Will Monsanto Kill Us Before Yellowstone?

the main ingredient in Monsanto's popular weedkiller Roundup - is "probably carcinogenic to humans."

Great, I use Roundup myself. Who would have thought something that would kill difficult-to-kill weeds could potentially kill people. Now what the heck am I supposed to use in my salad dressing now.

A hoe?

No, not don't get it.

I don't condone Monsanto's antics at all, and there are a lot more of them than just this; the point is many innocuous things can actually be quite deadly when misapplied. You are more than welcome to rant at them all you want, but I personally do have reasons to look back at things- otherwise you become proof that "the only thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history".

Please do not forget that nature itself has shown us the way of introducing new genes into plants and animals and does it on a regular bases. This process is not new and not unique to humans interference. The clue as always lays in how good do we understand of what we are doing and do we trust those that do it.

The stretch is only in our imagination!

I do exactly mean what I've said here.

As Gavilan rightly suggested, NATURAL evolution and NATURAL mutation are far different than genetic meddling in a laboratory.

The evidence is in and it is clear that Round Up and Round Up ready plants are not helping humanity.

The "us" in the title refers to humans, not bacteria.

With notably few exceptions, horizontal gene transfer occurs in single cell organisms.

It isn't even constrained to transfer from a similar genus, nor similar order. In fact, HGT isn't restricted to even our broadest classifications. HGT spans kingdoms. Moreover, if you don't consider viruses to be alive, which is reasonable, then HGT isn't even confined strictly transfers.from one living thing to another.

At any rate, the qualitative judgement of whether the frequency of this phenomina constitutes something somewhat rare, or if constitutes many examples, is not relevant.

.

What is relevant, even if there were not hundreds.of examples is that there is indeed a nonanthropogenic example of this. Moreover it is not an isolated anomaly. This has been happening for millions of years and continues to happen even now.

.

That makes it unreasonable to state that this process has no known analogue in the 'natural world' and as such means it should be distrusted. There are lots of unnatural things that probably make your life expenrience much more agreeable, and I doubt you distrust those when theh are needed. But who mnows, I am just guessing. Perhaps when you get a headache you go outside to find a willow tree so that you can chew some bark instead kf swallowing aspirin or some NSAID.

.

I understand if you made the statement either unaware or forgetting about HGT. That is totally understandable. However, now that you have been made aware, it is time to retract the statement. I definitely does you know good to continue to assert the original claim is still somehow true. We all make errors. It is far better to admit the errors rather than having that dead cat hanging around your neck everywhere you go.

Meow

The only thing new with horizontal gene transfers (HGT) is that people are now steering some of these transfers a little while nature continues to do this in a random fashion. This or similar gene selection techniques might one day allow a chickensaurus . Remember the old mantra, "The only thing that is constant is change". We are evolving, too. What's wrong with trying to take some control along the way.

It amuses me that, 'We all make errors', is one of the last sentences in a comment riddled with typos (meow). I wish I could say I had done it intentionally to make the point.

Lets not forget the wide variety of radiation induced useful mutations.

Eventually something is going to kill us all. I just want it to be slow and tasty process.

People aren't necessarily saying that GMO seed is sent to those 3rd World Countries, but he bounty of what is produced in developed countries is shipped to those countries and those impoverished people benefit because of larger crops.

You can't give what you don't have and when you have a bumper crop it makes more available to those in need.

It's also good to remember that there are agendas and campaings being promoted against companies and when they get all kinds of media coverage the real issues get lost in the "firestorm and feeding frenzy." Monsanto may or may not be operating ethically, I don't know enough about their operation to make that determination. I do know that often people with liberal tendancies will choose to focus on certain people, companies or practices if it advances their agenda, i.e. global warming, free enterprise, capitalism, etc.

You've only noticed that among people with liberal tendencies? Do you think it is well correlated?

No, you're correct. "Stupid" isn't just reserved for the libs. Stupid is sticky and can get all over anyone if they hang around the wrong kind of thinking.

It just that it seems that the libs are more prone to denigrate industries and corporations because they "make money", are selfish, are totally uncaring for the environment, etc. It would be wrong to say that there aren't corps. like that, but to paint them all with that broad brush is disengenuious.

