7 votes

Insane New Technology Worse Than GMOs?

'I just received word through the ETC Group, who helped us with the Stop GMO in Mexico petition, that some biohackers in the bay area of California are planning to send out hundreds of thousands genetically engineered weed seeds to people all over the United States. But these are not regular GMO seeds; they are produced through “synthetic biology” technology, which has been called “GMO on steroids.” It is more dangerous than GMO and is so new it is not even regulated.

These seeds, however, are not even bioengineered in the way you might think. The sequence is laid out on a computer and then printed on a DNA synthesizer, and this sequence is then spliced into a seed. The DNA sequences are even more novel and artificial than that found in GMO products to date.

This would be the first-ever release of an organism produced through synthetic biology anywhere in the world, and it won’t be just one organism but hundreds of thousands—sent through the mail and dispersed across the USA.'


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

au contraire

Libertarian 'thought' would be more like - you have the right to do what you what you want as long as it does not interfere with someone else's rights. 'This' interferes with the rights of others in a big way.

Sometimes I think libertarians are just bat shit crazy

To think this is okay let people do whatever as long as it's not hurting anyone else, is just bull crap. GMO's have lots of unintended consequences, ask any beekeeper. The beekeeping industry bears all the pain from GMO's, with bees being continually poisoned.

Not only are bees affected the fish, birds, all types of insects. Here in Minnesota we should have rampant mosquito infestations, but I have only been bitten a couple of times so far.

You all think this is okay if it doesn't affect you directly, but I assure it will in the near future.

Now this is a weed seed being released into the environment, what is the real intentions since weeds are invasive species.

Definition of a weed:

Any plant growing where it is not wanted. On land under cultivation, weeds compete with crops for water, light, and nutrients. On rangelands and in pastures, weeds are those plants that grazing animals dislike or that are poisonous.

Gold standard: because man can not be trusted to control his greed

The flaw in your logic regarding libertarians and regulations

is not understanding where regulations are aimed. Regulations keep people from defending themselves in situations like this. They stifle information about corporate abuses, they stifle legal means of defense with a convoluted, crooked justice system, and they certainly reduce the likelihood that people will actually engage in some kind of organized destruction of something that poisons the environment.

So, since you believe in government regulators, you're left begging them to do the right thing, and getting beaten, kidnapped or killed if you try to do anything to defend your environment without their permission.

That said, there's nothing wrong with using the system against itself in the short term. If we could get a law passed against certain abuses, that'd be great. But it's not too smart to imagine bureaucrats will control corporations in the long term.

Thank you, I actually never

Thank you, I actually never considered the effects that GMOs have on wild animals. I've been leaning towards allowing GMOs in the name of liberty and free choice, but I'll have to rethink it. Things start getting mighty confusing when we deal with animals' rights and the ecosystem.


You are exactly right. The problem with many of the so called libertarians here is that they refuse to accept the realities of the world we live in. It's like they want to fight for "their" principles with sticks and stones in a nuclear world.

On a side note. I tried bee keeping a few years ago. I got a little honey from my endeavor but I was not very good at it over all. My hive ended up being destroyed by wax moths. BUT, while I did have my hive there were at least 4 swarms and since then I found a hive in a tree on my back property. This is the second year since I discovered them. I like to think that it is from one of those swarms.

Keep your Queen fat and sassy

Use the Demarey method to keep her confined in the lower two boxes and get rid of any queen excluder if your using one. Basically rotate the two lower boxes every 3 weeks, so as to break up the bubble of honey that the bees naturally form on the upper box. Bees hate their honey close to the exit, so they will uncap and move it into the honey suppers above. Depending on where you live 1 beehive should average about a 100 lbs of honey. You only need to rotate the lower boxes once or twice per season because bees will not swarm in late summer.

A beehive swarming is a sign of poor beekeeping and wax moths are a sign of a beehive in poor condition. A queen under a year old will not want to swarm, takes a lot of pressure to create one. A queen 2 years and up are nothing but swarm machines, if your goal is honey replace her yearly.

If you rotate your lower boxes it can be a lot of work to remove the upper honey supers, but it is worth the effort. I used to do it on a couple of hundred hive in July, after a while you can recognize when they need to be rotated.

Gold standard: because man can not be trusted to control his greed

This was always coming. The

This was always coming. The ability to design stuff from the ground up. Now, technology is not inherently a problem, but sending stuff everywhere is. I am wondering exactly what sequences are they adding to the seed though.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.

I don't know what to think about all of this--

I really don't.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

The Libertarian response

is to let them do what they want. If their weeds are detrimental to the environment short term then make them pay a fine. If it is detrimental long term then just forget about it and let the next generation deal with the consequences. But by no means should we slap some silly regulation on this "technology" because that would be unLibertarian and would break the sacred Non Aggression Principle.

