Support NeoGAF

[F1Fan]

I am amazed you are so against it, without any proof shown from your side yet that it is bad.

And yes, we should want cheaper and more effective ways to feed the world.


What safety compromises have we made in this race to the bottom at the moment exactly? You are throwing around a lot of accusations, with little proof to back your statements up.

But we are not trying to feed the world. We are trying to feed an already well feed EU for no other reasons other than cash.

As for race to the bottom. have a look at technology sector. You have people in this world basically being treated as slaves, so they can produce the cheapest smartphone possible, so the corporations have a nice profit margin.

Jobs are leaving the US and EU and are all heading to cheaper places, to keep the cost down. A simple race to the bottom, benefiting almost no-one expect the corporations.

 

[Gutek]

You are aware that those companies profiting from protectionism would be doing exactly the same right? Or are these somehow less evil then those American corporations?

They ARE doing the exact same thing. Why is there protectionism? Because they are lobbying for it.

 

[Abounder]

The US represents a staggering amount of 7% of all VW cars sold in a year.

That's mostly because VW has been a criminal mess in North America, regardless USA is the second most important export market for German autos. Last thing they want is to lose the Bimmer 3 series customer to Tesla

Thanks Obama

 

[F1Fan]

How about you just... don't make safety compromises? It works, and then you have cheaper food.

But the US is forcing the EU to change their safety laws...to suit GMO. There is already compromises wanting to be made....

 

[ClosingADoor]

But we are not trying to feed the world. We are trying to feed an already well feed EU for no other reasons other than cash.

As for race to the bottom. have a look at technology sector. You have people in this world basically being treated as slaves, so they can produce the cheapest smartphone possible, so the corporations have a nice profit margin.

Jobs are leaving the US and EU and are all heading to cheaper places, to keep the cost down. A simple race to the bottom, benefiting almost no-one expect the corporations.

So you basically want every country to close themselves off, because in your mind the alternative is slave labor?

And those are safety concerns with production, which would fall under labor laws. Not with the product itself. This race to the bottom has not ended up in exploding televisions for example or other safety concerns there.

Again, on which information did you base your stance on GMOs? Because you are heavily against it, but can't back up why.

 

[chadskin]

I am amazed you are so against it, without any proof shown from your side yet that it is bad.

Granted, it's five years old but Greenpeace references plenty of scientific research for arguing against GM crops:

We simply do not know if GM crops are safe for human or animal consumption. This is reflected in the ongoing scientific controversy surrounding their safety assessment.

Independent scientific studies on the safety of GM crops for animals or humans are severely lacking45, 46, 47, 48 and there is a tendency for studies conducted by researchers with affiliations to the GM industry to give favourable results to GM crops.49

GM crops do have the potential to cause allergenic reactions, more so than conventional crops50, 51. In Australia, for example, GM peas were found to cause allergenic reactions in mice52. GM peas also made the mice more sensitive to other food allergies.

Since the introduction of GM Bt (Cry1Ab) crops, both applicant companies and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) have assumed that the Cry1Ab toxin degrades rapidly in the human digestive system and is safe for human consumption.53 However, new studies show there is a lack of degradation in the human gut. This warrants further investigation as it may imply this toxin has a greater potential to cause allergenic reactions than first thought.54

Another recent study found the Cry1Ab Bt toxin in the blood of pregnant women and their foetuses showing that it can cross the placental boundary. This raises health concerns, although the implications of this uptake and transference across the placenta are not yet known.55

There are potential health risks associated with herbicides used with GM crop cultivation. Studies indicate Roundup may be toxic to mammals 56 and could interfere with hormones57. Evidence on the toxicity of the herbicide glufosinate is so strong58 that it will have to be phased out across Europe.59

Almost all commercialised GM crops either produce or tolerate pesticides60. While pesticides are tested for two years prior to European approval, the usual duration of safety tests for GM crops is just 28 days, with the longest tests at 90 days, including for pesticide-producing GM plants.

http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/PageFiles/434214/GM_Fact Sheet_Health_ and_Env_Impacts.pdf

Science is never clear-cut, one way or the other.

 

[Kinitari]

But the US is forcing the EU to change their safety laws...to suit GMO. There is already compromises wanting to be made....

