IOW it is helpful as a rule of thumb, but it always takes a back seat to the actual evidence or logic, if you are capable of handling it.

And Dawkins is just as prone as any to blinding themselves because they have a mindset that frames things in certain ways. For example, he could be thinking of the INTENT of the research into GMOs, which is most frequently done by researchers who have a passion for the ability of the result to produce some benefit that they can point to and feel proud of.

However, they’re not the only person involved in the process, and by a long long LOOOONG chalk not the ones making the big decisions. Hell, they frequently haven’t even made the decision themselves to do the work, but were assigned it or hired to do it by another, whose interest may or may not be similarly aligned.

So, being part of the group, Dawkins sees the intent of GMOs by the researchers as what the result of it will be and just can’t see, or discounts as a “necessary downside”, the problems and issues.

Even Hitler thought he was doing right by god, his country and his people. Even when complaining that killing all the jews would take longer than his lifetime to achieve and scar german people irredeemably to do so, so asked for the whole process of murder to be industrialised, both to minimise the impact on the humans doing it and to increase the speed at which his solution to the “problem” of other humans being alive could be achieved.

Only psychopaths don’t care if they’re bad people, even to themselves. Sociopaths, if there could be discerned any difference, at least PRETEND to be good people, though they may know it’s just a way to keep doing what they desire to do.

At least in the way I discern any demarcation between either group, though psychology no longer sees them as different.

You have *the exact same issue with non-GMO produce*! Worse, these are not tested *at all*, unlike GMOs.

That is nonsense.

Humans have evolved by eating the foods that have become staples. Also humans have learned to avoid those plants which are toxic and don’t bother with time and effort wasting plants that require huge quantities consumed to extract the required nutrition. Now those two points are connected in that ‘the poison equals the dose’. If you need to eat more of something to stave off starvation then the toxins can build faster in the body to lethal levels or levels that may have debilitating effects.

It has been shown that GM varieties may poses less protein than natural varieties weight for weight. Hence any ‘surprise’ toxins promoted in the GMO will build in the body faster especially as some have been shown to not be deactivated by cooking or digestion processes – which latter humans have not evolved to be able to cope with.

It is well known that many animals can consume vegetation that is toxic to others, these animals having evolved over time to cope with digesting same.

It is a shame that somebody like Dawkins, who has written so much about evolution, should not get this aspect of GMOs. Maybe he has convinced himself that the propaganda he has read is true. But then he did occupy that special chair at Oxford, maybe that had something to do with it.

There are so many other points that could be amplified here.

So don’t bloody complain I’ve not put any effort into explaining myself, because you’ve been the reason why I shouldn’t bother.

Yes they are.

You plant them. They compete. They merge as all life has done, and in a method that the ecosystem adapts, because unlike GMOs or mass introduction of invasive species (which, you know, Australia among others ban for a good damn reason, right?), it’s done small scale and inherently slowly.

Dumbass.

Yes I did.

And the release of millions of hectares of GMO product in one swell foop insanity. For all the GMO fluffer’s repeat of the “We’ve been genetically modifying for EVAH!”, we modified them in small areas where adaption of the ecosystem to the change was slow enough we could frequently stop the fuckup before it went too far (or died off because of the fuckup ruining food supplies). And at the very least, we’d know how it was working before it became widespread.

Agribusiness won’t be profitable in the quarterly reports if we go that slowly.

So they rush it out and puff it up.

Because they don’t consider whether it’s going to be a problem, only whether it will be profitable. Working is their only option, nothing else considered. And if and when it goes titsup, they will be the last to be affected.

Just like thalidomide.

Just because you’re an ignorant tosspot does not make reality change.

Yes it is when it comes to the actions taken against the environment. you don’t excuse it with the SQUIRREL!!! of “But the alternative is Brazil!”. The possibility of others being worse has bugger all to do with the actions of you.

“How do we do sustainable paper?” is a nonsequitur to the claims you’re making that Greenpeace are in the wrong.

So it is a nonsequtur to every claim you were making in that post. It had nothing to do with any of them. AT BEST it was admitting Greenpeace is right, but you don’t agree with the standard set.