Jump to content

strawberries with fish genes in them!


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

ya, i would love to live in a place where i could grown my own food. that would be awesome.

 

i think jonathan is gonna do that once he moves to ireland in a few years. maybe i will secretly move in next door to him and raid his garden daily when he is away at work.

 

(hope he doesnt see this thread - otherwise, my plan is a bust ).

 

Hhhhmmmm, I think the harvest may fail if you're cultivating it Nat........

 

Secretly live next door to Jonathan??? Will you be the invisible next door neighbour or something. You're such a drama queen that you wouldn't be able to remain inconspicious for too long........

 

You might have a problem raiding it daily in the winter as well..........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

With science on the other hand, the art of bulls**t doesnt work - there is .

 

Uhmm, sorry to disagree but yes it does.

 

Look at the registration of official think tanks, in Washington D.C. Science think tanks are becoming big business solely for the act of creating ambiguity and incorrect persuasion, in public policy.

 

For example, a think tank will find some minute science tangent that shows that something like petroleum gasses do not harm the environment, instead helping the environment. They will also show that there is no global increase in temperature and that there is no connection between CO2 buildup and heavy industry, when ice sample in the artic completely show that there is. ChevronTexaco will learn about this think tank's report and contribute million of dollars so the think tank can get publicity for the report. Legislators, who are heavily lobbied by CheveronTexaco will get the report feed actually into formulating bills.

 

This practice is growing and think tank registration is exploding, we people just finding weird scientific quarks that help Corporate America image, knowing they will get rewarded for doing so.

 

 

I think CG was talking about science vs. law exams. On a physics exam, if you don't know how to work the problem there is no way around it. On a law exam, if you don't know the material you can b.s. your way around it if you are good at that kind of thing.

 

sorry for this long post but I have 15 minutes to kill in between classes and this topic we are discussing about science versus law is interesting to me.

 

yes Will that is the context I had in mind. For example, on a chemistry exam - there is only one correct answer, like carbon mixed with oxygen is carbon dioxide ( is that even chemistry? and if so, is what I just said correct? have no clue). Anyway, getting back to a language which I do understand, law is different. On a law exam, whether Smith v. Smith should be applied to resolve the legal issue is arguable. And, even if it is "obvious" that smith v. smith should apply, you can still try to manipulate what the legal principle emerging from Smith v. Smith actually is - i.e. whether Smith v. Smith should be construed narrowly such that it does NOT cover your client's situation, or whether it should be construed broadly such that it DOES cover your client's situation. And even still, if the outcomes of all that are not what you want, you can construct an argument that Smith v. Smith and the emerging legal principle should not apply on grounds of public policy, or that the case was wrongly decided, or that an obiter part of a judgment should be followed, etc.

 

One "black and white" rule in law is that lower courts of a particular jurisdiction are bound by the decisions of higher courts of that same jurisdiction. So a trial judge would be bound by an higher court's decision whether he agrees with it or not. So you would think that this would be one instance of a clear cut case, a black and white legal answer. But for reasons outlined above, it is not. One side will argue before the court that "the appeal court has ruled on this very issue and so you are bound to follow that decision." The other side will argue that no, that case - the seemingly "correct, black and white answer" of what the law is - is somehow distinguishable.

 

So my point is that even when a legal case appears clear cut and there DOES appear to be a "right" answer to the legal problem, there is always room for argument, and that is of course one of the key "lawyering" skills. But not so with science - for example, I cannot try and make an argument on my exam as to why CO2 was wrongly constructed, should have actually been CO3, or that even though we think CO2 is carbin dioxide it really is carbon monoxide! There is only one correct answer, and if you dont select it on an exam, you are wrong, plain and simple. no way around not knowing other than guessing at it.

 

That is what I meant 9nines. But yes, I agree with what you said. Scientific processes are far from value-neutral and that "black and white" science is often manipulated and interpretted in ways that lead to differing interpretive results.

 

But I still dont get that though. For example, with global warming. Is there not a "right" or "wrong", black and white answer to the question of global warming and which gasses cause it? Why is this debatable? How can it be debatable? I dont get it. Wouldnt that be like saying that it is debatable that hydrogen plus oxygen = water?

 

So i dont get why/how some environmental/scientific issues are debatable? is it because they cant be confirmed conclusively? if not, then why not (like the global warming example).

 

Speaking of global warming, I must say that if anybody doubts it, come to Toronto, and see people walking around in shorts in January. if that aint global warming in effect, then I dont know what is!

 

Looking forward to some science lessons in this thread!

Edited by compassionategirl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also hated geography.

 

That's a surprise..........

 

"Matt, is Birmingham in London?", "Matt, is Manchester in London?"

