All of the pest plants in the field die. The corn looks a little wilted / harried for a few days after spraying, but bounces back and grows out just fine.

We use that specific kind (Roundup Ready) about 1 year out of every 4 or 5, only when pest plants are starting to become an issue. They'd love to sell it to farmers every year, but most only rotate it in when necessary, just like us, and use a small amount of normal seed (not GMO, just some of the normal corn we harvest) held in reserve from previous year(s) in the other years.

Before Roundup (and other major herbicides and pesticides), pest plants could be a major problem. From what my family says, corn can cross-pollinate or do some kind of hybridization with other crops like milo or sorghum or something, which results in a sterile cane-stalk plant like corn that produces no actual grain. Back 20+ years ago, that was a fairly major problem ... but it is very easily controlled nowadays with herbicides, and Roundup in particular.

Pure, concentrated Roundup is pretty nasty stuff. Then again, farmers still use or have used a lot of much nastier stuff during normal farm operations, like Malathion being sprinkled into grain bins to kill off insects and other small pests. I wouldn't want to chug down a glass full of any of that crap, BUT on the other hand I think we're way better as the human race off WITH all these things being used to control what can be or have been significantly damaging pests than how things would be WITHOUT them. Not to mention that all of these things are used in very very trace amounts compared to the actual amount of food produced itself, and usually a *really* long time before it becomes food. I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to detect any of them in the parts-per-multi-multi-billion scale by them time we eat them.


...That being said, the dude walked right in to this one. If his message was "this stuff is 100% safe and beneficial if used properly", I'd actually 100% agree with him. But when he's trying to oversell it by saying that it is perfectly safe to drink a glass of it ... of course somebody is going to call his bluff. Duh.

I'm not endorsing the practice but I will point out that doing it is the only way we'll discover the long term results.

All I'm trying to say is that once something gets tied up in politics, it's near impossible to learn about it. Once it's political, lines are drawn and people take sides and you're either a shill or a hippie.

I'm from a small town in upstate NY in an area where fracking was to really take root. Fortunately (?) it's just been banned. I would have liked to know what the risks are and their likelihood, at least to the best of our knowledge. I'm sure there are people out there who have this information, but I have no way to identify them.

The shills say it's very safe, but I don't trust them at all. The hippies say it's going to kill us all, but they say the same thing about GMOs. I'm sure the truth lies somewhere in the middle, but few people are offering nuanced opinions and I can't assume they're correct just because they are.

I have no way of knowing what's true and what's not and it pisses me off a bit.

When all information regarding this topic needs to be filtered through "peer reviewed scientific studies" invariably funded by mega corporations who have nothing to gain from discovering whole plant based cures, your opinions will be more than a little biased.

Here's a few accounts:

"Ten months ago girlfriend was diagnosed with stage 3 cervical cancer. Immediately switch to all organics/non GMOS and started taking the oil. Half way into the treatment test results showed the lesion had shrunk half its size and was now precancerous. Last week new tests showed she is not only CANCER FREE but PREGNANT which they said may never happen. Rick Simpson I really owe you, brother. Thank you from the bottom of my heart.” Jason
“I have a good friend Scott with cerebral palsy. About 6yrs ago he was in and out of hospital, they just throw in meds at him. Finally his mom said there's got to be another way. After he went from 200 pounds to 110 we thought we were gonna lose him until he started consuming cannabis. After six months he was back to normal and put all the weight back on and takes half the meds. He has outlived 3 times over what doctors said and they say he's just lucky. I have other thought.” Shane
“This is my brother who the dr said he had 2 months with inoperable liver cancer. That was a year ago. His tumor has shrunk to 1/4 size. His tumor markers went from 5667 to 94. He is living proof. He still runs his own business. Both Northwestern in Chicago and Mayo clinic in Rochester Minnesota gave him that diagnosis. He consumes the oil.” Holley
“Thank God we found Rick’s site when we did..... I started the oil 4 months ago and the spot where my tumor was removed is closed up!!! They told my GBM stage 4. And I would die in a year and half. Been 15 months and feel better than ever.... We really want to tell the world!!!!! Saved my life for sure.” Rachel

-- Tell everyone you can that there is a safe and effective cure/control for cancer, and that it can be used as a prevention against cancer, too. The sooner you start spreading the word in your community the sooner people will overcome their hesitations and will demand this medicine. Be ready for a lot of resistance in the beginning. If you let them read posts and comments on this page, I think it will take less time to convince them. Thank you for your help in spreading the word about this medicine. JB

More info and testimonials: "Cure for Cancer: Rick Simpson Protocol -- the newest book from Rick Simpson and Jindrich Bayer specifically details how to use cannabis extract medicine to cure cancer, going into extensive detail on the official Rick Simpson protocol."

