Only 9% of Scientists Self-Identify as Conservative

[scott]

...and even fewer (6%) as Republican.

http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/

And tons of other great data on scientists and their beliefs, if you flip through the sections.

Some of my favorites:

*Scientists are third most well-respected profession in US behind military and teachers, even when people's beliefs conflict with scientists'
*87% of scientists believe humans evolved due to natural processes, 8% believe humans evolved guided by a supreme being. Only 3% don't believe in evolution
*84% of scientists think the earth is getting warmed due to human influence, 10% believe it is warming due to natural causes, only 4% believe it's not warming. 70% say Global Warming is a serious problem
*33% believe in God, 18% in some other higher power
*92% of scientist cite Economic Issues or the Job Market as a major hurdle to a research career
*Only 4% of scientists list a financially reward career as a very important factor in choosing their career

[Wild Cobra]

How many climastrologists are left of center?

[DarrinS]

old

[boutons_deux]

scientists are educated and informed, right-wingers, esp "Christians" and red necks aren't

[pgardn]

scientists are educated and informed, right-wingers, esp "Christians" and red necks aren't

So when they try to explain to you that some GM organisms could have great benefit you consider the scientists corporate shills? Those are the republican scientists of course...

[boutons_deux]

So when they try to explain to you that some GM organisms could have great benefit you consider the scientists corporate shills? Those are the republican scientists of course...

scientists paid by corporations do the corporations bidding, are shills.

GM is a racket for Monsanto, Syngnenta, Bayer, etc to control all of agriculture and the supply of x-icides.

[pgardn]

scientists paid by corporations do the corporations bidding, are shills.

GM is a racket for Monsanto, Syngnenta, Bayer, etc to control all of agriculture and the supply of x-icides.

You stated all GM crops were bad. I asked you to look at the interesting history of Golden Rice as one example.
So what do you say now? Same thing...

[boutons_deux]

You stated all GM crops were bad. I asked you to look at the interesting history of Golden Rice as one example.
So what do you say now? Same thing...

Golden Rice was not a for-profit product. and it still needs traditional plant breeding

[pgardn]

Golden Rice was not a for-profit product. and it still needs traditional plant breeding

It still needs traditional breeding, even though it basically has the beta carotene gene inserted. So it's ok as long as some traditional breeding is involved? Sorry boots, it's a GM crop and all GM crops are bad, you sad so.

Again the problem is people hear GM and it's scary. Put corporations in the mix, because it has fantastic possibilities, and it's now (bad)^2

[boutons_deux]

It still needs traditional breeding, even though it basically has the beta carotene gene inserted. So it's ok as long as some traditional breeding is involved? Sorry boots, it's a GM crop and all GM crops are bad, you sad so.

Again the problem is people hear GM and it's scary. Put corporations in the mix, because it has fantastic possibilities, and it's now (bad)^2

corporations aren't doing GM to benefit humans or the planet, but only for profits, and if people, water, air, land get fucked up, so what? profit is profit, and everything else be damned.

[Wild Cobra]

corporations aren't doing GM to benefit humans or the planet, but only for profits, and if people, water, air, land get fucked up, so what? profit is profit, and everything else be damned.
Nobody's forcing the farmers to buy it, so they must see a benefit to paying the money.

[SnakeBoy]

*87% of scientists believe humans evolved due to natural processes, 8% believe humans evolved guided by a supreme being. Only 3% don't believe in evolution


*33% believe in God, 18% in some other higher power

:huh

[SnakeBoy]

Poll: Nearly half of meteorologists don’t believe in man-made global warming

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/26/poll-nearly-half-of-meteorologists-dont-believe-in-man-made-global-warming/#ixzz2uHWv3vKA

[SnakeBoy]

Title should be Only 9% of AAAS members Self-Identify as Conservative.

Judging from wiki this isn't much of a surprise...


Advocacy[edit]

Since 2006, AAAS's CEO Dr. Alan I. Leshner has published many op-ed articles discussing how many people integrate science and religion in their lives. He has opposed the insertion of non-scientific content, such as creationism or intelligent design, into the scientific curriculum of schools.[5][6][7][8]

In December 2006, the AAAS adopted an official statement on climate change in which they stated, "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society....The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now."[9]

In February 2007, the AAAS used satellite images to document human rights abuses in Burma.[10] The next year, AAAS launched the Center for Science Diplomacy to advance both science and the broader relationships among partner countries, by promoting science diplomacy and international scientific cooperation.[11]

In his 2008 article [12] about the Experimental Lakes Area, in Kenora District Ontario, Canada, published in Science, Erik Stokstad described the ELA's "extreme science."[12] The ELA project manipulated whole lake ecosystem's for forty years, collecting long-term records for climatology, hydrology, and limnology based on whole-ecosystem experiments that address key issues in water management.[13] The ELA influenced public policy in water management in Canada, the USA and Europe,[12] but by 2008 was attempting to convince federal funders to focus on climate change research. The decision to abruptly defund the ELA was widely condemned by the Canadian and international scientific community.[12][14] The scientific journal Nature in an article entitled, The Death of Evidence, described the decision as "disturbing", and said that it "is hard to believe that finance is the true reason" for the closure.[15]

In 2012, AAAS published op-eds,[16] held events on Capitol Hill and released analyses of the U.S. federal research[17] and development budget to warn that a budget sequestration would pose risks to scientific progress.[18]

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Poll: Nearly half of meteorologists don’t believe in man-made global warming

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/26/poll-nearly-half-of-meteorologists-dont-believe-in-man-made-global-warming/#ixzz2uHWv3vKA

Nice cherry picked Koch spam regurgitation.

The study had several conclusions.

1) The more educated the meteorologist was and the more he participated in the peer reviewed process the more likely he was to accept the consensus.
2) Scientific views were coopted by political allegiance.
3) Meteorologists skeptics were much more likely to claim there was no consensus and that there was a large degree of conflict within the scientific community.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1

Further the survey was self selected and had only 25% of the meteorologists participate.


