Genetic Variation (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, September 25, 2010, 20:50 (5172 days ago) @ xeno6696

In somethings, I would agree with you. However, somethings are more obvious and should have been considered. For example, going back to the bees. The pesticides and herbicides were designed to be toxic. That was their purpose, and no doubt they were forced to determine if that toxicity would be problematic for humans if consumed/inhaled/touched. That is a standard for any chemical. But these chemicals were specifically designed to be toxic to other plants and wild life. Now, from that, we could make a fairly easy, logical inference as to what would need to be tested.-What flora/fauna specifically are we targeting?
What fauna directly consumes the intended target flora?
What fauna interacts directly with target flora on a regular basis?-Most of this information could be gathered quite readily. Then, based off the results, they could gather specimens from the identified fauna, and test for side effects. Even if they found none, and it later turned out that they were wrong, I could give them credit for trying. But as you pointed out, they were given a budget and a deadline and forced to proceed, damn the consequences. The fact that bees are responsible for a tremendous amount of pollination has been known for so long that it is anecdotal. What I am promoting is slow, stable, growth instead of fast, reckless, growth.