4 ms·

This reminds me of trophic cascades and e.g the unintuitive link that killing wolfs affects riverbeds: https://shadowproof.com/2014/02/20/trophic-cascade-how-w

This reminds me of trophic cascades and e.g the unintuitive link that killing wolfs affects riverbeds: https://shadowproof.com/2014/02/20/trophic-cascade-how-wolves-change-rivers/ https://shadowproof.com/2014/02/20/trophic-cascade-how-wolve... It like we can't understand complex systems very well. Almost everything we do seem to have to have major unintended consequences. We see this over and over again, we have to abandon the "as cheap and fast as possible" thinking !

projectileboy 9y ago
FWIW, this is why some people have fears around GMO foods. It's not that they can't appreciate the benefits, it's because they fear that we're testing systems in production that we don't fully understand.
- Sone7 9y ago
  Exactafuckingmundo. Those PR scumbags in Monsanto have been extremely effective at equating being anti-GMO with being anti-science, and it'd be real nice to see some accountability for them.
  - afarrell 9y ago
    How much of this is driven by Monsanto and how much is driven by individuals with worries of a Mathusian crisis, or who have concerns about nutrition deficits among the global poor, or who see the effects of climate change on Syrian agriculture and want a tool to counteract that? The reality is that we’ve always tested agricultural technologies in production. Sometimes with tragic results. But imagine you could control early 1800s European ag policy. Knowing both the Would you introduce the potato? Knowing the history of famine in 1780s France and the history of famine in 1840s Ireland, what policy would you set?
    - freeflight 9y ago
      Imho what makes people summon Monsanto isn't just the possible dangers to the biological ecosphere, it's also the fact that Monsanto has a history of suing farmers for patent infringements, due to the cross-pollination of the Monsanto plants. This sets a horrible precedent, I don't want to live in a world where corporate engineered, and patented, "super plants" contaminate the whole planet and people will end up being sued over patent infringement for trying to grow their own food.
      - amyjess 9y ago
        If you're talking about Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser, this happened because Schmeiser deliberately sewed Roundup Ready seed throughout his fields. This wasn't a case of the wind randomly depositing the seeds on his fields. He knew exactly what he had, and he planted it on purpose. But after that case, a number of activists with a political agenda decided to mischaracterize the facts of the case in order to smear Monsanto.
        freeflight 9y ago
        I'm talking about this [0]: "In its report, called Seed Giants vs US Farmers, the CFS said it had tracked numerous law suits that Monsanto had brought against farmers and found some 142 patent infringement suits against 410 farmers and 56 small businesses in more than 27 states. In total the firm has won more than $23m from its targets, the report said." And that's just the situation in the US, I don't think Indian farmers fare that much better. Disney is already on its way of gobbling up all entertainment "intellectual property", we don't need a comparable situation with companies like Monsanto and essential plants like crops. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto-sues-farmers-seed-patents https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto...
    - Manglano 9y ago
      Too many variables. I would say, grow the most-energy dense, least land & water intensive crops possible. For the US my understanding is that that would probably entail GM corn, tepiary beans, and squash, on rotation or with companion planting, no till, dryland farming as much as possible. But then there are economies of luxury and scale, people like fruit, and meat, and spices, and stuff which can't be grown nearby. People cultivate the jackfruit instead of maize, Brazil's trying to extirpate a "jackfruit infestation," and olive trees are sometimes considered "weeds" in Australia. The Neolithic Revolution is bonkers, basically. I'm not an experienced farmer, everyone's land is different, and just today I learned that there are parts of the world where bushland edibles are so plentiful that the locals see no reason to farm at all. So perhaps I should shut up now :)
  - tstactplsignore 9y ago
    Being against the implementation of specific crop products because you believe they weren't adequately tested, or because there is evidence that they are harmful in some way - that is not anti-science. Here's what is anti-science: being against using a range of methods available to modern biological science to engineer crops and demanding that we continue to use the less precise and inherently less safe methods that we used throughout the 20th century. This position is inherently anti-science because it is opposed to scientific understanding itself- when you realize that traditional techniques modified dozens or hundreds of genes in unpredictable ways, and now we can target specific genes that we understand the functions of, but you are opposed to doing so on some strange principle, you must realize the anti-GMO movement is anti-science itself. It is exactly like being anti-programming because you heard about hackers stealing money from banks in the news. It's just too much of a risk, computers are complex systems that we can't always predict! It's just being safe! I hope that this analogy feels like a ridiculous stretch to you- that's how your position feels to me!