In conclusion, given the potential for human society and the earth’s ecosystems to be harmed by climate change, it is imperative that members of the scientific community and the professional societies that represent them take all reasonable measures to ensure that what is known about the risks, and about options for managing those risks, are shared with decision makers who should be considering that information. While the difficulties of doing this are widely acknowledged (Pidgeon & Fischhoff, 2011), the problem is often attributed to the difficult dynamics associated with external communication, i.e., sharing complex scientific information with the broader community. Our research suggests that there are also important dynamics associated with internal communication, i.e., sharing information and coming to consensus within the scientific community.

[MannyIsGod]

AMS members need not have a degree in an appropriate scientific field, FYI.

[MannyIsGod]

Also, FYI, the authors of the study speak out after having it mischaracterized.

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/11/28/taylor-distorts-poll-of-meteorologists-on-climate-change/

Par for the course.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Also, FYI, the authors of the study speak out after having it mischaracterized.

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/11/28/taylor-distorts-poll-of-meteorologists-on-climate-change/

Par for the course.


Authors of a new study of meteorologists' views of global warming set the record straight when Forbes op-ed writer James Taylor, consistent with his long history of denial and obfuscation on climate change, selectively reports the results of a poll of members of the American Meteorological Society. Taylor claims the study shows weak support for the human contribution to global warming. In fact, as authors of the study point out below, the survey found that more than 90 percent of those respondents who are more engaged in research and publishing on climate science acknowledge the human contribution to warming.

[SnakeBoy]

Nice cherry picked Koch spam regurgitation.



It's a poll...it is important.


Further the survey was self selected and had only 25% of the meteorologists participate.

:lol So was Scott's poll...

http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy/528-101.gif

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's a poll...it is important.



:lol So was Scott's poll...

http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy/528-101.gif

So show me the data in scott's study that contradicts our conclusion. We have shown you how your cherry picking was not representative of the study you pulled from. I don't think you understand what cherry picking means.

[scott]

It's a poll...it is important.



:lol So was Scott's poll...

http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy/528-101.gif

I didn't conduct a poll

[scott]

:huh

You're mind is blown by the possibility that someone can believe in God and still accept evolution?

[SnakeBoy]

You're mind is blown by the possibility that someone can believe in God and still accept evolution?

No, that's what I believe. I don't think it's possible to believe in God and believe God had no role in evolution.

Do those numbers seem consistent to you?

[z0sa]

I'm a theist who believes in evolution. Unfortunately, this is a rather difficult position to describe.

[SnakeBoy]

*Only 4% of scientists list a financially reward career as a very important factor in choosing their career

96% of those surveyed are either stupid or lying.

[Wild Cobra]

96% of those surveyed are either stupid or lying.
I wonder how many of the selected scientists for the survey were not actually random...

On top of that, any self identifies scientist who disagrees with the dogma is persecuted. How many of the refusals to respond were real climatologists instead of climatologists?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I wonder how many of the selected scientists for the survey were not actually random...

On top of that, any self identifies scientist who disagrees with the dogma is persecuted. How many of the refusals to respond were real climatologists instead of climatologists?

give examples of said 'persecution'

[SnakeBoy]

How many of the refusals to respond were real climatologists instead of climatologists?

http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy/528-100.gif

[pgardn]

96% of those surveyed are either stupid or lying.

So you don't believe scientists could possibly enjoy satisfying their extreme curiosity at the expense of making big bucks? Some people go into jobs because they actually enjoy what they are doing despite the pay. They want to be thinking and tinkering because they ENJOY it. They LIKE Monday morning. Hard for you to empathize? and it's obvious why you don't think like thinkers.

[pgardn]

You're mind is blown by the possibility that someone can believe in God and still accept evolution?

For those Catholics out there... You realize your church accepts evolution?

Or in the Protestant world, Catholics are heretics... With a Pope and false idols and all...

[pgardn]

corporations aren't doing GM to benefit humans or the planet, but only for profits, and if people, water, air, land get fucked up, so what? profit is profit, and everything else be damned.

I work for profit. And I eat meat. So indirectly, I also screw the land. If you look at every single item YOU consume, food or otherwise, YOU are also fking things up. Do you invest money? If so, with whom?

We can play a game of guilt and shame if you like. Boots, you need to hone your attacks, you cast a wide net and probably don't realize you snagged yourself.

[SnakeBoy]

I work for profit.

boutons works for hate

[SnakeBoy]

So you don't believe scientists could possibly enjoy satisfying their extreme curiosity at the expense of making big bucks? Some people go into jobs because they actually enjoy what they are doing despite the pay. They want to be thinking and tinkering because they ENJOY it. They LIKE Monday morning. Hard for you to empathize? and it's obvious why you don't think like thinkers.

Financially rewarding does not equal "making big bucks". Reduce their pay to minimum wage, if they don't go out looking for better pay they are stupid, if they bitch and moan they were lying. I expect most would fall into the latter group.

[pgardn]

Financially rewarding does not equal "making big bucks". Reduce their pay to minimum wage, if they don't go out looking for better pay they are stupid, if they bitch and moan they were lying. I expect most would fall into the latter group.

Because our government deems basic research valuable, they don't get minimum wage.
And they can also become a US citizen a hell of a lot easier. This should set off some sort of recognition about what even conservatives understand about science. And yes, a number do get pulled off into private business. It's a hell of a good recruiting system, that could be better.

[ElNono]

Financially rewarding does not equal "making big bucks". Reduce their pay to minimum wage, if they don't go out looking for better pay they are stupid, if they bitch and moan they were lying. I expect most would fall into the latter group.

The problem is that your "experiment" doesn't jive with the question. The question was basically asking what criteria they used at the moment they picked their career. Amongst the criteria was 'financially rewarding'. Past that moment, sure, they could've easily changed their mind, both on the financial aspect or the personal reward aspect. It doesn't invalidate the answers, nor make them stupid or liars.

[ElNono]

Plus if the minimum wage is not a wage you can live on, then there's a problem is with the minimum wage. There's plenty of people that make a decent living and pass on making more money because of different reasons (ie:they find their current situation more rewarding, more flexible, etc). I don't think they're stupid or liars.

