主题：棉花总产量下降的稻草。 -- njyd
不是一步到位的，你看下从ENIAC到摩尔定律提出再到第一台个人电脑花了多少时间。
粮食这种头等大事，涉及到国家安全底线的，理应走的更理智些，转基因要有指导有规划，立足国情，技术要由中国自己掌握：
转基因这事最好还是全国人大立法比较好。
况且你还是没解释这个反转和我举得那个反对现在买计算机有啥区别，无非就是国家安全，理智几个大词来来去去了
转基因技术，是农业科技的一部分，一种实现手段，为啥要单独列一个计划呢？有农业发展计划不就完了，具体到某个项目用不用转基因，自然有相应的课题解决
美国是全球转基因农业最大国，不知道有没有所谓“统一计划”呢？
黑岛人最疾呼的，就是通过产业化，有效提升中国转基因农业技术能力，防止美国技术独大
因为产业化不到位，中国很多实验室里的技术，挡不住外来成熟技术的冲击，研发体制和产业化的不配套，已经被人广为诟病了
技，都要统一立法，什么杂交水稻，辐射育种，谁知道杂交会交出个什么东西，辐射育种又会有什么基因突变
所有的生物技术，农业的，都要严格审查！十年审不出毛病，审二十年，二十年不出毛病，审五十年！
吃的东西，就是要慎重，我现在二十来岁，如果一个产品五十年不出毛病，那我吃到70，勉强够了，不过还有子孙后代，麻烦啊
美国政府还有大把农业补贴，中国有多少？
政府不领头、不保护，市场不是拱手让人？我实在不看好那些个专家。
黑岛人说了大把空话，光说要产业化，有什么措施没？国情是最现实的，产业化不是想搞就搞的，粮食增产手段也不只有转基因一种，目前来看多种举措并行只有政府能做到。
你如果咬定说，河里没有一贯反对的，那只能说选择性失明
我也认为，产业化是个系统工程，产业化要下大力气，要政府扶持，要培育出大公司，要市场保护，但我看很多反转，根本就是什么都不要嘛
黑岛人先和反转辩，转基因有好处，转基因需要产业化，这个讨论有问题吗？论点总是一步步深入的嘛，人家都一棒子敲死了，还讨论个毛的具体产业化实施细节啊
不旗帜鲜明的摆出在政治、安全上的观点来，在技术上纠缠是没前途的，绕不过去的。
要有简明的实施措施提出来，河里都是混了有年头的，有可执行性才可能得到赞同。
这样结束这个参与这个帖子，一个生活中的小事。
昨晚去理发，店里新来了位来自东北的理发师，闲聊着说他刚来几个月，说他来这里目的不是打工的，我挺奇怪，问他的来这里给人理发，目的不是打工是干什么。这位小伙子回答，是来给儿子买奶粉的，我更纳闷了，买奶粉跑几千公里！他回答说，儿子刚出生，开始买的一个什么什么牌子，发现里面竟然有结晶体，有点怕。就下定决心给儿子买能让他放心的奶粉，于是乎，南下，在这里打工。定期去一次香港，买回奶粉再快递到东北。
就这么个小故事，当然不同的人看出不同的事，我想说的是说明我们的食品安全已经在普通百姓间造成了多么负面的影响。不仅仅是地沟油那种小作坊的事，多重检测的品牌企业照样出问题。在这种背景下，转基因食品是如何步入老百姓视野的？有些人说你老百姓就是笨，啥也不懂，也不好学。现在的食品问题跨了多少学科？有些人真是把老百姓当摇钱树，还当傻瓜。转基因、高科技，吹自己的成果时用的欢，有问题了让百姓自己证明，老百姓不成为生物学家、遗传学家、农业家...真对不起转派的良苦用心。你们说破天，我就这个态度，这个转基因是食品安全中风险最不可测的，推广转基因的人的道德基因也越发值得怀疑！
最后一句话，该反对的照样反对，该支持的照样支持。结果不外乎，罗马的归罗马，凯撒的归凯撒。
阁下既然赞成发展转基因，与其在这里泼凉水，不如拿个执行方案出来？
制造转基因婴儿意味着克隆人，同时意味着产生大量死婴。我不认为哪个科学家的神经强大到这种地步。
如果什么错误都不犯的话人类就应该回到猩猩社会。
工业化带来的杀虫剂、化肥大幅度提高了粮食产量但是污染环境，你如果觉得这是人类的错误的话人类人口规模首先应该倒退到19世纪(不到20亿）
农业本身破坏森林和草原，导致物种单一，加速土地沙化。这是人类的错误，人类应该停止农耕畜牧，返回到渔猎时代。
人类生火取暖可能造成森林火灾，这也是人类的错误，人类应该从原始社会退回到猩猩的程度。
不要用狂想吓唬自己。
关于转基因的论战的存在本身就显示了这个论坛成员的知识水平有限。你觉得我的观点不对就说我极端，那么好吧，我说的哪点不符合事实？反倒是DDT的使用作为人类的一个错误的说法本身是可疑的，禁止DDT的使用本身可能是一个走极端的错误。
Criticism of restrictions on DDT use
Critics claim that restricting DDT in vector control have caused unnecessary deaths due to malaria. Estimates range from hundreds of thousands,[111] to millions. Robert Gwadz of the National Institutes of Health said in 2007, "The ban on DDT may have killed 20 million children."[112] These arguments have been dismissed as "outrageous" by former WHO scientist Socrates Litsios. May Berenbaum, University of Illinois entomologist, says, "to blame environmentalists who oppose DDT for more deaths than Hitler is worse than irresponsible."[83] Investigative journalist Adam Sarvana and others characterize this notion as a "myth" promoted principally by Roger Bate of the pro-DDT advocacy group Africa Fighting Malaria (AFM).[113][114]
