I really don't get all the GMO hubbub. I realize it sounds bad - like we are Frankenstein-ing our food, but I'm a biologist and physician and people need to realize that we have been GMO-ing our food since the advent of agriculture/husbandry. The whole POINT of agriculture/farming is to breed crops/animals such that they express certain genetic traits that are valuable to humans. Examples are abundant: bananas, corn, cows, chickens, Scottish fold kittens... Basically anything that humans can grow/raise, we attempt to genetically modify through selective breeding; the fact that we now have the technology to accomplish these changes in a lab is obvious as the next logical step. If you object to GMO then you should be a hunter-gatherer. This is not to say that there are no risks to selective breeding/GM. For one, genetically similar or identical organisms are susceptible to the same pathogens. If we stake our fortunes on a single type of wheat, corn, cow, banana, whatever - we risk losing it forever if there is some sort of infectious outbreak. As far as health risks to consumers, I don't think there is any legitimate science that suggests that GM food is any worse for you than non-GM food (the same goes for irradiated foods).

An excellent video that illustrates the dangers of genetically modified catnip.

Nobody has brought up doping yet. I have absolutely no idea how vast it's influence is or how little it may be sought after due to the literal pride of the athletes themselves may be influencing these decisions among their own community (and I do think that the athletes and how they handle those that have done it, might do it, and haven't yet but are just hearing about the possibilities of doping; how they talk and act to stop it when they can amongst themselves and their community is what fights it the best).

I know some of the athletes have been suspended up to four years, but are still allowed to play again. I don't know if it matters what they were doing (as anabolic steroids and its effects will be lifelong if you keep up your routine) as some doping schemes are quick fixes like someone trying to use adrenaline. I mean do they check for that type of thing, a neurotransmitter carrier drug stuck in something like a false tooth; you bite down and in 5-10 seconds your adrenaline shoots forward for 30 seconds... I guess I should look and see how far they've taken this process; I know they are very vigilant, as much as possible. But, I really don't know were the holes are and how big they possibly are.

Training has most defiantly given athletes a superb edge. Not only do they run and work out, but they WATCH themselves run and can see what they are doing run. They just compare it to the best and modify themselves in that fashion gaining seconds, upon seconds. Eventually they learn to add a new twist and soon people are watching HIM or HER for inspiration to win a medal.

I know many athletes get their medals the old-fashioned hard way, proudly and resolute, for their country. It just makes me wonder how far doping has truly influenced the athletes and what areas of their training and structure actually test them correctly with the possibility that there may always be an area, with many athletes all doping (they are tested at the Pre-Olympic qualifiers, The Olympics, but then a shady organization "passes" them all at their home training camp). I hope that it never reaches that scale, but I always have problems when there are some Olympic coaches that have had about six athletes under them, three of them have been caught doping and three are OK--kind of disconcerting...

-edit

I forgot one point I was going to make. You can obviously see from the info-graphic that even training and in absolutely NO WAY can doping account for the 8 year old to the rest of the teenage field of sprinters. It shows to me that perhaps a very long change in diet stopping any malnutrition, FAR better medical care (also limiting disease to a LARGE extent) has lead to a BETTER populace, even genetically which just due to this little clip you could make the case, to some degree. Then you have some of the intangibles like better shoes, better surfaces to run on, and other like changes in our lives that were mentioned and the ones you can think about that weren't. Then you find the cream of the crop athletes, give them superb training, and I truly do think you can see why we have increased those three seconds.

I just merely hope doping isn't behind many victories. I actually wouldn't care if it was someone genetically modified--not grotesquely (to go out of your way to destroy the human form is up to you, but as scientists I don't think we should aim for that--we should aim within that, I also have a feeling that someone grotesque may not be exactly happily received at The Olympics...), just suited to run faster with muscles that are far more dense than usual. As long as genetic changes like this eventually come to almost all of us, changes that enrich and make our lives better (not The Hulk™).

>> ^chingalera:

Let's seeeee...Graceful flavor
100% Colesterol-free
low in saturated fat
naturally lactose-free
non genetically-modified ingredients..Yep, soy milk and semen share many refreshing and beneficial qualities "But does soy milk offer this, honey???...."
Move over Silk® ,It's MAN-MILK™ ....Only the jizmo, with proteins, vitamin C, amino acids, citrate, enzymes, flavins, fructose, acid phosphatase, citric acid, fibrinolysin, prostate specific antigen, proteolytic enzymes, zinc and baby-makin', wiggly-wigglers-has the unique combination that satisfies!!
But can you provide carton fulls at a time?

Let's seeeee...Graceful flavor
100% Colesterol-free
low in saturated fat
naturally lactose-free
non genetically-modified ingredients..Yep, soy milk and semen share many refreshing and beneficial qualities "But does soy milk offer this, honey???...."
Move over Silk® ,It's MAN-MILK™ ....Only the jizmo, with proteins, vitamin C, amino acids, citrate, enzymes, flavins, fructose, acid phosphatase, citric acid, fibrinolysin, prostate specific antigen, proteolytic enzymes, zinc and baby-makin', wiggly-wigglers-has the unique combination that satisfies!!

