Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: you might not get back what you put in

Topic: GMO/AGW/whatever derail from "Deextinction and Rewilding" (Read 155 times) previous topic - next topic - Topic derived from Deextinction and Rewi...

Recusant and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
GMO/AGW/whatever derail from "Deextinction and Rewilding"
So many of these issues make me feel helpless. We have corporate interests running the show, in tandem with scientists with little to hold them back. This field, like nanotech and AI, is almost entirely outside of the democratic process. When there is a public outcry, such as with GM crops, those voices are just shouted down as ignorant, by referencing corporate-funded scientific studies with ridiculously narrow value-measures (usually productivity and profit-cost).

This was bad for decades. Now that things are really hotting up (global warming, rising isolationism, robots taking even more jobs, the deep politicization of the Internet and cyber-warfare, social media filter bubbles where we all end up talking to ourselves...), it is getting pretty scary. I think we're likely to feel more pressure of time, make decisions more authoritatively without democratic involvement (or just the protest-on-the-sidelines type), and more unilaterally. While 'globalism' is a handy whipping-boy, it doesn't just disappear because you build walls, and solutions to these things must largely be global concerns. Even with the best decision-making we could devise, the future involves vast amounts of chaos, especially with all these levels of change coming together.

Oh, yes, this is TR. Alternative caption for the first picture: "Look! Baby mamoths had butt-holes!" And Britt Ray is hot.

  • Peez
Re: GMO/AGW/whatever derail from "Deextinction and Rewilding"
Reply #1
So many of these issues make me feel helpless. We have corporate interests running the show, in tandem with scientists with little to hold them back. This field, like nanotech and AI, is almost entirely outside of the democratic process. When there is a public outcry, such as with GM crops, those voices are just shouted down as ignorant, by referencing corporate-funded scientific studies with ridiculously narrow value-measures (usually productivity and profit-cost).

This was bad for decades. Now that things are really hotting up (global warming, rising isolationism, robots taking even more jobs, the deep politicization of the Internet and cyber-warfare, social media filter bubbles where we all end up talking to ourselves...), it is getting pretty scary. I think we're likely to feel more pressure of time, make decisions more authoritatively without democratic involvement (or just the protest-on-the-sidelines type), and more unilaterally. While 'globalism' is a handy whipping-boy, it doesn't just disappear because you build walls, and solutions to these things must largely be global concerns. Even with the best decision-making we could devise, the future involves vast amounts of chaos, especially with all these levels of change coming together.

Oh, yes, this is TR. Alternative caption for the first picture: "Look! Baby mamoths had butt-holes!" And Britt Ray is hot.
There are certainly issues that we should be concerned about, but I find it odd that you accept the scientific consensus on global warming but not on GMO's.

Peez

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: GMO/AGW/whatever derail from "Deextinction and Rewilding"
Reply #2
It reminds me of the Atomic donkey
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

Re: GMO/AGW/whatever derail from "Deextinction and Rewilding"
Reply #3
So many of these issues make me feel helpless. We have corporate interests running the show, in tandem with scientists with little to hold them back. This field, like nanotech and AI, is almost entirely outside of the democratic process. When there is a public outcry, such as with GM crops, those voices are just shouted down as ignorant, by referencing corporate-funded scientific studies with ridiculously narrow value-measures (usually productivity and profit-cost).

This was bad for decades. Now that things are really hotting up (global warming, rising isolationism, robots taking even more jobs, the deep politicization of the Internet and cyber-warfare, social media filter bubbles where we all end up talking to ourselves...), it is getting pretty scary. I think we're likely to feel more pressure of time, make decisions more authoritatively without democratic involvement (or just the protest-on-the-sidelines type), and more unilaterally. While 'globalism' is a handy whipping-boy, it doesn't just disappear because you build walls, and solutions to these things must largely be global concerns. Even with the best decision-making we could devise, the future involves vast amounts of chaos, especially with all these levels of change coming together.

