4 ms·
Sure - it is the current situation to some extent. But I think would be solvable via regulation, not to mention that this is a different discussion entirely.
by eivarv 10y ago
Sure - it is the current situation to some extent.
But I think would be solvable via regulation, not to mention that this is a different discussion entirely.
I don't think they are necessarily behaving in an irresponsible way, though. They are evaluating G.M.O.s with regard to health, safety, nutrition, poverty/famine and so on - not with regards to social and economical consequences (which I think would fall more within the purview of policy and regulation).
Ultimately, this issue is highly politicized, and the debate (including the comments here on HN) is often fraught with personal opinion.
- tomp 10y agoIt's not different discussion. It's like someone saying "Don't buy iPhones!" and you answering "But they're totally safe, they won't kill you." while ignoring they're produced using child labour. (Probably iPhones aren't, but almost surely some other products are.)
- eivarv 10y agoIt is. I see it more like someone saying (to stick with your example): "Don't buy iPhones - they'll kill you!", and scientists answering "But they're totally safe, they won't kill you." Meanwhile, they may be products of child-labour (or whatever other horrible circumstance we may imagine), but that's a different issue from what we are discussing. Anyway, we're getting off track here:P