[Wild Cobra]

Plus if the minimum wage is not a wage you can live on, then there's a problem is with the minimum wage. There's plenty of people that make a decent living and pass on making more money because of different reasons (ie:they find their current situation more rewarding, more flexible, etc). I don't think they're stupid or liars.
Minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage. People need to get that through their mind.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage. People need to get that through their mind.

Now we get wilddumbfuck to tell us what things are 'supposed' or 'meant' to be. He learned it as he struggled through HS.

[EVAY]

The biggest problem with the creationists' argument imo is that they want it taught in the science curriculum. If you want to believe in creationism, go for it. But it is NOT SCIENCE. It is not predicated on the scientific method. So don't try to confuse the minds of youngsters by saying that a religious belief structure is the same as scientific inquiry. It simply is different.

If you want both creationism and evolution taught in school, teach one is religion class and one in science class. But teaching a religion class in a publicly supported school just might violate the constitution.

[ElNono]

Minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage. People need to get that through their mind.

says who?

[Wild Cobra]

says who?
Says my experience over several decades of living here. I would have never been able to more than have a roommate paying half the rent if I made minimum wage back in the 70's. $1.60/hr and $180 monthly rent.

[ElNono]

Says my experience

:lol

[Wild Cobra]

:lol
$1.60 in 1973...

Was that a living wage?

[TeyshaBlue]

$1.60 in 1973...

Was that a living wage?
I dunno. I could rent a sub-100$ apt quite easily in '73...so yeah, it could've been.

[ElNono]

$1.60 in 1973...

Was that a living wage?

That's roughly $8/hr in 2012 dollars...

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth484/minwage.html

[ElNono]

I dunno. I could rent a sub-100$ apt quite easily in '73...so yeah, it could've been.

Exactly... plus the minimum federal wage was created in 1938... "but my experience says" :lol

[Wild Cobra]

I dunno. I could rent a sub-100$ apt quite easily in '73...so yeah, it could've been.
But it depends on where you live, and when these people talk about a living wage, they are speaking of for a family. At $92/month, it would use 1/3rd of your income for rent. Today's $7.25 1/3rd income point would be $419/mo. You can find those as well today.

[Wild Cobra]

Exactly... plus the minimum federal wage was created in 1938... "but my experience says" :lol
OK, please give us a link that explains the legislators reason for creating a minimum wage. Also, it was $0.25 then. My grandfather used to tell us stories.

[ElNono]

what did we say about assumptions?

[ElNono]

OK, please give us a link that explains the legislators reason cor creating a minimum wage.

you should know... your experience and all... :lol

[Wild Cobra]

link: 1938 (http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/1938.html)
How Much things cost in 1938 Average Cost of new house $3,900.00 Average wages per year $1,730.00 Cost of a gallon of Gas 10 cents Average Cost for house rent $27.00 per month A loaf of Bread 9 cents A LB of Hamburger Meat 13 cents Average Price for new car $763.00 Blanket $5.00 Liptons Noodle Soup 10 Cents

[Wild Cobra]

That's roughly $8/hr in 2012 dollars...

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth484/minwage.html
So the $7.25 minimum wage isn't far behind, and within a 10% variance.

[ElNono]

is that your experience talking? :lol

[ElNono]

So the $7.25 minimum wage isn't far behind, and within a 10% variance.

5 years earlier it was $10.50/hour (in 2012 dollars), which would be a living wage today... so there goes the "never meant to be"...

[Wild Cobra]

Interesting.

Started as the equivalent of about $4.00/hr in 2012 dollars.

that was a living wage?

[Wild Cobra]

How do your arguments apply to my saying it was never intended to be a living wage?

[Wild Cobra]

5 years earlier it was $10.50/hour (in 2012 dollars), which would be a living wage today... so there goes the "never meant to be"...
Was it raised for that purpose?

What factors are they considering to raise it?

I'm sorry, but none of your arguments merit the claim it is meant as a living wage.

[SnakeBoy]

says who?

Well the CBO says raising the minimum wage to $10.10 will cost 500,000 jobs and raise 900,000 people out of poverty. Resulting in less than a 1% decrease in the poverty rate. Not exactly what you asked but if the goal is to lift people out of poverty it would seem that raising the minimum wage is not all that effective. Perhaps real reform to our education system would be wiser, even if it isn't as effective at energizing the base.

[TeyshaBlue]

Was it raised for that purpose?

What factors are they considering to raise it?

I'm sorry, but none of your arguments merit the claim it is meant as a living wage.

FLSA and Minimum Wage Standards

The Fair Labor Standards Act passed by the Roosevelt administration in 1938 had a profound effect on the wages paid to American workers. The FLSA set a 25-cent-per-hour minimum wage and a 44-hour workweek ceiling for most employees, according to Time magazine online. The act states that wages must ensure a minimum standard of living necessary forhealth, efficiency and general well-being, without substantially curtailing employment. It also bans child labor.

[ElNono]

Was it raised for that purpose?

it's your claim "it was never meant to be a living wage".... despite at times it was.

[TeyshaBlue]

letjusticeroll.org/news/001148-why-were-minimum-wage-laws-established

Let the obfuscation begin....

[ElNono]

Well the CBO says raising the minimum wage to $10.10 will cost 500,000 jobs and raise 900,000 people out of poverty. Resulting in less than a 1% decrease in the poverty rate. Not exactly what you asked but if the goal is to lift people out of poverty it would seem that raising the minimum wage is not all that effective. Perhaps real reform to our education system would be wiser, even if it isn't as effective at energizing the base.

I would agree that raising the minimum-wage is a bad way to tackle poverty, which is a much more complex problem. That doesn't mean the minimum-wage shouldn't be a livable wage.

[Wild Cobra]

The purpose of the minimum wage was to stabilize the post-depression economy and protect the workers in the labor force. The minimum wage was designed to create a minimum standard of living to protect the health and well-being of employees.

