4 ms·

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.

• 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.
        • grzm 10y ago
          I've probably missed it, but I haven't seen anyone here arguing that GMO should be banned. I've seen a few people arguing for more testing. I've seen most arguing for labeling. Who here do you see arguing to ban GMO? Perhaps I just haven't looked closely enough.
          • Kalium 10y ago
            I haven't seen anyone make the argument here. I've seen plenty of people make it in real life. What I have seen is people call for more testing, without defining what's enough for them to be confident in results. I've also seen people call for labels, but only on GMOs. I think the former is a backdoor ban. The latter should be applied to all foods.
  • 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?