A change in law isn't inherently a compromise, you're not even sure what the proposed changes are. What if it's something that would seemingly -increase- safety standards? It's important to judge these things on their actual proposed changes and those changes potential effects, not an ideological, unsubstantiated 'no' to the idea of any sort change.

 

[Giant Panda]

Europe doesn't even let farmers grow most GMO crops. Along with with their Fracking bans the EU has been buying into fear-mongering and 5th grade level environmentalism.

 

[Pantaghana]

Ah, good old European protectionism. That's why the biggest and most important companies in countries like Germany are 100 years old. Stifle innovation, appeal to moral standards, spread paranoia.

You mean the thing corporations in the US do every single day?

Buying competing patents not in order to use them, but just to get them off the market is standard practice.
Spreading paranoia is practically an art form for US corporations.

 

[Frankfurter]

Europe doesn't even let farmers grow most GMO crops. Along with with their Fracking bans the EU has been buying into fear-mongering and 5th grade level environmentalism.

Oh boy. Fracking is like the worst idea ever, especially in densely populated areas (i.e. a very large amount of western europe).

 

[curls]

Europe doesn't even let farmers grow most GMO crops. Along with with their Fracking bans the EU has been buying into fear-mongering and 5th grade level environmentalism.

Frack off!

 

[Gutek]

You mean the thing corporations in the US do every single day?

Buying competing patents not in order to use them, but just to get them off the market is standard practice.
Spreading paranoia is practically an art form for US corporations.

You're conveniently leaving out the point I was arguing about - innovation. Of course corporations will try to do everything they can to help their interests. The difference is: you got Facebook, Uber, Apple, etc. in the US. You got Volkswagen and Dr. Oetker in Germany.

 

[Ponn]

Europe doesn't even let farmers grow most GMO crops. Along with with their Fracking bans the EU has been buying into fear-mongering and 5th grade level environmentalism.

Humans are our own extinction level event, and we give no fucks while doing it.

 

[F1Fan]

So you basically want every country to close themselves off, because in your mind the alternative is slave labor?

Again where did I say we should close ourself off?

All I said that certain issues there should be no compromises and GMO imo is one of them.

Here is link to multiple GMO studies, which I know you will dismiss, so its pointless even talking about it. You have your opinion, I have mine.

LINK

And those are safety concerns with production, which would fall under labor laws. Not with the product itself. This race to the bottom has not ended up in exploding televisions for example or other safety concerns there.

Again, on which information did you base your stance on GMOs? Because you are heavily against it, but can't back up why.

The race to the bottom has ended up with jobs being moved out of most 1st world developed countries, which bring benefits in lower production cost and more importantly reduced labor laws, so staff can quite simple be exploited, which they are.

The safety and well being of those workers are being exploited by rich corporations. That's just a fact.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Granted, it's five years old but Greenpeace references plenty of scientific research for arguing against GM crops:

http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/PageFiles/434214/GM_Fact Sheet_Health_ and_Env_Impacts.pdf

Science is never clear-cut, one way or the other.

Those guys use examples that are already outdated and disproved. This one for example:

Another recent study found the Cry1Ab Bt toxin in the blood of pregnant women and their foetuses
showing that it can cross the placental boundary. This raises health concerns, although the
implications of this uptake and transference across the placenta are not yet known.55

Seems not to be that dangerous after all:

The blog post sites a 2010 study that alleges to show this danger. The authors identified the Bt protein Cry1Ab in maternal and fetal blood, a protein found in some GMOs, but also commonly used as a pesticide in organic farming. The paper is flawed. The researchers’ measurements were based on an experiment/assay designed to detect Bt’s Cry1Ab in plants, not in humans. As this post in Biofortified.org explains, the pregnant women in the study would have had to eat several kilos of corn in order to get the Bt measurements that were detected in their blood.

https://www.geneticliteracyproject....ving-gmos-are-harmful-not-if-science-matters/

Again where did I say we should close ourself off?

All I said that certain issues there should be no compromises and GMO imo is one of them.

Here is link to multiple GMO studies, which I know you will dismiss, so its pointless even talking about it. You have your opinion, I have mine.