 

 

 

Matt, I have also been meaning to ask you whether Wales is in London.

 

P.S. to all. I didnt mean to suggest that law is easy, or that you can pass a law exam without being familiar with the material. Of course you need to know the range of possible legal principles to answer a question. But my point was simply that there is no "RIGHT" answer you must hit. As long as you can construct a principled argument as to why it should be case ABC and not XYZ that should apply, then you're good to go!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should check out this documentary it really good http://www.wholesomegoodness.org/ . In it they talk about mixing the fish genes with tomatoes. I thought that they were saying it like a hypothetical thing but my boyfriend thought they were saying it had already been done. I tried looking on the internet to find out but everything I found said that it hadn’t really happened or it had been tried but didn’t protect the crops from freezing.

 

yes I heard about the tomatoes thing madcat and all I can say is

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this topic we are discussing about science versus law is interesting to me.

 

It's interesting to me too. Fall 05 I was taking 5 law classes. Spring 06 I'm taking 6 math/science/engineering classes. It's like night and day. CG I'm glad there are people like you out there who can handle the flood of legal education and then go out and do something constructive in the world with it. Legal education nearly made my brain explode. It made me feel like the synapses up there were turning into mush.

 

But I still dont get that though. For example, with global warming. Is there not a "right" or "wrong", black and white answer to the question of global warming and which gasses cause it? Why is this debatable? How can it be debatable? I dont get it. Wouldnt that be like saying that it is debatable that hydrogen plus oxygen = water?

 

Some things are well accepted about it. The Earth's average temperature has risen slightly over a half degree Celsius over the past 100 years. Humans have had an impact on this. Some activities that humans do make the Earth warmer, and some activities we do make the Earth cooler. But the Earth also goes through colder and warmer periods on its own, without human intervention. Mainly what people debate is how much of an effect human activity has had on the rise in temperature vs. how much the temperature would be changing on its own regardless of human intervention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some things are well accepted about it. The Earth's average temperature has risen slightly over a half degree Celsius over the past 100 years. Humans have had an impact on this. Some activities that humans do make the Earth warmer, and some activities we do make the Earth cooler. But the Earth also goes through colder and warmer periods on its own, without human intervention. Mainly what people debate is how much of an effect human activity has had on the rise in temperature vs. how much the temperature would be changing on its own regardless of human intervention.

 

AH ha, I see. So there is a correct answer as to whether or not, say, carbon dioxide and methane contribute to global warming - and that anwer is a yes, and there is no other correct answer. But what is debatable is the extent to which human activity has caused global warming.

 

yes?

 

as far as the other comment, , ya I think the same thing about science. I think "thank GOD there are people out there that actually get this stuff and are good at it cuz it aint gonna be me!"

 

I felt so dumb in science class! I actually thought I had a learning disability in grades 9 and 10 because I would kick ass in most other subjects except science (and to a lesser extent, geography).

 

So two important things to know about CG:

 

An unscientific mind and a body that hates back workouts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I was being sarcastic. Sorry. I suppose you're right Will. There are plenty of oddballs/aspergers, etc. I shouldn't say you have to be a good public speaker, but it does help. And I'm afraid that sometimes it seems to help a lot.

 

CG, I think the big thing that is argued is how they are measuring the temperature to determine whether or not global warming is actually occurring. There is an argument for example that urban cities give off extra heat and are affecting the measurements. But I think that one's been discounted. But there's stuff along those lines.

 

Also 99% of scientists who have the relevant education do believe in global warming. The MSM in it's quest for objectivity gives the two sides equal time plus the government is on the side of no global warming. Recently there was some news about how they were trying to hush up NASA scientists on the issue for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the government is on the side of no global warming. Recently there was some news about how they were trying to hush up NASA scientists on the issue for example.

 

 

Why does this NOT surprise me?

 

Why is it so difficult for the government to understand that human survival is inextricably linked with planetary health, and we can only abuse the earth for so long before we self-destruct?

 

Or is it that they all do know this self-evident little detail but they just dont care because they will all be dead in 100 years? But of course they cant say that they dont care so their strategy is instead to deny global warming, or convince/delude themselves that it really isnt happening?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

AH ha, I see. So there is a correct answer as to whether or not, say, carbon dioxide and methane contribute to global warming - and that anwer is a yes, and there is no other correct answer. But what is debatable is the extent to which human activity has caused global warming.

