English_Bob Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 Its said that hemp will destroy cancer cells, but that would be too easy. I don't think man is responsible enough to mess with the gene pool like this. Man is causing the cancer surge with pollution so instead of curbing pollution they change a gene in a chicken. And that sounds good to you ? sheeeses Einstein had his regrets.... Hemp? You think that if hemp destoryed cancer, the world would hush it up in case people got stoned? Cancer has been around for ever.... This research is into all kinds of cancer. If they come up with a successful vaccine, I presume you will refuse it on the grounds it offends your principles. There is pollution in the world. But the vast majority of it comes from useful industry and travel. Most of the pollution has been necessary to improve our lives. Travel, products, manufacturing, food production - they all cause pollution, but it's a necessary evil. If scientists can prevent cancer, I think it's a good thing. Is that a radical idea for you? No cancer = good thing? And guess who is doing this research... I'll give you a clue - it's not hemp-wearing Luddites on bicycles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
English_Bob Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 I saw the front page of Forbes magazine with a picture of a scientist who spliced soybean seed up so it makes better oil to control blood cholesterol. Now you can eat all the pig you want. Sound good to you ? sounds backward to me... For people with high cholestrol I would say it's a boon. Don't you see? He is HELPING people. You are not. He is useful. You are not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admin Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 That is a toothless insult. Being aware and sharing info about serious subjects that will effect everyone is the least anyone can do. To sit and scoff and mock anyone who chooses to be concerned when noted scientist say these things are happening is ridiculous. The environment sustains us and there is no hypocrisy being concerned about its effects on our lifes and the future of man. Yes, but I think the point is that they are noted because they play into what people want to believe. When someone makes a prediction and is wrong, either because they grossly overestimated or they completely missed the mark, and then makes more predictions and is still called noted . . . it sort of odd. That's why I keep bringing up the thing about oil. You can document "noted" scientists who have said we would run out of oil in 10 or 20 years going back 50 years. Yet you can still quote them as being "noted" scientists because other scaremongers quote them and they keep updating their predictions as they are proven wrong. Like I have said in either this thread or a similar thread, I don't have any doubt that man is impacting the planet. On the other hand when I hear a supposedly "noted" scientist say something like rising sea levels will put Bangkok underwater which means that 12 million people will die you have to laugh your a*s off. Are people so stupid that they won't move? They completely destroy their credibility with their lack of understanding of human nature. I much prefer to listen to economists who try to predict the fallout of certain events (like rising sea levels, rising temperatures, etc) than environmental scientists who make outlandish predictions in order to get media attention. You can find web pages supporting both sides but to call someone concerned a hypocrite for being concerned has no merit. I get my info from National Geographic among others, I'll trust them before Glenn Beck. I hope you aren't implying I follow Glenn Beck. All I've ever seen of him is being mocked on Jon Stewart. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
English_Bob Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 Really... who could make a cancer vaccine sound like a bad thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 Its said that hemp will destroy cancer cells, but that would be too easy. I don't think man is responsible enough to mess with the gene pool like this. Man is causing the cancer surge with pollution so instead of curbing pollution they change a gene in a chicken. And that sounds good to you ? sheeeses Einstein had his regrets.... Hemp? You think that if hemp destoryed cancer, the world would hush it up in case people got stoned? Cancer has been around for ever.... This research is into all kinds of cancer. If they come up with a successful vaccine, I presume you will refuse it on the grounds it offends your principles. There is pollution in the world. But the vast majority of it comes from useful industry and travel. Most of the pollution has been necessary to improve our lives. Travel, products, manufacturing, food production - they all cause pollution, but it's a necessary evil. If scientists can prevent cancer, I think it's a good thing. Is that a radical idea for you? No cancer = good thing? And guess who is doing this research... I'll give you a clue - it's not hemp-wearing Luddites on bicycles. No pollution is a better thing ,then we can breath and not get cancer. Having industry has given improvements but when you see what your doing is harming your environment and you choose the profits over protecting what sustains you then thats crazy. I don't like the **** it up for profits and fix it up playing god with the gene pool idea no. If I'm a Luddite they are nutballs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stramash Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 is this not all pointless as we will all die in 2012?? :twisted: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admin Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 I saw the front page of Forbes magazine with a picture of a scientist who spliced soybean seed up so it makes better oil to control blood cholesterol. Now you can eat all the pig you want. Sound good to you ? sounds backward to me... This is what is hypocritical. Ninety percent of the people who oppose genetic engineering would willingly surrender their left testicle to get their hands on this genetically engineered remedy if they or a loved one was dying and