4 ms·
See, that's fine, it's a totally valid point you're raising. The issue here, the thing that bugs me the most is that they're appealing to fear of unknown with t
by RealityVoid 10y ago
See, that's fine, it's a totally valid point you're raising. The issue here, the thing that bugs me the most is that they're appealing to fear of unknown with this hurr-durr GMO bad to eat not natural mantra. That is a lie. Most attacks on GMO don't come from some ecological concern, they come from the "How do we know they're safe to eat" angle. And that is totally idiotic and I can not sustain a conversation along that line. So of course, that gets shut down because it does not promote valid conversation.
I guess i understand _why_ people go and promote this line of thinking - because it appeals to the self-interested natureof humans. We are interested about threats to our existance now, because we are afraid for us that what we eat is poisonous. We would care less about some future potential threat for the ecosystem, something that would affect _other_ people (or so our brain thinks)
- aries1980 10y ago> they're appealing to fear of unknown with this hurr-durr GMO bad to eat not natural mantra. That is a lie. Some GMO product can be safe and beneficial, but it is hard to say all of them are properly tested as rigorously as a medicine, that you also take into your body. Some of us still remember when DDT and asbestos were considered safe.
- unclebucknasty 10y ago>they're appealing to fear of unknown Is it ever rational to have concerns about the unknown? The human organism is very complex, and we know that there is much we don't know about it. For instance, there are certain conditions that are on the rise, and we do not know why. Obviously, you cannot just conclude that it must be GMOs. However, is it possible that we should have some concern around wholesale modifying various food sources to the extent that we are now introducing new proteins and new organisms into the human organism em masse? Given all that we know we don't understand, I just don't get the conclusion that it must be safe because we haven't yet been able to prove otherwise. And, we've seen how this line of thinking has worked out in the past so many times.
- collyw 10y agoWe have been modifying foods for centuries with selective breeding. Why do you think targeted genetic modification will be any different from the random genetic modification that occurs in nature? They aren't adding new proteins "en mass" as you describe it, its usually specific and minimal.
- unclebucknasty 10y agoI don't think random genetic modification in nature is the same as using a gene gun to splice genetic material from organisms in a manner as would never occur in nature? Do you? And, of course, some of these "unnatural" GMOs explicitly have toxins added to them to kill pests. Obviously we would not be otherwise consuming these. I'm also sure you're not contending that everything found in nature is safe for human consumption, are you? Altogether you seem to be suggesting that anything which can occur (whether in nature, or otherwise) must be safe. There really is nothing else to your "argument". >They aren't adding new proteins "en mass" as you describe I wasn't suggesting that they are adding them en masse; only that we are consuming them en masse (especially given their pervasiveness in staples such as corn, soy, canola, etc.)
- ricksplat 10y agoFear of the unknown is perfectly rational when what is at stake is something as critical as the food chain. What is needed is more edifying public debate than "You're evil" vs "You're stupid". Ideally I'd like to see these technological advances take place in a non-commercial setting, or at least a more rigorous form of commericalisation than the one used for iPhones, McDonalds and Olestra.