CreateDebate


Debate Info

36
36
Yes No
Debate Score:72
Arguments:40
Total Votes:88
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (22)
 
 No (18)

Debate Creator

qrtrhrskid(40) pic



Gentically Modified Organisms (GMOs): Are They a Threat to the Environment?

The Enviropig™: http://www.uoguelph.ca/enviropig/ Greenpeace (HTML version of a PDF): http://64.233.169.132/search?q=cache:Jn6XuZ2ZqSwJ:www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/genetic-pollution-a-multiplyin.pdf+genetic+pollution+site:greenpeace.org&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us Greenpeace (the PDF): http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/genetic-pollution-a-multiplyin.pdf

Yes

Side Score: 36
VS.

No

Side Score: 36

I will open up with this movie: http://wideeyecinema.com/?p=105

Check it out, it's worth your time. As of right now GMO are, I believe, a great threat to the environment and more specifically to humanity. The biotech movement is huge right now. And it's very exciting to think that what these people are saying is true or has the potential to become true. Guess what other movement is gaining momentum....biotech ethics. Huge, controversial issues of the promises of biotech company's that create GMOs. (For your info, when i say biotech I'm talking about GMOs as well.) Many of them are profit driven and make the science work towards their benefit with their foresight on the dollar bills. Truth is that the FDA is in trouble and many other agencies are starting to realize that these companies that control and use these GMO's are taking advantage of the system for profits. The end result is GMOs being fed into our food systems without enough consensus from the science community. And that should be scary to all of you because think about what you put into your body. Are they a threat to the Environment, absolutely. We've seen new "super weeds" coming about because of gmo's. Some are linking it's effects on honey bee's: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr;=&id;=D9OLw3zOkR4C&oi;=fnd&pg;=PR11&dq;=gmo+and+honey+bee's&ots;=pYv19wVmgU&sig;=xks4VuQtHN5DHAAT38zq0s4-f_A#PPR8,M1 . Here is a nice thing Greenpeace put together 4 years ago: http://www.greenpeace.to/publications/GE_animal_feed_2005.pdf ... Here is in relationship to just one simple, re-evaluation, of what a "Monsanto aka GMO corp" pushed to be marked safe and after this you can see it is not...it's all in the abstract. http://www.springerlink.com/content/02648wu132m07804/

http://books.google.com/books?ll=en&lr;=&id;=mlVh3ysN4ZwC&oi;=fnd&pg;=PA175&dq;=gmo+harm+with+food&ots;=3M1FrnwX7P&sig;=IFxtiXx9e03VkUTgmYWrTPJr1a4

and if you want to cough up some money: http://www.springerlink.com/content/xw130452781923v3/

great little article to check out. I truly hope that you look at the evidence and carefully evaluate it. I've been doing this research for about a month now and I've seen a lot on both sides of the table. The one that's more convincing though is the present danger that GMOs pose. Threat, yes. Do your homework.

Side: yes
SoapyTurtle(22) Disputed
1 point

Honest question here. If we take away greed, do you think GMOs are a bad idea?Hypothetically, if a GMO is safe, do you think they are a bad idea? I recently watched a short clip (sorry I cannot reference it because I don't remember where it came from, it's 4AM here!) that showed a strand of rice that is not as susceptible to drowning do to a flooded plain. This rice would live even after being submerged for up to three weeks. I have heard people argue that this is bad but I don't get why! Thanks in advance.

Side: No
1 point

I remember that we had a report on this.

If I were to take agriculture as the platform for this debate then, definitely, there are a lot of negative effects caused by GMOs. The produce that the incorporation of these organisms to the plants causes greater quantity but an even greater depreciation of quality. There is also the question of what would be the resulting products of agri-crossbreeding between normal to modified ones.

Humans consume more, gain less and are at the risk of contracting diseases.

Support? A case similar to what I just explained happened to the Philippines not so many years ago. "BT corn" was the name if I remember correctly.