It is just as equally wrong to paint all corporations as money loving monsters that care nothing about their employees and neighbors. To argue a point it is sometimes acceptable to make hyperbolic exaggerations but one should make it clear that this is just to make a point in an argument.

That's an admirable character trait you've got; being able to reconsider something you've already and then make improvements.

.

Maybe Monsanto is using these third world countries as human lab rat colonies. Waiting to see if they start growing an extra eyeball or other appendage?

I have to agree with the conclusion that the problem is in the ability of large corporations to influence the governing process. We are neither free enough for markets to be efficient, nor sufficiently dominated.to have any hope of a benevolent dictator (not a worthwhile goal anyway). The resulting lack of real consequence for damaging activities becomes more and more problematic with time.

..

While I support one of the conclusions, much of the remainder is deeply flawed.

It js inconsistent, at best, to remark about general lack of knowledge concerning selective breeding and follow that with a claim that extensive familiarity with breeding programs has.not.indicated.any 'health danger' or 'species danger' with hybrid animals.

If you haven't noticed a real threat to health of species with hybrid animals, you haven't been paying attention.

There are numerous hybrid.combinations which are 100% fatal..no live births result. I'd say that is a risk to health, at the very least.

Numerous hybrid combinations produce sterile offspring. The mule is a good example. That is a fairly unambiguous health and species risk.

The introduction of new traits, whether through selection or breeding, is in its very nature a.risk. It is a risk of not being viable. If viable it is a risk to itself of not competing well. If it competes too well, it is a risk to the current specied from which it came, and to the species it.competes with.

.

Look ul HGT, horizontal gene transfer, before making more claims about inserting genes being unnatural, with no biological equivalent.

"There is no historical perspective for genetic alteration of biological organisms."

Yes exactly and the poodle and chihuahua sprang forth from something other than generations of selective breeding of wild dogs and other non domesticated canine species.

Seriously lyn how exactly did the term 'domesticated' get added to the former wild beasts and plants we have been selectively modified to meet our needs better for how many thousands of years now?

Genetic engineering in one form or another is what we humans have been specializing in to make our live easier since the day we figured out how sex works.

The only difference is now we use a microscope and manipulation of DNA to get exactly what we want over the long slow often times multi generational trial and error guess work of selective breeding which is well known by those who work with it for amplifying as many bad traits as it does good.

"how exactly did the term 'domesticated' get added to the former wild beasts and plants we have been selectively modified to meet our needs better for how many thousands of years now?"

These plants weren't "selectively" modified in a laboratory with instantaneous results as is now being done.

These happened over many generations, with selective breeding and not genetic manipulation. The bad species either did not survive or were killed by the breeder.

We are just using a new steering mechanism of what nature already does. We are just speeding up a natural process that includes both positive and negative effects. Mother nature produced small pox, malaria, rag weed, kudzu and poison ivy. Then there are the ugly members of the animal kingdom; leeches, ring worms, fleas, ticks, etc. It's not all care bears, rainbows and unicorns out there.

Actually there is a historical perspective, in evolution. The mutations that did not work well became extinct.

Evolution is not the same as artificial, human manipulation.
As I said in #32:

"These happened over many generations, with selective breeding and not genetic manipulation. The bad species either did not survive or were killed by the breeder."

It is a very interesting discussion from many points of view.

I would like to put a simple question:

How many from the "specialists" active at this discussion have a at least good knowledge of genetics or the other discussed subjects?

With respect to CO2 what do you do with CH4 which has a much higher effect and is produced in HUGE quantities by cows and termites? Why is it not mentioned ?

Why should selective breeding which is a change in the genetics be different ? Only because it takes a longer time? Whichever is the way an heritage has been changed it remains only if it is stable i.e. accepted by the environmental conditions (in the broadest meaning of the word).

This does not mean that I am convinced that all which has been done is correct and has to be accepted or tolerated but I have the feeling that arguments are not always the scientific ones.

