3 ms·

What is UD here? Uncertainty and doubt? Do you mean that the comparison using selective breeding is some kind of false argument or a straw man? I feel like sel

by sspiff 10y ago

What is UD here? Uncertainty and doubt? Do you mean that the comparison using selective breeding is some kind of false argument or a straw man? I feel like selective breeding is sufficiently similar to warrant comparison. You could easily do both short-term and long-term harm or good with both if you can get people to eat what you breed.

tremon 10y ago
Yes, I mean that pointing to selective breeding as if it's "all the justification for gene splicing you'll ever need" is a false equivalence. Sure, you can compare them, but you can not point to a few similarities and then wave any differences away. As one example: with selective breeding, you can at least be confident that the resulting strain is viable within its ecosystem since it is itself the product of numerous generations. Gene splicing does not come with that same viability guarantee. And I do mean that it is harmful to both sides of the debate. I have no clue whether the characterization above is even remotely valid. But most of the rhetoric is so content-free that it does not help me alter my view around GMO, in either direction. And lastly: US (and many other international) corporations do not have a good track record when it comes to acknowledging and respecting human health. The backlash against GMO is, I feel, at least partly attributable to the tobacco, food and oil industry, and the "sciences" that were complicit.
- vonmoltke 10y ago
  > As one example: with selective breeding, you can at least be confident that the resulting strain is viable within its ecosystem since it is itself the product of numerous generations. Like hell you can. Genetic diseases and deformities have been present as long as life itself, and human selective breeding has certainly brought out traits in cultivated plants and animals that would not be present without human intervention into their ecosystem.

by sspiff 10y ago

tremon 10y ago

Yes, I mean that pointing to selective breeding as if it's "all the justification for gene splicing you'll ever need" is a false equivalence. Sure, you can compare them, but you can not point to a few similarities and then wave any differences away. As one example: with selective breeding, you can at least be confident that the resulting strain is viable within its ecosystem since it is itself the product of numerous generations. Gene splicing does not come with that same viability guarantee. And I do mean that it is harmful to both sides of the debate. I have no clue whether the characterization above is even remotely valid. But most of the rhetoric is so content-free that it does not help me alter my view around GMO, in either direction. And lastly: US (and many other international) corporations do not have a good track record when it comes to acknowledging and respecting human health. The backlash against GMO is, I feel, at least partly attributable to the tobacco, food and oil industry, and the "sciences" that were complicit.

vonmoltke 10y ago
> As one example: with selective breeding, you can at least be confident that the resulting strain is viable within its ecosystem since it is itself the product of numerous generations. Like hell you can. Genetic diseases and deformities have been present as long as life itself, and human selective breeding has certainly brought out traits in cultivated plants and animals that would not be present without human intervention into their ecosystem.