Criticisms of a DDT "ban" often specifically reference the 1972 US ban (with the erroneous implication that this constituted a worldwide ban and prohibited use of DDT in vector control). Reference is often made to Rachel Carson's Silent Spring even though she never pushed for a ban on DDT. John Quiggin and Tim Lambert wrote, "the most striking feature of the claim against Carson is the ease with which it can be refuted."[115] Carson actually devoted a page of her book to considering the relationship between DDT and malaria, warning of the evolution of DDT resistance in mosquitoes and concluding:
It is more sensible in some cases to take a small amount of damage in preference to having none for a time but paying for it in the long run by losing the very means of fighting [is the advice given in Holland by Dr Briejer in his capacity as director of the Plant Protection Service]. Practical advice should be "Spray as little as you possibly can" rather than "Spray to the limit of your capacity."
It has also been alleged that donor governments and agencies have refused to fund DDT spraying, or made aid contingent upon not using DDT. According to a report in the British Medical Journal, use of DDT in Mozambique "was stopped several decades ago, because 80% of the country's health budget came from donor funds, and donors refused to allow the use of DDT."[116] Roger Bate asserts, "many countries have been coming under pressure from international health and environment agencies to give up DDT or face losing aid grants: Belize and Bolivia are on record admitting they gave in to pressure on this issue from [USAID]."[117]
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has been the focus of much criticism. While the agency is currently funding the use of DDT in some African countries,[118] in the past it did not. When John Stossel accused USAID of not funding DDT because it wasn't "politically correct," Anne Peterson, the agency's assistant administrator for global health, replied that "I believe that the strategies we are using are as effective as spraying with DDT ... So, politically correct or not, I am very confident that what we are doing is the right strategy."[119] USAID's Kent R. Hill states that the agency has been misrepresented: "USAID strongly supports spraying as a preventative measure for malaria and will support the use of DDT when it is scientifically sound and warranted."[120] The Agency's website states that "USAID has never had a 'policy' as such either 'for' or 'against' DDT for IRS. The real change in the past two years [2006/07] has been a new interest and emphasis on the use of IRS in general—with DDT or any other insecticide—as an effective malaria prevention strategy in tropical Africa."[118] The website further explains that in many cases alternative malaria control measures were judged to be more cost-effective that DDT spraying, and so were funded instead.[121]