Let's discuss philantrophy.

[Ondskan]

Hope I spelled that right!
Either way I watched a show on TV 8 where these US CEO:s get together and are then asked a bunch of questions by students. A cool program and this time it was Gates and Warren Edward Buffett. Two cool guys that actually dare admit that taxes are to low for them (the rich).

Anyway these guys donate a bunch of money to poor people, schools, healthcare etc. All good, I don't know how much of that they get back in taxes but that's an other story.

But there's an other side of philantrophy, a lil darker side.
Sometimes moneys goes to organisations that you don't hear alot about.
Like the giant seed bank in Northen Norway where all the worlds seeds are stored in case of the worlds seeds being destroyed. Something already happening, and by that I don't mean mens seeds getting ruined by to much computer sitting but plant seeds. Seeds are being geneticly modified and it's near to impossible to find the real american corn anywhere nowdays, roses are hard to find aswell except in the wild.


Now why is it that the money isn't used to combat geneticly mutated plantations by giving benifits to those that grow things naturaly and instead tons of money is being put into conserving seeds for the future.

Similiar projects include sperm banks in Island, the United States and ellsewhere that actually aren't yet used. They are just stored.

Basicly does anyone here belive that philantrophy is unfair to the billionaries that do give money contra those that don't give that much? Equality even for the super rich I say.

Also do you belive that philantrophy could ever replace taxes?
Pure donations, from us normal folks to.

Thirdly do you belive that billionares are involved in science and medical research that the world is yet unaware of. Not saying it's bad or good just saying that they are so rich that they might be prepearing/helping the world for something that they obviously think will come. Ellse why wouldn't they in my oppinion invest money into combating the issues today instead of conserving today for tomorow.

 

[mangxema]

Seeds are being geneticly modified and it's near to impossible to find the real american corn anywhere nowdays...

You do realize that anything grown domestically has already been ridiculously engineered, right?

 

[JerichoHill]

How in the world did you start on philanthropy and end on genetic engineering? How the heck are those two related?

I mean, seriously... I don't know what you want to discuss.

PS: Use spellcheck, it helps.

 

[Strider]

Hope I spelled that right!
Either way I watched a show on TV 8 where these US CEO:s get together and are then asked a bunch of questions by students. A cool program and this time it was Gates and Warren Edward Buffett. Two cool guys that actually dare admit that taxes are to low for them (the rich).

Probably because if they said/did otherwise they'd be two of the most hated men on the planet.

Now why is it that the money isn't used to combat geneticly mutated plantations by giving benifits to those that grow things naturaly and instead tons of money is being put into conserving seeds for the future.

GM crops have greater yields. So why would you use anything else? Any claims to them being unsafe are (as of now) completely unproven and are usually religious or fear based (the equivalent of the so called "american terrorist fear").

Also do you belive that philantrophy could ever replace taxes?
Pure donations, from us normal folks to.

It should replace taxes. Welfare/Social Security is one of the major problems the U.S. will face in the coming years. That and the number of people who abuse the system is horrendous. Did you know a new immigrant (legal mind you) can file for unemployment and get the benefits? Not having paid any taxes, nor made any contributions to society.

Not that I'm against immigration. Send as many as you can, but it's just wrong.

 

[warpus]

But there's an other side of philantrophy, a lil darker side.
Sometimes moneys goes to organisations that you don't hear alot about.
Like the giant seed bank in Northen Norway where all the worlds seeds are stored in case of the worlds seeds being destroyed.

How is that a 'dark side' project?

 

[Endim_Analys]

Is your problem with filantropi (notice my correct spelling) that the people who are doing the giving are the ones who get to choose what to give to? Would you like to outlaw giving to the "wrong" initiative? Or are you just lazy enough to not check if anyone considered being a filantrop has actually donated to what you deem good?

 

[Strider]

Is your problem with filantropi (notice my correct spelling) that the people who are doing the giving are the ones who get to choose what to give to? Would you like to outlaw giving to the "wrong" initiative? Or are you just lazy enough to not check if anyone considered being a filantrop has actually donated to what you deem good?

Actually... the correct spelling is philantrophy.

 

[IglooDame]

Actually... the correct spelling is philantrophy.

Actually... philanthropy.

 

[Ecofarm]

You do realize that anything grown domestically has already been ridiculously engineered, right?

Well, that depends on one's definition of "rediculas".

