Comments on: Ballot Initiatives 2012

By: Erasmus

Erasmus — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 23:00:25 +0000

You, Narration have been utterly kind, and I thank you. As for some of the other participants in this discussion ——- I can’t help thinking of the two things that Einstein thought were infinite (and he wasn’t sure of one of them).

By: Narration

Narration — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 19:27:27 +0000

Well, first it’s Nazis, so thinly veiled, and now it’s another well-verboten n_ word.

Along with mythic ‘Greenies’, none of which have addressed you here, though I wonder sometimes if the Kneeland prairie folks might tune in.

Erasmus, I’ve held my peace, and hoped mainly that your students would learn the better lessons of what’s gone on here.

Maybe you can learn some of them yourself, but that’s up to you, as all things for a person are. None of us humans are so simple about anything, but maybe a lot of the problem goes away if we can stop wanting to ‘win’ so badly.

Actually, I was taught a fine lesson about this in school debating, so there you go.

In fact I was winning, while new at the game, and had to learn how it was right even in a competition (or especially there) to pull back, let the other voices have their points, and put an evident value on being kind. It does open the discussion, and thus everyone wins, whoever gets a trophy.

And now, bowing out for the last time on this, adieu.

By: Erasmus

Erasmus — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 19:14:43 +0000

Very few of my intelligent friends engage in internet debate, and when I recount some of the exchanges I’ve had, they laugh at my willingness to subject myself to the comments that rain down from cyberspace. I’ve been called a “corporate duck” — the equivalent, in 2012, of being a “nigger-lover.” I’m advocating corporate secrecy when I call for full disclosure on labels, when I oppose the selective labeling that 37 calls for. How does one respond to such hokum? Does quoting ‘The Economist’ serve any purpose? Does anyone understand how this excerpt from a recent article applies to 37? —– “Those who turn their noses up at ‘genetically modified’ food seldom seem to consider that all crops are genetically modified. The difference between a wild plant and one that serves some human end is a lot of selective breeding – the picking and combining over the years of mutations that result in bigger seeds, tastier fruit or whatever else is required./// Nor, these days, are those mutations there by accident. They are, rather, deliberately induced, usually by exposing seeds to radiation….” And the article goes on to describe the “particle accelerator” and the “heavy ions” being used, producing “between 10 and 100 times as many mutations as the traditional method….” (May 5, 2012 issue). —- Twice, over the last few days, I’ve pointed out to friends over the phone this aspect of plant breeding, and I’ve stated that the proposed measure in CA would not require the labeling of what The Economist calls “Nuclear-powered crops.” My friends understood the point I was making, and they agreed that a “label” that failed to tell consumers about this common method of plant breeding was fatally flawed. —- And I”M being accused of promoting corporate secrecy when I oppose a label law that doesn’t inform voters of the origin of many of their edibles?! ——————————————————————Perhaps my internet-avoiding friends are wiser than I am.

By: Narration

Narration — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 19:07:56 +0000

And with wit, Eric, with wit

Worth as much as the science, just reading some on another posting, and anyway personally am not sure I could go back to discussing the science where it actually is, not directly anyway. You learn…

By: Eric Kirk

Eric Kirk — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 18:03:37 +0000

I knoe one thing. I’m completely bored with the prop 37 debate. I look forward to more research and more discussion of the science after the election. Let the consumers know. Then let’s discuss it further.

By: Narration

Narration — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 18:00:21 +0000

“The one thing that I am most curious about…. Did anyone in this miasma of rhetoric change their minds???”

Was wondering just the same thing, Ernie.

And bolithio, bonanza

By: bolithio

bolithio — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 15:41:24 +0000

Not me Ernie. I pretty much had my mind made up on this one from the start though.

Erasmus, you are horse with blinders on this issue. Its not about hybridization, selective breeding, or the intrinsic safety of consuming GMOs. We are talking about trangenic crops and where they exist in the food supply. The argument about centuries of genetic modification of plants is totally bunk in this case. Its like comparing producing a child via sex with a test tube baby. Both alter genes, but the former is clearly the ‘natural’ method. The test tube baby requires a ton of expensive tech to keep it alive and viable, as GMOs rely on heavy herbicide and pesticide treatments, and in some cases more water than conventional crops.

I want to make a choice that promotes sustainable agriculture. Currently, the decision to use GMO in America is not pointed at that goal. Its pointed at money, and at the expense of the environment. This bill doesn’t address that issue, but it allows me to exercise my right to have purchasing power – which I will use to buy products that dont really on intensive chemical use when I can.

You seem to be advocating for cooperate secrecy. As if we can trust the Soylent Corporation.

By: Ernie Branscomb

Ernie Branscomb — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 03:07:17 +0000

I’ve heard some pretty good arguments in favor of prop 37, and some good arguments against 37. I’m still voting for labels. And, yeah, I’ll still eat GMO corn and soy, and other stuff. All I want is labels.

If they can label “Free Range Chicken”,”Grass Fed Beef”, Hormone Free Milk”. and so on, they can label GMOs. Who knows the corporate ducks sidelining as schoolteachers might like to buy it because it is GMO and somehow better.

The one thing that I am most curious about…. Did anyone in this miasma of rhetoric change their minds???

By: Erasmus

Erasmus — Sun, 21 Oct 2012 17:09:01 +0000

According to the research I did yesterday on prop 37, there is a divide between environmentalists and scientists on this (with some overlap, of course). My years in CA taught me to trust scientists more than enviros, who often descend to fear-mongering. You have reached the opposite conclusion. And if you truly think that prop 37 will give an impartial understanding of how a food product was created, you are being deceived. If my lengthy series of comments haven’t convinced you, if you refuse to read what our most eminent scientists (e.g. James Watson, Nina Fedoroff, Richard Dawkins) say on the subject, if you ignore what UC-Davis scientists are doing in this field …… then —– bask in your self-righteousness and pretend that I’m wearing a powdered wig.

By: Mitch

Mitch — Sun, 21 Oct 2012 17:01:42 +0000

Erasmus,

“How do you think CA voters would decide this: should crops bred through nuclear-energy induced radiation be labeled?”

They’d probably vote with me and decide to label such crops. Then, the public would be able to decide if it really mattered to them. I’d like to think that after an extensive period of public explanation, most of the public would decide “no problem,” as I believe it did with the “radiation” threat alleged against smart meters. But if much of the public were to decide “big problem,” then I guess we wouldn’t have as many items for sale in California supermarkets. Oh well. Vox populi and all that.