What, leash law doesn't apply to GMO dog??? REWRITE IT.

Very little in science is black and white. Big upvote for NDT's follow up though. Here is an extremely thorough rundown of many of the issues at hand written by an unbiased reporter: http://grist.org/series/panic-free-gmos/

In article #2 he writes about FDA safety testing of GMO's, which, while "voluntary" are always performed. According to an FDA policy analyst he interviews, "(I) frankly cannot really envision any circumstances under which anybody placing a ‘bioengineered’ food on the market would have the temerity NOT to consult with (the FDA).”

In the next article, he writes about the perception that GMO's are the product of for-profit corporations and meets with plant scientists at UC Davis; a nonprofit, publicly funded university.

If you don't have time to read the entire series, then at the very least read his final article. His conclusions are well-tempered and thoughful.

Neils thoughts on the viral video

*** August 3, 2014 -- Anatomy of a GMO Commentary ****
Ten days ago, this brief clip of me was posted by somebody.

It contains my brief [2min 20sec] response to a question posed by a French journalist, after a talk I gave on the Universe. He found me at the post-talk book signing table. (Notice the half-dozen ready & willing pens.) The clip went mildly viral (rising through a half million right now) with people weighing in on whether they agree with me or not.

Some comments...

1) The journalist posted the question in French. I don't speak French, so I have no memory of how I figured out that was asking me about GMOs. Actually I do know some French words like Bordeaux, and Bourgogne, and Champagne, etc.

2) Everything I said is factual. So there's nothing to disagree with other than whether you should actually "chill out" as I requested of the viewer in my last two words of the clip.

3) Had I given a full talk on this subject, or if GMOs were the subject of a sit-down interview, then I would have raised many nuanced points, regarding labeling, patenting, agribusiness, monopolies, etc. I've noticed that almost all objections to my comments center on these other issues.

4) I offer my views on these nuanced issues here, if anybody is interested:
a- Patented Food Strains: In a free market capitalist society, which we have all "bought" into here in America, if somebody invents something that has market value, they ought to be able to make as much money as they can selling it, provided they do not infringe the rights of others. I see no reason why food should not be included in this concept.
b- Labeling: Since practically all food has been genetically altered from nature, if you wanted labeling I suppose you could demand it, but then it should be for all such foods. Perhaps there could be two different designations: GMO-Agriculture GMO-Laboratory.
c- Non-perennial Seed Strains: It's surely legal to sell someone seeds that cannot reproduce themselves, requiring that the farmer buy seed stocks every year from the supplier. But when sold to developing country -- one struggling to become self-sufficient -- the practice is surely immoral. Corporations, even when they work within the law, should not be held immune from moral judgement on these matters.
d- Monopolies are generally bad things in a free market. To the extent that the production of GMOs are a monopoly, the government should do all it can to spread the baseline of this industry. (My favorite monopoly joke ever, told by Stephen Wright: "I think it's wrong that the game Monopoly is sold by only one company")
e- Safety: Of course new foods should be tested for health risks, regardless of their origin. That's the job of the Food and Drug Administration (in the USA). Actually, humans have been testing food, even without the FDA ,since the dawn of agriculture. Whenever a berry or other ingested plant killed you, you knew not to serve it to you family.
f- Silk Worms: I partly mangled my comments on this. Put simply, commercial Silk Worms have been genetically modified by centuries of silk trade, such that they cannot survive in the wild. Silk Worms currently exist only to serve the textile industry. Just as Milk Cows are bred with the sole purpose of providing milk to humans. There are no herds of wild Milk Cows terrorizing the countryside.

5) If your objection to GMOs is the morality of selling non-prerennial seed stocks, then focus on that. If your objection to GMOs is the monopolistic conduct of agribusiness, then focus on that. But to paint the entire concept of GMO with these particular issues is to blind yourself to the underlying truth of what humans have been doing -- and will continue to do -- to nature so that it best serves our survival. That's what all organisms do when they can, or would do, if they could. Those that didn't, have gone extinct extinct.

In life, be cautious of how broad is the brush with which you paint the views of those you don't agree with.

