3 ms·
See this paper for more thorough coverage of my original comment: http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/pp2.pdf http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/pp2.pdf
by 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 agoIn 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.