*~* Witchcraft and Wicca Forum *~* EUTM


How to save the environment

Helping Mother Earth, Recycling, Picking up Litter.

Re: How to safe the environment

Postby pelias3 » Thu Jan 13, 2011 5:29 pm

well i guess will come as no surprise but i think i disagree with just about everything you said in that last post Juniper :wink:

the EU ruled very differently to the US about patented genes in crops. basically if i got it right the bottom line was intent. if you "intended" to steal someone's research into genetically modified plants then that was one thing but if it blew over the fence then tough! i certainly haven't heard of anyone on this side of the pond having to destroy crops because of patented genes appearing in them due to normal pollenation.

next... i'm really not sure where you came by the idea that modified plants were MORE suseptable to pests and disease compared to the classical forms of plant breeding (which are after all pretty unnatural in themselves since it involves hybridisation followed by repeat back crossing!). in fact most of the thrust of genetic modification is now towards transfering pest and disease resistence genes from wild populations or traditional strains into commerical crops. ok, its the fault of the big companies but in an entirely practical line of thinking its a GOOD thing that the companies want these "old" genes because it preserves varieties that would be extinct by now if not for them! now i totally agree that monocultures with extremely low genetic variability are bad but that describes mostly industrially grown crops in the world now! and if you want a classical reference the entire potato famine in ireland (though not the starvation and mass exodus that followed it which was entirely down to protestant christian landlords... oops! i won't go on...) was due to only a single blight suseptable variety of potato being grown across the whole of ireland! and since it was produced vegetatively there was ZERO variation!

ok this myth of genetically modified crops being bad for people. can you tell me where that actually comes from? in what way can the difference of a SINGLE codon in a SINGLE gene affect people? there are NO new proteins produced! are the resistence genes in new plants toxic? well since they're only expressed as proteins in parts of the plant we don't eat i'd have to say i just don't follow the reasoning! the BT gene that's usually used paralyses insects by affecting their GABA receptors but mammalian GABA receptors are completely different! with about 500 million years of divergent evolution between them and us! oh! and the EU didn't ban GM foods just some uses of... its complicated...

right! enough of my ranting at the failings of some people's cell biology and ecotoxicology education! what i MEANT by genetically modified plants (and animals too!) isn't the tinkering with an odd gene here or there! and yes i'll admit that you're right that such minor alterations can move into wild populations but the cat is SO out of the bag on that one! horizontal gene movement is wildly out of control and we have bacteria to blame for that! no when i talk about genetically modified plants i mean ones where the majority or totality of the genome is artifical! a plant (or animal) that is related to nothing, can breed with no preexisting organism and is mapped at the molecular level to have no surprises lurking in its make up! sod a plant to make vegetable oil that can make biodiesel when its possible to make a plant make petrol!! you see my point?

i'm waiting for the flaming with baited breath! :lol:
pelias3
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 2:27 pm
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: How to safe the environment

Postby JuniperBerry » Thu Jan 13, 2011 5:53 pm

Lol. Why would I flame you? If you have information I don't I'd rather appreciate you sharing it with me. Only an idiot wants to remain stupid just to think they're right, and I know you wouldn't try to purposefully engage me in a flame-war. ;)

pelias3 wrote:

next... i'm really not sure where you came by the idea that modified plants were MORE suseptable to pests and disease compared to the classical forms of plant breeding (which are after all pretty unnatural in themselves since it involves hybridisation followed by repeat back crossing!). in fact most of the thrust of genetic modification is now towards transfering pest and disease resistence genes from wild populations or traditional strains into commerical crops
.

Environmental/Ecological Problems

Many similar problems arise with pest-resistant and herbicide-resistant plants. The evolution of resistant pests and weeds termed superbugs and superweeds is one. Resistance can evolve whenever selective pressure is strong enough. If these cultivars are planted on a commercial scale, there will be strong selective pressure in that habitat, which could cause the evolution of resistant insects in a few years and nullify the effects of the transgenes. Likewise, if spraying of herbicides becomes more regular due to new cultivars, surrounding weeds could develop a resistance to the herbicide tolerant by the crop. This would cause an increase in herbicide dose or change in herbicide, as well as an increase in the amount and types of herbicides on crop plants. Ironically, chemical companies that sell weed killers are a driving force behind this research. (Steinbrecher, 1996)