Cornell link: The Minimum Wage: An Overview (http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/minimum_wage)

That isn't what we consider a living wage.

[ElNono]

:lol "we"

[Wild Cobra]

it's your claim "it was never meant to be a living wage".... despite at times it was.
It never was. Of course, throughout history, you have those who try to convince people it should be and try to make it so.


I would agree that raising the minimum-wage is a bad way to tackle poverty, which is a much more complex problem. That doesn't mean the minimum-wage shouldn't be a livable wage.
If people are given everything on a silver platter, then what is there to motivate them to do better?

Do you believe Utopia is obtainable?

[TeyshaBlue]

9 bucks an hour is not a silver platter, knucklehead.

[ElNono]

FLSA and Minimum Wage Standards

The Fair Labor Standards Act passed by the Roosevelt administration in 1938 had a profound effect on the wages paid to American workers. The FLSA set a 25-cent-per-hour minimum wage and a 44-hour workweek ceiling for most employees, according to Time magazine online. The act states that wages must ensure a minimum standard of living necessary forhealth, efficiency and general well-being, without substantially curtailing employment. It also bans child labor.

It should also be noted that some states already had similar laws that predate it, specifically addressing sub-standard pay for women and children.

[TeyshaBlue]

Yup....and some states still have min wage statutes below the fed level.

[ElNono]

Utopia! :lmao

[ElNono]

Yup....and some states still have min wage statutes below the fed level.

some states still look the other way on child labor too...

[TeyshaBlue]

Utopia! :lmao

Wild Sophist strikes again.

[ElNono]

did you see his "Obama flag" in the other thread? :lol

[TeyshaBlue]

Thx for letting me correct my typo before quoting me EN-tard!

[ElNono]

Yeah, I'm not quoting you anymore because you're a meanie :cry

[TeyshaBlue]

did you see his "Obama flag" in the other thread? :lol

Its my phone wallpaper tbh.

[ElNono]

Let me know once you fixed your typos, so I can quote you. kthx :rolleyes

[Wild Cobra]

9 bucks an hour is not a silver platter, knucklehead.
Agreed. But that's not where the proponents of a "living wage" are speaking of.

Still, don't we need a larger choice of jobs?

The minimum wage laws were created in a time when business could exploit workers because of the excessive labor pool vs. the number of jobs available. We are seeing that again today, but the cause is different. Raising the minimum wage is not the solution this time. We need to stop exporting jobs, or all we will have is an ever increasing percentage of minimum wage workers, who will not be paying any taxes.

Notice how there is little worry about the minimum wage when we have good economic times? Did the minimum wage levels matter?

Raising the wages artificially will make us even less competitive in the world. We need to reverse the trend we have, not accelerate it.

[Wild Cobra]

Its my phone wallpaper tbh.
Why doesn't that surprise me?

[baseline bum]

Why doesn't that surprise me?

Because you're a retard?

[TeyshaBlue]

Agreed. But that's not where the proponents of a "living wage" are speaking of.

Still, don't we need a larger choice of jobs?

The minimum wage laws were created in a time when business could exploit workers because of the excessive labor pool vs. the number of jobs available. We are seeing that again today, but the cause is different. Raising the minimum wage is not the solution this time. We need to stop exporting jobs, or all we will have is an ever increasing percentage of minimum wage workers, who will not be paying any taxes.

Notice how there is little worry about the minimum wage when we have good economic times? Did the minimum wage levels matter?

Raising the wages artificially will make us even less competitive in the world. We need to reverse the trend we have, not accelerate it.

I'm a proponent of a living wage. $9 seems a decent place to start in some areas of the country.
Lets stop exporting jobs. Lets pay $9/hr min for starters. Show me a specific problem with that approach.

[pgardn]

http://www.dol.gov/dol/aboutdol/history/flsa1938.htm


This is very interesting.
Minimum wage is indeed a twisted tale.
I had no idea about the stickers in the windows.

[TeyshaBlue]

Let me know once you fixed your typos, so I can quote you. kthx :rolleyes

Quote this.


GFY.

[TeyshaBlue]

http://www.dol.gov/dol/aboutdol/history/flsa1938.htm


This is very interesting.
Minimum wage is indeed a twisted tale.
I had no idea about the stickers in the windows.

Yeah...Ive read that link before. Very interesting.:tu

[ElNono]

Quote this.


GFY.

[TeyshaBlue]

Wait! I meant GFY libtard!

[TeyshaBlue]

Dammit.

[ElNono]

:lol this republican't... (get it? republi-"can't" hahahahahahahahahaha)

[TeyshaBlue]

You crack yourself up.:lol

[ElNono]

nice accordion, BTW... my dad played ones of those.

[TeyshaBlue]

1932 Napoli treble reed. Its a beast. Its my tactical accordion.:lol

[ElNono]

Props. Incredibly difficult to play those things last time I tried... (about 20 years ago)

[Th'Pusher]

You stated all GM crops were bad. I asked you to look at the interesting history of Golden Rice as one example.
So what do you say now? Same thing...

Pollan has an interesting take on genetically modified foods. The promises behind GM foods  —  much less need for pesticides, much higher yields  —  haven’t come true save in isolated cases. But they have driven a massive change in food production. "What genetic modification of crops has given us is dramatic consolidation," he says. "Monsanto has used the huge profits from Roundup Ready seeds to buy up a sizable portion of the seed industry."


This is something, Pollan says, that you see again and again when you look at which food innovations get attention  —  and funding. A close look often shows that the problem being solved wasn’t a problem in how we grow food, but in how companies grow profits.


Wall Street wants these companies to grow by at least 5 percent each year. But America’s population only grows by about 1 percent each year. There’s a "key fact" you need to know to understand the food industry, Pollan says: Wall Street wants these companies to grow by at least 5 percent each year. But America’s population only grows by about 1 percent each year. That is  —  or at least was  —  a problem.