LINK

The race to the bottom has ended up with jobs being moved out of most 1st world developed countries, which bring benefits in lower production cost and more importantly reduced labor laws, so staff can quite simple be exploited, which they are.

The safety and well being of those workers are being exploited by rich corporations. That's just a fact.

Thanks for the link, but the first example there is the same Greenpeace gives, which turned out false already. I think there is some room to compromise on this indeed. I hope we can get some conclusive evidence either way about it. I am inclined to believe it is safe however.

Edit: Actually, the link I give was a response to yours I see now and has some serious questions about the studies mentioned: https://www.geneticliteracyproject....ving-gmos-are-harmful-not-if-science-matters/

If you want to keep those jobs in your own country, you need to either raise tariffs a whole lot or close your borders outright. Fact is also, that those poor countries are seeing significant benefit from producing all those goods and will grow because of it.

 

[Kwame120]

Europe doesn't even let farmers grow most GMO crops. Along with with their Fracking bans the EU has been buying into fear-mongering and 5th grade level environmentalism.

Alternatively, other countries (aware that the EU isn't a country, just a funky trade union) have lower standards. Off the top of my head, I'm sure there have been stories in the US about poor fracking resulting in water contamination, and in the UK - again off the top of my head - there was a minor earthquake seemingly linked to fracking I believe. And on the topic of fracking, as a society - a global society, we should be moving away from any kind of fossil fuel, not only due to global warming but also due to problems of renewability. If we want to maintain oil as an energy source, then we should move more towards renewable types like ethanol from biofuels, which also have a smaller environmental footprint. There are many, many things wrong with fracking.

Additionally, as a democratic union of many different states with various types of democracy, with regards to its own elected parliament as well as requiring countries to separately ratify certain agreements, it stands to reason that the EU is far less likely to buy into fear-mongering than single states around the world, simply as it is less reliant on individual votes hence panders less to voters, and more to the needs of the states as a whole. This, arguably, is why the EU has arguably stronger testing standards than the US. Only the US in particular, as I have little to no knowledge of the testing standards of other countries.

 

[Kinitari]

Granted, it's five years old but Greenpeace references plenty of scientific research for arguing against GM crops:


http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/PageFiles/434214/GM_Fact Sheet_Health_ and_Env_Impacts.pdf

Science is never clear-cut, one way or the other.

Green peace is one of the worst sources when it comes to anti-gmo nonsense.

1. Independent safety studies have been conducted for decades, with no proposed negative mechanism or effect for transgenic genetic modification of crops, I will pull up sources if you want to challenge me on this.

2. That GM plants have the potential to cause any sort of reaction is true - as they are changing the genetic structure - the implication that these reactions are inherently more likely in GM plants is baseless, especially considering the plethora of non-transgenic crops that have created severe negative reactions in those who have handled or consumed these crops. This is an issue with -genetics- and this is why testing of all novel foodstuff, regardless of method of genetic change is the safest course.

3. The BT toxin thing is silly as there is 1. No mechanism for BT to impact a human body negatively, it targets cell structures that don't exist in mammals 2. BT is used -a lot- as an organic pesticide. Sprayed liberally on these plants.

4. The toxicity of roundup is suggested, but it is probably the -safest- herbicide farmers use, glyphosate is used in GM and non-GM crops alike, specifically because of it's extreme safety and effectiveness compared to other herbicides.

5. The used pesticides/herbicides in GM crops are all ones that are legally allowed to be used in Europe, on non-gm plants, so that's a non-issue.

 

[Kinitari]

Again where did I say we should close ourself off?

All I said that certain issues there should be no compromises and GMO imo is one of them.

Here is link to multiple GMO studies, which I know you will dismiss, so its pointless even talking about it. You have your opinion, I have mine.

LINK

That source is no good, it's really bad. It would be like you posting a link full of anti-climate change BS.

Serious question, does the European/Global scientific consensus on GM plants matter to you at all? Or are you working backwards from a conclusion here? If the vast majority of european scientists who study GM feel they are safe, does that have -any- effect on your opinion?

 

[F1Fan]

You're conveniently leaving out the point I was arguing about - innovation. Of course corporations will try to do everything they can to help their interests. The difference is: you got Facebook, Uber, Apple, etc. in the US. You got Volkswagen and Dr. Oetker in Germany.

