3 ms·

I am just blown away by the amount of anti-GMO sentiment on HN. For a community so vehemently in support of the science around global warming, you certainly do

by pitaj 10y ago

I am just blown away by the amount of anti-GMO sentiment on HN. For a community so vehemently in support of the science around global warming, you certainly do not seem to be nearly as "pro-science" when it comes to the topic of GMOs.

grzm 10y ago
Do you consider those in favor of GMO labeling as pro- or anti-GMO? Edit to add: I've taken a look at the responses of 31 commenters (not comments) in this thread (starting at the top, working down until I got tired of keeping track), looking to determine if they were pro/anti-GMO and pro/anti-GMO-labelling. Of those 31, I dismissed 10 that I couldn't categorize. Here are my completely unscientific, eye-balled results: 3 strongly pro-GMO, no labeling 10 pro-labeling, including one for detailed labeling if labels are required 6 who expressed some desire for nuanced discussion, no discernible position on labeling 2 who expressed restraint in moving forward, but not anti-GMO
j15t 10y ago
I think labelling one side of this debate as "pro-science" and the other as not, is disingenuous. Science at its core is about scepticism and degrees of certainty - never about absolute truth (see: inductive logic, etc.). Using "science" as an appeal to authority to end debate is the opposite of scepticism. I personally do not have strong opinions about this debate, but I think it is completely acceptable for someone to take a 'wait-and-see' approach, especially considering the number of times "scientific consensus" has been wrong in the past (see: smoking, fats, etc.). Moreover, it seems to me that there isn't any immediate danger from people who are "GMO sceptics" since all they do is pay extra for organic products. Market forces will regulate this behaviour if any shortages occur; which I don't think is likely. So overall I find the "pro-GMO" attitude (such as that displayed in the article) to be strangely insistent on influencing the choices of individual's, dispite such low stakes.

by pitaj 10y ago

grzm 10y ago

Do you consider those in favor of GMO labeling as pro- or anti-GMO? Edit to add: I've taken a look at the responses of 31 commenters (not comments) in this thread (starting at the top, working down until I got tired of keeping track), looking to determine if they were pro/anti-GMO and pro/anti-GMO-labelling. Of those 31, I dismissed 10 that I couldn't categorize. Here are my completely unscientific, eye-balled results: 3 strongly pro-GMO, no labeling 10 pro-labeling, including one for detailed labeling if labels are required 6 who expressed some desire for nuanced discussion, no discernible position on labeling 2 who expressed restraint in moving forward, but not anti-GMO

j15t 10y ago

I think labelling one side of this debate as "pro-science" and the other as not, is disingenuous. Science at its core is about scepticism and degrees of certainty - never about absolute truth (see: inductive logic, etc.). Using "science" as an appeal to authority to end debate is the opposite of scepticism. I personally do not have strong opinions about this debate, but I think it is completely acceptable for someone to take a 'wait-and-see' approach, especially considering the number of times "scientific consensus" has been wrong in the past (see: smoking, fats, etc.). Moreover, it seems to me that there isn't any immediate danger from people who are "GMO sceptics" since all they do is pay extra for organic products. Market forces will regulate this behaviour if any shortages occur; which I don't think is likely. So overall I find the "pro-GMO" attitude (such as that displayed in the article) to be strangely insistent on influencing the choices of individual's, dispite such low stakes.