Measurements for a statistic analysis of earth temperature evolution are available only for a quite short period (one will say that the ice at the south pole gives indications aver thousands of years but those do not say that temperature was always low). I took a couple of years ago data from a series of sources - considered as reliable - and made a statistical attempt to obtain a prevision. Results were interesting since according to the accepted approximation (linear, parabolic 2nd degree or 3rd degree) the temperature rise in 10 years could have been between 2 and 50°C. I am asking myself which is the marvelous approach able to predict with the low uncertainty claimed by the fighters how high the temperature will be in 10 or 20 years when they cannot predict for a much shorter range. I do not say that warming is not real but history gives informations about alternating warm and cold periods all over the centuries.

CR4 - The
Engineer's Place for News and Discussion^®
I don't believe that any special qualifications are required to have a discussion.

I, and most here, are not climate, nor chemistry specialists.

Your statement that you "made a statistical attempt to obtain a prevision" is all well and good, as long as we all realize that you present no data, just an opinion.

I agree with you emphatically that the earth warms and cools, and has for millions of years, based on the records available to us.

I also agree that real weather data has been collected for a very short period of time.

The recording of weather data and the burning of fossil fuel had their beginnings about the same time.

That said, I have a distaste for any one who insists that burning fossil fuels does not pollute the atmosphere and contribute to very many health problems.

I cannot say that CO2 absolutely causes (or even contributes significantly to) global warming any more than you can say that it does not.

Maybe in another 100 years those who are still alive will know the answer.

I am NOT the only one to present "opinions", dont' you think ?

If you do not believe what I say this is your good right.

At least I tried not only to believe what other say I tried to build up my own mind.

What do you think about the fact that nobody mentions the methan ?

No, most all of the information presented here is an opinion.

Regarding methane, part of the reason may be that it's atmospheric half life is 8 years vs 100 for CO2.

In 3 sources I found 3 values and much more a source mentioned in Wikipedia gives as source...Wikipedia!

The half life may be 7 or 9.6 years but the nuisance factor oscillates according to those sources between 86x and 20x more than CO2.

According to one of the sources (you may find same googling "methane in the atmosphere") the contend of methane in the atmosphere grew more than CO2 during last centuries. Which way you compute even if the new generation of the gas is neglected its effect is not to be disconsidered.

The notion "half live" implies an exponential law as G(t)= G(0)* exp(- t/T) with T the reference time = 1.44 half time ( exp(-t/T)=0.5). The effect over a period is the integral of this function. It will be T*G(0)*K where K is the nuisance effect proportional to the active amount at every moment. We consider same mass of both substances at a moment and integrate over 100 years then we get as result at the best 20*11.5=230 for methane and 1*100=100 for CO2. Which one seems to be more dangerous ?

Interesting No?

Maybe I'm dense, but, I don't see a connection between an artificially produced chemical, and the alterations of some naturally occurring genes, other than the corporate source. We have lived with genetic changes for as long as we've been on the earth. You can't equate the cancer causing effects of a man made chemical to a genetic mutation and conclude from that that the mutation must also be dangerous. On a positive type comparison to your reasoning, let's say corporation A makes a very good DVD player, therefore we can conclude if they own a bakery as a subsidiary, they will also make a very good cookie. Not too big a stretch these days to assume that.

Yes the chemicals are proven very harmful, in general, but where the heck is any proof of problems with genetic alterations? Been around for 40 years now.

How do I fit the hoe in the salad dressing bottle?

You get a smaller, genetically modified salad hoe.

You will have to give it back to Monsanto after you use it to stir the salad.

Use bigger bottle or an angle grinder!

I don't think she will fit in the bowl.

1. GMO

We will not get away from this technology once it is developed there will be people to favour it one way or the other. The only way we can handle this is to take control of the self interest of those that make money with it. The prove of damage should result in similar attention that we have today on nuclear technology. And yes I am aware that not all have the same attention there.