And whats wrong with that Germany having less powerful corporations?

Why does the world need powerful corporations anyway? What benefit do they actually bring?

USA has the most powerful corporations in the world but at the same time how does this benefit the average american? Production has been moved abroad, tax evasion is rampant and lobbying ensures that the corporation get more and more powerful at the expense of some basic social safety net.

Where the is the actual benefit for average american?

 

[Palculator]

Nice to see Gutek shoving their hate boner for Germany into yet another thread.

 

[MJPIA]

http://ec.europa.eu/commission/2014-2019/malmstrom/blog/negotiating-ttip_en

Many media outlets are reporting this morning about supposed leaks from our negotiations with the United States on a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). As there seems to be quite a number of misconceptions floating around, a few things might be worth pointing out.
First of all, and contrary to what many seem to believe, so-called "consolidated texts" in a trade negotiation are not the same thing as an outcome. They reflect each side's negotiating position, nothing else. And it shouldn't come as a surprise that there are areas where the EU and the US have different views. As I pointed out on this blog last week – there are areas in the TTIP negotiations where we have come a long way, but in others we are simply not in agreement.

It is only normal that both parties in a negotiation want to achieve as many of their own objectives as possible. That does not mean that the other side gives in to those demands. That does not mean that the parties will meet halfway. In areas where we are too far apart in a negotiation, we simply will not agree. In that sense, many of today's alarmist headlines are a storm in a teacup.

In the past year, the European Commission has opened up the negotiations to make our positions on all matters in the negotiations public. After each negotiating round, we publish round reports as well as our position papers and textual proposals. So the positions of the EU are well-known and nothing new.

Take our proposal on regulatory coherence, for example. Our latest proposal – tabled during the February round and made public shortly thereafter – includes references to the precautionary principle, and points out our well-established public consultation procedures that are open to all stakeholders.

And no, the EU industry does not have greater access to EU negotiating positions than other stakeholders. We take into account submissions by industry, but exactly the same applies to submissions by trade unions, consumer groups or health or environmental organisations – all of which are represented in the advisory group that regularly meets our negotiating team.

It begs to be said, again and again: No EU trade agreement will ever lower our level of protection of consumers, or food safety, or of the environment. Trade agreements will not change our laws on GMOs, or how to produce safe beef, or how to protect the environment.

Any EU trade deal can only change regulation by making it stronger. We might agree with a partner that rules on the safety of medicines would be tougher than before, for example, but never weaker. No trade deal will limit our ability to make new rules to protect our citizens or environment in the future.

I am simply not in the business of lowering standards. I have a clear negotiating mandate for the negotiations given to the Commission by 28 EU governments, that clearly spells out what a successful agreement has to look like, and what our non-negotiable red lines are. And as always, the end result of a negotiation would have to be cleared by those 28 Member States and the European Parliament before becoming reality.

(Update: While I am in Geneva today, EU chief negotiator Ignacio Garcia Bercero met the press in Brussels to comment both on last week's TTIP round and this morning's reports. Watch the video here.)

Seriously people, its a negotiation.
Each side has a starting position and they go from there.

 

[F1Fan]

That source is no good, it's really bad. It would be like you posting a link full of anti-climate change BS.

Again the source is no good, but you can say that about any argument. Why is the source no good, what mistakes did they make in their studies?

Serious question, does the European/Global scientific consensus on GM plants matter to you at all? Or are you working backwards from a conclusion here? If the vast majority of european scientists who study GM feel they are safe, does that have -any- effect on your opinion?

Consensus matters, yes of course it does, but does it matter in this case for the EU? I mean are we starving here? What's so wrong about producing natural food, why do have to replace it, when there is no need for it.

If anywhere GMO should be used, is in struggling parts of the world, but I guess those people don't have the cash to buy that shit, so it's not worth pursuing.

 

[Gutek]

And whats wrong with that Germany having less powerful corporations?

Why does the world need powerful corporations anyway? What benefit do they actually bring?

USA has the most powerful corporations in the world but at the same time how does this benefit the average american? Production has been moved abroad, tax evasion is rampant and lobbying ensures that the corporation get more and more powerful at the expense of some basic social safety net.