 

 

CO2 and methane do contribute a lot. Scientists debate how much "a lot" is exactly though. When fossil fuels are burned you get carbon dioxide, but you also get a bunch of dirty particles up in the air which block sunlight (aka global dimming) which in turn makes the Earth cooler. This can mask the heat trapping effect of greenhouse gasses, so their exact effect is harder to calculate. Also, when you have a warmer Earth you have more water evaporation, which means more rain, which means faster rock weathering. Faster weathering means carbon gets pressed into the Earth more quickly (and hence isn't in the atmosphere). Many scientists also estimate that somewhere between 1/8 and 1/3 of the fluctuactions in Earth's average surface temperature are due to inconsistencies in solar radiation. All the factors to be considered just go on and on. But if you want the short story: The scientific consensus is that Earth's average surface temperature will probably rise another 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius in the next hundred years, and that most of that rise will be caused by human activity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I shouldn't say you have to be a good public speaker, but it does help.

 

I don't doubt that it helps. The guy in charge of the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory when I worked at FSU seemed to have a natural talent for talking to the press. And I imagine that's the reason why he was the "guy in charge" rather than just a "guy working on the project." On the other hand Stephen Hawking may be the most famous living scientist and he is physically incapable of talking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science is constantly being updated all the time and sometimes there is no right or wrong answer. Some science is undoubtedly fact, whilst other science is still debatable.

 

The role of science with regard to the law is interesting. Precisely because there is often no right or wrong scientific answer - i.e that something is open to interpretation - means the prosecution will have a range of scientists/researchers/forensologists who are experts have published on something that will support the prosecution case. The defence will in turn have scientific experts who will will dispute this and argue against.

 

There was only a case last week here in the UK of a man found not guilty of a murder on a second retrial. He had tiny particles of blood on his clothing - the prosection had scientists which argued that meant he had been the killer, whilst the defence had experts who argued that the particles could of got into the clothing when the victim exhaled air whilst he was tending to her:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/4661302.stm

 

Prosecution and defence will produce experts who will argue over the validity of DNA evidence:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4524084.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4480358.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4498300.stm

 

There has been several high profile cases in the UK recently over 'shaken-baby syndrome'. Was the baby attacked or did it die of natural causes? Scientists will present their different viewpoints to a jury and judge. Is the likelihood 73,000,000-1 or 200-1??:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4639967.stm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

AH ha, I see. So there is a correct answer as to whether or not, say, carbon dioxide and methane contribute to global warming - and that anwer is a yes, and there is no other correct answer. But what is debatable is the extent to which human activity has caused global warming.

 

 

CO2 and methane do contribute a lot. Scientists debate how much "a lot" is exactly though. When fossil fuels are burned you get carbon dioxide, but you also get a bunch of dirty particles up in the air which block sunlight (aka global dimming) which in turn makes the Earth cooler. This can mask the heat trapping effect of greenhouse gasses, so their exact effect is harder to calculate. Also, when you have a warmer Earth you have more water evaporation, which means more rain, which means faster rock weathering. Faster weathering means carbon gets pressed into the Earth more quickly (and hence isn't in the atmosphere). Many scientists also estimate that somewhere between 1/8 and 1/3 of the fluctuactions in Earth's average surface temperature are due to inconsistencies in solar radiation. All the factors to be considered just go on and on. But if you want the short story: The scientific consensus is that Earth's average surface temperature will probably rise another 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius in the next hundred years, and that most of that rise will be caused by human activity.

 

When I read your post, about half way through, my eyes started glazing over and I had very scary flashbacks of my science days in high school where it all sounded like another language and I just didnt get it.

 

 

I will recover from this trauma quickly and attempt to reread the science above described. In my opinion, all of you who actually have a penchant for this stuff are so smart in my opinion! Respect!

Edited by compassionategirl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science is constantly being updated all the time and sometimes there is no right or wrong answer. Some science is undoubtedly fact, whilst other science is still debatable.

 

The role of science with regard to the law is interesting. Precisely because there is often no right or wrong scientific answer - i.e that something is open to interpretation - means the prosecution will have a range of scientists/researchers/forensologists who are experts have published on something that will support the prosecution case. The defence will in turn have scientific experts who will will dispute this and argue against.

 

There was only a case last week here in the UK of a man found not guilty of a murder on a second retrial. He had tiny particles of blood on his clothing - the prosection had scientists which argued that meant he had been the killer, whilst the defence had experts who argued that the particles could of got into the clothing when the victim exhaled air whilst he was tending to her:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/4661302.stm

 

Prosecution and defence will produce experts who will argue over the validity of DNA evidence:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4524084.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4480358.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4498300.stm

 

There has been several high profile cases in the UK recently over 'shaken-baby syndrome'. Was the baby attacked or did it die of natural causes? Scientists will present their different viewpoints to a jury and judge. Is the likelihood 73,000,000-1 or 200-1??:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4639967.stm

 

Excellent points Matt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I took a fish and a strawberry, booked them a hotel room (with a jacuzzi of course), put on some Barry White, bought a bottle of 2004 Ponzi Tavola Pinot Noir (it’s a very good year), and then left to let the magic happen. Because after all, fishberries are what nature intended.

