And then the one harmful change of these huge number of all sorts of random mutations becomes predominant in 90% of the wheat out there? Yeah, I don't see that happening as easily as when the GMO company selects the gene they want and put it into 100% of the seeds.

One of the major goals of modern breeding is to get extremely homogeneous (i.e. inbred) populations. So if a dangerous trait was caused by a gene that was being selected for, or was near a gene that was being selected for, then becoming 'fixed' in the new variety would be expected, because that' s the goal. The major difference from a GMO variety being that (at least for the time being) nobody's doing a complete sequencing to find those genes, and then researching them each for potential problems. For example, Golden Delicious apple trees all descend from one plant, often grafted clones of the original - and if the yellow color happened to be toxic...

And the only reason that 90% of US corn and soy ended up having the same glyphosate resistant gene was because of a lack of competition and the fact that it was very, very useful. Now that other companies are using GMO techniques, Roundup resistance has become an issue, and future developments are likely to have smaller benefits or more targeted uses, it's less likely for something similar to happen.

On top of that, glyphosphate is one of the least toxic herbacides out there that generally breaks down relatively quickly in the environment.

Sorry, that's just not true. Higher levels of it have been found in the internal organs of chronically ill people.

1. Which is irrelevant to the point that it breaks down faster than most other herbicides.
2. It's also irrelevant to the fact that it really is less toxic as well.
2. Chronically ill people have higher concentrations of lots of things, because they excrete it more slowly. So again, irrelevant.

We have many, many negative ecological/human impacts that have no known cause, that correspond roughly to the time that various kinds of GMO techniques and species came into use.

By that logic, GMOs cause people to be more accepting of gay marriage. We should do research to find the causes of these things, of course, but there's no reason to pick on whatever random tech/group/idea has an image problem at the moment.

the GMO companies have nicely prevented that, by making it impossible to determine precisely when and where different populations were exposed to different GMO species or techniques.

First, we have the US and Europe.
Second, it isn't any different than any other industry - what was the sulfur content of the oil used to make your keyboard?

If the GMO companies believed their products were safe, they would have proudly labeled them.

First, Monsanto et al do 'proudly' label their products, advertise them, even explain in great detail what all their varieties do - but you aren't buying large quantities of seed, so you don't see it.
Second, as long as people are freaking out about GMOs keeping quiet makes more sense than making yourself a target for anti-GMO activists. You really think it makes financial sense to be the only company with a 'Frankenfood' sticker on their products?

But if I could put a question to you - why this tech? Out of the thousand of fairly new techs that go into billions of products, why this one and not, say, cell phone radiation, hormone analogues in plastic, ...?

I am worried that we will have some low level carcinogen accidentally get incorporated in our GMO wheat supply, and voila we have half the world's population getting stomach cancer decades later.

Why aren't you worried about the same thing happening with "conventionally bred" varieties? Running seed through an X-ray machine will cause huge numbers of all sorts of random mutations (as opposed to a single, controlled insertion), and they don't get tested nearly as thoroughly.

Modern gene splicing is mostly about ensuring farmers must buy seeds annually because they can't simply take the seeds from their crops and replant them

No. For existing varieties it's about lowering costs to the farmer.

they are mostly designed to produce only sterile seeds or worse to produce sterile offspring 2-3 generations down the line

That's from being hybridized, not from being genetically modified.

they are designed to exploit those mechanisms to make competing heirloom strains of crops sterile and gain market share

Citation needed.

Of course it is, it's based on inverting the burden of proof. It's trivial (and absurd) to invent something vague and non-detectable, and then shout "You haven't disproved it!!!" to anyone who isn't convinced.

That's a perfectly valid request if you have no prior understanding of biology - e.g. it wasn't believed by ancient cultures. We had to do actual research to demonstrate the connection.

Ok. Exactly what part of consciousness can't possibly be explained by the brain? It may seem rude to put the bar that high, but when the only evidence for X is that "nothing else can explain it", you have to be pretty certain that nothing else can explain it.

At the very least the same benefits as sending a machine (knowledge, pride) or other people (knowing that the future of mankind is more secure, etc).

And from a philosophical perspective it doesn't make sense to think of one of your future selves differently than the other if they're 100% physically identical. i.e. you'd have the exact same situation if you were magically taken to the other planet and a duplicate was made here.

Right, when you can't send women to prison (often hard-labor) for not paying taxes or debts or sue them for violating a contract it wouldn't make sense to let them get into a position where they could abuse that power. Horrible and stupid, yes, but not exactly one-sided.

Oddly enough, in several countries women gained the right to control their own money while men were still responsible for the taxes on that income. This lead to men serving prison time for not paying taxes on money that they had no legal right to access.

Quite right. But it's hard to call that misogyny when those same people pushed for circumcision and anti-erection devices for the exact same reason, as well as chastity belts, ultra-low-fiber diets, and a whole host of useless, freakish "treatments" for all sorts of non-illnesses. It's even harder to call it misogyny when clitoridectomy (and everything similar) is illegal nearly everywhere (barring rare cancer cases, etc), while circumcision is still not only legal but frequently preformed on healthy children in the US.

The shade only has to cover the star, not aim directly at the plant. So this is more like blocking out the sun to see a baseball than tracking a baseball with a camera.

If an ordinance read: "A pack of rabid wolves being situated near our town, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.", would that imply that having rabies is a prerequisite to having this right?

Why do you think that "militia" and "the people" are referring to the same thing? And why does "the people" in every other amendment always mean "people in general" - why does this mention need to be interpreted differently?

Sure. The male-only draft insults women's ability to fight, and the longer prison sentences men get implies that women aren't mature enough to handle themselves responsibly. Those poor women!

But if we're going that route, why not say that the wage gap (at least whatever part of it might be real) is an insult to men. It implies (and acts as a justification for) the idea that finances are the man's responsibility. It's a cruel reminder of the bad old days when men were thrown into debtor's prison because of debts that their wife owed - how cruel is that?