Is choosing individual plants that display beneficial characteristics over thousands of years, such that wheat now has 2 rows and many more grains than it did as a wild grass, rediculas? I don't think so.

Is choosing certain individuals from a population of tomatoes that have beneficial traits, again over thousands of years, so that tomatoes are larger or more flavorful, rediculas? I don't think so.

Is splicing a gene from a bacteria into corn, causing the corn itself to produce Bt, a natual insecticide that occurs in a symbiotic relationship between bacteria and a plant, rediculas? Yes, kinda.

Is splicing a synthetic gene into corn, causing the corn to be unaffected by glyphosate (Round Up) and resulting in pre-emergence spraying as a quick fix to insect problems rediculas? Yes, probably.

Is splicing a gene from a mycorrizae (spelling?) into corn, causing the corn to fix nitrogen without the "nodes" of a symbiotic relationship between microbes and a plant, causing it to become a legume without the accompanying mycorrizae rediculas? Yes, I think so.

For me, we cross the line of rediculas when we start engineering not just by selecting for traits over long periods of time, but by cross-breeding individuals not only of different species, but different kingdoms!

Yes, mating corn and bacteria via genetic splicing and insertion is rediculas. Selecting for natural traits (over hundreds or thousands of years) is not.

 

[Endim_Analys]

Actually... the correct spelling is philantrophy.

Actually... philanthropy.

No. Sweden is Atlantis. So your spelling is just the corrupt form. Bow to tha future!

 

[lovett]

For me, we cross the line of rediculas when we start engineering not just by selecting for traits over long periods of time, but by cross-breeding individuals not only of different species, but different kingdoms!

Yes, mating corn and bacteria via genetic splicing and insertion is rediculas. Selecting for natural traits (over hundreds or thousands of years) is not.

Ok. You've just told us your opinion.

Now good debating technique tend to be to explain and support it.

Is this the next installment?

 

[Traitorfish]

Basicly does anyone here belive that philantrophy is unfair to the billionaries that do give money contra those that don't give that much? Equality even for the super rich I say.

Oh, I agree. Equality for the super rich is a must. It's either that or a wall, a blindfold and a cigarette for the super rich, and, honestly, I'm not picky.

Seriously, the rich are rich, they can afford to give more. It doesn't hurt them. A billionaire giving a million quid to charity is, proportionally, the same as an average guy giving a couple of hundred, tops. Not to mention the fact that, even after that donation, the super rich still have far more money that they need and could easily afford to give a whole lot more. A billionaire could give 99% of his cash and still live very comfortably for the rest of his days. That can't be said of the rest of us.

 

[holy king]

where can i win this philan-trophy?

btw. the correct spelling is of course: φίλοςάνθρωπο

 

[Ecofarm]

Ok. You've just told us your opinion.

Now good debating technique tend to be to explain and support it.

Is this the next installment?

Sorry, just opinion for now.

Genetically modified crops (GMCs) is a huge topic with implications in various realms:

economic
social
ecologic
and, for some, spiritual

It brings to the table intellectual property rights, reasonable trade barriers (WTO rulings), soverienty, health concerns, and a slew of things that combine 2 or more of the 4 catagories above.

There's antibiotics, the obsoletion of Bt, terminator genes and fertility implications, the possibility of horizontal gut transfers producing super-germs, gene-drifts resulting in super-weeds (already observed in several countries), the loss of natural species through unintended cross-pollination, uncontrolled glyphosate use...

Perhaps some other time. I'm glad to hear that someone is interested, though. I hope you look for more information and examine arguments from the various camps.


We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread

 

[mangxema]

Well, that depends on one's definition of "rediculas".

My point is that just about everything we eat today is a freak of nature, compared to the wild plants (and animals too I suppose) that they are derived from. Whether it's a freak naturally or artificially by human intervention seems a rather trivial distinction.

 

[Ecofarm]

The selection of plants over generations for favorable traits represents "artificial" human intervention (aka engineering), to some extent. After all, we are controlling which individual plants breed and not allowing an ecosystem to direct the evolution of the plant.

However, this is vastly different than mating bacteria and corn (crossing kingdoms) via DNA splicing and insertion.

Surely you see the difference? You can't possibly be attempting to equate the two.

Would a german shepherd mating with a collie be "trivially" different than a german shepherd mating with an algae? I would consider it significantly different. I think the german shepherd would too. Crossing varieties and crossing kingdoms is not the same thing.

Spoiler :

I do love pulling the rug from beneath technocrats.