4 ms·

> Yes, there is a history that includes a number of failures. That history also includes stunning successes. I think it's unreasonable to demand that science on

> Yes, there is a history that includes a number of failures. That history also includes stunning successes. I think it's unreasonable to demand that science only ever produce successes. > We trust people with a history of systemic mistakes because they're also the only ones with the history of systemic success in this arena. You are factually wrong here. Science as we know it today is, what?, 150 years old? Are you really saying that all the achievements of human civilization up to ~1870 were plain dumb luck???? I don't know you, but, when I try to convince people of something, calling them idiots is generally a bad idea. More over, your claim comes of as self serving and disengineous: "How dare you point out our mistakes, we have had plenty of successes too". This attitude is eroding faith of the common people in science, and there's no one but the scientists to blame for that. The antivaxes might be all wrong, but I don't blame them for distrusting people that talks them down like that.

Kalium 10y ago
OK. What kind of attitude do you think should be adopted and how should it be different? How should I sound? I'm assuming you mean some kind of humility here. Have you seen what happens when antivaxxers are treated with respect, heard out, and their fears listened to? I have.
- GMOman 10y ago
  Comparing anti-GMOers to antivaxxers is disingenuous. Anti-GMOers not eating GMO food doesn't hurt you, antivaxxers doing their thing does.
  - Kalium 10y ago
    They may not be hurting me directly, but there are certainly people who are being hurt by lack of access to GMOs because of anti-GMOers. Golden rice could help a great many people, but activists against it have helped make sure it doesn't. Their fear has not been without a human cost.
    - GMOman 10y ago
      So we agree anti-GMOers not eating GMO food does not hurt you or anybody else. There may be people who would benefit from GMO food, but there aren't any food products that are available only as GMO versions. This makes it a political problem, not a "you can't have it if there is no GMO". And equating anti-GMOers with anti-vaxxers isn't a solution to any problem nor reasonable.
      - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
        When millions are hungry because of precious first-world sensibilities, it becomes more reasonable to equate these things.
        GMOman 10y ago
        There's enough food in the world to feed everybody. GMO is not going to change that. The problem is distributing that food, not producing it. Still no reason to equate anti-GMOers with anti-vaxxers.
        JoeAltmaier 10y ago
        There's been enough food, solely because of the growth of hybrid crops and GMO techniques. We didn't get here by accident. It took lifetimes of effort. Read the biographies of Norman Borlaug and Henry A Wallace. They are credited with feeding billions.
      - Kalium 10y ago
        My position is not, was not, and shall never be that people should be coerced into eating GMO foods against their will. My position is that people who don't want GMO foods on their plate should not obstruct everyone else. GMO foods are capable of addressing specific problems, like vitamin deficiencies. People should be offered that choice. Anti-GMO activists, like anti-vaxxers, are hurting people by denying them helpful scientific advances.
        10y ago
  - crpatino 10y ago
    It does hurt less than you'd think. It's antivaxers' children the ones that suffer the most, but as long as they remain a minority, the risks of an epidemic getting out of control is very small. And no, we are not going to eliminate infectious disease any time soon. AFAIK, the only disease we have "eliminated" in recorded history is small pox; and what that means is that maybe a dozen governments have their stash of samples that they can turn in biological weapons... all while the rest of us slowly breed resistance out of the gene pool.
    - GMOman 10y ago
      Sure, it hurts the anti-vaxxers and their offspring the most, but it becomes a problem if herd immunity is lost. Plus since we can't just off the anti-vaxxers or let their sprogs die, society bears the cost of dealing with the messes they create.
- crpatino 10y ago
  Personally, I do not really care what Kalium-the-person says or does. But as long as you are donning the hat of Kalium-the-spokeperson-of-Science, you are displaying ignorance and comptept for human nature. You seem to confuse the fact that Science is able to get the material facts more or less right, with the assertation that people should automatically trust/obey what scientists say. They did just that, during the 20th century... and then (some of) the scientist sold out to moneyed interests. They made claims that were not 100% supported by the facts, but they did it anyways because their sponsors asked for it very nicely. Then, when (some of) those claims turned out to be false... it was not the sponsors or the guilable individual scientists who received the hit to their reputations, Science-the-institution did. So, people have reason to distrust. And the fact that you refuse to acknowledge that much and demand compliance because you happen to be donning a white labcoat makes all of us look bad. You say that it is unfair that others only point to our mistakes and forget our successes. That's Standard-Operations-Procedure in politics, everybody does it. Heck, even you do the same, it is just that you don't notice. So given that the other people are not going to listen to you... what's to do? Throw a tantrum? Or engage the others with the tools of the politician?