Side: yes

Yes, it was BT corn... and here is just one source: http://www.bic.searca.org/seminar_proceedings/yorobe-4Oct2005.pdf

Side: yes
0 points

Thanks for posting! Your job won't be left unnoticed and unappreciated. It helps me understand much in this sphere. I like the intelligible way you present information so that it became comprehensible, transparent and accessible for ordinary people as I am. Well done!

Side: yes
3 points

are you kidding? they're fuckin' awesome. hell, we won't even need environmentalism anymore if we can just create our own organisms. like a fuckin' biosphere.

that's why i love humanity, we always find a way to kick a threat's ass.

plus, a fish with testicles for eyes twood be epic... what dick head would stop us from doing that?

Side: No
qrtrhrskid(40) Disputed
1 point

But if your creatures can't live in the environment they live in...?

Side: yes
ThePyg(6738) Disputed
3 points

the whole point genetic manipulation is that we are looking for ways to MAKE IT WORK. and hell, we have... not every experiment is complete, but that's why the research continues.

Side: No
0 points

That was a real great argument....

Side: yes

Right now, our current population of over 6 billion people can only be sustained because of GMO's. if we were to get rid of them, then, very quickly, millions (if not billions) of people would starve to death.

As for the environment, natural mutations happen all the time...that's why evolution works. All we are doing is speeding up the natural course of things to help ourselves.

Side: No
qrtrhrskid(40) Disputed
1 point

It may be true that people are only surviving because of GMOs...I don't really know. I don't mean to be callous, but is there some kind of concern that those people might also be contributing to global warming? Being that global warming is considered a threat to the environment, does that mean that those people are a threat to the environment?

Natural mutations may "happen all the time," but how often are those mutations actually helpful to the organism in survival? There are frequently "mistakes," right?

In "speeding up the natural course of things," are we getting too involved with things we don't know enough about, thereby creating a bigger mess than we know how to clean up?

Side: yes
4 points

Right now, because of the way we are living, global warming is exacerbated by large populations because more people means more cars, more energy, more everything that contributes to the problem. Knowing this, we have two options:

1) Reduce the world's population- This would involve either limiting the number of children per family, or simply allowing billions to die by not feeding them. As you can see, both are extreme and unrealistic solutions that would cause bigger problems if either were implemented.

2) Work so that each individuals carbon footprint is smaller- Things like alternative and renewable energy are a great example of how you can lower the overall harm that humans are doing to the environment. Not only is it good for the environment, but also a very much more realistic than option 1. In general, we have to accept the reality that we have a high population and then work to see what the best course of action is from there, not worry about hypothetical situations that would involve massive amounts of death. Getting rid of GMOs would mean we have to come up with an alternative way to feed these people.

You are right that mutations that occur naturally are blind, and natural selection chooses only those that are beneficial in order to help those organisms survive. Modifications made by scientists are not blind at all though. Usually, they know what they're doing and understand genetics enough to determine how the changes they make will affect the organism. They also do testing on modified plants in order to ensure that there are no harmful side effects.

I agree that we should use a measure of caution when dealing with GMO's because, as you said we don't know everything and unforeseen issues could arise. However, this does not mean we should stop using them altogether. Their usefulness far outweighs the minor risks involved.

Side: No
1 point

Please refer to this reference to educate yourself :)

http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/files/GreenRevUP.pdf

Side: No
1 point

Who said that GMO's are the only way to sustain the over 6 billion population? Think about it. And if it's not healthy for people or causes negative mutations in our DNA, are you for that? Do you even have a clue what you're talking about? I mean really... "All we are doing is speeding up the natural course of things to help ourselves?" Natural mutations are different than man induced mutations my friend. Evolution is a natural occurrence. GMOs are man made. When you talk about DNA, we're just touching the iceberg and still don't have enough information to even be playing "god". You must accept the good with the bad and right now their isn't enough good evidence to say GMOs are #1 choice.

This isn't for free but maybe you can find it and read it, it should enlighten you: http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/ abs/10.1146/annurev.en.36.010191.002413

Side: yes
3 points

GMO's are currently necessary to sustain the world's population, because crops that have been modified to yield more food. Is this the only option? No. Is it currently the best option? I don't know of an alternative, and if you can think of one I'd be happy to hear it.