"For a long time people in the industry thought it was impossible to get people to eat more," Pollan says. "They called it ‘the fixed stomach’ and they lamented that, unlike in the shoe business where you could get people to keep buying more kinds of shoes, you couldn’t get people to eat more. Well, they’re to be congratulated. They solved that problem. Capitalism is very powerful. It solves problems. But it solves its own problems, not always our problems."


Take Golden Rice, Pollan says. That’s a genetically modified rice meant to address vitamin A deficiencies in the developing word. "That’ll be terrific if they ever get it into a field," Pollan says. "But it’s important to ask whether you spend $300 million on Gold or encourage them to plant squash or greens in pots around their houses or around the edges of t fields."


"Sometimes there’s a really boring way to achieve the same thing. But we tend to love solutions that have intellectual property attached to them that someone could profit from."

http://www.vox.com/2014/4/23/5627992/big-food-michael-pollan-thinks-wall-street-has-way-too-much-influence

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Pollan has an interesting take on genetically modified foods. The promises behind GM foods  —  much less need for pesticides, much higher yields  —  haven’t come true save in isolated cases. But they have driven a massive change in food production. "What genetic modification of crops has given us is dramatic consolidation," he says. "Monsanto has used the huge profits from Roundup Ready seeds to buy up a sizable portion of the seed industry."


This is something, Pollan says, that you see again and again when you look at which food innovations get attention  —  and funding. A close look often shows that the problem being solved wasn’t a problem in how we grow food, but in how companies grow profits.


Wall Street wants these companies to grow by at least 5 percent each year. But America’s population only grows by about 1 percent each year. There’s a "key fact" you need to know to understand the food industry, Pollan says: Wall Street wants these companies to grow by at least 5 percent each year. But America’s population only grows by about 1 percent each year. That is  —  or at least was  —  a problem.


"For a long time people in the industry thought it was impossible to get people to eat more," Pollan says. "They called it ‘the fixed stomach’ and they lamented that, unlike in the shoe business where you could get people to keep buying more kinds of shoes, you couldn’t get people to eat more. Well, they’re to be congratulated. They solved that problem. Capitalism is very powerful. It solves problems. But it solves its own problems, not always our problems."


Take Golden Rice, Pollan says. That’s a genetically modified rice meant to address vitamin A deficiencies in the developing word. "That’ll be terrific if they ever get it into a field," Pollan says. "But it’s important to ask whether you spend $300 million on Gold or encourage them to plant squash or greens in pots around their houses or around the edges of t fields."


"Sometimes there’s a really boring way to achieve the same thing. But we tend to love solutions that have intellectual property attached to them that someone could profit from."

http://www.vox.com/2014/4/23/5627992/big-food-michael-pollan-thinks-wall-street-has-way-too-much-influence

What a shitty article. The US is the leading exporter in food. There representation of the industry relative to only the US market is asinine and exports are a good thing in the general sense.

The issue that this author does not address is overpopulation and the need to stretch our food production to meet an ever growing human population. The author might not like it but the world needs more food production all the time. Innovations are essential all the way back to nitrogen production.

[pgardn]

Pollan has an interesting take on genetically modified foods. The promises behind GM foods  —  much less need for pesticides, much higher yields  —  haven’t come true save in isolated cases. But they have driven a massive change in food production. "What genetic modification of crops has given us is dramatic consolidation," he says. "Monsanto has used the huge profits from Roundup Ready seeds to buy up a sizable portion of the seed industry."


This is something, Pollan says, that you see again and again when you look at which food innovations get attention  —  and funding. A close look often shows that the problem being solved wasn’t a problem in how we grow food, but in how companies grow profits.


Wall Street wants these companies to grow by at least 5 percent each year. But America’s population only grows by about 1 percent each year. There’s a "key fact" you need to know to understand the food industry, Pollan says: Wall Street wants these companies to grow by at least 5 percent each year. But America’s population only grows by about 1 percent each year. That is  —  or at least was  —  a problem.


"For a long time people in the industry thought it was impossible to get people to eat more," Pollan says. "They called it ‘the fixed stomach’ and they lamented that, unlike in the shoe business where you could get people to keep buying more kinds of shoes, you couldn’t get people to eat more. Well, they’re to be congratulated. They solved that problem. Capitalism is very powerful. It solves problems. But it solves its own problems, not always our problems."


Take Golden Rice, Pollan says. That’s a genetically modified rice meant to address vitamin A deficiencies in the developing word. "That’ll be terrific if they ever get it into a field," Pollan says. "But it’s important to ask whether you spend $300 million on Gold or encourage them to plant squash or greens in pots around their houses or around the edges of t fields."


"Sometimes there’s a really boring way to achieve the same thing. But we tend to love solutions that have intellectual property attached to them that someone could profit from."

http://www.vox.com/2014/4/23/5627992/big-food-michael-pollan-thinks-wall-street-has-way-too-much-influence


Wall Street wants these companies to grow by at least 5 percent each year. But America’s population only grows by about 1 percent each year. That is  —  or at least was  —  a problem.

What? equating the growth of the US to what Wall Street wants. And with numbers that you can't flippantly cross compare? Wall Street wants... This means some investors are thinking GM food could be profitable, what a surprise. Once people see the anti GM backlash maybe Wall Street will WANT otherwise.

Some places have huge rice ready fields for mass production and export. We are not talking subsistence farming here.
Its silly to throw away a possibly useful technique that could provide for better crops of all sorts. Just because it has to be in the hands of a big companies... That's just ignorant thinking. The US has been able to provide more food more efficiently because we innovate.

There are also crops that are planted that are not eaten. Pollan is a health food guy who has some good ideas on healthy food. But this article is written for a US audience. There are malnourished people outside the US that can't go shopping for vegetables in season at Whole Foods.

Personally I like to fish, I like to eat the fish I catch, and I have incisors. I like meat. And I love my vegetables. Pollan suggests we should eat only small amounts of healthy vegetables. Not every meal for me. Sorry.

[boutons_deux]

Monsanto, Syngynta, etc aren't developing GM shit to save the world. They don't GAF about people starving to death.