    - ynniv 9y ago
      Engineering is not science, and anyone who has conducted scientific experiments would know that science isn't usually beneficial to the test subjects.
- tstactplsignore 9y ago
  You can say that about all agriculture ever even more than you can about GMOs. We understand exact, precise genetic changes that have a much higher standards of testing than all of the genetic changes we've made to food using traditional techniques (mutagenesis, cross-breeding, selection) which modify dozens or hundreds of genes in highly unpredictable ways. We should be careful about all agricultural changes in a way proportional to what changes we made in the system, and not classify using modern science as always "too scary" to rely on.
  - scott_karana 9y ago
    If we're talking about Mendelevian use of alleles that exist in a species already, sure. But have you seen those glow in the dark aquarium fish? Or the tomatoes that use flounder DNA to make them hardier in the freezer? How rigorously is it possible to test ramifications from those things?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- Manglano 9y ago
  Yes, it is so. Consider that corn was modified to be more resilient but its pollen may be compatible with nearby plants. Hybridization of transgenics with local flora may have unintended and far-reaching consequences. That's why the "Terminator" traits are typically outlawed. No one (eh...citation needed) desires a world where growing the food requires a proprietary compound. I doubt a civilization with a food supply like that could remain stable. However! I read an interesting study that claimed Bt transgenics are better for food production & the environment because they kill crop pests but the carnivorous field fauna (spiders, horseflies, etc.) flourish with humankind's helping hand. Whereas I typically purchase non-GMO foods, this revelation caused me to question, and to become ambivalent. No doubt pests would tolerate Bt with time, but in humans Bt is a non-toxic pesticide, and the germlines of the crop pests would probably never recover from the trait's proliferation. At the same time, the carnivorous "worker arthropods" which eat the crop pests would also experience a huge acceleration in their development. Directed breeding in animals is an issue which has a tighter grip on my heart--some of the stuff that's been done to dogs and cats to "get them to look a certain way" is really messed up. Maybe some look at the fields the same way. I do not know. It is not my choice. I am glad for that.
- DougN7 9y ago
  I think about this a lot with respect to society as a whole. Specifically, legalizing drugs, effects of social media, and universal basic income will affect the most complex system of all, 'society', in ways we can't possibly predict. Anyone who says these giant changes are definitely safe is naive. Still, we need to try and make progress.
- ynniv 9y ago
  GMO produce fetches about the same market price, and is produced at about the same efficiency as modern non-GMO produce, so I also can't appreciate the "benefits". [ https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/business/gmo-promise-falls-short.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/business/gmo-promise-fall... ]
- chiefalchemist 9y ago
  GMOs...It's that we've engineered something and have absolutely no idea of what a recall might look like. Ask Toyota is that's their understanding and experience with engineering. Obviously, Mother Nature is multiple orders of magnitude more complex than automobiles.
- forgotmypw 9y ago
  GMO is just a red herring that distracts people from the fact that most GMO crops are all about pesticide resistance. GMOs are almost definitely sprayed with pesticides, and continue to carry trace amounts into our food supply and habitat. The sprays themselves are blends of many different synthetic chemicals, not just, e.g. glyphosate, alone. The entire western food system resembles some kind of BNW-esque intelligence test, where you have to wade through this web of lies, and if you can't figure it out, you're basically eating small amounts of poison that dull your thinking, sap your energy, and shorten your lifespan. Good luck figuring it out!
knownothing 9y ago
> It like we can't understand complex systems very well. The problem is we keep getting better at doing crazier things, e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15929012 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15929012
dmschulman 9y ago
> It like we can't understand complex systems very well. I'd reckon the geniuses in the labs do understand complex systems very well, only problem is that these chemists, engineers, etc who do bring concerns their concerns to the table tend to get shut down in favor of getting a product to market so that the company can continue to reap profits no matter what the environmental impact.
chiefalchemist 9y ago
Combine lack of humility with a short term memory and eventually we'll do oursevles in, like no other species has. Just give it time.

projectileboy 9y ago

FWIW, this is why some people have fears around GMO foods. It's not that they can't appreciate the benefits, it's because they fear that we're testing systems in production that we don't fully understand.