this was the only thing standing between them and an early grave. Are you really saying that if a doctor told you that you have a genetic disposition to high cholesterol and heart disease and that unless you added genetically modified soybean to your diet you would be dead in 6 months, you wouldn't eat it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 I saw the front page of Forbes magazine with a picture of a scientist who spliced soybean seed up so it makes better oil to control blood cholesterol. Now you can eat all the pig you want. Sound good to you ? sounds backward to me... This is what is hypocritical. Ninety percent of the people who oppose genetic engineering would willingly surrender their left testicle to get their hands on this genetically engineered remedy if they or a loved one was dying and this was the only thing standing between them and an early grave. Are you really saying that if a doctor told you that you have a genetic disposition to high cholesterol and heart disease and that unless you added genetically modified soybean to your diet you would be dead in 6 months, you wouldn't eat it? Not when I could stop eating the food that gives me the high cholesterol thats grown in a factory farm. I'm not a hypocrite to not like the way man is infatuated with his technology beyond reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admin Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 Its said that hemp will destroy cancer cells, but that would be too easy. I don't think man is responsible enough to mess with the gene pool like this. Man is causing the cancer surge with pollution so instead of curbing pollution they change a gene in a chicken. And that sounds good to you ? sheeeses Einstein had his regrets.... Hemp? You think that if hemp destoryed cancer, the world would hush it up in case people got stoned? Cancer has been around for ever.... This research is into all kinds of cancer. If they come up with a successful vaccine, I presume you will refuse it on the grounds it offends your principles. There is pollution in the world. But the vast majority of it comes from useful industry and travel. Most of the pollution has been necessary to improve our lives. Travel, products, manufacturing, food production - they all cause pollution, but it's a necessary evil. If scientists can prevent cancer, I think it's a good thing. Is that a radical idea for you? No cancer = good thing? And guess who is doing this research... I'll give you a clue - it's not hemp-wearing Luddites on bicycles. No pollution is a better thing ,then we can breath and not get cancer. Having industry has given improvements but when you see what your doing is harming your environment and you choose the profits over protecting what sustains you then thats crazy. I don't like the f*ck it up for profits and fix it up playing god with the gene pool idea no. If I'm a Luddite they are nutballs. Cancer and many other diseases existed when pollution levels were next to nothing. The life expectancy of humans on this planet is more than twice what it was during the Greek and Roman eras. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 In the future as the gene poll is all hacked and sliced I hear an oops Ollie I didn't see that coming ? That is the legacy of man so far.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 Its said that hemp will destroy cancer cells, but that would be too easy. I don't think man is responsible enough to mess with the gene pool like this. Man is causing the cancer surge with pollution so instead of curbing pollution they change a gene in a chicken. And that sounds good to you ? sheeeses Einstein had his regrets.... Hemp? You think that if hemp destoryed cancer, the world would hush it up in case people got stoned? Cancer has been around for ever.... This research is into all kinds of cancer. If they come up with a successful vaccine, I presume you will refuse it on the grounds it offends your principles. There is pollution in the world. But the vast majority of it comes from useful industry and travel. Most of the pollution has been necessary to improve our lives. Travel, products, manufacturing, food production - they all cause pollution, but it's a necessary evil. If scientists can prevent cancer, I think it's a good thing. Is that a radical idea for you? No cancer = good thing? And guess who is doing this research... I'll give you a clue - it's not hemp-wearing Luddites on bicycles. No pollution is a better thing ,then we can breath and not get cancer. Having industry has given improvements but when you see what your doing is harming your environment and you choose the profits over protecting what sustains you then thats crazy. I don't like the f*ck it up for profits and fix it up playing god with the gene pool idea no. If I'm a Luddite they are nutballs. Cancer and many other diseases existed when pollution levels were next to nothing. The life expectancy of humans on this planet is more than twice what it was during the Greek and Roman eras. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy Yea cancer has been around and so has diabetes. Check the rise in cancer rates in the last hundred years. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what is causing the rise of cancers. More people living longer sure and lots of cancer. Your argument has no teeth. But no worries if you like chicken.