2. GW

The GW hoax should be self evident for all that can still apply some old school mathematics and knowledge. What we are getting told is that there is a statistical increase of the trend of temperatures measured on Earth. Lets take it as what it is: it is a statistical exercise. The calculated change is less than the resolution that some of the temperature sensors are able to provide. But then who really seriously thinks that the up and downs of temperatures over a day and over the seasons is less important for plants, live, weather and what else than a statistical increase in trend? Remember there is temperature changes of over 40 deg C in deserts and still 8 deg C (currently in Middle Europe) over a day of temperature change. Staying with the example of Middle Europe over a month the deviation for the last 30 days was 24 deg C. Can you see where this is going?
The last word on this is this: The GW hoax comes with a claim that CO2 is the reason for GW. It is nicely bundled up with all the other detrimental effects of the so worrisome CO2. Yes I am speaking of ocean acidification. Now there is an easy answer to that. School knowledge is being used to make the claim and school knowledge will debunk it: CO2 when dissolved forms a light acid and increase in CO2 in the atmosphere will mean that more C02 is dissolved in the ocean and voila we have an acidification - so the claim goes.
Because there is also a claim of warming which also affects our ocean water we are doomed.

We are doomed until you go back to your school knowledge or make a little experiment. Warm water holds less CO2. Yes heat your soft drink and beware the sparkling. Warm water will not hold more C02. Got this?

If you know put the things together you have either ocean acidification or warming. You simply can not have both.

But yet the claims are always bundled up. As long as they are you can not take one or the other as true.

.

I have no friends!

Good points to consider.

Last week several leading university professors released the results of their recently completed study which indicates definitive evidence that oceanic acidification and global warming is directly related to the increased incidence of underwater volcanic activity.

The report is based on extensive deep water robotic sampling of temperature and measured gases over defined time periods.

Funny how few are paying any attention to their report which is based on actual measured DATA instead of the popular theory based on guesswork and assumption.

I personally think Monsanto and many other chemical producing companies often get "out of hand" in their zest for increasing profits just like every other manufacturing company.

-------------------"Last week several leading university professors released the results of their recently completed study which indicates definitive evidence that oceanic acidification and global warming is directly related to the increased incidence of underwater volcanic activity."

The report is based on extensive deep water robotic sampling of temperature and measured gases over defined time periods. --which is based on actual measured DATA instead of the popular theory based on guesswork and assumption." ------

Referencing a peer reviewed study without a link to that study makes both the claim of "leading university professors" and "definitive evidence" quite suspect.

Your inference that "data" does not support a relationship between atmospheric CO2 and ocean acidification is; well - ummm - bunk.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=ocean+acidification+and+atmospheric+Carbon+Dioxide&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C44&as_sdtp=

While I agree that posting a link would have been nice I find that your link is lacking a precise target and is as worthless as posting no link.

Now go back to what I said. If CO2 is the reason for a warming then the warming ocean water would become less acidic by giving off CO2. End of story.

The idea is that you can not have both warming and acidification from CO2. You seem to support the notion that CO2 makes the oceans more acidic. We still can argue over the quantity but if you go with the quality of your idea you give up the claim of the warming due to CO2 at the same time.

You would have to assume the levels of CO2 in the ocea were already at or near saturation for an increase in temperature to necessitate outgassing. That is a big assumption, and should be noted as such or accompanied by support.

.

I suspect levels of co2 are generally far from saturation in the oceans, however, even if there were areas near saturation, the fact that there are wide temperature variations with latitude longitude depth and season, along with significant mixing, the argument that acidification and temperature increase are incompatible is untenable.

.

It is no fun to be told that the clever proof you devised doesn't hold water.....but it doesn't.

Well at least someone thinking. But how do you explain the mechanism by which the CO2 gets into the ocean in the first place. And what does change to put more into the oceans because there is a slight increase of atmospheric CO2? Will warmer water dissolve more CO2 or not?

If uptake is from the boundary layer between atmosphere and surface water, how would there more uptake than from colder water?

But honestly the discussion is moot. In reality the concentration that is already in the ocean is what we need to look at.

Here is a link to look at the carbon cycle.

See the statement on the top?

36,000 gigatons of carbon!

This is what is there already.

We know the pH value of Seawater is in between 8.1 and 7.5.

We also know that there is a logarithmic relation of the solution of C02 and forming of the H3O+ ions. In general terms this means that we have to put 10 times more CO2 in the oceans to raise the pH by one.