[Th'Pusher]

Its silly to throw away a possibly useful technique that could provide for better crops of all sorts. Just because it has to be in the hands of a big companies... That's just ignorant thinking.

I don't think anyone was suggesting that. The larger point was that the most profitable solution is not always the best solution. Profitability drives innovation though... which is a good thing. The difficulty is finding the right balance.

[boutons_deux]

GMO Crops in Iowa Fail as Rootworms Develop Resistance

So it should be no surprise that GMO crops are failing because the very pests they are designed to withstand are developing resistance to the toxins within.

We are seeing the same sort of evolutionary phenomenon in humans with antibiotic-resistant superbugs, illnesses that are able to thrive despite being bombarded with modern drugs, precisely because of modern bugs.

In the case of Iowa corn crops, the Western Corn Rootworms have made it their business to survive and thrive no matter what Monsanto throws at them. To that end, they’ve grown resistant (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/03/12/1317179111) to two strains of Bt Corn, beginning with Cry3Bb1, which researchers found them defending themselves against in 2009. In 2011, it was mCry3A, according to (http://gizmodo.com/what-are-gmo-foods-and-are-they-okay-to-eat-1524547249/1547154883/+andrewtarantola) Gizmodo.

When these strains of corn are not “managed correctly”, they don’t produce enough of the Bt toxin to kill the rootworms (a beetle larvae). Instead, the toxin only kills the weak and small. Through the process of natural selection, those larger and stronger larvae survive and create additional larger and stronger larvae. As a result, Iowa has larger, stronger, and more destructive rootworms.
As NaturalNews reports (http://www.naturalnews.com/044556_GMO_crops_pesticide_resistance_corn_rootwor m.html), though we are seeing this in Iowa now, it could certainly be a sign of things to come on farms everywhere. About 85 percent of American corn is genetically modified. Ninety-one percent of soybeans and 88 percent of cotton is as well. If insects are able to develop resistance to the very poisons designed to control them, these industries could be the death of themselves.

http://naturalsociety.com/gmo-crops-iowa-fail-rootworms-develop-resistance/#ixzz30BlN8xok

Beside GM corn not killing the worms, the vast majority of GM crop fields are now infested with Roundup-resistant superweeds, so Monsanto wants to add Agent Orange.

[pgardn]

I don't think anyone was suggesting that. The larger point was that the most profitable solution is not always the best solution. Profitability drives innovation though... which is a good thing. The difficulty is finding the right balance.

Just read Boots.

GM = BIG BAD INDUSTRY

He has not learned that selective breeding brings about exactly the same problems in that nature through natural selection in most instances wins in the long run. No crop is full proof perfect. Farming will always require new varieties.

The implication made by saying Wall Street wants is that it is its own evil entity, not a market.

[Wild Cobra]

Monsanto, Syngynta, etc aren't developing GM shit to save the world. They don't GAF about people starving to death.
Boutons...

I found an avatar for you:

http://www.totalprosports.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/baby-loves-the-penguins-penguins-baby-superfan-220x130.png

[boutons_deux]

Just read Boots.

GM = BIG BAD INDUSTRY

He has not learned that selective breeding brings about exactly the same problems in that nature through natural selection in most instances wins in the long run. No crop is full proof perfect. Farming will always require new varieties.

The implication made by saying Wall Street wants is that it is its own evil entity, not a market.

has it been proved that the Vit A in your adored Golden Rice is at a reliable content level AND, above all, is it in a form that is bioavailable?

[pgardn]

has it been proved that the Vit A in your adored Golden Rice is at a reliable content level AND, above all, is it in a form that is bioavailable?

Absolutely not.

And it is highly possible that the people it is designed for might not eat it because of its color.

So of course this means give up on it and all GM is bad.
This is why I had you read about this crop in the first place.
You acted like it was some poison. So you totally give up on what could be a very food...
Excellent.

So you give up on trying to make rice more nutritious? Is that what you are saying?

[Winehole23]

golden rice is one example, soybeans another:

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2014/04/superweeds-arent-only-trouble-gmo-soy

[boutons_deux]

Absolutely not.

And it is highly possible that the people it is designed for might not eat it because of its color.

So of course this means give up on it and all GM is bad.
This is why I had you read about this crop in the first place.
You acted like it was some poison. So you totally give up on what could be a very food...
Excellent.

So you give up on trying to make rice more nutritious? Is that what you are saying?

All for-profit GM is BAD, because the corporate motivation is eternal exorbitant profits from enslaving the world's agriculture to patented seeds and patented x-cides. GM corps, and BigAg, don't GAF about nutrition or human/environmental health.

[boutons_deux]

Here's another current problem with corporate agriculture destroying the diversity of world foods

http://www.economist.com/blogs/feastandfamine/2014/02/bananas

btw, US yellow/white monocluture corn is really shitty nutrition compared to the wide variety of corn the Native Americans were eating when the Europeans came to fuck up the Americas.

[Winehole23]

Before I respond to Nathanael Johnson’s assertion that the “stakes are so low” in the debate over GMOs, I want to address a smaller point. “The debate isn’t about actual genetically modified organisms — if it was we’d be debating the individual plants, not GMOs as a whole,” Johnson writes.


That’s a good place to start: actually existing GMOs. What traits are on the market today, in use by farmers? First, I’ll note that there’s no shortage of land devoted to GMOs. Since the novel seeds hit the market in 1996, global GM crop acreage has expanded dramatically, reaching 420 million acres by 2012, reports (http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/pocketk/16/) the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. That’s a combined landmass more than four times larger than California (http://www.statemaster.com/graph/geo_lan_acr_tot-geography-land-acreage-total). The pro-GMO ISAAA hails this expansion as “fastest adopted crop technology in the history of modern agriculture.”