Respectfully Submitted
-NDTyson

Yeah, I wasted my time. At least you researched it on Google (the documentary obviously not). But you didnt read it.
If you really mean what you say, after a little bit of research, completely ignoring what I said, just locking your jaw on direct consequences and still saying they are completely against GMO, then so be it.
But you know, your kind is addressed in that documentary and by that 14 year old too. AKA black and white thinkers - who are most of the time simple lobbyists. And why you think I or her are completely against GMO is beyond me either. I am against idiots like you who think this is a straight forward topic and just proudly call others out on their alleged hypocrisy, while you dont even understand the points they make, since they fall out of your black and white thinking.
Right now you appear as someone who says that there is no sugar in this candy, while its packaging, its taste and even its producer makes it clear that there is sugar in it.
Yeah well... whatever you say, Mr. "scientist"...

Its not mainly about the direct effects. Its about the indirect effects. What patents on those GMOs can do, how farmers are treated, how surroundings respond to those plants (mono cultures), what those plants will do that you cant use without their special treatment, how powerful corporations will get if they have patents on food. Etc, etc, etc. For tiny bits of it imagine this: A state would prohibit use of unaltered seeds. Even in your tiny garden. You wouldnt be able to use the seeds from your tomatoes to plant new ones for the next year, because they are genetically altered that their seeds dont sprout or you need some kind of chemical for them to survive. Of course this chemical is also patented.Think about it. And now get this: Exactly this has already been suggested by the EU as a serious law.

The French/German TV station Arte made a very good documentary about this topic. You should watch it. Its available on Youtube. Also theres a well known 14 year old girl (prolly 15 now) who explains it to people like you. Google her.

And yes, I didnt name her and the documentary for a reason. You should research for yourself. Its a little test. If you dont even research these easy to find things, youre not even remotely close to being objective and I wont waste my time on you.

I love 'Utopia' and I can add the Canadian science-fiction show 'Continuum' to that list, which criticizes the rise of corporations and portrays a dystopian future in which corporations have taken over the government and police force. Season 3 deals with a villainous corporation not so subtly named Sonmanto and also addresses the issue of GMO.

Hello Chaos Engine.
It's not 'either or...'
It's not inevitable either.
Nor is it too useful or too profitable. (quite the opposite. Non GMO supermarkets are raking it in on both sides of the Atlantic)
It's an agenda than has been allowed to flourish, or massively sponsored by corporate interest (the huge campaign against GMO labels for example).

It can also be stopped.

Unfortunately, @LooiXIV, in our world (and especially the USA), you cannot separate the IDEA of GMOs from the corporations that are making them and abusing our legal system to fuck everyone else over. They've ensured that. If you support GMOs, you effectively support Monsanto.

That's the entire purpose of making it illegal to label GMO-free foods.

What Neil deGrasse Tyson and some of the other scientists/doctors (myself include) have are saying is that the IDEA of GMO's is a great one. The fact that we can engineer our foods to get the traits we want or add additional beneficial traits is an incredibly useful tool. We've already engineered rice that is able to produce vitamin A, which has been a huge help for places with vitamin A deficiencies and we can engineer potatoes to absorb less fats and oils when we fry them, there is also a professor at SUNY-ESF who is using GMO's to try and save the American Chestnut tree from extinction.

GMing is simply another tool in humanity's struggle to survive. First it was finding which foods were safe to eat, then it was breeding organisms within species to make inbred organisms that had the traits we wanted (think cattle, dogs, cats, corn, banana's; some of these things are more inbred than the Hapsburgs), then we starting creating our own hybrids across different species, and now we have GMO's.

However, what I object to is the current corporate use of GMO's to exploit farmers over patents, and breed for traits that people do necessarily need. NdT I'm sure is not advocating for that, but is advocating for the use of transgenic organisms/GMO's to solve some of the world's most pressing issues.

GMO's are probably the most powerful tool we have to curb world hunger, and mal-nutrition, and it could also be the thing that allows humans to venture beyond the solar system. What the Sift seems to be objecting to, and the rest of the "developed" world is the use of GMO's by greedy corporations who care more about turning a profit than solving world problems (there isn't very much money in feeding the needy and hungry). They are the one's making what appear to me more or less useless and potentially dangerous GMO's. Turn your anger away from GMO's specifically and narrow it to the ill use of GMO's by greedy corporations.

Lastly, the argument that "we don't know what they'll do" is for the most part unfounded, there are a decent amount of studies (find them yourself sorry) which show that GMO's in general won't cause harm (though it really depends on what you're trying to make). The same argument was made about the LHC "We don't know what will happen when we turn it on!" but everyone was fine.

Do you believe he is qualified to comment on evolution, even though he's not a biologist? Is he qualified to comment on global warming even though he's not a climate scientist? Why the sudden belief that he is ignorant when it comes to GMOs?