Now compared to what we produce (ca. 10 GT per year) and even if it all ends up in the ocean. We are still shy of ... hmmm... lets say a lot to even make a dent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification Its almost shameful what sort of information makes it into wikipedia.

But then there is this slightly hidden. And I found this.

Follow a link from the last on and you get this http://www.gemarsh.com/wp-content/uploads/SEAWATER%20pH%20&%20ANTHRO%20CO2%20V2.pdf

Brain Fodder! Have fun!

It is a different argument entirely to say that the maximum possible effect is too small to be of concern for quite some time, and to say that the effect cannot happen under the assumptions.

At first blush it does seem to be a small addition, but there is a lot that I don't have a good feel for here. First of all, I have no idea what level of pH change for various areas becomes problematic? Are there feedback mechanisms, theorized or well established that are threatening?

.

I do know a thing or two about water chemistry, so I am not completely out of my element with that part of the discussion.

The co2, carbonic acid, ocean water ph change relationship is even slower than you suspect. All substances that change pH do so on a log scale since pH is on a log scale. Co2 with H2O and carbonic acid are in equilibrium. In seawater at the range.of temperatures found in the ocean the equlibrium constant typically yields a range between 1 and 1.5 moles H2CO3 for every 1000 moles CO2 in solution. So on the order of 0.1% with just co2 to carbonic acid.

By the way, quick interjection, addition of carbonic acid and its dissociations leads to a decrease in pH, not and increase, as this is becoming more acidic.

Also, above a pH of 7, reactions to eliminate OH- will predominate versus formation of H+/H3O+.

At any rate, from the roughly 0.12% of dissolved co2 that becomes H2CO3, there are two dissociations that lead to H+/H3O+ (reduction in hydroxide/lower pH) but the first dominates and current temp and pH matter. Anyway it is in the range of 2.5 x 10-3

So, very roughly that is 0.0003% or 3x10^-6 each additional CO2 results in a one less OH- or effectively one H+... Which at a pH of 8 is at a concentration of 10^-8....so one mole of CO2 will reduce the pH of roughly 300 moles of seawater around 8.0 pH by about 0.1 pH, roughly, if I haven't made a blunder.

.

But, here is the thing, presumably just some portion of the surface.is effected. How much?

Also, the cold upwelling waters have transit times some on the order of 1000 years, and the same must be true for the cold briney water sinking. Is that just a huge store, or are their less intuitive dynamics where old co2 rich waters.mixing with warmer more acidic surface waters.leads.to a shift and strong out gassing? I really only know enough to know that there is far too much that I don't know to make definitive aims about what will or will not or even what can or cannot happen, except in the most simple/extreme cases.

Well then lets stick to the argument to small to be of concern.

I tried the link I put in and it did not work. The document makes a nice read and answers a lot of questions.

http://www.gemarsh.com/wp-content/uploads/SEAWATER%20pH%20&%20ANTHRO%20CO2%20V2.pdf

If it does not work go to the source 3 from this link.

If you look at the pH link from Wiki and the seawater pH you will read that it is a very complex issue but the main outcome is that:

However, pH measurement is complicated by the chemical properties of seawater, and several distinct pH scales exist in chemical oceanography.^[18]

If there was any feedback mechanism then we would have heard something about the Sulphate Ion and its impact. Sulphur Oxide has a strong acidic reaction, yet no numbers are being put out to rule out its impact on acidification. One could even make a green case against Sulphur as it is blown into our oceans by diesel engines. By just looking at the CO2 we do not consider the complexity of the oceans.

You are correct with decrease/increase. I got that wrong every time I refer to pH.

I read in one of the links that the transit times is somewhere 300 years. Fact is that the sea has a big buffering potential.

Need to stop now. Thanks for you interest.

Thanks for the link. Very interesting so far.

I'm glad I didn't go to your school.

We had boys like you there! There certainly was no need for yet another one!

You are incorrectly implying that I support the theory of man made global warming, caused by the increased burning of fossil fuels, I think.

At no time have I ever said that I believe that man's burning of fossil fuels is the reason for THIS period of global warming. There are many who do believe that fossil fuels is contributing to this rise. I don't know, you do not know.

As I have said many times, we do not know. Maybe yes, maybe no, maybe it doesn't matter.