Sone7 9y ago
Exactafuckingmundo. Those PR scumbags in Monsanto have been extremely effective at equating being anti-GMO with being anti-science, and it'd be real nice to see some accountability for them.
- afarrell 9y ago
  How much of this is driven by Monsanto and how much is driven by individuals with worries of a Mathusian crisis, or who have concerns about nutrition deficits among the global poor, or who see the effects of climate change on Syrian agriculture and want a tool to counteract that? The reality is that we’ve always tested agricultural technologies in production. Sometimes with tragic results. But imagine you could control early 1800s European ag policy. Knowing both the Would you introduce the potato? Knowing the history of famine in 1780s France and the history of famine in 1840s Ireland, what policy would you set?
  - freeflight 9y ago
    Imho what makes people summon Monsanto isn't just the possible dangers to the biological ecosphere, it's also the fact that Monsanto has a history of suing farmers for patent infringements, due to the cross-pollination of the Monsanto plants. This sets a horrible precedent, I don't want to live in a world where corporate engineered, and patented, "super plants" contaminate the whole planet and people will end up being sued over patent infringement for trying to grow their own food.
    - amyjess 9y ago
      If you're talking about Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser, this happened because Schmeiser deliberately sewed Roundup Ready seed throughout his fields. This wasn't a case of the wind randomly depositing the seeds on his fields. He knew exactly what he had, and he planted it on purpose. But after that case, a number of activists with a political agenda decided to mischaracterize the facts of the case in order to smear Monsanto.
      - freeflight 9y ago
        I'm talking about this [0]: "In its report, called Seed Giants vs US Farmers, the CFS said it had tracked numerous law suits that Monsanto had brought against farmers and found some 142 patent infringement suits against 410 farmers and 56 small businesses in more than 27 states. In total the firm has won more than $23m from its targets, the report said." And that's just the situation in the US, I don't think Indian farmers fare that much better. Disney is already on its way of gobbling up all entertainment "intellectual property", we don't need a comparable situation with companies like Monsanto and essential plants like crops. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto-sues-farmers-seed-patents https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto...
  - Manglano 9y ago
    Too many variables. I would say, grow the most-energy dense, least land & water intensive crops possible. For the US my understanding is that that would probably entail GM corn, tepiary beans, and squash, on rotation or with companion planting, no till, dryland farming as much as possible. But then there are economies of luxury and scale, people like fruit, and meat, and spices, and stuff which can't be grown nearby. People cultivate the jackfruit instead of maize, Brazil's trying to extirpate a "jackfruit infestation," and olive trees are sometimes considered "weeds" in Australia. The Neolithic Revolution is bonkers, basically. I'm not an experienced farmer, everyone's land is different, and just today I learned that there are parts of the world where bushland edibles are so plentiful that the locals see no reason to farm at all. So perhaps I should shut up now :)
- tstactplsignore 9y ago
  Being against the implementation of specific crop products because you believe they weren't adequately tested, or because there is evidence that they are harmful in some way - that is not anti-science. Here's what is anti-science: being against using a range of methods available to modern biological science to engineer crops and demanding that we continue to use the less precise and inherently less safe methods that we used throughout the 20th century. This position is inherently anti-science because it is opposed to scientific understanding itself- when you realize that traditional techniques modified dozens or hundreds of genes in unpredictable ways, and now we can target specific genes that we understand the functions of, but you are opposed to doing so on some strange principle, you must realize the anti-GMO movement is anti-science itself. It is exactly like being anti-programming because you heard about hackers stealing money from banks in the news. It's just too much of a risk, computers are complex systems that we can't always predict! It's just being safe! I hope that this analogy feels like a ridiculous stretch to you- that's how your position feels to me!
  - ynniv 9y ago
    Engineering is not science, and anyone who has conducted scientific experiments would know that science isn't usually beneficial to the test subjects.