Yet, for all of that land devoted to GMOs, there are just two traits in wide use: herbicide resistance and pest resistance (Bt). Note, in the below ISAAA chart, the “<1″ at the bottom. That represents the percentage of all global GMO acres planted in crops that aren’t either herbicide- or pesticide-tolerant: that is to say, less than 1 percent.


http://grist.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/clive-james-biotech-acres.jpg?w=470&h=429

Now, one might ask: But isn’t the industry on the brink of rolling out wonder crops — new varieties that are more nutritious, or use water more efficiently, or need less fertilizer? One way to tell is to peek into the U.S. Department of Agriculture pipeline (http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/petitions_table_pending.shtml#not_reg) of new GMO products being considered for deregulation. Here we can expect to find the stuff the industry has tested and found rugged and ready for field conditions. What’s in there? Thirteen products — nine of which involve herbicide tolerance or insect resistance. Of those nine, five are engineered to resist two herbicides — a dispiriting trend I’ll explore more below. The others are an apple variety engineered not to brown, a eucalyptus designed to resist freezing, a potato charged with bruising less easily, and an alfalfa type meant to contain less lignin.


Something tells me that none of these novelty items are destined to crack ISAAA’s <1 percent box.


It’s true that rice engineered to deliver beta-carotene is due out in 2016 in the Philippines (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/05/genetically-modified-golden-rice-coming-to-philippines-by-2016/), and that citrus trees engineered to resist a ruinous pathogen have shown promise (http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2013/08/what-does-looming-citrus-apocalypse-tell-us-about-gmos). Then there are those virus-resistant GM papayas in Hawaii — though it should be noted that the state’s entire papaya production (http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Hawaii/Publications/Fruits_and_Nuts/annpapFF.pdf) covers about 2,000 acres, the size of a moderately sized corn farm in Iowa. But until the “golden rice” and the novel oranges prove effective, durable, and acceptable to a large swath of growers, we live in a world in which upwards of 99 percent of GMOs are engineered for the two traits mentioned above.

http://grist.org/food/crop-flops-gmos-lead-ag-down-the-wrong-path/

[pgardn]

From the above...
we live in a world in which upwards of 99 percent of GMOs are engineered for the two traits mentioned above

Again misuse of numbers.

If plants like Golden rice work, it will affect far more people than counting what % of GMOs are engineered for certain traits. Statistical misuse yet again.

Bottom line and I will state it AGAIN: The TECHNIQUE should not be thrown out, as Boots has suggested numerous times, because of what big companies sell to US farmers. Now Boots has decided to hone his argument. We don't relegate selective breeding to evil because many people use it to breed animals that will suffer all sorts of developmental abnormalities that will lead to suffering. Boots needs to start a campaign against dog breeders.

Boots you still have no idea why I had you read about Golden Rice.

[boutons_deux]

Boots you still have no idea why I had you read about Golden Rice.

These Boots Are Made For Walkin

Golden Rice is profit making project, patented, resulting in a monoculture totally susceptible to single attacker. Getting BIOAVAILABLE Vit A into poor kids is much cheaper and more reliable with supplements

[Winehole23]

If plants like Golden rice work, it will affect far more people than counting what % of GMOs are engineered for certain traits. Statistical misuse yet again.pure speculation. you're counting your chickens before the eggs have even been laid.

[pgardn]

http://grist.org/food/crop-flops-gmos-lead-ag-down-the-wrong-path/


pure speculation. you're counting your chickens before the eggs have even been laid.

Of course it is.

So you are not excited about the possibilities.
I am. But much more work needs to be done.

And it does not change the use of those stats as biotech companies have a much larger play in creating varieties for market. Versus researchers who look into more fundamental questions in gene transfer.

Are you referring to sterile eggs?

[pgardn]

These Boots Are Made For Walkin

Golden Rice is profit making project, patented, resulting in a monoculture totally susceptible to single attacker. Getting BIOAVAILABLE Vit A into poor kids is much cheaper and more reliable with supplements

They eat rice. EVERYDAY.

So what's the problem then boots. Where are all the supplement helicopters dropping boxes of pills?

[boutons_deux]

They eat rice. EVERYDAY.

So what's the problem then boots. Where are all the supplement helicopters dropping boxes of pills?

the problem is replacing natural rice eaten for 1000s of years, has there been a Vit A deficiency for 1000s of years?, with synthetic rice of unknown EFFECTIVE value of increasing Vit A in children eating it.

[boutons_deux]

Monsanto CREATES problems, unending, LICENSED problems (rentier agriculture) that maintain an infinite profit stream, and then creates even more problems, creating even more profits

About this Petition

Monsanto aggressively sells its practice of fooling around with nature - or genetic modification - as a benefit to farmers and consumers. But in reality, growing Monsanto’s GMO (Roundup-ready) herbicide-resistant crops causes huge weed problems, like the pigweed problem in Texas now.

Roundup-resistant cotton in Texas has caused “an epidemic” of pigweed. Calling this an “emergency,” the Texas Department of Agriculture is now asking the EPA for a special permit to use hundreds of thousands of pounds of the very hazardous herbicide propazine to kill these herbicide -resistant weeds that Roundup overuse created in the first place.

This solution Texas seeks to solve its weed problems suspiciously benefits Albaugh, Inc, coming and going, because Albaugh makes propazine AND Roundup.

According to a 2007 Forbes report, Albaugh made a secret deal with Monsanto years ago when Roundup’s glyphosate went off patent, and that deal made Albaugh “the second-biggest glyphosate producer in the U.S.”

Even though pigweed is a serious problem for cotton farmers, Propazine is not the solution, says the Center for Food Safety, adding that what’s really needed are practices that “don’t create resistant weeds in the first place.”

The use of propazine not only poses a serious threat to human health, but also a serious conflict of interests that has not been widely exposed. EPA is taking comments on this issue now.

Insist the EPA not allow Texas to spray this highly toxic herbicide, propazine!

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/678/705/536/epa-dont-let-texas-spray-highly-toxic-herbicide-propazine/?z00m=21261657&redirectID=1404717581

http://online.wsj.com/articles/texas-tries-last-ditch-attack-on-super-weed-1403221544

[pgardn]

the problem is replacing natural rice eaten for 1000s of years, has there been a Vit A deficiency for 1000s of years?, with synthetic rice of unknown EFFECTIVE value of increasing Vit A in children eating it.