100 years of climate history that happen to coincide with the increased burning of fossil fuels means nothing to the Earth, which has been around for billions of years.

The historic heating/cooling cycles of the planet, and their frequency and duration, are there for all to see.

It is you, not I, who invoked the CO2 question.

Did you see the split in the ground by Yellowstone?
There's nothing like a super volcano erupting, followed by 2 years of darkness, to remove the CO2 argument from the table.
That said... if Yellowstone goes off, I'm gonna cut back on beer and start exercising.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DF4w7O46-7w

Lyn when you said you are glad not to have been in my school I was seriously looking three times if there was a hidden argument. But there was nothing.

Yes you are correct your teasing OP makes one wonder what and what not you believe.

If one is as strong opinionated about something one reads a lot more into comments than it is good for one. But this is not just me. I am sure.

As for the question of global warming I am pretty unsure if we even have the technology to make a decision on this. Is it warming? Can we say it is warming in a chaotic system? All around the globe? We utilise a statistic which is purposely build.

You know statistically there is 100% daylight globally and 100% darkness. And then we have a statistically determined global average temperature which ominous value is most of the time omitted. There is a lot of hype about an increase where 0.1 deg C per year is quoted. This has to be added to the global average temperature. As a statistical determined figure added to something that seems to be a moving target.

I have to dig up some sources.

What I think is that our statistical temperature evaluation has no merits in determining a "warming" of a chaotic system.

This Earth warms and cools not only in large time scales its a day to day thing.

Ok One source for some interesting read on the issue of the warming.

http://www.hashemifamily.com/Kevan/Climate/

I expected a blog that would comfortably fit into the "mugs manual" category. It turned out to be a very good article that has scientifically reviewed scientific papers. The author/s had me hooked when they said " Compelling arguments and sensible speculation are insufficient, nor is consensus among scientists, nor the authority of experts."

I only read half of the article for now and was astonished to see that LYN's arguments are borne out by them. (put in emoticon for astonishment)

Well worth a read.

GA

Jim

"As for the question of global warming I am pretty unsure if we even have the technology to make a decision on this. Is it warming? Can we say it is warming in a chaotic system? All around the globe? We utilise a statistic which is purposely build."------------------------------------------

Read the IR signature of the Earth's disk as seen from a space. Monitor the average signature over time and use what Mr. Plank, Mr. Boltzmann, and Mr. Stefan taught us to determine any change in average temperature.

To suggest that human kind is not impacting climate is to suggest human kind is not impacting atmospheric composition or planetary albedo.

Now I truly wonder why I would have to do this while we have all them well paid scientists doing it already!

I also wonder where you are going with the Albedo thing. Seems that clouds and water and ice and land have a large impact.

Read the Wiki again if you want.

With the oceans taking up enough area we would have to introduce something real big to change the albedo effect from the oceans.

I think humans have an effect but a very minuscule one.

We do by the way change the atmosphere around us with every breath we take! Very very very little!

When I said, "I'm glad I didn't go to your school" I meant that if your school teaches you that "global warming" is a hoax it is not a place I'd care to be.

I believe that you do not understand what "global warning" is.

I've explained all this already.

See when I went to school we were talking about an ice age coming. They also thought us basic science. Something that comes in handy if you have to make it through the science jungle out there.

I get your position that there is a warming and I am not sure where you are on the "how much does mankind contribute" side.

I ignore the global warning because there is too many claiming that there will be an apocalypse. It might come but maybe in a complete different form.

Thanks for your reply!

I would say that if Glyphosate was a threat, that farmers would be the first to know, as they are the primary users an have by far the highest exposure....

..."Glyphosate has been called by experts in herbicides "virtually ideal" due to its broad spectrum and low toxicity to animal life compared with other herbicides.^{[16][17][18][19]} Franz received the National Medal of Technology in 1987^[20] and the Perkin Medal for Applied Chemistry^[21] in 1990 for his discoveries. Franz was inducted into the National Inventor's Hall of Fame in 2007.^[22]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate

Regardless of the human health effects of wide scale glyphosate use there appears to be a clear detrimental impact on a variety of flora and fauna.

