5 ms·

Critics are typically ok with selective and cross breeding, and not ok with transgenics. This makes sense as they're in completely different risk domains. I'm f

Critics are typically ok with selective and cross breeding, and not ok with transgenics. This makes sense as they're in completely different risk domains. I'm far more comfortable with genetic alternation happening via natural mechanisms than by transgenics. The latter relies on the "genius" of the human, something which is inherently fragile.

pathseeker 9y ago
Naturalistic fallacy at work. There is no evidence that cross breeding is any safer than transgenics.
- whitepoplar 9y ago
  This is the same tactic the tobacco companies used when people suspected harm caused by cigarettes. When you introduce a foreign process to the world, it's up to the introducer to prove harmlessness, not for the consumer to prove harmfulness. There have been, to this day, no long term tail-risk studies done on GMOs.
- jmcdiesel 9y ago
  Whitepolar... You cannot prove something is harmless. Thats literally the opposite of science... you can not prove a negative.
  - whitepoplar 9y ago
    Sure you can, though only probabilistically. That's precisely why fiddling with something as critical as the food supply is a bad idea, as it's likely we'll only discover potential problems when it's too late.
  - whitepoplar 9y ago
    If you're interested, this is the best paper I've found on the topic: http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/pp2.pdf http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/pp2.pdf
    - sampo 9y ago
      That paper is so bad, it's not even wrong. It's just clever word-trickery by someone who is quite skilled in writing in an authoritative and scholarly tone. He does have the courtesy to recognize that his thinking goes against the scientific method: "While evidentiary approaches are often considered to reflect adherence to the scientific method in its purest form" But then he just declares that his principle is superior to the scientific method: "In the case of ruin, by the time evidence comes it will by definition be too late to avoid it." He knows nothing about biology or argiculture: "The ecological implications of releasing modified organisms into the wild are not tested empirically before release." (In reality, crop plants don't survive in the wild even if you release them. No more than farm animals would.) But then in section 12.8 he goes on to explain why he actually knows better than people who actually have domain expertise in the relevant sciences. It is a crafty tactic: He almost manages to convince you that you shouldn't listen to experts, and then he cites that there is a historical track record of experts having been wrong in their subject domains. And that you should listen to outsiders like him.
jimktrains2 9y ago
> This makes sense as they're in completely different risk domains. Why? There are always many unknowns with cross breeding. > transgenics Not all GMO is taking genes from other species. Some, like this article, simply turn off the expression of a specific gene. > The latter relies on the "genius" of the human How is that any different than selective breeding? > something which is inherently fragile. We've selectively bread many species into very unhealthy breeds. Just look at many do breeds with hip or breathing issues. Selective and cross breeding isn't without risks either.
- whitepoplar 9y ago
  See this paper for more thorough coverage of my original comment: http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/pp2.pdf http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/pp2.pdf
  - jimktrains2 9y ago
    In addition to sampo above, https://medium.com/@dropeik.com/on-taleb-et-al-s-the-precautionary-principle-with-application-to-the-genetic-modification-of-dba21ccf94aa https://medium.com/@dropeik.com/on-taleb-et-al-s-the-precaut... > We need honest conversation about agricultural biotechnology, both about the facts regarding its health and environmental risks and benefits, and also about how this technology fits with or conflicts with our values about large scale monoculture farming and big companies having too much influence and about the harm that some modern technologies certainly do to the natural world. Sadly, the essay by Taleb et.al. poses as objective argument but is clearly advocacy trying to hide in a rationalist’s clothing. It doesn’t hide very well, and in its deceit only further polarizes discussion of an important risk issue we do have analyze carefully, objectively, and honestly. I think the bigger issue I have with this kind of argument (beyond the lack of solid scientific basis) is that we do so many things that are known to actually be terrible or have terrible ramifications if done wrong (burning coal, mining coal, removing mountaintops to mine, drilling for gas, drilling for oil, transporting gas and oil thousands of miles, &c) and yet very few people blink an eye. The day every person who is concerned about the effects of GMO plants also is as concerned and vocal about the amount of greenhouses gases, particulate matter, as well as the toxic and radioactive chemicals released by coal powered power plants, then we can start to talk. Those emissions are known to be extremely dangerous to us and the environment. Yet, no one seems to care because they're used to it -- it's not a change.
beardicus 9y ago
Conveniently, nobody talks about mutagenic breeding, or hitting seeds/plants w/ radiation or mutagenic chemicals to see what you get. Surely if selectively inserting well-known genes into plants is risky, mutating plants with completely unknown gene combinations is even more so? Yet, you hear no call to label such foods. Once again we see that pretty much every objection to GMO can also be leveled against other widely-accepted breeding and farming techniques.