Another issue is the uncertainty in whether the pest-resistant characteristic of these crops can escape to their weedy relatives causing resistant and increased weeds. (Traynor and Westwood, eds., 1999) It is also possible that if insect-resistant plants cause increased death in one particular pest, it may decrease competition and invite minor pests to become a major problem. In addition, it could cause the pest population to shift to another plant population that was once unthreatened. These effects can branch out much further. A study of Bt crops showed that "beneficial insects, so named because they prey on crop pests, were also exposed to harmful quantities of Bt." It was stated that it is possible for the effects to reach further up the foodweb to effect plants and animals consumed by humans. (Halweil, 1999).

Also, from a toxicological standpoint, further investigation is required to determine if residues from herbicide or pest resistant plants could harm key groups of organisms found in surrounding soil, such as bacteria, fungi, nematodes, and other microorganisms. (Snow et. al, 1997)

The potential risks accompanied by disease resistant plants deal mostly with viral resistance. It is possible that viral resistance can lead to the formation of new viruses, and therefore new diseases. It has been reported that naturally occurring viruses can recombine with viral fragments that are introduced to create transgenic plants, forming new viruses. Additionally, there can be many variations of this newly formed virus. (Steinbrecher, 1996) NYU



ok, its the fault of the big companies but in an entirely practical line of thinking its a GOOD thing that the companies want these "old" genes because it preserves varieties that would be extinct by now if not for them! now i totally agree that monocultures with extremely low genetic variability are bad but that describes mostly industrially grown crops in the world now


I don't have a problem with preserving old genes. And how can you say that monoculture is bad, but oh well because that describes most industrial crops? Isn't the topic of the discussion ways in which to change threats to human longevity on earth, rather than complacency?

! and if you want a classical reference the entire potato famine in ireland (though not the starvation and mass exodus that followed it which was entirely down to protestant christian landlords... oops! i won't go on...) was due to only a single blight suseptable variety of potato being grown across the whole of ireland! and since it was produced vegetatively there was ZERO variation!


So...you agree that having several varieties of crops, with different genetic make-ups, would have helped prevent the famine...yet you're arguing with me why?

ok this myth of genetically modified crops being bad for people. can you tell me where that actually comes from? in what way can the difference of a SINGLE codon in a SINGLE gene affect people? there are NO new proteins produced! are the resistence genes in new plants toxic? well since they're only expressed as proteins in parts of the plant we don't eat i'd have to say i just don't follow the reasoning! the BT gene that's usually used paralyses insects by affecting their GABA receptors but mammalian GABA receptors are completely different! with about 500 million years of divergent evolution between them and us! oh! and the EU didn't ban GM foods just some uses of... its complicated...


"This study was just routine," said Russian biologist Alexey V. Surov, in what could end up as the understatement of this century. Surov and his colleagues set out to discover if Monsanto's genetically modified (GM) soy, grown on 91% of US soybean fields, leads to problems in growth or reproduction. What he discovered may uproot a multi-billion dollar industry.

After feeding hamsters for two years over three generations, those on the GM diet, and especially the group on the maximum GM soy diet, showed devastating results. By the third generation, most GM soy-fed hamsters lost the ability to have babies. They also suffered slower growth, and a high mortality rate among the pups.

And if this isn't shocking enough, some in the third generation even had hair growing inside their mouths--a phenomenon rarely seen, but apparently more prevalent among hamsters eating GM soy. HuffPo

What's disconcerting is that GM is so new that we don't know the over-reaching health effects that can be caused by them. But trends are appearing.



right! enough of my ranting at the failings of some people's cell biology and ecotoxicology education!


No worries. I'm sure I'll be just as respectful when you post something worth commenting on. :)



what i MEANT by genetically modified plants (and animals too!) isn't the tinkering with an odd gene here or there! and yes i'll admit that you're right that such minor alterations can move into wild populations but the cat is SO out of the bag on that one!