Oh, yes, this is TR. Alternative caption for the first picture: "Look! Baby mamoths had butt-holes!" And Britt Ray is hot.
There are certainly issues that we should be concerned about, but I find it odd that you accept the scientific consensus on global warming but not on GMO's.

Peez
Go cheerleader spotted. Go hang out with teeth and talk about how, despite the genes getting loose into wild species, the genes don't get out into wild species. Or talk about how excellent it is that we are initiating an evolutionar arms race with bugs and plant diseases. Or maybe just how great it is that we can now drench a sizable fraction of our arable land with roundup. Yes, the gmo consensus is exactly what ontic described it as, ridiculously narrow value propositions with a level of problem externalization that should concern everyone but doesnt because science.

The fact that there are benefits is currently vastly outweighed by the concerns over the application and business model.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: GMO/AGW/whatever derail from "Deextinction and Rewilding"
Reply #4
So many of these issues make me feel helpless. We have corporate interests running the show, in tandem with scientists with little to hold them back.

The technical challenges alone are holding scientists back from doing 99.99999% of what you imagine we're doing.

Re: GMO/AGW/whatever derail from "Deextinction and Rewilding"
Reply #5
I have genuine issues with how GM has been applied, and will likely continue to be applied (roundup ready etc). But that doesn't make the technology bad, just poorly applied. The technical difficulties in making drought tolerant rice, or plants that photosynthesise twice as efficiently means that the stuff that you might seem to be good are simply not going to happen any time soon. The best we can hope for is another variant on the "Green Revolution".
Why do I bother?

Re: GMO/AGW/whatever derail from "Deextinction and Rewilding"
Reply #6
We've been in an arms race with plant pests and diseases since we started doing agriculture. Banana flavoured stuff doesn't taste like modern bananas because we had to change the variety we grew because the plantations got wiped out. People have been breeding for blight resistance in potatoes  since the 19th Century. GM just means that rather than crossing your spud with a wild strain and hoping you get to keep the size, shape, and taste of the modern species with the pest resistance of the wild species, you can pick the traits you want, and not lose any. But even that is really difficult.

Sequencing genomes is easy these days. I don't think working out what each gene actually does is any easier than it was when I was at uni.
Why do I bother?

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: GMO/AGW/whatever derail from "Deextinction and Rewilding"
Reply #7
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

Re: GMO/AGW/whatever derail from "Deextinction and Rewilding"
Reply #8
So many of these issues make me feel helpless. We have corporate interests running the show, in tandem with scientists with little to hold them back. This field, like nanotech and AI, is almost entirely outside of the democratic process. When there is a public outcry, such as with GM crops, those voices are just shouted down as ignorant, by referencing corporate-funded scientific studies with ridiculously narrow value-measures (usually productivity and profit-cost).

This was bad for decades. Now that things are really hotting up (global warming, rising isolationism, robots taking even more jobs, the deep politicization of the Internet and cyber-warfare, social media filter bubbles where we all end up talking to ourselves...), it is getting pretty scary. I think we're likely to feel more pressure of time, make decisions more authoritatively without democratic involvement (or just the protest-on-the-sidelines type), and more unilaterally. While 'globalism' is a handy whipping-boy, it doesn't just disappear because you build walls, and solutions to these things must largely be global concerns. Even with the best decision-making we could devise, the future involves vast amounts of chaos, especially with all these levels of change coming together.

Oh, yes, this is TR. Alternative caption for the first picture: "Look! Baby mamoths had butt-holes!" And Britt Ray is hot.
There are certainly issues that we should be concerned about, but I find it odd that you accept the scientific consensus on global warming but not on GMO's.

Peez

Inconsistent without doubt.  Blind acceptance of industrially driven ridiculously narrow value-measures consensus GMO science should naturally be the trivial extension of blind acceptance of UN IPCC driven ridiculously narrow value-measures consensus climate science.