pathseeker 9y ago

Naturalistic fallacy at work. There is no evidence that cross breeding is any safer than transgenics.

whitepoplar 9y ago
This is the same tactic the tobacco companies used when people suspected harm caused by cigarettes. When you introduce a foreign process to the world, it's up to the introducer to prove harmlessness, not for the consumer to prove harmfulness. There have been, to this day, no long term tail-risk studies done on GMOs.
jmcdiesel 9y ago
Whitepolar... You cannot prove something is harmless. Thats literally the opposite of science... you can not prove a negative.
- whitepoplar 9y ago
  Sure you can, though only probabilistically. That's precisely why fiddling with something as critical as the food supply is a bad idea, as it's likely we'll only discover potential problems when it's too late.
- whitepoplar 9y ago
  If you're interested, this is the best paper I've found on the topic: http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/pp2.pdf http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/pp2.pdf
  - sampo 9y ago
    That paper is so bad, it's not even wrong. It's just clever word-trickery by someone who is quite skilled in writing in an authoritative and scholarly tone. He does have the courtesy to recognize that his thinking goes against the scientific method: "While evidentiary approaches are often considered to reflect adherence to the scientific method in its purest form" But then he just declares that his principle is superior to the scientific method: "In the case of ruin, by the time evidence comes it will by definition be too late to avoid it." He knows nothing about biology or argiculture: "The ecological implications of releasing modified organisms into the wild are not tested empirically before release." (In reality, crop plants don't survive in the wild even if you release them. No more than farm animals would.) But then in section 12.8 he goes on to explain why he actually knows better than people who actually have domain expertise in the relevant sciences. It is a crafty tactic: He almost manages to convince you that you shouldn't listen to experts, and then he cites that there is a historical track record of experts having been wrong in their subject domains. And that you should listen to outsiders like him.

jimktrains2 9y ago

> This makes sense as they're in completely different risk domains. Why? There are always many unknowns with cross breeding. > transgenics Not all GMO is taking genes from other species. Some, like this article, simply turn off the expression of a specific gene. > The latter relies on the "genius" of the human How is that any different than selective breeding? > something which is inherently fragile. We've selectively bread many species into very unhealthy breeds. Just look at many do breeds with hip or breathing issues. Selective and cross breeding isn't without risks either.

whitepoplar 9y ago
See this paper for more thorough coverage of my original comment: http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/pp2.pdf http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/pp2.pdf
- jimktrains2 9y ago
  In addition to sampo above, https://medium.com/@dropeik.com/on-taleb-et-al-s-the-precautionary-principle-with-application-to-the-genetic-modification-of-dba21ccf94aa https://medium.com/@dropeik.com/on-taleb-et-al-s-the-precaut... > We need honest conversation about agricultural biotechnology, both about the facts regarding its health and environmental risks and benefits, and also about how this technology fits with or conflicts with our values about large scale monoculture farming and big companies having too much influence and about the harm that some modern technologies certainly do to the natural world. Sadly, the essay by Taleb et.al. poses as objective argument but is clearly advocacy trying to hide in a rationalist’s clothing. It doesn’t hide very well, and in its deceit only further polarizes discussion of an important risk issue we do have analyze carefully, objectively, and honestly. I think the bigger issue I have with this kind of argument (beyond the lack of solid scientific basis) is that we do so many things that are known to actually be terrible or have terrible ramifications if done wrong (burning coal, mining coal, removing mountaintops to mine, drilling for gas, drilling for oil, transporting gas and oil thousands of miles, &c) and yet very few people blink an eye. The day every person who is concerned about the effects of GMO plants also is as concerned and vocal about the amount of greenhouses gases, particulate matter, as well as the toxic and radioactive chemicals released by coal powered power plants, then we can start to talk. Those emissions are known to be extremely dangerous to us and the environment. Yet, no one seems to care because they're used to it -- it's not a change.

beardicus 9y ago

Conveniently, nobody talks about mutagenic breeding, or hitting seeds/plants w/ radiation or mutagenic chemicals to see what you get. Surely if selectively inserting well-known genes into plants is risky, mutating plants with completely unknown gene combinations is even more so? Yet, you hear no call to label such foods. Once again we see that pretty much every objection to GMO can also be leveled against other widely-accepted breeding and farming techniques.