So let's do nothing? GE corn from Kansas was found growing on a small, private, isolated farm in the hills of Mexico.

horizontal gene movement is wildly out of control and we have bacteria to blame for that! no when i talk about genetically modified plants i mean ones where the majority or totality of the genome is artifical! a plant (or animal) that is related to nothing, can breed with no preexisting organism and is mapped at the molecular level to have no surprises lurking in its make up! sod a plant to make vegetable oil that can make biodiesel when its possible to make a plant make petrol!! you see my point?


Not really. :|
The Gods we worship write their names on our faces; be sure of that. A person will worship something, have no doubt about that. We may think our tribute is paid in secret in the dark recesses of our hearts, but it will out. That which dominates our imaginations and our thoughts will determine our lives, and our character. Therefore, it behooves us to be careful what we worship, for what we are worshipping we are becoming.

- Ralph Waldo Emerson



As believers in the folk-religion we are studying, we seek after mysteries that expand the scope of our gods and our understanding of them, not reductionist theories that reduce them to manageable and socially productive "functions".

-Our Troth
User avatar
JuniperBerry
Banned Member
 
Posts: 406
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 10:38 am
Location: Arizona

Re: How to safe the environment

Postby pelias3 » Sat Jan 15, 2011 4:14 pm

Will Genetically Modified Foods Make You Sick? - Jeffery Smith, Huffington Post 15th Jan. 2011

The second study provokes the equally compelling question, are GM foods the missing link to decreasing fertility? The Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety commissioned one of the very few long-term feeding studies on GM corn, released last week. The University of Veterinary Medicine in Vienna fed GM Monsanto's GM corn to mice, which were then mated. In the third and fourth litters, there was a reduction in the number of size of rat pups (statistically significant). Similarly, in mice fed GM corn for four successive generations (from original mice parents to their great grandchildren), the size and number of offspring was less than those compared to non-GM fed mice (trend only, not yet statistically significant).

Ok Traum (this is just a quickie cos i'm at work) i do actually see your point but this little offering from a source you mentioned yourself fills me with dread! you put in references like a science graduate so with that in mind how do you feel about someone using non-statistically significant studies to prove a point? given how biology goes about proving or disproving anything if it comes out as non-significant then just what does it prove? also i just noticed that he quotes his own website as a source! i would need to see the original source research and how the study was designed before i could make MY mind up about it but i realise that for most people without a science background they would take his words at face value... i'm sorry but i just find that really irresponsible!
pelias3
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 2:27 pm
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: How to safe the environment

Postby JuniperBerry » Sun Jan 16, 2011 10:20 pm

Alright, I confirmed that you were addressing me and not Traum. (Easy mistake when one is in a rush.)

pelias3 wrote:Will Genetically Modified Foods Make You Sick? - Jeffery Smith, Huffington Post 15th Jan. 2011

The second study provokes the equally compelling question, are GM foods the missing link to decreasing fertility? The Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety commissioned one of the very few long-term feeding studies on GM corn, released last week. The University of Veterinary Medicine in Vienna fed GM Monsanto's GM corn to mice, which were then mated. In the third and fourth litters, there was a reduction in the number of size of rat pups (statistically significant). Similarly, in mice fed GM corn for four successive generations (from original mice parents to their great grandchildren), the size and number of offspring was less than those compared to non-GM fed mice (trend only, not yet statistically significant).

Ok Traum (this is just a quickie cos i'm at work) i do actually see your point but this little offering from a source you mentioned yourself fills me with dread! you put in references like a science graduate so with that in mind how do you feel about someone using non-statistically significant studies to prove a point? given how biology goes about proving or disproving anything if it comes out as non-significant then just what does it prove? also i just noticed that he quotes his own website as a source! i would need to see the original source research and how the study was designed before i could make MY mind up about it but i realise that for most people without a science background they would take his words at face value... i'm sorry but i just find that really irresponsible!


Well, I'm not a scientist. Just an interested and responsible citizen. *salutes* :wink:

It's important, I think, to make people aware of the risks that may be potential in the science and technology coming their way. Whether confirmed with positive proof or just a developing trend, people have the right to make a decision based on that. Since there is risk currently associated with GM/GE food that hasn't been ruled out, then I'm comfortable in saying it isn't a safe alternative.
The Gods we worship write their names on our faces; be sure of that. A person will worship something, have no doubt about that. We may think our tribute is paid in secret in the dark recesses of our hearts, but it will out. That which dominates our imaginations and our thoughts will determine our lives, and our character. Therefore, it behooves us to be careful what we worship, for what we are worshipping we are becoming.