Kalium 10y ago

OK. What kind of attitude do you think should be adopted and how should it be different? How should I sound? I'm assuming you mean some kind of humility here. Have you seen what happens when antivaxxers are treated with respect, heard out, and their fears listened to? I have.

GMOman 10y ago
Comparing anti-GMOers to antivaxxers is disingenuous. Anti-GMOers not eating GMO food doesn't hurt you, antivaxxers doing their thing does.
- Kalium 10y ago
  They may not be hurting me directly, but there are certainly people who are being hurt by lack of access to GMOs because of anti-GMOers. Golden rice could help a great many people, but activists against it have helped make sure it doesn't. Their fear has not been without a human cost.
  - GMOman 10y ago
    So we agree anti-GMOers not eating GMO food does not hurt you or anybody else. There may be people who would benefit from GMO food, but there aren't any food products that are available only as GMO versions. This makes it a political problem, not a "you can't have it if there is no GMO". And equating anti-GMOers with anti-vaxxers isn't a solution to any problem nor reasonable.
    - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
      When millions are hungry because of precious first-world sensibilities, it becomes more reasonable to equate these things.
      - GMOman 10y ago
        There's enough food in the world to feed everybody. GMO is not going to change that. The problem is distributing that food, not producing it. Still no reason to equate anti-GMOers with anti-vaxxers.
        JoeAltmaier 10y ago
        There's been enough food, solely because of the growth of hybrid crops and GMO techniques. We didn't get here by accident. It took lifetimes of effort. Read the biographies of Norman Borlaug and Henry A Wallace. They are credited with feeding billions.
    - Kalium 10y ago
      My position is not, was not, and shall never be that people should be coerced into eating GMO foods against their will. My position is that people who don't want GMO foods on their plate should not obstruct everyone else. GMO foods are capable of addressing specific problems, like vitamin deficiencies. People should be offered that choice. Anti-GMO activists, like anti-vaxxers, are hurting people by denying them helpful scientific advances.
      - 10y ago
- crpatino 10y ago
  It does hurt less than you'd think. It's antivaxers' children the ones that suffer the most, but as long as they remain a minority, the risks of an epidemic getting out of control is very small. And no, we are not going to eliminate infectious disease any time soon. AFAIK, the only disease we have "eliminated" in recorded history is small pox; and what that means is that maybe a dozen governments have their stash of samples that they can turn in biological weapons... all while the rest of us slowly breed resistance out of the gene pool.
  - GMOman 10y ago
    Sure, it hurts the anti-vaxxers and their offspring the most, but it becomes a problem if herd immunity is lost. Plus since we can't just off the anti-vaxxers or let their sprogs die, society bears the cost of dealing with the messes they create.
crpatino 10y ago
Personally, I do not really care what Kalium-the-person says or does. But as long as you are donning the hat of Kalium-the-spokeperson-of-Science, you are displaying ignorance and comptept for human nature. You seem to confuse the fact that Science is able to get the material facts more or less right, with the assertation that people should automatically trust/obey what scientists say. They did just that, during the 20th century... and then (some of) the scientist sold out to moneyed interests. They made claims that were not 100% supported by the facts, but they did it anyways because their sponsors asked for it very nicely. Then, when (some of) those claims turned out to be false... it was not the sponsors or the guilable individual scientists who received the hit to their reputations, Science-the-institution did. So, people have reason to distrust. And the fact that you refuse to acknowledge that much and demand compliance because you happen to be donning a white labcoat makes all of us look bad. You say that it is unfair that others only point to our mistakes and forget our successes. That's Standard-Operations-Procedure in politics, everybody does it. Heck, even you do the same, it is just that you don't notice. So given that the other people are not going to listen to you... what's to do? Throw a tantrum? Or engage the others with the tools of the politician?