Well I was going to say that he used to be the scientific adviser to the President at one point but Wikipedia keeps telling me I'm wrong. Still the man is a certified genius and DOES know what he's talking about when it come to climate change.
From Wikipedia:

-"In November 2010, Nye became the face of a new permanent exhibition at the Chabot Space & Science Center in Oakland, CA. Bill Nye’s Climate Lab"
-"Nye appears in segments of The Climate Code on The Weather Channel, telling his personal ways of saving energy."
-"He created a 13-episode PBS KCTS-TV series about science, called The Eyes of Nye, aimed at an older audience than his previous show had been. Airing in 2005, it often featured episodes based on politically relevant themes such as genetically modified food, global warming, and race."

And I'll end this with a quote from the man himself that I think fits this video to a T.

Interviewed by John Rael for the Independent Investigation Group IIG, Nye stated that his "concern right now... scientific illiteracy... you don't [the public] have enough rudimentary knowledge of the universe to evaluate claims."

At least he's not genetically modified like spiderman.

This is awesome for so many reasons.

1 - There's an organisation called the PIE BRIGADE.
2 - The guy who does it has the most hilarious outrage voice ever.
3 - Somebody's like what's you're name and he's like EWAN BROWN BITCH.
4 - Guy talks about people being force fed genetically modified food and the cows moo in dissaproval.
5 - There's a fucking montage of pie-facing at the end.
>> ^BoneRemake:




THAT IS HOW YOU DO IT !

^I think the hesitation has to do with the fact that, while Obama does seem to be under control of corporate-media-military-pharma-oil-banking-genetically-modified-organism-industrial complex, he is still far preferable to the alternatives. It's important to criticize Obama and the government, but he is the best option at the moment, and things could be much worse. It's a delicate balancing act. I'm pretty pissed at both the government and freemarketologists at the moment. I think that they -whether they know it or not- are working towards the same goal of plutocracy.

Look into Milton Friedman and his involvement in pushing free market principles 'at the butt of a gun' in Chile. Friedman is a hero of the freemarket class, and a big hypocrite when it comes to 'coercion' and 'force'.

I also think blankfist's extreme partisanship and aggressive nature turns many videosifters off. I think the same could be said for myself, which is a bummer, but we are who we are. I've been trying to soften my language. Look at all the 'i thinks' in this message!

>> ^cybrbeast:

Monsanto may be evil, but I am not in the GMOs are principally wrong camp. I'm convinced genetically modified crops will be very important for our future nutrition needs and food security.


Sure, if they're modified to have a higher yield or are more disease resistant.

But, if they are modified so that crops have to be sprayed with Round-up, or so that their seeds will not produce (have to buy more seed every season) -- then they are inherently bad.

Monsanto may be evil, but I am not in the GMOs are principally wrong camp. I'm convinced genetically modified crops will be very important for our future nutrition needs and food security.

Consumerism as religion.
The market as God.
Genetically modified corn starch as the body.
Genetically modified corn syrup as the blood.
Advertising as revealed truth.

Excellent *parody of our time.

"The reason why GM crops are here is based on a deception that occured in the FDA." (25:00)

"From a corporate standpoint it was a brilliantly orchestarted takeover [of the FDA]" (30:00)

"Donald Rumsfeld was the CEO of Serle which was a Monsanto subsidiary. The former US trade ambassador Mikey Canter ended up on Mansanto's Board. Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas used to work for Monsanto. (44:00)

"Biotechnology is so important that we can't let a few little questions about cow safety or human safety get in the way." (43:20)

"Round-Up ready [genetically modified] soybeans account for ninety percent of the soybeans grown in the U.S.. In fact seventy percent of the food in American stores contains bio-engineered elements." (58:00)

This film is so incredibly quotable in it's detail about how Monsanto is a danger to the health of the food of the world, but I'll stop here.

>> ^LarsaruS:

>> ^LarsaruS:
I actually find the notion of saving our species to be a vain and misguided effort. In 100 million billion trillion years when the Universe is still here, We wont be. If we survive long enough we will evolve from Homo Sapien to something else.
Of course. So what? Humans have children, even though those children are not clones of their parents. Why should we care that somewhere far down the line our offspring will speciate into something else? They will still be Homo in some way. /rebuilder

Aye, Homo is the way of the future :-D
But in all seriousness it means that we can't save our species. That's all.


Well, that applies whether we leave the planet or not. Semantic quibbles are the least of our challenges in colonizing another world.

I recently read some interesting stuff (i.e. nerd porn) relating to this here on Pharyngula. Just a smattering (the comments section mainly) of the very real obstacles preventing us from achieving this dream not likely until the far distant future. Also some interesting speculation on the idea that genetically modifying ourselves to be able to thrive on otherwise inhospitable planets being the more important/crucial barrier than our rocket/space propulsion technology.

I'm typically an optimist on this subject (damn you Carl Sagan!) but also a realist.