- Ralph Waldo Emerson



As believers in the folk-religion we are studying, we seek after mysteries that expand the scope of our gods and our understanding of them, not reductionist theories that reduce them to manageable and socially productive "functions".

-Our Troth
User avatar
JuniperBerry
Banned Member
 
Posts: 406
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 10:38 am
Location: Arizona

Re: How to safe the environment

Postby pelias3 » Wed Jan 19, 2011 4:29 pm

my biggest bugbear with GM is that its all controlled by companies trying to wring the last few pennies out of it! i don't disagree with your cautious attitude to GM juniper but i think i'm just more optimistic about technology! i did do a science degree (or two) and work in a science based industry of sorts. companies just never like to admit they don't know what they're doing which makes them very flawed scientists most of the time...
pelias3
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 2:27 pm
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: How to safe the environment

Postby dreaming_lucid » Fri Jan 21, 2011 3:50 pm

Pelias,

Probably the reasons you haven't heard about what's happening to North American farmers from groups like Monsanto is (1) it's not widely talked about in the corporate controlled media, and (2) farmers involved in litigation with Monsanto often have to sign nondisclosure papers, so they are legally bound to not talk about what happened to them. But it has been going on (although things may be changing as people start to wake up). A case well known among those who read about these issues happened in Canada with Percy Schmeiser, who was forced to destroy the seeds he had been saving for something like 40 years, due to the "patent infringement" of windblown pollen entering his field. Just google his name if you want to read about it.

and from http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/4234-monsanto-patents-being-used-to-bankrupt-farmers-2992006

"New York, NY (PRWEB) September 29, 2006 -- The Public Patent Foundation filed formal requests with the United States Patent and Trademark Office today to reexamine four of Monsanto Corporation's patents related to genetically modified crops that the agricultural giant is using to sue - and in some cases literally bankrupt - American farmers (http://www.pubpat.org/monsantovfarmers.htm ). In its filings, PUBPAT submitted prior art showing the patents were obvious in light of earlier work by other inventors and, as such, should have never been granted.

Monsanto has filed dozens of patent infringement lawsuits asserting the four challenged patents against American farmers, many of whom are unable to hire adequate representation to defend themselves in court. The crime these farmers are accused of is nothing more than saving seed from one year's crop to replant the following year, something farmers have done since the beginning of time. The Center for Food Safety found in its study of the matter (http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/Monsantovsusfarmersreport.cfm ) that, "Monsanto has used heavy-handed investigations and ruthless prosecutions that have fundamentally changed the way many American farmers farm. The result has been nothing less than an assault on the foundations of farming practices and traditions that have endured for centuries in this country and millennia around the world, including one of the oldest, the right to save and replant crop seed."

The lawsuits filed by Monsanto against American farmers include Monsanto Company v. Mitchell Scruggs, et al, 459 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2006), Monsanto Company v. Kem Ralph individually, et al, 382 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2004) and Monsanto Company v. Homan McFarling, 363 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

"Monsanto's aggressive assertion of its patents is not only obnoxious and offensive to the core fabric of American life and culture, it is also causing substantial public harm," said Dan Ravicher, PUBPAT's Executive Director.

"It appears as though Monsanto wants to control all of America's farmland and - unfortunately - the patent system is providing them the perfect means to accomplish that goal by bullying independent and family owned farms right out of existence.""

Apparently there has been successful push back against Monsanto's efforts, but they have done significant damage to some farmers in the blind pursuit of control and money, and use wildly unethical techniques and therefore need to be watched closely. It was recently reported in the Nation that Monsanto hired Blackwater (xe) shell corporation Total Intelligence Solutions to provide intel, including potentially infiltrating anti GMO activist groups and posing as members.