And after all, consensus is paramount in modern science where the outmoded and troublesome burden of evidence has been largely superceded.  Consensus is a far more reliable indicator of scientific truth and has served as an all but infallible guide throughout the history of human enquiry.

Re: GMO/AGW/whatever derail from "Deextinction and Rewilding"
Reply #9
Except that the exceptionally narrow value measures involved in global warming involve human extinction.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: GMO/AGW/whatever derail from "Deextinction and Rewilding"
Reply #10
From Ehrlich's Population Bomb to Testy's Extinction Horizon.  Who to believe!?  If you trouble to google 'human population' it looks like they didn't get your memo.  That's half a century after the human caused ice age human extinction alarm and half a century into the human caused inferno human extinction alarm.

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: GMO/AGW/whatever derail from "Deextinction and Rewilding"
Reply #11
Except that the exceptionally narrow value measures involved in global warming involve human extinction.
Nonsense
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

Re: GMO/AGW/whatever derail from "Deextinction and Rewilding"
Reply #12
Except that the exceptionally narrow value measures involved in global warming involve human extinction.
Nonsense

No. Not nonsense. That is one of the values we need to consider.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: GMO/AGW/whatever derail from "Deextinction and Rewilding"
Reply #13
So many of these issues make me feel helpless. We have corporate interests running the show, in tandem with scientists with little to hold them back. This field, like nanotech and AI, is almost entirely outside of the democratic process. When there is a public outcry, such as with GM crops, those voices are just shouted down as ignorant, by referencing corporate-funded scientific studies with ridiculously narrow value-measures (usually productivity and profit-cost).

This was bad for decades. Now that things are really hotting up (global warming, rising isolationism, robots taking even more jobs, the deep politicization of the Internet and cyber-warfare, social media filter bubbles where we all end up talking to ourselves...), it is getting pretty scary. I think we're likely to feel more pressure of time, make decisions more authoritatively without democratic involvement (or just the protest-on-the-sidelines type), and more unilaterally. While 'globalism' is a handy whipping-boy, it doesn't just disappear because you build walls, and solutions to these things must largely be global concerns. Even with the best decision-making we could devise, the future involves vast amounts of chaos, especially with all these levels of change coming together.

Oh, yes, this is TR. Alternative caption for the first picture: "Look! Baby mamoths had butt-holes!" And Britt Ray is hot.
There are certainly issues that we should be concerned about, but I find it odd that you accept the scientific consensus on global warming but not on GMO's.

Peez

Inconsistent without doubt.  Blind acceptance of industrially driven ridiculously narrow value-measures consensus GMO science should naturally be the trivial extension of blind acceptance of UN IPCC driven ridiculously narrow value-measures consensus climate science.

And after all, consensus is paramount in modern science where the outmoded and troublesome burden of evidence has been largely superceded.  Consensus is a far more reliable indicator of scientific truth and has served as an all but infallible guide throughout the history of human enquiry.
Yeah, let's not think for ourselves. Count the scientists.

For one thing, the money trail clearly points in opposite directions in each case. Our acknowledgement of AGW is still being hampered by oil barons (oh, and a consensus, kinda, was that Trump would be the way to go...not unconnected). Meanwhile, big business has railroaded GMO onto the planet, paid for most of the 'research', sold more of its original products and gained control of the increasingly monoculture new products through patents. Call that 'not being implemented well' if you like.

  • Peez
Re: GMO/AGW/whatever derail from "Deextinction and Rewilding"
Reply #14
Quote
Testy Calibrate:
Go cheerleader spotted. Go hang out with teeth and talk about how, despite the genes getting loose into wild species, the genes don't get out into wild species. Or talk about how excellent it is that we are initiating an evolutionar arms race with bugs and plant diseases. Or maybe just how great it is that we can now drench a sizable fraction of our arable land with roundup. Yes, the gmo consensus is exactly what ontic described it as, ridiculously narrow value propositions with a level of problem externalization that should concern everyone but doesnt because science.

The fact that there are benefits is currently vastly outweighed by the concerns over the application and business model.
This is exactly the sort of response I would expect from a denier of anthropogenic climate change: I am dismissed as a "cheerleader", then vague assertions are supplied about a number of things that relate to GMO's without actually addressing what is wrong with GMO's, and no actual science presented.  I am disappointed.

Peez

  • Peez
Re: GMO/AGW/whatever derail from "Deextinction and Rewilding"
Reply #15
So many of these issues make me feel helpless. We have corporate interests running the show, in tandem with scientists with little to hold them back. This field, like nanotech and AI, is almost entirely outside of the democratic process. When there is a public outcry, such as with GM crops, those voices are just shouted down as ignorant, by referencing corporate-funded scientific studies with ridiculously narrow value-measures (usually productivity and profit-cost).

This was bad for decades. Now that things are really hotting up (global warming, rising isolationism, robots taking even more jobs, the deep politicization of the Internet and cyber-warfare, social media filter bubbles where we all end up talking to ourselves...), it is getting pretty scary. I think we're likely to feel more pressure of time, make decisions more authoritatively without democratic involvement (or just the protest-on-the-sidelines type), and more unilaterally. While 'globalism' is a handy whipping-boy, it doesn't just disappear because you build walls, and solutions to these things must largely be global concerns. Even with the best decision-making we could devise, the future involves vast amounts of chaos, especially with all these levels of change coming together.

Oh, yes, this is TR. Alternative caption for the first picture: "Look! Baby mamoths had butt-holes!" And Britt Ray is hot.
There are certainly issues that we should be concerned about, but I find it odd that you accept the scientific consensus on global warming but not on GMO's.

Peez

Inconsistent without doubt.  Blind acceptance of industrially driven ridiculously narrow value-measures consensus GMO science should naturally be the trivial extension of blind acceptance of UN IPCC driven ridiculously narrow value-measures consensus climate science.

And after all, consensus is paramount in modern science where the outmoded and troublesome burden of evidence has been largely superceded.  Consensus is a far more reliable indicator of scientific truth and has served as an all but infallible guide throughout the history of human enquiry.
Yeah, let's not think for ourselves. Count the scientists.

For one thing, the money trail clearly points in opposite directions in each case. Our acknowledgement of AGW is still being hampered by oil barons (oh, and a consensus, kinda, was that Trump would be the way to go...not unconnected). Meanwhile, big business has railroaded GMO onto the planet, paid for most of the 'research', sold more of its original products and gained control of the increasingly monoculture new products through patents. Call that 'not being implemented well' if you like.
References, please.

Peez

Re: GMO/AGW/whatever derail from "Deextinction and Rewilding"
Reply #16
Quote
Testy Calibrate:
Go cheerleader spotted. Go hang out with teeth and talk about how, despite the genes getting loose into wild species, the genes don't get out into wild species. Or talk about how excellent it is that we are initiating an evolutionar arms race with bugs and plant diseases. Or maybe just how great it is that we can now drench a sizable fraction of our arable land with roundup. Yes, the gmo consensus is exactly what ontic described it as, ridiculously narrow value propositions with a level of problem externalization that should concern everyone but doesnt because science.

The fact that there are benefits is currently vastly outweighed by the concerns over the application and business model.
This is exactly the sort of response I would expect from a denier of anthropogenic climate change: I am dismissed as a "cheerleader", then vague assertions are supplied about a number of things that relate to GMO's without actually addressing what is wrong with GMO's, and no actual science presented.  I am disappointed.

Peez
Heh. When people say gmos are good science therefore good policy a kitten drowns in boston.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: GMO/AGW/whatever derail from "Deextinction and Rewilding"
Reply #17
So many of these issues make me feel helpless. We have corporate interests running the show, in tandem with scientists with little to hold them back. This field, like nanotech and AI, is almost entirely outside of the democratic process. When there is a public outcry, such as with GM crops, those voices are just shouted down as ignorant, by referencing corporate-funded scientific studies with ridiculously narrow value-measures (usually productivity and profit-cost).

This was bad for decades. Now that things are really hotting up (global warming, rising isolationism, robots taking even more jobs, the deep politicization of the Internet and cyber-warfare, social media filter bubbles where we all end up talking to ourselves...), it is getting pretty scary. I think we're likely to feel more pressure of time, make decisions more authoritatively without democratic involvement (or just the protest-on-the-sidelines type), and more unilaterally. While 'globalism' is a handy whipping-boy, it doesn't just disappear because you build walls, and solutions to these things must largely be global concerns. Even with the best decision-making we could devise, the future involves vast amounts of chaos, especially with all these levels of change coming together.

Oh, yes, this is TR. Alternative caption for the first picture: "Look! Baby mamoths had butt-holes!" And Britt Ray is hot.
There are certainly issues that we should be concerned about, but I find it odd that you accept the scientific consensus on global warming but not on GMO's.

Peez

Inconsistent without doubt.  Blind acceptance of industrially driven ridiculously narrow value-measures consensus GMO science should naturally be the trivial extension of blind acceptance of UN IPCC driven ridiculously narrow value-measures consensus climate science.

And after all, consensus is paramount in modern science where the outmoded and troublesome burden of evidence has been largely superceded.  Consensus is a far more reliable indicator of scientific truth and has served as an all but infallible guide throughout the history of human enquiry.
Yeah, let's not think for ourselves. Count the scientists.

For one thing, the money trail clearly points in opposite directions in each case. Our acknowledgement of AGW is still being hampered by oil barons (oh, and a consensus, kinda, was that Trump would be the way to go...not unconnected). Meanwhile, big business has railroaded GMO onto the planet, paid for most of the 'research', sold more of its original products and gained control of the increasingly monoculture new products through patents. Call that 'not being implemented well' if you like.

You literally cannot be serious in the first part of your money trail claim.  Government funding - with your taxes - of alarmist climate science makes the Manhattan Project look like a school science fair.  The fossil fuel industry itself ploughs plenty in also.  Cash funding research into natural climate drivers - which you doubtless have some hysterical slur name for - is utterly trivial in comparison.

Re: GMO/AGW/whatever derail from "Deextinction and Rewilding"
Reply #18
Peez, you said,
There are certainly issues that we should be concerned about, but I find it odd that you accept the scientific consensus on global warming but not on GMO's.
I explained why I accept the consensus on GW but not on GMOs.
References, please.
For what? The vast compex political and economic history of GMO (presumably the bit you're incensed that I'm sceptical about)? Do you demand references anytime someone shares an opinion? If you want to correct my mistake and bring my opinion in line with the 'scientific consensus' on this, fine. But a reference or two won't change my mind overnight, due to the fact that it's a vast complex political and economic history. But I'll take any rational arguments or evidence on board. Thanks. Admittedly, I have spent some time researching the climate-change-denial propaganda and the power base it emanates from, and less the GMO debate. So educate away!

Part Two:
The precautionary principle also points in opposite directions:

With GW, we have a chaotic system that's difficult to predict the behaviour of precisely, but there is reason to believe that past and current actions risk extremely dangerous climate change (this is an understatement), so the precautionary principle says that we should strive to reverse the damage, even if it's just buying time while more research is done. It is also a problem that we were not aware of while it was growing over many decades.

With GMOs, we have a chaotic system that is also difficult to predict the behaviour of (in fact, these are essentially the same systems, the whole ecosystem of planet Earth), and there is reason to believe that current and future actions risk dangerous change. The technology of genetic modification is becoming more powerful exponentially. The precautionary principle therefore is against the 'consensus' (if indeed there is one) for GMOs, again at least in order to buy more research, theoretical reasoning and public discussion time.