tstactplsignore 9y ago
You can say that about all agriculture ever even more than you can about GMOs. We understand exact, precise genetic changes that have a much higher standards of testing than all of the genetic changes we've made to food using traditional techniques (mutagenesis, cross-breeding, selection) which modify dozens or hundreds of genes in highly unpredictable ways. We should be careful about all agricultural changes in a way proportional to what changes we made in the system, and not classify using modern science as always "too scary" to rely on.
- scott_karana 9y ago
  If we're talking about Mendelevian use of alleles that exist in a species already, sure. But have you seen those glow in the dark aquarium fish? Or the tomatoes that use flounder DNA to make them hardier in the freezer? How rigorously is it possible to test ramifications from those things?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Manglano 9y ago
Yes, it is so. Consider that corn was modified to be more resilient but its pollen may be compatible with nearby plants. Hybridization of transgenics with local flora may have unintended and far-reaching consequences. That's why the "Terminator" traits are typically outlawed. No one (eh...citation needed) desires a world where growing the food requires a proprietary compound. I doubt a civilization with a food supply like that could remain stable. However! I read an interesting study that claimed Bt transgenics are better for food production & the environment because they kill crop pests but the carnivorous field fauna (spiders, horseflies, etc.) flourish with humankind's helping hand. Whereas I typically purchase non-GMO foods, this revelation caused me to question, and to become ambivalent. No doubt pests would tolerate Bt with time, but in humans Bt is a non-toxic pesticide, and the germlines of the crop pests would probably never recover from the trait's proliferation. At the same time, the carnivorous "worker arthropods" which eat the crop pests would also experience a huge acceleration in their development. Directed breeding in animals is an issue which has a tighter grip on my heart--some of the stuff that's been done to dogs and cats to "get them to look a certain way" is really messed up. Maybe some look at the fields the same way. I do not know. It is not my choice. I am glad for that.
DougN7 9y ago
I think about this a lot with respect to society as a whole. Specifically, legalizing drugs, effects of social media, and universal basic income will affect the most complex system of all, 'society', in ways we can't possibly predict. Anyone who says these giant changes are definitely safe is naive. Still, we need to try and make progress.
ynniv 9y ago
GMO produce fetches about the same market price, and is produced at about the same efficiency as modern non-GMO produce, so I also can't appreciate the "benefits". [ https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/business/gmo-promise-falls-short.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/business/gmo-promise-fall... ]
chiefalchemist 9y ago
GMOs...It's that we've engineered something and have absolutely no idea of what a recall might look like. Ask Toyota is that's their understanding and experience with engineering. Obviously, Mother Nature is multiple orders of magnitude more complex than automobiles.
forgotmypw 9y ago
GMO is just a red herring that distracts people from the fact that most GMO crops are all about pesticide resistance. GMOs are almost definitely sprayed with pesticides, and continue to carry trace amounts into our food supply and habitat. The sprays themselves are blends of many different synthetic chemicals, not just, e.g. glyphosate, alone. The entire western food system resembles some kind of BNW-esque intelligence test, where you have to wade through this web of lies, and if you can't figure it out, you're basically eating small amounts of poison that dull your thinking, sap your energy, and shorten your lifespan. Good luck figuring it out!

knownothing 9y ago

> It like we can't understand complex systems very well. The problem is we keep getting better at doing crazier things, e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15929012 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15929012

dmschulman 9y ago

> It like we can't understand complex systems very well. I'd reckon the geniuses in the labs do understand complex systems very well, only problem is that these chemists, engineers, etc who do bring concerns their concerns to the table tend to get shut down in favor of getting a product to market so that the company can continue to reap profits no matter what the environmental impact.

chiefalchemist 9y ago

Combine lack of humility with a short term memory and eventually we'll do oursevles in, like no other species has. Just give it time.