To speak to the broader discussion, this is why technology will not be the savior of man, because technology does not occur in a vacuum. It is often designed and implemented primarily for profit motive, not "saving the planet," and as such, until the culture changes, there is no real "salvation." I'm surprised in a spirituality board so many people think technology is the answer. It CAN be PART of the answer, but there are more fundamental issues at play.
dreaming_lucid
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 8:00 pm

Re: How to safe the environment

Postby pelias3 » Fri Jan 21, 2011 4:12 pm

hmmm why am i not surprised? you know why? because monsanto's patents are all about superficial and shallow alterations to the plant genome. ok nothing that could have occured naturally but pretty much tiny changes compared to what will happen. so it has to be heavy handed so no one dares look too closely. monsanto are heavily invested in a very few patents (like a lot of pharmacetical companies) and if they get taken away its likely the company will go bankrupt fairly quickly. that's my feeling though i doubt i could prove it with a ton of money and time on research cos they'd come down on anyone who tried it. down with big agribusiness!
pelias3
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 2:27 pm
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: How to safe the environment

Postby MOTHERofDRAGONS » Sat Nov 09, 2013 8:30 am

This may also help..

Not only save the planet, but prosper..

http://www.whydontyoutrythis.com/2013/

)0(

MOTHERofDRAGONS
Here to help, hear for help, and meet like minded energies

~MOTHERofDRAGONS~
User avatar
MOTHERofDRAGONS
 
Posts: 283
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 12:31 am
Location: South Texas
Gender: Female

Re: How to save the environment

Postby Val » Tue Feb 24, 2015 2:51 pm

Lots of food for thought here.
You are right in that everyone should try to help, even if it is only a small thing.
After reading this thread I really hope that we can all try and understand that we each have something to contribute.
We really are more powerful than we know!
User avatar
Val
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 1:47 pm
Gender: Female

Re: How to save the environment

Postby SL » Fri Aug 16, 2019 5:15 pm

Half a year ago there's been an hour-long conference with some scientists in the Czech news. Turned out that all big fish, and all small ones gradually too, are dying in the seas due to the plastic particles in their digestive tracts.

Living in a country with good water reserves I can survive some extra decades on the semi-poisoned food, but... don't know... with only dead fish in the ocean it all feels kinda wrong.

The scientist noted very correctly "Everyone harbours good intentions, but nobody is really doing anything".
An so the tale goes on and on...
User avatar
SL
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:21 am
Location: Istropolis
Gender: Male

Re: How to save the environment

Postby barker » Sat Aug 24, 2019 2:55 am

Water. Transmuting the trauma and instilling the resonance of purity, in water.
User avatar
barker
 
Posts: 754
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2017 7:56 pm
Location: The House of the Rising Sun
Gender: Intersex

Re: How to save the environment

Postby SL » Sat Aug 24, 2019 3:20 pm

Transmutation is a one big keyword I'd like to hear more often.

There's been an opinion that in the Ancient Egypt it was believed that the cleansing of emotions was pretty much the reason for us to visit this realm.

As for the dead fish in the sea, a reality. It makes me think of the saying "only dead fish swim with the stream" with material dead fish being merely a cause of the "as above, so below" law.
User avatar
SL
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:21 am
Location: Istropolis
Gender: Male

Re: How to save the environment

Postby barker » Sat Aug 24, 2019 3:58 pm

SL wrote:There's been an opinion that in the Ancient Egypt it was believed that the cleansing of emotions was pretty much the reason for us to visit this realm.

Yes!

Power, on this plane, should be a case of "I feel love," not "I am stubborn."
User avatar
barker
 
Posts: 754
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2017 7:56 pm
Location: The House of the Rising Sun
Gender: Intersex

Re: How to save the environment

Postby SL » Sat Aug 24, 2019 5:47 pm

A shift from denial into ecstasy.

People then could cease their competitions of "who can pee farther" and stop the over-production

and we could clean the oceans together...
User avatar
SL
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:21 am
Location: Istropolis
Gender: Male

Re: How to save the environment

Postby barker » Sun Aug 25, 2019 3:26 am

I am listening to Ministry of Sound right now, so I'll just share that the shift from denial into esctacy accepts all problems as "moot"... well to me. Music is a great accelator of consciousness. Have anybody seen the New Agey things up on YouTube? Something going right there.
User avatar
barker
 
Posts: 754
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2017 7:56 pm
Location: The House of the Rising Sun
Gender: Intersex

PreviousNext

Return to Environmentalism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests