In other news

The outrage over GMOs is 100% a non-scientific objection. People who worry about them are considered by mainstream agricultural scientists to be on the same level as climate change deniers are to mainstream climatologists. While some of their goals are admirable (this one is not) Greenpeace has never taken positions based on science, but on emotion.

Every food that everyone eats comes from a genetically modified organism. Humans have been deliberately modifying plants and animals for thousands of years, and no domesticated plants or animals raised in any significant quantities are the same as they were when they were wild; in many cases they would not be recognizable as the same organism.

yes it's the purest form of science denial and it's almost all on the left.

and it's a lot worse than climate change denial because the causal mechanisms are much easier to understand and the causal effects are much easier to test.

In June 2016, 107 Nobel laureates wrote an open letter to Greenpeace and its supporters,
asking it "to abandon their campaign against ‘GMOs’ in general and Golden Rice in particular"

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

Everyone knows we rely on GM crops for modern life. What we don't need is seeds engineered for maximum profit. They should be developed with entirely public funding to remove the profit motive so we don't have RoundUp ready corn, etc. The question shouldn't be GMO, yes or no, but are we using tech in an effective manner? The answer is subjective: companies are designing seeds to sell as much product as possible and even going so far as to sue nearby farmers who's plants happen to have been pollenated by insects from GM crops down the road. I think there's a lot of room for improvement.

With rare exceptions, I avoid talking about anything remotely political in real life. One of the exceptions is when people bring up they are anti-GMO. I ask them why they hate starving children.

We need to change IP laws because they create artificial rights that shouldn't exist in general. Property exists because stuff usually can only be used by some people by excluding others. "IP" is a non sense, oxymoronical concept that basically criminalizes "copying", which is a good part of how we get better at doing things. The excuses typically used to justify IP laws are that otherwise people wouldn't invent stuff but that's blatantly, objectively false. We had the best jumps in technology in human history before patents and copyright were codified and enforced extensively.

Profit being the motive of action is never a problem, banning people to do absolutely everything they want with their stuff and time (including copying what you did if they think it will benefit them) is the problem lol.

That said for seeds in particular a few countries have those insane rules about the seed being found in a field and that "proving" IP infringement which could be fixed even if we aren't ready yet to dismantle the whole bullshit of IP protection.

Btw GMOs are good even for people that want to exist exclusively on non-GMO food, that's whay i tell them to try to convince them.

The existence of plentiful cheap food provided by GMO higher yield in agriculture, keeps the prices of their "artisanal", old school food lower than they would be if that was the only option.

Same is true for cheap, bad, low level industrially farmed and processed meat ofc.

I am ok with mandatory labeling of any GMO presence though (transparency rules in commerce are one of the rare regulatory thing i agree with )

i dont care at all about GMOs.

like lolwat said, i mostly care about how 4 companies control all of our agriculture and 10 companies control all of our food brands. if this is patent free i have no problems with it. what is an issue is these seed patents spread across the area and allow for the conglomerates to sue the neighboring farms into submission and eventually take over. unlike naive republicans i do not believe the corporations are here to save us nor the world.

The lawsuits against farmers by Monsanto are definitely ridiculous.

There shouldn't be legal penalties for neighbors allowing seeds to blow into one's property, and it should be legal to do anything you want with seeds or plants that you have purchased.

They only happen in a few countries with ****ed up laws.

Let's work democratically to change ****ed up laws, that's literally what having a democracy is about

Unfortunately these laws are upheld by congress people in safe seats who care more about campaign donations from giant agribusinesses than the best interests of the people they represent. And this issue is not even known by most voters so they aren't punished.

The sad thing is that if/when Pax American actually fails, literally billions of people will starve to death. And there will be zero acknowledgement from the left who reflexively oppose "corporations" while admittedly having no working understanding of how the world works how much their actions and ideology contributed to this.

so are you of the belief that private corporations are keeping "pax american[a]", i.e peace in the western hemisphere/ somewhat the rest of the world?

I think it is pretty clear that capitalism, relatively free markets, and corporate efficiency has done a lot in the last couple hundred years to lift much of the world out of poverty. And the dominance of Pax Americana since 1950 or so is a big part of this. And as the empire's influence wanes, as happens to all empires over time, the world is likely to revert back to how it was.

I know as much of the specifics of this case as you do, which is to say not a lot. But I am comfortable I am generally on the right side of history as far as actually supporting the side that is providing peace and prosperity.

How does this graph prove your narrative? What's the other side, or the wrong side? Russia and China, the fascists? Capitalism or free markets exist in text books and no where else. You're oddly faithful with your devotion to these concepts. America became the super power by investing heavily into military, infrastructure, public education, and the social safety net.

In 1950, the top income tax rate was 91% and corporate taxes were double what they are today.

Pax americana is what allows american corporations to sell outside america basically, and for foreign countries to sell to americans. And even more of that for the EU, australia and so on.

Pax americana is based on military power (and alliances with other civilized countries), capitalism is what uses pax americana to generate massive worldwide prosperity.

That prosperity would exist anyway but be much more limited to a few countries, without pax americana. And various areas of the world would be on fire. Imagine israel/palestine but 20 times per year across the globe, and for countries with many more people.

We are at the bottom low of military action globally in the last decades, all thanks to western capitalism and western military might (with america playing the chief but not exclusive role in this), which for the first time in the history of the world, isn't used to conquer land and subjugate foreigners, rather to play win-win capitalist games.

Tl;dr is that people in indonesia, brasil, botswana, pakistan and so on would live far more horrendous lives if not for this.

The pope just said that "there is too much "******ry "in the seminaries" so he is asking bishops to stop admitting homosexuals into the theological schools that prepare for catholic priesthood.

He used the term "frociaggine" in italian which is something not many people use these days (if ever) with "frocio" being very close to ****** (derogatory, insulting term for gay man) but the frocia-ggine becomes a noun meaning "an air of homosexuality everywhere around" (a kinda terribad neologism some people used 15-20 years ago).

Maybe the recent alliance between radical leftists and this communist pope can finally break up now

Don't know how people still support that church of pedophiles.

Many Pentecostal, Baptist, Muslim, Jewish faith pretty much anything besides the Catholics heck even the Amish and Harry Krishna

Eh, I certainly don't support the Catholic Church (or any church), but at least the Pope doesn't issue fatwas calling for murder.

Yeah, they're all trash but I don't know how many of them are rape enablers as an overall policy.
Even a worldwide atheist organization that has 100's of millions of followers is going to have some sickos but you hope as it moves up the chain of command someone does something about it.

Talk to the 15th century Iberian Jews. They may have a different take.

Throughout the span of human history that kind of behavior is the norm more than the exception. Even Islamism isn't an extremely inhumane ideology by pre modern historical standards. The project of Western liberalism really is the shining diamond in a giant pile of coal. And I think it is a big mistake to be dismissive of this.

Genetic analysis indicates humans alive today have way more female ancestors than male. The common explanation for this is polygamy. However, the difference is so stark this isn't actually a sufficient explanation on its own. Given genetics and human history, a more plausible explanation is the routine massacre of all males of a losing side following a battle/war, causing entire Y lineages to be wiped out at once.

I just read that Mexico's likely next president is a Jewish progressive woman. I will say far right wing Twitter is going to have a field day with that one if it happens.

Given how chauvinistic Mexican culture has historically been, it will also be a bit of a "how did that happen" moment if they have their first female president before the US does.