Calling in the Chemistry Squad

Read my second sentence and you will understand why I disagree with your first one. The fact that human beings do a thing doesn't make it unnatural because human beings are not unnatural and so therefore are not the things they do. If you take the opposite of natural to be supernatural (the problem with the concept of unnatural is its multifarious hidden assumptions, most of them invidious) the confusion clears up.

I'm fine with starting by understand what a thing is a does. That's not the same as starting with where it came from. Confusing the two is in philosophy called the genetic fallacy. It's a sort of be genetically modified concept.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Read my second sentence and you will understand why I disagree with your first one. The fact that human beings do a thing doesn't make it unnatural because human beings are not unnatural and so therefore are not the things they do. If you take the opposite of natural to be supernatural (the problem with the concept of unnatural is its multifarious hidden assumptions, most of them invidious) the confusion clears up.

I'm fine with starting by understand what a thing is a does. That's not the same as starting with where it came from. Confusing the two is in philosophy called the genetic fallacy. It's a sort of be genetically modified concept.
Click to expand...

I see. The use of the word nature or natural isn’t important. I can drop it. What’s important here for most people and is unique for GMOs is direct insertion of DNA sequences.

I’m not sure what you mean by “starting with where it came from” or that there’s some fallacy in considering it. I think it’s important here to recognize where GMOs come from and how that is distinct from other sources of genetic change, and allow people to debate the ramifications in the context of understanding what they are and do.

But in my mind debates over the word nature and whether something is in that category are not important. So if I’ve been sloppy with my use of that word, we can substitute another. (OTOH, when I say GMOs do not occur naturally, everyone knows what I’m saying.) Regarding GMOs, some may way want to attach the label unnatural, but I don’t really care about that label.
 
Since part of this thread discussed vineyard treatments, this is as good as any to plant this post:

The rain in Europe, while causing disastrous and tragic events in Germany, is causing strong disease pressure in Burgundy — mildew and powdery mildew according to Drouhin. The answer for the biodynamic or organic grower is copper and sulphur treatments. There has to be a better way.
 
originally posted by Jayson Cohen:
Since part of this thread discussed vineyard treatments, this is as good as any to plant this post:

The rain in Europe, while causing disastrous and tragic events in Germany, is causing strong disease pressure in Burgundy — mildew and powdery mildew according to Drouhin. The answer for the biodynamic or organic grower is copper and sulphur treatments. There has to be a better way.
Click to expand...

Why? To combat them you need an anti fungal agent, but biodynamie strictly limits what you can put on your vines as does organic certification. So copper and sulfur get grandfathered in as antifungals that Cistercian monks would recognize. Apart from chemical treatments, there might be a virus that would attack the molds and of course you can genetically modify the grapes to exude their own anti fungal agents. None of that is likely to appeal to those who embrace organic or biodynamic viticulture.

Mark Lipton
 
Put the question this way. Copper sulfur treatment isn't really organic and does some determinable damage to the environment. Are any of the available treatments, in your judgment (whether chemical or GMO)better environmentally speaking than copper sulfate. As you know, I am not on theory against GMO, so for general information you can include that. Please be as informative as you can about what damage the alternatives might cause. As an example, GMO corn has obvious drawbacks. Setting aside risks that some say are possible--it may be a carcinogen-it will dictate the conditions of surrounding areas, determining, for instance, what pesticides neighboring farms may and may not use. It also is fairly rapacious spreader and then the company that owns the patent asks for money from the field it has seeded. Would grape GMOs have the same ramifications?
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Put the question this way. Copper sulfur treatment isn't really organic and does some determinable damage to the environment. Are any of the available treatments, in your judgment (whether chemical or GMO)better environmentally speaking than copper sulfate. As you know, I am not on theory against GMO, so for general information you can include that. Please be as informative as you can about what damage the alternatives might cause. As an example, GMO corn has obvious drawbacks. Setting aside risks that some say are possible--it may be a carcinogen-it will dictate the conditions of surrounding areas, determining, for instance, what pesticides neighboring farms may and may not use. It also is fairly rapacious spreader and then the company that owns the patent asks for money from the field it has seeded. Would grape GMOs have the same ramifications?
Click to expand...

Right now, the only anti fungal agents of which I’m aware are agricultural chemicals such as azoxystrobin. These are generally considered of relatively low environmental impact, though they have to be kept out of water supplies (due to toxicity toward aquatic organisms). Certainly they are better for the environment than copper and less toxic overall. There are no GMO solutions of which I’m aware, but there may be activity behind the scenes of which I’m unaware.

Mark Lipton
 
originally posted by MLipton:
originally posted by Jayson Cohen:
2008 article:

Targets for Engineered Mutation to Create Powdery Mildew resistant vines
Click to expand...

Good find. This falls short of proof of principle but does represent a good lead. A lot of work remains to get a GMO that resistant to powdery mildew, though. But, as I said, who knows what might be going on behind the scenes?

Mark Lipton
Click to expand...

You don’t have to dig much further to find that fungus-resistant GM vines exist. What’s harder is to get a picture of the current state of the field.

But I actually revisited this thread because the idea of using treatments known to pollute the soil bothers me even if they have been used since time immemorial. Not that there are easy answers, or any answer, and it would be utter hubris for me in my ivory tower to suggest a grower should risk her or his livelihood by not treating.
 
originally posted by Jayson Cohen:
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
Who says the U.S. Senate is the greatest deliberative body on earth?
Click to expand...

Rhetorical, I know. But what came immediately to mind was, “‘Not I,’ said the fly.”
Click to expand...

More snark than rhetoric, but thanks for the benefit of the doubt.
 
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
originally posted by Jayson Cohen:
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
Who says the U.S. Senate is the greatest deliberative body on earth?
Click to expand...

Rhetorical, I know. But what came immediately to mind was, “‘Not I,’ said the fly.”
Click to expand...

More snark than rhetoric, but thanks for the benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...

Rhetorical snark. It’s a thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top