Re: GMO/AGW/whatever derail from "Deextinction and Rewilding"
Reply #19
You literally cannot be serious in the first part of your money trail claim.  Government funding - with your taxes - of alarmist climate science makes the Manhattan Project look like a school science fair.  The fossil fuel industry itself ploughs plenty in also.  Cash funding research into natural climate drivers - which you doubtless have some hysterical slur name for - is utterly trivial in comparison.
Listen, I was going to collect a few links for you, but I'll let you find them. I just duckduckgo-d "koch brothers climate change denial propaganda campaign". Try the same in your fave search engine, see what you find.

Re: GMO/AGW/whatever derail from "Deextinction and Rewilding"
Reply #20
You literally cannot be serious in the first part of your money trail claim.  Government funding - with your taxes - of alarmist climate science makes the Manhattan Project look like a school science fair.  The fossil fuel industry itself ploughs plenty in also.  Cash funding research into natural climate drivers - which you doubtless have some hysterical slur name for - is utterly trivial in comparison.
Listen, I was going to collect a few links for you, but I'll let you find them. I just duckduckgo-d "koch brothers climate change denial propaganda campaign". Try the same in your fave search engine, see what you find.

Ok.  So one of the first hits I get is a piece in Scientific American talking about 'dark money' https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

"In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.
Meanwhile the traceable cash flow from more traditional sources, such as Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, has disappeared."

$558 million over seven years.  That isn't even pocket change compared with government funding of alarmist science.  In fact it isn't even the bits of fluff hiding amongst the pocket change.  But oh noes - the fiends are trying to hide it!

It maybe is charged with evil, malice and a Baphomet-esque desire to destroy the planet but in terms of value it is - as I said - trivial and irrelevant.

  • Fenrir
Re: GMO/AGW/whatever derail from "Deextinction and Rewilding"
Reply #21
Quote
"In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.
Meanwhile the traceable cash flow from more traditional sources, such as Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, has disappeared."

$558 million over seven years.  That isn't even pocket change compared with government funding of alarmist science.  In fact it isn't even the bits of fluff hiding amongst the pocket change.  But oh noes - the fiends are trying to hide it!

How much of that money went into actual science?

How much of that money went toward supporting a PR agenda?

Apples with apples and all that.
It's what plants crave.

Re: GMO/AGW/whatever derail from "Deextinction and Rewilding"
Reply #22
Oh I see, Cephus0, you're just counting cash, and then you reckon...what, that the biggest funding is fraudulent? I offered the follow-the-money argument as one thing we should consider. If you just think whoever's spending the most is the most corrupt, end of argument, that's a bit silly. Count the cash - count the scientists - we've had both now.

I would expect that the funding on research into climate change would be fairly big - it's one of the biggest threats to our survival. Calling it 'alarmist science' is pure propaganda, begging the question (i.e. concluding that AGW is trivial or a lie). I see no reason to make that claim.

Your casual dismissal of the importance of undisclosed funding of political lobbying is worrying, as is your dismissal (and childish misunderstanding) of the motive, "charged with evil, malice and a Baphomet-esque desire to destroy the planet". It is greed. The culprits are not worshipping Satan necessarily, just insanely greedy for money and power.

Your complaint about taxes being spent on climate research is the other side of you missing the point. Here's a quote from a prominent article you maybe haven't found yet: ""The real issue here is one of democracy. Without a free flow of accurate information, democratic politics and government accountability become impossible,"
https://phys.org/news/2013-12-koch-brothers-reveals-funders-climate.html
Citizens can vote on how their taxes are used, they can't vote to stop multi-billionaires buying policy.