Where the is the actual benefit for average american?

Yes, you truly do not benefit from Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, etc. at all. Nothing has changed in the last 50 years.

 

[IdreamofHIME]

Almost makes me want a Brexit so we're back of the queue.

 

[Kurdel]

Consensus matters, yes of course it does, but does it matter in this case for the EU? I mean are we starving here? What's so wrong about producing natural food, why do have to replace it, when there is no need for it.

If anywhere GMO should be used, is in struggling parts of the world, but I guess those people don't have the cash to buy that shit, so it's not worth pursuing.

So only poor countries need to worry about nutritional efficiency? That's a dumb way to frame the debate...

Also framing GMO as not "natural" is disingenuous, because it's a remix of natural genes.

 

[Pantaghana]

You're conveniently leaving out the point I was arguing about - innovation. Of course corporations will try to do everything they can to help their interests. The difference is: you got Facebook, Uber, Apple, etc. in the US. You got Volkswagen and Dr. Oetker in Germany.

And Slovenia made Youtube.

Spoiler

Why did I think that?

Microsoft sabotaged Nokia in order to buy them out.
Now the US is innovating again with the Windows Phone.

And various ISP's in the us are deliberately staying out of each others territory in order to maintain monopolies in order to overcharge shitty services. When Google tries spreading its own Google Fiber, local ISP's start throwing around lawsuits.

I would prefer European "protectionism" if it would prevent bullshit like that.

Yes, you truly do not benefit from Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, etc. at all. Nothing has changed in the last 50 years.

Maybe I'm a luddite, because I don't use Facebook, don't own a single Apple device and don't know what Uber is.

 

[F1Fan]

Yes, you truly do not benefit from Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, etc. at all. Nothing has changed in the last 50 years.

Man those are some awesome benefits. I mean I can post on Facebook and stuff.

While real benefits, like having a voice in your government is being reduced more and more by lobbying, but hey who cares about those right.

 

[F1Fan]

So only poor countries need to worry about nutritional efficiency? That's a dumb way to frame the debate...

Also framing GMO as not "natural" is disingenuous, because it's a remix of natural genes.

Well poor countries would actually benefit from GMO. It would actually save lives and potentially reduce hunger in some parts of the world.

How does the EU benefit from them? Do we even need them?

We don't need them, but we do have the cash to buy them, unlike some poorer countries.

 

[Gutek]

And Slovenia made Youtube. While that was going on Microsoft sabotaged Nokia in order to buy them out.
Now the US is innovating again with the Windows Phone.

And various ISP's in the us are deliberately staying out of each others territory in order to maintain monopolies in order to overcharge shitty services. When Google tries spreading its own Google Fiber, local ISP's start throwing around lawsuits.

I would prefer European "protectionism" if it would prevent bullshit like that.

You can always chose to not use American products.

Well poor countries would actually benefit from GMO. It would actually save lives and potentially reduce hunger in some parts of the world.

How does the EU benefit from them? Do we even need them?

We don't need them, but we do have the cash to buy them, unlike some poorer countries.

How does America need German cars? Do we even need them?

 

[lawnchair]

Man those are some awesome benefits. I mean I can post on Facebook and stuff.

While real benefits, like having a voice in your government is being reduced more and more by lobbying, but hey who cares about those right.

take your facebook benefits and shut up

 

[F1Fan]

You can always chose to not use American products.



How does America need Germany cars? Do we even need them?

Don't know, is there a demand for them?

I am pretty sure demand for GMO is at the bottom of most EU citizens. I don't remember any large protest or any political party pushing forward GMO food in EU.

 

[Gutek]

And Slovenia made Youtube. While that was going on Microsoft sabotaged Nokia in order to buy them out.
Now the US is innovating again with the Windows Phone.

And various ISP's in the us are deliberately staying out of each others territory in order to maintain monopolies in order to overcharge shitty services. When Google tries spreading its own Google Fiber, local ISP's start throwing around lawsuits.

I would prefer European "protectionism" if it would prevent bullshit like that.



Maybe I'm a luddite, because I don't use Facebook, don't own a single Apple device and don't know what Uber is.

Ok, so clearly you have no use for American products. Time to get off NeoGAF. Oh, and those American videogames you play, please leave them at the door while you leave.

Edit: Cue "I only play Japanese games"

 

[Roland_Gunner]

And Slovenia made Youtube. While that was going on Microsoft sabotaged Nokia in order to buy them out.
Now the US is innovating again with the Windows Phone.

Chad Hurley, Steve Chen, and Jawed Karim are Slovenian. Who knew?

 

[Kill Your Masters]

You're conveniently leaving out the point I was arguing about - innovation. Of course corporations will try to do everything they can to help their interests. The difference is: you got Facebook, Uber, Apple, etc. in the US. You got Volkswagen and Dr. Oetker in Germany.

Oh come on, at least do your research about large german corporations before you attempt a dick size contest. Not that I dont appreciate all the US tech giants but you cant reduce germany two those two companies and talk about lack of innovation.

 

[Giant Panda]

Humans are our own extinction level event, and we give no fucks while doing it.

What are you trying to say here?

Alternatively, other countries (aware that the EU isn't a country, just a funky trade union) have lower standards. Off the top of my head, I'm sure there have been stories in the US about poor fracking resulting in water contamination, and in the UK - again off the top of my head - there was a minor earthquake seemingly linked to fracking I believe. And on the topic of fracking, as a society - a global society, we should be moving away from any kind of fossil fuel, not only due to global warming but also due to problems of renewability. If we want to maintain oil as an energy source, then we should move more towards renewable types like ethanol from biofuels, which also have a smaller environmental footprint. There are many, many things wrong with fracking.

Additionally, as a democratic union of many different states with various types of democracy, with regards to its own elected parliament as well as requiring countries to separately ratify certain agreements, it stands to reason that the EU is far less likely to buy into fear-mongering than single states around the world, simply as it is less reliant on individual votes hence panders less to voters, and more to the needs of the states as a whole. This, arguably, is why the EU has arguably stronger testing standards than the US. Only the US in particular, as I have little to no knowledge of the testing standards of other countries.

First, all countries should let the market determine the pace that we move away from fossil fuels but setting a proper price on carbon. Mandating it by fiat just results in waste and inefficiency as money is invested into energy sources when they don't make sense.

Second, ethanol is a terrible idea and has been debunked already as being a good way to lower carbon emissions.

Third, fracking won't contaminate well water if the it is done properly, and I don't know why micro-earthquakes are an issue in places that have stable geology.

Fourth, fracking gives cheap supplies natural gas, which has actually been benefiting the environment a lot, because it is much cleaner than coal. It is simply not feasible to completely replace coal with renewables yet, so reducing the supply of natural gas just means more coal is burned and more emissions are made.

Fifth, you have nothing to back up your claim that the EU's structure makes it less prone to fear mongering. I think it is clearly false based on its GMO and fracking policy.

 

[F1Fan]

Ok, so clearly you have no use for American products. Time to get off NeoGAF. Oh, and those American videogames you play, please leave them at the door while you leave.

Those american video games playing on Japanese consoles?

At that's the last time I am responding to you.

 

[Suikoguy]

Those american video games playing on Japanese consoles?

At that's the last time I am responding to you.

Not surprised, you have been incredibly combative and disingenuous in this thread.

Also, the "let's give the dirty poors the GM crops, we are better than them" is so fucking offensive.

I think much of the distrust of GMO comes from lack of understanding of science:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH4bi60alZU

Learn how they work, and how they compare to other forms to plant manipulation before you continue discussing GMOs.

 

[chadskin]

Oh boy. Fracking is like the worst idea ever, especially in densely populated areas (i.e. a very large amount of western europe).

It's most certainly not the fault of fracking that you can set Australian rivers near fracking sites on fire.

Those guys use examples that are already outdated and disproved. This one for example:

Seems not to be that dangerous after all:

https://www.geneticliteracyproject....ving-gmos-are-harmful-not-if-science-matters/

As I said, this document is five years old but if anything, it goes to show how fluid research on the matter of the environmental impact of GM crops still is. In matters like these that can potentially pose a safety risk to millions of people as well as the environment, however small or large they are, I'd rather make doubly and triply sure I make the right decision.

So, I'm not sure twenty years of GMOs allows a sufficient amount of data and research to come to any long-term conclusion at this point. See, for instance, climate change.