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 Many amazing people out there and wondrous inventions. Technology can be amazing yes. The problem I see is when the new invention is found to cause illness or danger etc instead of fixing it or changing or dropping the idea the bottom line takes over the survival instinct. Only so many will die as in the RADs measurement of Nuke plants is not acceptable to me. I can't stop or direct things but I don't have to like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admin Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 I saw the front page of Forbes magazine with a picture of a scientist who spliced soybean seed up so it makes better oil to control blood cholesterol. Now you can eat all the pig you want. Sound good to you ? sounds backward to me... This is what is hypocritical. Ninety percent of the people who oppose genetic engineering would willingly surrender their left testicle to get their hands on this genetically engineered remedy if they or a loved one was dying and this was the only thing standing between them and an early grave. Are you really saying that if a doctor told you that you have a genetic disposition to high cholesterol and heart disease and that unless you added genetically modified soybean to your diet you would be dead in 6 months, you wouldn't eat it? Not when I could stop eating the food that gives me the high cholesterol thats grown in a factory farm. I'm not a hypocrite to not like the way man is infatuated with his technology beyond reason. I said, IF you have a genetic disposition for high cholesterol and heart disease. What about Jim Fixx who is credited as being one of the people who started the fitness craze in the US with his book "The Complete Book of Running"? He died of a heart attack which most attribute to genetic factors. But, has some genetic soybean that lowers cholesterol been around he might have been around another 10, 20 or 30 years. You can't pin everything on people do bad things to their bodies so they deserve to die. We pollute the atmosphere so we shouldn't develop cures for diseases that causes. We eat too much so we shouldn't develop cures for diabetes or other obesity related diseases. That's one of the major points I think EB is trying to make. Environmentalists see doomsday because, in a way, they think we should all die. It's actually a solution they would like to see as a way of punishing us for having misused the earth's resources. So when alternatives spring up, when solutions spring up, environmentalists are quick to dismiss them because those sorts of things don't support their true endgame. I don't think anybody is advocating the "let's f*ck it up as much as we can" philosophy here. What is being said is that there are the glass half empty and the glass half full people and the scaremongers are definitely in the class half empty camp. Except they're not happy with the glass only being half empty. They claim the glass is bone dry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 I'm claiming the glass is being filled with poison for profits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admin Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 Its said that hemp will destroy cancer cells, but that would be too easy. I don't think man is responsible enough to mess with the gene pool like this. Man is causing the cancer surge with pollution so instead of curbing pollution they change a gene in a chicken. And that sounds good to you ? sheeeses Einstein had his regrets.... Hemp? You think that if hemp destoryed cancer, the world would hush it up in case people got stoned? Cancer has been around for ever.... This research is into all kinds of cancer. If they come up with a successful vaccine, I presume you will refuse it on the grounds it offends your principles. There is pollution in the world. But the vast majority of it comes from useful industry and travel. Most of the pollution has been necessary to improve our lives. Travel, products, manufacturing, food production - they all cause pollution, but it's a necessary evil. If scientists can prevent cancer, I think it's a good thing. Is that a radical idea for you? No cancer = good thing? And guess who is doing this research... I'll give you a clue - it's not hemp-wearing Luddites on bicycles. No pollution is a better thing ,then we can breath and not get cancer. Having industry has given improvements but when you see what your doing is harming your environment and you choose the profits over protecting what sustains you then thats crazy. I don't like the f*ck it up for profits and fix it up playing god with the gene pool idea no. If I'm a Luddite they are nutballs. Cancer and many other diseases existed when pollution levels were next to nothing. The life expectancy of humans on this planet is more than twice what it was during the Greek and Roman eras. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy Yea cancer has been around and so has diabetes. Check the rise in cancer rates in the last hundred years. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what is causing the rise of cancers. More people living longer sure and lots of cancer. Your argument has no teeth. But no worries if you like chicken.... Well, that and better diagnostics. Or the fact that since people aren't dying of TB or other diseases we've almost completely wiped out they age long enough to develop cancer. What exactly was killing the people during the Greek and Roman periods? Smoking? Bad diets? Pollution. Living too close to nuclear power plants? Genetically modified food? Give me the option of dying at 35 from some random illness or injury or living to 70 and being guaranteed of dying of cancer . . . wow, tough choice. Wait, no it's not. I'll take 70 every time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
English_Bob Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 In the future as the gene poll is all hacked and sliced I hear an oops Ollie I didn't see that coming ? That is the legacy of man so far.... Really? And your evidence for this is....? Your gut feeling? People used to think we shouldn't travel over 50 miles an hour... that was their gut feeling. Stem cells and gene splicing are the key to better lives for everyone. Fewer diseases. Longer life. More tolerant foods. More efficient food production. Your reticence is based on nothing but a fear of the unknown. Science has made great leaps IN SPITE of people like you... and now you enjoy the fruits of their labour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