The reason my comment is not purple is because it is not sarcasm. That is the Libertarian approach.

I agree

a free for all is how some libertarians prefer things to be, that's why I'm not a libertarian, rather a constitutionalist.

But old school libertarianism says if you hurt someone directly or indirectly then it should not be left up to the marketplace.

They say pot doesn't hurt anybody but maybe the user, kind of like alcohol, So should be legal I agree.

But GMO's do hurt people, the environment and even other animals and good insects like bees, so it should not be left to the marketplace to stop this, that would be insane.

The average person does not even know what a GMO is, much less using the marketplace to try and figure out what does and hat doesn't have GMO's in food we eat if their is no labeling to allow us to choose.

It was said that Monsanto hired about 1000 people to undermine the labeling effort by infiltrating blogs and forums like this one to change public opinion.

I wouldn't doubt it, LaRaza has a huge Internet presence through infiltration to push amnesty, even here on the Daily Paul.

Your logic is flawed. You're

Your logic is flawed. You're citing a list of problems created in an already comprehensively regulated system, and you're pretending those problems came about randomly or through natural market functions....This is like citing the behavior of abused kids as evidence that kids are naturally uncontrollable, and therefore we have no choice but to beat them....The first step would be to stop distorting kids' behaviors with abuse...and in the market the first logical step is to stop distorting behaviors with arbitrary regulations.

Harmful policies in business or by various groups only get out of control when they are shielded from backlash by supposedly well-meaning regulations. It's insane to imagine that more supposedly well-meaning regulations can solve the problem.

Thanks for your words of reason.

I think you are right. It seems that some self proclaimed "libertarians" here are preaching liberal/progressive ideologies.

Just as bad though are those libertarians who refuse to accept the political/social/economic environment we live in. The principles of libertarianism are admirable but the institution of some of those ideas in our current environment is impossible.

You ass

The libertarian approach is free-flowing information and the ability of people to organize in any way they see fit to counter whatever they see as negative market activity.

If you involve government regulations, you get nice theater so imbeciles like yourself can feel safe, and next year you realize the regulations are only enforced against start-up companies and people who might actually offer sane alternatives. And you see that the companies that were supposed to be regulated are exempted from the regulations due to some loophole. Could even turn out they wrote the regulations.

The libertarian approach is to not regulate against people being informed, active, and competitive, so people can actually put a stop to actions that harm society. The ignorant socialist approach is to sit on your large backside and wait for bureaucrats to save you.

You need to look around boy.

Go tell your story to Monsanto and the farmers and lives that are being controlled and ruined by them.

What is really funny that you open your argument with a blatant lie! "The libertarian approach is free-flowing information". So now you have changed the "pure libertarian" philosophy to include mandatory disclosure? Labeling perhaps? Hypocrite.

Get out of here and go wait until the behemoth is beating on your door and then defend yourself.

That is, unregulated

That is, unregulated information, and unregulated action. Nothing mandatory, just not red tape or state thugs preventing people from informing others or from organizing and defending themselves.

Monsanto is not made into a vital issue by our regulated media, and if you want to oppose Monsanto you have to go through so-called legal channels, or the behemoth will beat down your door.

So, yes...you're an ass who doesn't understand the principles or the big picture...Government has failed, so you call for more government.

You twist the conversation with the skill of a Romulan.

No one here said that all regulation is good. That's another problem with people like you. YOU HAVE NO COMMON SENSE. You are all about ideas but you cannot honestly defend them in the real world. You see things as all or nothing which is not uncommon in a simple mind.

Regulation is necessary, laws are necessary. Just because the PTB use regulatory power for their own good is not an indictment against regulation itself. It is the blatant manipulation of the system that is the problem.

You childishly act as if people are going to start embracing anarchist/libertarian ideology, tear down government and all regulation and live the utopia that is in your mind. Your idea of libertarianism would lead to the same servitude as communism where the ideology of your utopia is smashed by the hard facts of life.

In your world there is no recourse because there is no law and if their is no law then you cannot touch Monsanto at all. In your world there are no "legal channels". How can there be if their are no laws? You are a walking oxymoron.

Now go ask what you are suppose to say now and get back to me.

Principles are black and

Principles are black and white. You have to identify principles in order to have some standard by which to measure reality.

A large central government can't be controlled by regular, decent people. That's a good guiding principle. It's proven by all of history and by everything going on with current governments.

Markets, on the other hand, when not distorted by governments, regulate activity very strictly according to choices regular, decent people make with their time and resources every day. Markets also introduce unexpected and brilliant solutions no bureaucrat or unimaginative person like yourself could guess might be possible. That's another principle. Markets work for regular people, because markets are regular people.

