This comment made me chuckle and I think is an excellent illustration.
There's a lot of people in these threads that don't understand how farming works and the sheer scale of the problem with growing plant matter for food and industry. There are people seriously encouraging manual farming as a solution to the worlds food/pest issues. It boggles my mind--have these people have hand worked a field? Even maintaining an acre of garden as a single person would illustrate the amount of effort you have to put in and the low amount of yield you get in return. I'd love to know how people would get 'selected' as field workers. Because I doubt you'd have people rushing out to till fields by hand unless they're pressed into service.
Personally I'd rather deal with a little extra chemical buildup than reinventing a modern slave class.
Nobody would drink a glass of offered liquid from somebody who is clearly acting antagonistically towards them. Beyond that, there's clearly a difference between something being appealing and safe to drink. The way anti-GMO people tout this as a slam dunk is just intellectual laziness.
There it is. The implication that anyone who isn't unquestionably pro GMOs, is against them, no matter the modification or the company pushing it.
I mean, what kind of an anti-science rube uses "intellectually lazy" arguments, such as "asking a guy who said Roundup is safe to drink to actually drink some".
This, from the guy who conflates RoundUp with it's active ingredient glyphosate. Scientific evidence showing RoundUp is significantly more toxic - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-17537-w- Hmm, that study was easy to find ...
This, on an article which explicitly calls out how little we know of glyphosate's effect on the nervous system.
This, on an article which notes the terrifying fact that 80% of US urine samples, children included, contain glyphosate.
RoundUp is nasty shit. And I'm not anti-science for being worried about glyphosate in my piss.