English_Bob Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 This is all moot anyway - the sky will fall down, or the oceans rise up, or the Morlocks will escape long before Eagle will say... "Oh yeah... that DID turn out pretty well. I LIKE having all my diseases vaccinated by eating an omelette." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 In the future as the gene poll is all hacked and sliced I hear an oops Ollie I didn't see that coming ? That is the legacy of man so far.... Really? And your evidence for this is....? Your gut feeling? People used to think we shouldn't travel over 50 miles an hour... that was their gut feeling. Stem cells and gene splicing are the key to better lives for everyone. Fewer diseases. Longer life. More tolerant foods. More efficient food production. Your reticence is based on nothing but a fear of the unknown. Science has made great leaps IN SPITE of people like you... and now you enjoy the fruits of their labour. like my words have such power sheeeees Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce551 Posted January 15, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2011/01/does_climate_change_explain_th.html Writing in the journal Science, the experts claim that Rome's Third Century Crisis -- a period of political and economic unrest that inaugurated the empire's slow decline -- coincided with "distinct drying" recorded in tree rings, which may have rendered European agriculture less productive. Not just that -- the appearance of the Plague in Western Europe correlates with a wet period, which may have provided conditions favorable for spreading the disease. So, the scientists warn, don't underestimate the possible risks associated with contemporary climate change. Climate shifts that affected farm output were factors in "amplifying political, social and economic crises," Ulf Buentgen, of the Swiss Federal Research Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research, told Reuters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle Posted January 16, 2011 Report Share Posted January 16, 2011 Great Video about hemp. This is an important food source and that is only one of its many uses. http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=133172686745634&oid=138696699509109&comments Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admin Posted January 16, 2011 Report Share Posted January 16, 2011 http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2011/01/does_climate_change_explain_th.html Writing in the journal Science, the experts claim that Rome's Third Century Crisis -- a period of political and economic unrest that inaugurated the empire's slow decline -- coincided with "distinct drying" recorded in tree rings, which may have rendered European agriculture less productive. Not just that -- the appearance of the Plague in Western Europe correlates with a wet period, which may have provided conditions favorable for spreading the disease. So, the scientists warn, don't underestimate the possible risks associated with contemporary climate change. Climate shifts that affected farm output were factors in "amplifying political, social and economic crises," Ulf Buentgen, of the Swiss Federal Research Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research, told Reuters. And I suppose those periods of climate change corresponded with something man did, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle Posted January 16, 2011 Report Share Posted January 16, 2011 http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2011/01/does_climate_change_explain_th.html Writing in the journal Science, the experts claim that Rome's Third Century Crisis -- a period of political and economic unrest that inaugurated the empire's slow decline -- coincided with "distinct drying" recorded in tree rings, which may have rendered European agriculture less productive. Not just that -- the appearance of the Plague in Western Europe correlates with a wet period, which may have provided conditions favorable for spreading the disease. So, the scientists warn, don't underestimate the possible risks associated with contemporary climate change. Climate shifts that affected farm output were factors in "amplifying political, social and economic crises," Ulf Buentgen, of the Swiss Federal Research Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research, told Reuters. And I suppose those periods of climate change corresponded with something man did, right? Very possible. Man has helped many desert along. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle Posted January 16, 2011 Report Share Posted January 16, 2011 i hear the miltary is using chemtrails to control the weather. http://www.airliners.net/photo/239080/M Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
English_Bob Posted January 16, 2011 Report Share Posted January 16, 2011 http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2011/01/does_climate_change_explain_th.html Writing in the journal Science, the experts claim that Rome's Third Century Crisis -- a period of political and economic unrest that inaugurated the empire's slow decline -- coincided with "distinct drying" recorded in tree rings, which may have rendered European agriculture less productive. Not just that -- the appearance of the Plague in Western Europe correlates with a wet period, which may have provided conditions favorable for spreading the disease. So, the scientists warn, don't underestimate the possible risks associated with contemporary climate change. Climate shifts that affected farm output were factors in "amplifying political, social and economic crises," Ulf Buentgen, of the Swiss Federal Research Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research, told Reuters. And I suppose those periods of climate change corresponded with something man did, right? Very possible. Man has helped many desert along. But but but what what what? The ROMANS started global warming? I am staggered by how stupid your points are becoming, Bruce. At first they were just tedious and repetitive melodramas. Now they are in danger of becoming tragicomedies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
English_Bob Posted January 16, 2011 Report Share Posted January 16, 2011 i hear the miltary is using chemtrails to control the weather. http://www.airliners.net/photo/239080/M Don't worry... put on your tinfoil hat and light up another doobie... You'll be fine. That's a commercial cargo plane - non-military. Do you think the military are adding chemicals to the jet fuel - because THAT'S where the trails are coming from. There are 141 comments from plane enthusiasts underneath it... I didn't see any comments about chemical spraying clouds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.