For example, without government help, a company like Monsanto would have to rely on regular people *choosing* to take part in their enterprise, one person at a time. That's a fairly vulnerable position to be in, so in a pure market setting they would have to behave ethically--or at least far more ethically....It's government distortions at several levels--informational, regulatory, legal--that have allowed the problem with Monsanto to reach absurd proportions.

I don't claim to know who's going to start embracing what or what the ultimate solution to anything might be. I just know that you reach insane conclusions if you try to reason without principles.

You still fail to accept what you yourself are saying.

We are not starting out new. We are already in a contrived and manipulated society. If everyone was inherently libertarian when this country wouldn't be, much less a corporation like Monsanto. Now we are stuck with what we have because everything that has been done by manipulative means thus far will not be undone and certainly not by giving more power to the manipulators.

You have a fantasy view of life and no real cognitive reasoning. You have not addressed any of the problems that I have mentioned. You just keep repeating the same wishful thinking "Let's just let the corporations do what they want and they will look out for our interests because regulation is what makes them bad". If you let corporations walk all over you then they will walk all over you. And you can bitch all you want but the multibillion dollar corporations will crush you. I prefer to fight instead of giving them free reign.

If you can, try and understand this. If you were right then we would not be in this mess right now. Think about it brain child.

You're badly confused. Your

You're badly confused. Your first statement was about the nature of libertarianism. Not about the world as it is. You should start by trying to keep track of what you're even arguing about.

I corrected your asinine claim that libertarians just shrug at abuses that might take place in the market. I pointed out that the market itself, real people, acting according to their interests, limit abuses far more effectively than bureaucrats spending other people's money.

I pointed out that the problems we see are taking place precisely because people like you can't distinguish between legitimate market functions and government bumbling.

Corporations are defined and protected by government. That's why they're so powerful. You're an example of the depressing ignorance that allowed this to happen. Government created corporations, corporations are bad, therefore we need more government power....Yes, you really showed me how well you understand things.

I don't say that using the system against itself isn't a possible defensive measure in the short term. I say that in the long term people like you, who can't reason from principles, are dangerously stupid.

Keep arguing with yourself

and sooner or later you will admit that I am right. You say: "I don't say that using the system against itself isn't a possible defensive measure in the short term." Good for you.

You rightly admit that Corporations are contrived entities that manipulate the system. But you still ignorantly say that they should have free reign "after the fact". They should have never been able to exist as they do in the first place. But you still ignorantly say end all regulation on them so they can roll over everyone.

Libertarians should be for INDIVIDUAL liberty not corporate liberty. But since corporations are here they should be subject to regulation just like any invention of man.

You say: "I pointed out that the market itself, real people, acting according to their interests, limit abuses far more effectively than bureaucrats spending other people's money."

That sounds great but you don't understand economics or people very well. How many people will work in their interests to limit corporate abuses? Do you think that people will rise up in mass? If so then why haven't they risen up? I will tell you why. Because their are 300+ million people in this country trying to make a buck and most don't care how it is made. And as long as these corporations are supported by a small percentage of the population then they will continue to manipulate and your idea of PEOPLE REGULATING the market will fail.

Perhaps one day when you grow up you will admit the difference between Manipulation and Regulation. Will manipulation end if you end all Regulation? NO! It will get worse because we are in a heavily Manipulated society run by the very corporations that you seek to empower even more. It is Manipulation that is bad not Regulation.

Now back to the original post which YOU can't seem to remember. You have people who want to genetically modify "whatever" and mass produce it and spread it throughout our environment which could end up causing any number of problems environmentally and/or physically. YOU SAY let them do it with no regulation, that somehow "after the fact" it can be undone just because of your fantasy belief that people controlling markets can somehow reverse time itself. That is a loosing proposition.

I stand by my original comment. When you come up with a real world argument get back to me.

People will work extremely

People will work extremely hard, relentlessly, to solve problems of all kinds, when they finally decide to take responsibility....Example: As it is understood that public education has failed, homeschooling numbers go through the roof....What happened? People were disabused of the fantasy that government was going to take care of their kids' educations....Realizing nobody else was going to do it, least of all government, they took responsibility.

Along the same lines, the best thing you can do to ultimately limit corporate abuses is to not promote the fantasy that government, which created and has empowered corporations right along, is going to reverse course and solve the problem....You may get token policy changes if enough socialists make enough noise, but in the long term the cause of the problem--government regulators--is not likely to be the solution.

Hey dducks! Where are you.

This guy just called me an ass. Where is the indignation?