Yes a number of people have done so with DDT. I have expanded the analysis to include AGW, Nuclear power, and others.

Just checking, but are they the raptors or the Stegosaurs? 'Cause if you're referring to the Dems as a predator species, I'd just comment that they're stuck in the tar pits and trying to grab everyone else and pull them in on the way down.

I think they are already there- Obama, Reid, and Pelosi. Maybe Sanders too

I think it is the “Roundup Ready” corn, which is a breed of corn (my understanding) which is not subject to the weed killer Roundup, thus making it possible to broadly spray the corn and kill only the weeds. The argument I am given on this by the anti-GMO folks is the corn absorbs the Roundup and we all suffer. When I asked for evidence, the best I got as a reference was to a “Natural News” article which stated there is no hard evidence of any harm to humans but we should all fear it anyhow. The same with “Golden Rice,” which can save millions of children from blindness due to vitamin A deficiency. Since these folks love to live on speculation, a whimsical article is good enough for them.

Interesting thought. Do you know if anyone has researched it? It would be pretty hard to top the 100 million socialist dictators have offed in the past 100 years...

Can we unleash a couple of raptors in DC? Everything there is a Stegosaurus =D

I think they mean the BT corn. It is an endotxin that is toxic to cutworms.

I could add one other significant area of genetic modification to the list: modified bacteria to produce biofuels more efficiently, which you won't find one "greenie" opposed to. Just like the green power adherents that are passionate about wind power, but will fight to the death over turbine intrusion into prairie chicken territory, anti-GMO people are selective in their outrage.

Biological competition is the bugaboo that anti-GMO people drag out, but that exists as a matter of natural competition, commonly called "invasive species". The Asian carp, zebra mussels, "Africanized" bees are all examples of non-GMO invasions. Life isn't constant and stable - live with it, adapt, or die. This is the same dilemma that stirs so much angst over "climate change", in spite of the evidence that the climate has never been constant and stable in the world's history.

The boogeyman that gets people nervous is GM humans. We've already started down the path of genetic alteration to eliminate inherited disorders, and the cry has gone up that this is another path to eugenics. The fear that science will create an elite class of humans with superior abilities that will subordinate the "lesser" humans in a Nazi paradise is behind part of the hysteria. Will there be an irresistible temptation to create super-beings with greater disease resistance, longer life, and extreme physical strength and speed? Unquestionably, but this is a social issue decided by economics. Reducing the medical needs for a superior race should be worth the expense of its creation. Who knows where human GM will lead, but we are in the position of controlling our own evolution.

You would probably enjoy this book, Alchemy of Air, http://www.amazon.com/Alchemy-Air-Jew....

It discusses Peak Guano. Again we would have all starved if these amazing scientists had not figured out how to fix nitrogen.

Glad you liked it.

Great story about Washington.

Many environmentalist think that is the ideal human population today, which is why I think environmentalism is greatest threat to humans in the world today far surpassing, socialism, christianity, islam, and every other form of irrationalism Note that the environmental movement in 60 years has probably been responsible for killing more people than socialism (islam, christianity) combined in all of history.

The same eco-freaks that want to ban every 20th century innovation have moved into the 21st century with a long list of ways to put us back a thousand years. Tops among these is the banning of GMOs. I doubt when it comes to food grown in the earth that they'd care to eat some of the original versions such as corn, various fruits and berries, tree fruit, etc. What they would see is shriveled and stunted compared to today's produce. Tomatoes were considered poisonous because they were related to the mandrake. A cook once tried to poison Washington by putting tomato in his salad. When he didn't die, the cook became a Washington advocate believing him to be immortal.

This is fantastic! Great read!

Hear hear

Some where I ran across the argument that Monsanto had a GMO corn (or some other grain) that put out a herbicide. Now I am not going to say that would be impossible if the herbicide was very narrowtargeted, but that was not what they were saying. What I think got them confused was the herbicide resistant strains of corn.

Yes, but in the past we didn't have a scary name to run off the idiots; therefore, GMO's must be bad.....Right?!?!?!

This reminds me of an old Star Trek episode. The Tribbles were affected by the GMO food.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4wM5...

Genes are changed all the time in nature all by themselves. How do you think we got here in the first place? In nature, changes happen slower. Now we can basically type into a computer and get the changes- like in Jurassic Park.

Absolutely! This demonization of GMOs is interesting and somewhat bizarre. The whole thrust for developing this class of products came about in large part due to a study completed in 1966 by the RAND Corporation, cited by the UN in the Rio Accords and promoted heavily at the request of the US government and the UN, all to alleviate the widespread starvation of millions of people around the world at the time.

In addition, this RAND study is also one of the bedrock studies cited to promote "Sustainable Growth", however, there is also a dark side to the issue of GMOs.

Being that the study was based on data available at the time and certain assumptions that were made and reported as gospel, again the date of the study being 1966, the population of the world was significantly less than now and the the recommendations used Malthusian Theory (population growth being exponential and food growth being arithmetic), again based upon what was known then.

According to the study and its recommendatons, the "optimum" population for the world was 500 million, yes, million (current world population at 8 billion) and for the US, 50 million (currently at 310 million).

Regardless of the propaganda, GMOs have kept the world eating for the most part thus making the RAND numbers all but obsolete however, the UN in its lazy manner is still using those numbers and goals as their basis for the Rio Accords, Agenda XXI and even what is seen on the Georgia Rune Stones.

Just a little FYI.....

Excellent Article. Thank you for brininging it to the Gulch. I am constantly amazed at the number of people who believe GMO food will kill them and, with religious fervor, righteously rail against them. When I politely ask any questions, I get bumper sticker answers coupled with enough explanations to fill whole books of fallacy examples. Typically, in my experience, they are “spiritual” people enamored with “vortices of Sedona” (I am in Arizona, I am sure there are similar places elsewhere) and magic crystals for healing. Politically, with rare exception, they are also collectivists.

You ain't seen nothin' yet. Remember, we used to have rules about who was allowed to read and write? That's how far back this conversation is in the process.

If science ever finds a danger to GMOs, which to my understanding has not happened yet and may never hppen, critics will say, "Now they're changing their story. They can't just pick one conclusion and stick to it."

Agree. Mankind has been modifying genetics in plants, animals, and themselves throughout his history.

I have often commented that our use of genetic information and the ability to develop new products in the twenty-first century will be as profound as what we learned to do with electricity in the twentieth.