Green peace is one of the worst sources when it comes to anti-gmo nonsense.

Greenpeace is not the source, they've - in this instance at least - merely collected and referenced a variety of scientific research papers which are certainly open for scrutiny.

 

[Gutek]

Oh come on, at least do your research about large german corporations before you attempt a dick size contest. Not that I dont appreciate all the US tech giants but you cant reduce germany two those two companies and talk about lack of innovation.

Please list those huge German corporations that are younger than 25 years.

Those american video games playing on Japanese consoles?

At that's the last time I am responding to you.

As predicted. Goodbye.

 

[Pantaghana]

Ok, so clearly you have no use for American products. Time to get off NeoGAF. Oh, and those American videogames you play, please leave them at the door while you leave.

Edit: Cue "I only play Japanese games"

Nah, don't own a single console either.

 

[Caayn]

Please list those huge German corporations that are younger than 25 years.

Two out of the three the tech giants you listed previously in this thread are older than 25 years. What do you attempt to achieve with this arbitrary limit for German companies?

Dick waving at its finest.

 

[Kill Your Masters]

Please list those huge German corporations that are younger than 25 years.



As predicted. Goodbye.

The fact that you have to put an age limit to prove your point is quite poor. I'm not doing list wars, what is this now, gamefaqs?

Just pointing out how ignorant your post was.

 

[Gutek]

Two out of the three the tech giants you listed previously in this thread are older than 25 years. What do you attempt to achieve with this arbitrary limit for germany companies?

Dick waving at its finest.

It's not dick waving, it's a symptom of German/European protectionist practices. Again, they stifle innovation and competition and it's a problem for Germany - who, by all accounts, should have a thriving start up/innovation scene. They don't though.

The fact that you have to put an age limit to prove your point is quite poor. I'm not doing list wars, what is this now, gamefaqs?

Just pointing out how ignorant your post was.

My initial point is that German industry has been protected by the government for decades and thus stifled innovation and competition in the process. That's why you don't see new sectors taking off in Germany. The time limit I set is intrinsic to my argument.

 

[F1Fan]

Not surprised, you have been incredibly combative and disingenuous in this thread.

Also, the "let's give the dirty poors the GM crops, we are better than them" is so fucking offensive.

I think much of the distrust of GMO comes from lack of understanding of science:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH4bi60alZU

Learn how they work, and how they compare to other forms to plant manipulation before you continue discussing GMOs.

WTF are you on about, where have I said that?

And talking about GMO, the people pushing the idea are the ones who always use this as their main benefit, being able to solve world hunger problems.

If that is the purpose of GMO, then they should be trying to do that, but they are not. USA is the main use of them, because apparently they are having trouble feeding their citizens and now the EU is being pushed to do the same.

 

[Palculator]

Yeah, the entire Mittelstand is complete trash. I don't even see their names on TV! What a rubbish economy.

 

[Kwame120]

What are you trying to say here?



First, all countries should let the market determine the pace that we move away from fossil fuels but setting a proper price on carbon. Mandating it by fiat just results in waste and inefficiency as money is invested into energy sources when they don't make sense.

I don't believe so. Letting the market move away from fossil fuels will be just like letting the market move away from cigarette usage, ultimately the company is concerned with its profits. Measures need to be made to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels as it's not a matter of economics, but renewability and environmental impact.

Second, ethanol is a terrible idea and has been debunked already as being a good way to lower carbon emissions.

Doing further research into the subject it does seem like there are significant issues with ethanol, such as energy economy, carbon neutrality and feasibility. I believe that carbon neutrality can be obtained, as in principle biofuels are carbon neutral, any lack of neutrality comes from the logistics, transportation and fertilisers etcetera, so once those tend towards carbon neutrality so will biofuels. Energy economy is certainly a problem, though in my mind I was only considering biofuels as a store of energy not a source, forming a form of "petrol" (if you will) which is better for the environment than simply using fossil fuels. There are probably better alternatives, it was more of a throwaway comment in case someone mentioned a lot of our technology currently relying on oil/alcohol based fuels.

Third, fracking won't contaminate well water if the it is done properly, and I don't know why micro-earthquakes are an issue in places that have stable geology.