 

 

Ok ok… I stole it from the link above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I read your post, about half way through, my eyes started glazing over ... and I just didnt get it.

 

 

This part of it is all you really need to know:

 

"The scientific consensus is that Earth's average surface temperature will probably rise another 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius in the next hundred years, and most of that rise will be caused by human activity."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe there are alot of factors regarding why GMO's are bad, but the main point that hasn't been addressed here is that they are using things that people are potentially allergic to. Such as fish, tobacco, and other allergens. In addition, when the do go to seed, it does spread to other farms and these if tested for the genes become no longer natural foods, but also GMO and they no longer can use labels stating they are not genetically modified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, well that's because the law is 100% arbitrary like the rules of any made up game and science is based on reality. Of course the interpretation of the science and our understanding of it is variable and arguable. There are different ways of looking at the same data and applying a theory to it's meaning and there are many things that are not provable so they are based entirely on theory and logic. Such as string theory etc. And even though there are facts in science and a right or wrong answer to it, there are also a lot of variables and a lot sometimes in the way of accurately finding that right answer. That's why studies and tests as fallible as they already are, often have many other studies that resulted in opposite or varying conclusions, making the whole question inconclusive. The broader and more variable the question, the more so. The narrower and more specific and micro the question the more consistent the answer is usually.

 

Regarding GMO's you should really watch the documentary, The Future of Food. That will enlighten anyone on the dangers and insidiousness of these greedy corporations and mad scientists behind this. It is really dangerous and can and will have devastating domino effect consequences. They don't even know what they are messing with, the balance of nature. They can cross species and cause a chain reaction of sterility in these seeds. They are also buying up all the large seed banks.

 

It is of my opinion that the reason they are going after the small farmers who fall victim to the contamination of their seeds ruining their farms and crops, is not because they get anything out of it directly. It is beyond logic, and just goes to show how backwards and arbitrary the law really is. Some big corps. can pay lobbyists to corruptly change or make up a law in their favor to benefit from it, and no matter how much it doesn't make sense or contradicts the principles of other laws, it's enforced because the laws are meant to protect the elite and powerful. So they go in and now create a law which allows the offender to sue and go after their victim, all while being immune to being liable themselves for what they caused.

 

Anyways, my point is that I think they used their power to create this law both to protect themselves from the liability of the contamination they know their GM seeds are going to do everywhere. And secondly they are doing it to shut up their victims. If these small farmers know that all the other farmers who fall victim to the GM contamination and it ruined their crops and fields, and when they spoke out it caused them to become bankrupt and lose everything, well maybe they will just keep their mouth shut and not tell anyone eh? So, it's basically a threat to shut everyone up.

If a group of guys go around raping women and every woman who was raped and spoke out about it they killed, well the next victims will learn not to speak out about it won't they? It's Mafia tactic style time. Well, the gov. and these nasty corps. are no different since basically these corps. have infiltrated the government and go back and forth between gov. positions and positions in these companies like a revolving door. They've over taken it from the inside. That's how it's done.

 

And maybe one of the worst social consequences going along with this is that they are allowing people and companies to patent life now. Used to be against the law, now it's ok and anything goes. Another example of how arbitrary the law is. Just whatever meets their needs of the moment to control us and gain more power for themselves. That's all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some places in Europe have disallowed GMO's. I just wish the US would follow in those footsteps. My aunt in Ireland came to visit and she asked to shop where there were only non GM foods...I laughed and told her the best she could do was organic. She was shocked and amazed. Don't know why. Then she asked if we had a farmers market. Even more laughable here in the desert! I'm sure you all know that just because it's labeled organic it's not necessarily non GM. I'm disapointed in our laws...it's just a shame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some places in Europe have disallowed GMO's. I just wish the US would follow in those footsteps.

 

Keep on wishing. The US is the one PUSHING for GMO's around the whole world and using their power to bully other countries into accepting them. They are fighting and have been fighting the European ban on them and trying to get it to where they can Force them to allow and accept the GMO foods and seeds. The US does everything by manipulation and force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep on wishing. The US is the one PUSHING for GMO's around the whole world and using their power to bully other countries into accepting them. They are fighting and have been fighting the European ban on them and trying to get it to where they can Force them to allow and accept the GMO foods and seeds. The US does everything by manipulation and force.

 

When the French refused to buy American beef (because of the hormones and antibiotics, etc.) the WTO forced them to pay a fine to the US to make up for lost profits. WTF?

 

I thought WTO = "WORLD trade organization," not "let's do whatever the US wants organization"!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share




×
×
  • Create New...