You mean weeds......yeah, that's the idea....itsa herbicide...

Variety is not reduced by genetic modification. It is produced by monoculture focused agriculture.

There are of course efficiencies to be derived from monoculture, yet people have a fascination with monoculture that is, in many, to the point to fetishism, and nothing to do with efficiency.

Manicured lawns are an obvious example; not grown for valuable produce, fertilized, artifically watered, and.chemically treated.to eliminate.competition. All of this encouraging rapid growth so that it must be trimmed regularly )with loud annoying equipment)with the clippings usually discarded.

.

There is certainly reason to be concerned about solutions designed to kill flora and fauna released in uncontained environments. We, along with a lot of other stuff, live out here. It is like the people with a can of Raid spraying poison in their house in hopes of reducing the number of bugs. Ridiculous.

Why not concentrate on a real threat ...I guess you prefer the easy popular targets...like government, politicians, big corporations...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2015/02/20/the-12-threats-to-human-civilization-ranked/

Oh Artificial Intelligence. I think we covered the real thread when talking about driver less cars already.

And we also talked about Exo-planetary live.

Lets look at water on Mars. If what I read is right then the Rover does not investigate because it might not be sterile enough to prevent contamination.

A while back I asked that question and now here we have a pointer.

How far are we away from actually bringing a vessel back from Mars with the effect of maybe bringing life to Earth. This is almost a rhetorical question.

Mankind is mankinds worst thread.

Oh yeah!

There ya go Mars and climate change and CO2 at all!

Now that the NASA channel offers free lubrication to the weepy eyed followers of bullshit propaganda...I'm in.
A little shot is all it takes.

Kram, just had a little shot of a fine Grappa! Had to flush down a nice BBQ served with self grown lettuce.

How was your helicopter ride?

:-) good to see you back and if it is just from time to time.

Plenty of nerdy CO2 threads around.

See ya!

Thank you for the link. I will have a thorough look at it. But before studying it I think that on the first place we should have the human stupidity and fanatical behavior which are connected and could lead to the end of humanity in a much more sure way than other aggression since its probability to appear and spread is very very high.

I read some where and I use it that the only thing which can give a real feeling about infinity is human stupidity.

Now my vote!

I think Yellowstone or a similar event will have make the global kill but I think we have a fair chance that mankind finds multiple ways to make it looking like a relief.

In reading the article about GMO. I got the idea that as an economist it is better to let the general public get sick and die of some GMO related illness. Then to let a small portion of the public die of starvation. Most of it was about Monsanto money. Nothing about whether it's safe to consume.

Other have brought up the generations of cross breeding or genetic mutation that happen naturally that was capitalize. Some of the GMO are using genes that could never be cross bred in, mutated maybe.

Anytime we play with natural selection we gamble. For Monsanto it's about money. Does anyone want Mosanto to gamble with their lives. Them or any other company that does genetic modification for a profit on foods stuffs.

If humans took on the genetic makeup of the foods we ate, we'd all look like cows....

Are these cows on drugs? Eyes are dilated

I wonder the same thing about you.

at least they like good grass

Maybe they are Japanese cows.

If we simply follow the money, I see no benefit from Monsanto.
Which kills us first?
I'll take fast, and neither are living up to the chore.

It's not the genetic mutation that's killing us. It's our corporate owned government that doesn't even bother getting dressed anymore. They simply lay there naked, waiting for the next donor.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/25/roundup-health-study-idUSL2N0DC22F20130425

Global warming is not a hoax. It's as real as multicolored homosexual unicorns.
What did one gay unicorn say to his multicultural metrosexual unicorn friend?
I'm horny.

You are welcome to your own opinion, but personally I don't mind a bit of alcohol in my diet. Just keep it out of my gasoline!

By the way, HFCS might have something to do with your last point.

I'm drinking cheap wine from a Little Princess sippy cup.
As far as global warming goes, (and don't quote me on this), I'm pretty sure that they've invented some kind of new fangled device that disproves it.
It's so new, I'm not even sure of the spelling...I think they call it a thermometer.

"I'm drinking cheap wine from a Little Princess sippy cup."

That sippy cup ain't foolin' any of us.