Absolutely, but you have to balance whether or not companies will do it properly. Oil spills like the fiasco around BP shouldn't happen if its done properly, but they do happen, and have long lasting effects. You can't simply handwave the risk away by saying that people will do it properly, as evident in the reluctance of many countries to build nuclear power stations. Of course, if the reward is worth it then you should go for it - I believe the reward for nuclear energy is great for example, and worth the risk considering the huge safety precautions taken. I'm much less convinced by fracking being worth the risk.

Fourth, fracking gives cheap supplies natural gas, which has actually been benefiting the environment a lot, because it is much cleaner than coal. It is simply not feasible to completely replace coal with renewables yet, so reducing the supply of natural gas just means more coal is burned and more emissions are made.

Investments made into fracking are much better being made into making renewables more viable, in any case. There's more reluctance to take up renewables than them not being up to standard, evident in most countries continually missing their clean energy targets.

Fifth, you have nothing to back up your claim that the EU's structure makes it less prone to fear mongering. I think it is clearly false based on its GMO and fracking policy.

I've provided a structural argument which you haven't refuted. An in other words, you've made a decision on the viability of GMOs and fracking, hence have extrapolated that the EU is fear mongering as they do not agree with your decision. Have you provided any evidence that their policies are not scientifically sound and are instead based on the fears of the masses?

 

[Ponn]

What are you trying to say here?

I'm saying humans are always looking for ways to kill ourselves faster for no real reason at all. We will defend it even, and then when the shit hits the fan 'Why oh why didn't we test it more/nobody put a stop to it...oh the humanity!" Like anyone can actually say GMO's are 100 percent safe with an iron clad guarantee when they continue to find new things wrong with shit we eat today. The world isn't dying without any of this shit, and those starving countries that would actually benefit from it aren't going to see a drop of it, so before putting yourself at risk why the fuck not test it as thoroughly as possible and with multiple, completely independent and impartial, parties.

It's most certainly not the fault of fracking that you can set Australian rivers near fracking sites on fire.

They are trying their damndest to start fracking here in Florida of all places. Locally its a resident pushing to allow a company to do the fracking, so he can sell his land to them and make shitloads of money surprise surprise. Being below sea level, countless sink hole problems and all I really don't give a damn how many company paid for studies you throw at me it makes zero fucking sense to do that shit here in this state. They are even trying to push for a gas line to be build underneath a river near here. Of course they say say thats 100 percent safe, again UNDERNEATH a river, in Florida, below sea level. Yup, 100 percent safe, no worries there.

 

[Suikoguy]

WTF are you on about, where have I said that?

And talking about GMO, the people pushing the idea are the ones who always use this as their main benefit, being able to solve world hunger problems.

If that is the purpose of GMO, then they should be trying to do that, but they are not. USA is the main use of them, because apparently they are having trouble feeding their citizens and now the EU is being pushed to do the same.

Well poor countries would actually benefit from GMO. It would actually save lives and potentially reduce hunger in some parts of the world.

The implication being that we should be using this dangerous GMO stuff on poor people. But it's not good enough to use on people in my country.

So is it dangerous or not? You have argued yourself into a corner here.

 

[F1Fan]

The implication being that we should be using this dangerous GMO stuff on poor people. But it's not good enough to use on people in my country.

So is it dangerous or not? You have argued yourself into a corner here.

I haven't argued my self in any corner...

Is it dangerous? Yes in my opinion, compared to natural food.

Is it better than dying of hunger? Yes GMO food is better than dying of hunger......

Pretty easy argument for me.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Consensus matters, yes of course it does, but does it matter in this case for the EU? I mean are we starving here? What's so wrong about producing natural food, why do have to replace it, when there is no need for it.

If anywhere GMO should be used, is in struggling parts of the world, but I guess those people don't have the cash to buy that shit, so it's not worth pursuing.

There are poor people in Europe who have a hard time buying food. It's insane to think otherwise. GMO food being cheaper would be a huge boost to them.

And about the tired "they took our jobs!" line, it's bunk. Those are jobs that would be obsolete in the West, as evidenced by factories coming back with a fraction of the employees. Protectionism is just plain wrong, according to pretty much any economist you talk to.