Okay, coffee ingested.
Goooood Day #qoto and #mastodon !
I hope you'll have a wonderful day today. It's another lovely day in Tel Aviv- the heat is finally starting to bleed off and it's super comfortable outside today. I'm feeling good, always a bonus.
So, #RandomQuestion for you find peoples today: Genetically Modified Organisms- specifically crop plants: What's your opinion?
🇳🇱
@Surasanji I am a huge GMO supporter for all the good it has brought to starving people. The only legitimate risk I can see is if those species escape to the wild and out-compete native species. With that said for crops it is a non-issue since they rarely grow well in the wild.
I more or less agree... I mean, GMOs could be a pretty good tool, but they have often been used in combination with fertilizers and pesticides which are harming the soil and making it a desert quite quick. Other issues seen have been that GMOs have been heavily implemented, leading to the loss of biodiversity, and at the same time a more frail crop.
But this are problems with the implementation, not with gmos themselves, which so far haven't shown a single health or ecological hazard, AFAIK. So i agree, just wanted to toss couple of consideration more =)
glyphosate is not related to GMOs by themselves, I think this is getting a bit out of track.
As I stated before, main problem for me is soil degradation and loss. There is no GMO right now that helps the soil, and that means that is not sustainable or regenerative in any way, so I'd look elsewhere for solution, ATM. But excluding as a matter of principle a technology is something I wouldn't do.
Where do you see technological salvation in this exchange of ideas?
That is why I said "by themselves". It is a matter of a certain kind of GMOs right now present, it's not how GMO has to be, it's just an example of it.
There are reports of GMOs giving better crops, there are reports of GMOs giving worse crops. It highly depends on what the person doing the report considers "good", what data s/he has and how it is evaluated. There is no consensus on what is the "right" way of doing it, just saying "gmo is better" or "worse" doesn't say much.
Why toss the workerless farms in the conversation? Isn't it difficult and big enough as it is? =D
The solution to these difficult problems may be orthogonal to the direction we're headed in now.
Sorry, I don't understand what you just wrote... what do you mean by "decouple time"? And by "orthogonal to the direction"?
I'm not native English, or I just may be too ignorant on the matter to understand you =)
x′1=x1+2x2
x′2=3x1+2x2
We call this kind of system a coupled system since knowledge of x2
is required in order to find x1 and likewise knowledge of x1 is required to find x2. We will worry about how to go about solving these later. http://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/Classes/DE/SystemsDE.aspx
Before calling myself out of the conversation, I'd like to at least understand the equation.
x'1 means x'*1? x1 is x*1? Why the *1?
CWed for Length. IT got a littlte long.
@js290 @freemo @arteteco In Math Orthogonal means right angles.
If you mean statistically independent that is a different kind of Orthogonal.
I do not believe that GMOs are being considered independent of nature. It is a part of the nature we create. According to this study, GM crops tend to use less herbicides and have higher yields, one would assume this would result in a less extreme environmental impact: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629
"On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries."
CWed for Length. IT got a littlte long.
Thanks, I know what orthogonal means, I just don't understand it in the context.
I'd say couple of things here though. As always, I may be wrong, forgive me in that case, not looking for a fight and I am quite tired =D
This study is comparing, as I understand, the same crops with and without GMOs. Now, that is leading to a false double road, as we have many methods of cultivation. I have yet to see a comparison between an holistic managed grazing farm with silvopasture and a GMO corn crop. That I think would say far more.
The soil degradation is not taken into account, because in that case a few harvests won't do, you'll have to project it into 30, 50 years and see how much carbon you are going to need to produce the fertilizer, for new resistant weeds and how much more water, since the soil will likely be unable to keep it properly.
Nature is pretty, pretty complex. I wouldn't trust a statistical model that affirms it can predict with satisfying accuracy what happens when something so new as a GMO is injected in an ecosystem... let's be humble about this, we are still trying to understand the basics of how everything works.
@Surasanji Gonna have to agree with you here. While I respect his opinion, I do not respect resorting to insults to express it.
CWed for Length. IT got a littlte long.
@arteteco @js290 @freemo I do not know, for certain, the very long term effects of GMOs- but we are 25 years in now, and these studies are hitting that point.
Is there a better way? Yeah, probably. Is it viable to feed the population? Maybe.
I'm pretty in the school of GMOs are mostly good.