Wonder why the USA is now out on a limb on climate change? Another bit of news you may have missed: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/in-the-withdrawal-from-the-paris-climate-agreement-the-koch-brothers-campaign-becomes-overt
Quote
How this happened is no longer a secret. The answer, as the New York Times reported, on Sunday, is "a story of big political money." It is, perhaps, the most astounding example of influence-buying in modern American political history.

As the climate scientist Michael Mann put it to me in my book "Dark Money," when attempting to explain why the Republican Party has moved in the opposite direction from virtually the rest of the world, "We are talking about a direct challenge to the most powerful industry that has ever existed on the face of the Earth. There's no depth to which they're unwilling to sink to challenge anything threatening their interests." For most of the world's population, the costs of inaction on climate change far outweigh that of action. But for the fossil-fuel industry, he said, "It's like the switch from whale oil in the nineteenth century. They're fighting to maintain the status quo, no matter how dumb."

  • Peez
Re: GMO/AGW/whatever derail from "Deextinction and Rewilding"
Reply #23
Quote
Testy Calibrate:
Heh. When people say gmos are good science therefore good policy a kitten drowns in boston.
Be sure to bring this up if anyone suggests that "gmos are good science therefore good policy".

Peez

  • Peez
Re: GMO/AGW/whatever derail from "Deextinction and Rewilding"
Reply #24
Quote
ontic:
Peez, you said,
Quote
There are certainly issues that we should be concerned about, but I find it odd that you accept the scientific consensus on global warming but not on GMO's.
I explained why I accept the consensus on GW but not on GMOs.
I can only guess that you are referring to the vague and unsupported claim that some unspecified thing about "GMO's" is bad and that big business is controlling virtually all the scientists with expertise on this area.  Once again, this is the sort of thing I expect from climate change deniers.

Quote
Quote
References, please.
For what?
For starters, for this: "Meanwhile, big business has... paid for most of the 'research'..."

Quote
The vast compex political and economic history of GMO (presumably the bit you're incensed that I'm sceptical about)?
I am not "incensed" and I am not commenting on history, economic or otherwise.

Quote
Do you demand references anytime someone shares an opinion?
I ask for references when someone puts forth a claim if I wish to examine that claim critically.  This is a habit that I recommend strongly.

Quote
If you want to correct my mistake and bring my opinion in line with the 'scientific consensus' on this, fine.
I don't know if you have made a mistake, this is why I asked for references.

Quote
But a reference or two won't change my mind overnight, due to the fact that it's a vast complex political and economic history.
I am not specifically trying to change your opinion.  I presume that you have sources for your information, obviously your sharing such sources with me (and others) would not change your opinion (you already had access to that information).  I asked for the references to better understand your position, to assess it, and to challenge my own position.

Quote
But I'll take any rational arguments or evidence on board. Thanks. Admittedly, I have spent some time researching the climate-change-denial propaganda and the power base it emanates from, and less the GMO debate. So educate away!
I have little to contribute on the politics or economics involved in the various issues related to so-called "GMO's".  I do have a modest grasp of genetic modification of organisms, this is what I was commenting on.

Quote
Part Two:
The precautionary principle also points in opposite directions:

With GW, we have a chaotic system that's difficult to predict the behaviour of precisely, but there is reason to believe that past and current actions risk extremely dangerous climate change (this is an understatement), so the precautionary principle says that we should strive to reverse the damage, even if it's just buying time while more research is done. It is also a problem that we were not aware of while it was growing over many decades.

With GMOs, we have a chaotic system that is also difficult to predict the behaviour of (in fact, these are essentially the same systems, the whole ecosystem of planet Earth), and there is reason to believe that current and future actions risk dangerous change. The technology of genetic modification is becoming more powerful exponentially. The precautionary principle therefore is against the 'consensus' (if indeed there is one) for GMOs, again at least in order to buy more research, theoretical reasoning and public discussion time.
I disagree with your final paragraph.  Perhaps we should start by defining a "GMO" since this is a vague term.

Peez