You claim that GMO's can cause negative mutations in your DNA. From this statement alone I can assume you don't know anything about genetics. Your DNA cannot be affected by what you eat (unless you're eating radioactive food).

As for genetics, it's not like the scientists randomly tweak some stuff and throw the plants out into the wild. They do tests, and we actually know a whole lot more about genetics then you imply. If your argument is that we need better regulation, then I see no harm in that. Make the scientists prove their is no harm before they release a certain GMO. You don't need to know everything about genes to conclude weather the plants will be safe or not. Instead you can observe the plants in tests in order to determine the potential risks.

As for your article, I was only able to read to abstract so I cannot comment fully, but from what I saw it seemed to be fairly unrelated. More importantly though, it was published in 1991. That means before the human genome project and all the other advances that have taken place in genetics. That means the article is obsolete, and irrelevant to the discussion.

Side: No
1 point

Here Here! :)

Committed the Slippery Slope Fallacy much. Lol! haha

Side: yes
1 point

If millions (if not billions) of people died, where's the bad part? Honestly, sometimes I think you people don't care about my morning commute ;)

Side: yes
2 points

First of all, look at all of the opportunities that Genetically Modified Organisms can give us as humans.

1. Plants that are resistant to Heat and Frost.

2. Plants that are resistant to Insects.

3. Plants that are resistant to the herbicide chemical Roundup

4. Cotton plants of any color, deleting the use of Dyes in fabric.

5. Cows able to feed on Sawdust and reducing the sawdust buildup in the air.

6. Sheep with colored wool, reducing the use of dyes in fabric.

You look at thet and tell me what you think about them harming anything.

Side: No
2 points

genetically modified organisms are not dangerous, they are developped in a a safe environment and they are designed in such a way so that the nervous pulses do not reverse.

So there is no chance of danger.

Side: No
1 point

Lol. I just read this and I thought it said "Genetically Modified Orgasms"! Bahahaha! I was totally like "wtf?!" XD I don't even know how that is like possible unless you have like a penis enlargement surgery but i don't think that deals with orgasms at all.

Side: Genetically Modified Orgasms
qrtrhrskid(40) Disputed
0 points

Sorry to disappoint. :)

Side: yes

For more GMO go here.

http://www.humandescent.com/

Side: No
1 point

No infact if a public threat arose in the eyes of said public..at least involving GMO...the government and albeit everything alive whould impact it as alien naturly...and if said GMO was manufactured by man...there will always be another level too alter...suroundings,air,food,water,habitat,...cognitive interation? All too well known by us and everythinng else in the present situation...i mean plants make you sick..stop doing it and lose a few people...giant mutant monster made from carbon monoxide and sulfur based genetics?....Drive me closer so i can hit it with my sword? nahhh put a bullet in it or mircowave it into a frozen jelly monster....theres too many ways of dealing with threats of biologicle existance...now an incorporeal blood sucking star gate...thatd be some fucked up...pretty shure id want too hit that with my sword.

Side: No
1 point

Yesterday the topic is about the way money has historically been and can be a spiritual tool for communal and societal transformation. It changes my point of view about money. It's really great that this radio show has lots of great topic to discuss. http://www.mapleleafpromotions.com/Eco-Friendly-Promotional-Products.html

Side: No
1 point

There are pros ans well as cons of GMO. There is a high risk of contamination with genetically modified crops. And GMOs can be misused also.

Side: No
1 point

This was really an interesting one and I like to say that keep posting and entertaining us. This was one of the nice site I have ever visit.

to read more article :- http://www.migbusiness.com/article.php?id=4637

Side: No
0 points

GMO foods have been scientifically proven to assist in the abolition of world hunger. GMO foods can be adapted to live in environments that no one could ever imagine them to be able to before. They are not harmful to the environment in any way; on the contrary, they illiminate the need for pesticides and other pollutants that do cause some serious harm to the environment.

Side: No
2 points

check this out my friend:

http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/files/GreenRevUP.pdf

and please read it. :)

Side: yes
1 point

I would like to see some sources that say they do not cause harm to the environment in any way.

Side: yes