Unknown means not known.

Are you saying this rice does not have any effect? This is why you try it out, not throw it out, because of your anti corporate inclinations.

[boutons_deux]

Unknown means not known.

Are you saying this rice does not have any effect? This is why you try it out, not throw it out, because of your anti corporate inclinations.

has anybody shown in even small human trials that eating a unusual avg daily qty of your golden crap increases Vit A in the body?

[cantthinkofanything]

has anybody shown in even small human trials that eating a unusual avg daily qty of your golden crap increases Vit A in the body?

Multiple times. And in multiple countries.

[pgardn]

has anybody shown in even small human trials that eating a unusual avg daily qty of your golden crap increases Vit A in the body?

Golden crap...

You are truly a fool. I have not seen any studies. So this obviously means it will not work?
Idiot...
Boots is fine as he is able to go to the grocery and pick his food. Fuck the malnourished. A true bleeding heart.

[ErnestLynch]

...and even fewer (6%) as Republican.

http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/

And tons of other great data on scientists and their beliefs, if you flip through the sections.

Some of my favorites:

*Scientists are third most well-respected profession in US behind military and teachers, even when people's beliefs conflict with scientists'
*87% of scientists believe humans evolved due to natural processes, 8% believe humans evolved guided by a supreme being. Only 3% don't believe in evolution
*84% of scientists think the earth is getting warmed due to human influence, 10% believe it is warming due to natural causes, only 4% believe it's not warming. 70% say Global Warming is a serious problem
*33% believe in God, 18% in some other higher power
*92% of scientist cite Economic Issues or the Job Market as a major hurdle to a research career
*Only 4% of scientists list a financially reward career as a very important factor in choosing their career

*non-scientific poll

[boutons_deux]

I have not seen any studies.

:lol so Golden rice is just a belief, like Flying Spaghetti Monster belief

"Fuck the malnourished" you said that, I didn't

Much more important for the world's kids than Vit A is clean water and toilets.

[pgardn]

:lol so Golden rice is just a belief, like Flying Spaghetti Monster belief

"Fuck the malnourished" you said that, I didn't

Much more important for the world's kids than Vit A is clean water and toilets.




These studies take time boots. You don't just perform them over 1 year.
You are so fucked up. Because we have not fed children golden rice over 8 years without any other source of vitamin A you assume it won't work? You want your kid in that study?

Idiot...

[pgardn]

:lol so Golden rice is just a belief, like Flying Spaghetti Monster belief

"Fuck the malnourished" you said that, I didn't

Much more important for the world's kids than Vit A is clean water and toilets.




WTF does sanitation have to do with the subject at hand?
So since sanitation is a huge problem fuck golden rice?

Your logic is impeccable.

[Agloco]

96% of those surveyed are either stupid or lying.

Your ignorance is unbecoming, but understandable.

[boutons_deux]

WTF does sanitation have to do with the subject at hand?
So since sanitation is a huge problem fuck golden rice?

Your logic is impeccable.

It always is.

death, disease from sanitation (esp bad water, and no sewers) VASTLY dominates malnutrition, eg

Poor Sanitation in India May Afflict Well-Fed Children With Malnutritionhttp://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/15/world/asia/poor-sanitation-in-india-may-afflict-well-fed-children-with-malnutrition.html?_r=0

And ALL the above is not as bad as POVERTY as the root, dominating cause of death and disease in poor countries.

[pgardn]

It always is.

death, disease from sanitation (esp bad water, and no sewers) VASTLY dominates malnutrition, eg

Poor Sanitation in India May Afflict Well-Fed Children With Malnutrition

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/15/world/asia/poor-sanitation-in-india-may-afflict-well-fed-children-with-malnutrition.html?_r=0

And ALL the above is not as bad as POVERTY as the root, dominating cause of death and disease in poor countries.



Poor sanitation is made very much worse by malnourished immune systems numb nuts...

[boutons_deux]

Poor sanitation is made very much worse by malnourished immune systems numb nuts...

So if you have $100B, $1T, cash to blow on poor countries, what would be your priorities? golden rice?

[pgardn]

So if you have $100B, $1T, cash to blow on poor countries, what would be your priorities? golden rice?

You set up a false equivalence, it's not one or the other.
But nice try.
Do you feel comfortable being so disingenuous?

[boutons_deux]

You set up a false equivalence, it's not one or the other.
But nice try.
Do you feel comfortable being so disingenuous?

agreed, if you had $1T you could do a lot of different things for poor countries (but like nearly every billionaire, you woudn't).

First things first, what you would do first, prioritize what as having the most immediate impact? your beloved golden rice?

[pgardn]

agreed, if you had $1T you could do a lot of different things for poor countries (but like nearly every billionaire, you woudn't).

First things first, what you would do first, prioritize what as having the most immediate impact? your beloved golden rice?

Its not one or the other.

Sanitation is a huge problem.
But that's not the topic, you brought that in to deflect your ignorance concerning GMOs.
Start a thread on sanitation, and I will come along.

[boutons_deux]

Its not one or the other.

you brought that in to deflect your ignorance concerning GMOs.



Rhis isn't a thread on GMOs, of which I know plenty (and your GR has and will have trivial impact in the GMO big picture), but your beloved Golden Rice popped up anyway, but my saying sanitation is more important than GR is off-topic?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

genetic-luddite communist

[pgardn]

Rhis isn't a thread on GMOs, of which I know plenty (and your GR has and will have trivial impact in the GMO big picture), but your beloved Golden Rice popped up anyway, but my saying sanitation is more important than GR is off-topic?

Boots.........

You know what OUR discussion was on.
Is it not common for this to happen on this site.
GMOs are not my baby. They are just misunderstood by people like you, the anti vaccine guy as well.
If you can tie anything to corporations they become evil. It's a mantra that is shortsighted imo.

But you keep putting money into your mutual fund and discreetly look the other way.
Tell yourself it's ok, rationalize it away.

Rhymes. The beginning of a bad song...