Émilie du Chatelet

Yeah, that's weird.

QUANTUM SCIENCE SAYS YOU ALWAYS HAVE EXISTED AND ALWAYS WILL EXIST

I don't see any reason to think of consciousness as "energy", though.

Well yes, it’s certainly different, but I can’t see why that would be shut down.

Normally I can, and although I might not always agree with a thread being closed I can see why it was. This time I’m at a complete loss.

Yes, Chatelet was an important scientist, and an impressive person.

No, the conservation of energy has nothing to do with consciousness. The energy used to fuel your brain comes from your breakfast. Biscuits have energy. They don't have consciousness.

I don’t eat biscuits for breakfast.

I was going to post in one of his threads too a few days ago (the one about the galactic core) and that one as well is locked.

Most u s citizens don't like science. They would rather read about and discuss conspiracy theories.

European citizens are no better. Ask a typical German or Brit about genetically modified foods and you will get a load of politically loaded conspiracy theories.

Don't be stupid. Gm foods are pretty much owned by one company, Monsanto, their motivation is profit.

Like tobacco tried to bury research that showed smoking was harmful Monsanto has rushed to get it’s product on the market ASAP without adequate testing, to ensure the products don’t have a detrimental effect on the consumer or the environment.

It’s not anti Science at all.

Strange how you Americans like to claim you’re free and are distrustful of government but you’ll willingly gobble up a steaming turd handed you by a corrupt robber baron. It’s the same lickspittle servility you show to Trump.

QED. Izzy shows up with conspiracy theories. (Although Izzy is British which no longer counts as European).

It is funny how the Climate deniers and the GM food conspiracy theorists both use tobacco. It was the scientific community that raised the red flag on tobacco, and the scientific community never said it was safe after that.

Either you trust science, or you don't. If you only trust science when it matches your political ideology, then you don't need science.

I’m not surprised my point shot right over your head.

It’s not science, we’re distrustful of, it’s big business motivated by profit. We trust science, which is why we want science to adequately test GM stuff and not take the word of big business.

Big business, oil, gas and coal is the reason for climate change. Exxon, like the tobacco industry tried to suppress research into the effect burning fossil fuels has on the environment.

At for Europeans, you were the one who mentioned Brits in the first place which is so typical of septics.

Now you can make up a response to another one of your wild imaginings because you’re incapable of understanding the point I’ve made, let alone replying in an intelligent manner.

Or you could just pull another ‘fact’ out of your arse.

The scientific community that says that GM food has no inherent risk over non GMO is the same scientific community that says that Covid-19 is a deadly virus mitigated by masks, and the same scientific community that says that the climate is warming. Big business has nothing to do with it.

If your view of science always matches perfectly with your political ideology... then what do you need science for?

Your conspiracy theory blames big business. Their conspiracy theory blames the liberal media and Greenpeace. It is all the same, finding a bugbear (Monsanto, or socialists or whether) to blame for scientific results that you don't agree with politically.

There has been a lot of scientific research on GM foods, and global warming, and covid-19. And in spite of political opposition to the science, the science from independent researchers and organizations is consistent.

The scientific community says that GM foods haven’t been adequately tested.

Paid scientists in the pocket of Monsanto and pet congressmen say it is.

Over here we trust science not fat bloated businessmen and their lickspittle supporters

There’s no conspiracy theory, it’s Monsanto, one company.

There’s 250 carcinogenic food additives banned by science over here but allowed over there because you think the profits of big business are more important than making sure your children aren’t fed poison.

The question is this...

Will you trust what the scientific community says are the scientific results in its research about GM foods?

Unlike you, I will trust genuine scientists, not those in the pay of big business. I trust the same scientists that stop carcinogenic additives which kill Americans from being added to our food.

The science is not there yet, there have not been anywhere near enough tests and won’t be for at least another five years, that’s what the scientists who aren’t paid by Monsanto say.

That has been my point all along, we just had to go round the houses umpteen times before you could begin to understand the point being made.

Good.

So when you look and see that lots of independent scientists not "in the pay of big business" state that there is no evidence that GM foods are more risky than conventional foods...

... then you will change your mind.

Go ahead and Google it. I am glad we were able to settle that one.

Those same scientists who say that 250 carcinogenic additives are safe for food?

When it comes to feeding my kids I err on the side of caution.

What would really convince me they’re safe to eat is if Monsanto drops its patents and lets governments decide.

Big business only cares about money, tobacco, oil, gas, coal are all examples. There’s a book called The Jungle by Upton Sinclair which shows how the food industry treats the consumer with contempt and needs to be highly regulated.

I am open minded Izzy. You can can change my mind.

Name 3 respected, unbiased scientific organizations. These scientific organization should be well-respected, independent and Then we will check their stance on Genetically Modified food. (I actually bet you can't find one).

If these well-respected, independent scientific organizations don't state that there is zero evidence that GM foods have additional risk over conventional foods, then I will change my mind.

Is there any set of facts or evidence that would change your mind? If you are claiming there is a global conspiracy that subverts independent science and science institutions, then how can we trust science about anything?

It’s not just science, it’s the behaviour of big business.

Monsanto sells its product to poor African subsistence farmers, but these crops are sterile, meaning the farmers can’t produce their own seeds for next year, depending instead on Monsanto. Up to 50% of their costs now go on seeds, something that used to be free, the practice is immoral.

I can’t post links, but google friends of the Earth gm crops and you’ll be directed to a page that begins.

‘ Where they are grown, GM crops are linked to massive increases in herbicide use, the extension of mono-cultural farming practices, and increased costs all along the food chain.’

It’s not just about whether something is safe to eat, there’s a host of other considerations, and something as game changing as altering the genetic code of plants should not be up for profit.

Look at how the agro chemical industries fought against the ban on DDT. You can’t trust these people at all.

You’re the same regarding Covid, saying we should take the advice of government scientists like Antony Fauci, not those whose motivations are financial.

I don't care about what big business says. I don't care about what political groups (such as "Friends of the Earth") say.

I only care about what science says.

So I am asking you.... Name me scientific organizations that you believe are independent and reputable. Then we can see what they say.

I trust institutional science on covid. I trust institutional science on global warming. I trust institutional science on GMOs. Where I trust science, you trust your political ideology.