7 ms·

I don't think it is, because the acceleration of the process radically changes the viable range of intentionally targeted outcomes. People focus on the positiv

I don't think it is, because the acceleration of the process radically changes the viable range of intentionally targeted outcomes. People focus on the positive of these modifications but seem to forget that the purpose of companies in gene modification is not to create healthier food, but to increase their profit margins. This conflict is a regular one, but it's made even worse by the fact that, for whatever reason, some of the most historically unethical companies, such as Monsanto, Bayer, and DuPont are the primary players in genetically engineering foodstuffs. So for instance our bodies have not caught up to our technological and socioeconomic developments that have practically eliminated food scarcity. So we enjoy things that make no sense to enjoy, presumably as a product of evolution, like high calorie foodstuffs that at one time would have been key to survival, yet today are a great way to shorten your life expectancy. Imagine now you eat two pineapples. One tastes incredibly sweet and like nothing you've had before. And you find yourself craving more and more of it. The other tastes well... like a pineapple. The former is going to increase sales at the cost of healthfulness. And of course for fruits and vegetables, nutritional labels are completely optional. And of course the FDA has come down hard against labeling of genetically engineered foods. The customer would have nothing to go on but their horribly flawed and exploitable intuition and responses to the foods. And this is also just at a base level. Somehow we also develop addictions to things that make no sense, evolutionary or otherwise, to get addicted to. Would it be hypothetically possible to begin to translate this response to traditional foodstuffs? It'd be incredibly profitable if so. And we might never even see anything overt happen. Instead we'd just see everybody's waistlines continue to increase seemingly to no end without immediately apparent explanation, as a country feverishly ate itself to death. At this point, aren't people realizing that just trusting companies to behave ethically is not a good idea? Even moreso when that behavior and the most profitable behavior often come directly into conflict.

LifeLiverTransp 9y ago
Even that realization of who to trust and who not is hacked allready. Russia showed us how to do it- throw some fog grenades, and the blind can lead the blind again.. Subvert all the things.
Fins 9y ago
How would this be different from a purpose of any other company on the face of the Earth? They all exist to make money. And killing off your customers (or poisoning them) is not necessarily a winning long-term strategy.
- TangoTrotFox 9y ago
  Cigarette companies would disagree. The goal, as always, is the maximum extraction of short to medium term extraction of revenue. So long as you're not immediately killing your customers off, profits often greatly exceed costs. And actually that part about not even immediately killing them off is not entirely true. Check out the 'pinto memo.' [1] When Ford was manufacturing the Pinto they discovered a critical flaw with the vehicle that could cause the gas tank to explode in rear end impacts, resulting in grievous injury or death. It would have cost about $10/car to fix the problem, but in an analysis - the 'pinto memo' - they discovered that it would cost less just to settle the cases of injury and death. They chose to not spend that $10/car and hundreds of people did end up burning to death because of it. Fords' latest revenue numbers were $157 billion. Phillip Morris' latest revenue figures were $78 billion. It's for these reasons that I think things like consumer choice and information are critical. Genetically engineered foodstuffs are not inherently good or bad. Any given invention can be good or bad. This decision by the FDA, paired with their adamant stance against any sort of labeling, means they're forcing customers to simply take it on faith that companies like Monsanto have the customers' best interests in mind, even when doing otherwise could potentially be more beneficial for Monsanto. And now finally to top all of this we also have regulatory capture. Obama created a special position new head role at the FDA, which he half jokingly referred to as the 'Czar of Foods'. He then appointed one Michael R. Taylor [2] to it. Taylor is former vice president lawyer and lobbyist for Monsanto whose legal career was pinned by a case in which he argued that companies ought be allowed to add at least a small amount of carcinogenic chemicals to processed foods. This capture goes well beyond corruption. You, indirectly, had Monsanto regulating Monsanto. [1] - https://www.motherjones.com/politics/1977/09/pinto-madness/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/1977/09/pinto-madness/ [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_R._Taylor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_R._Taylor
  - 9y ago

LifeLiverTransp 9y ago

Even that realization of who to trust and who not is hacked allready. Russia showed us how to do it- throw some fog grenades, and the blind can lead the blind again.. Subvert all the things.

Fins 9y ago

How would this be different from a purpose of any other company on the face of the Earth? They all exist to make money. And killing off your customers (or poisoning them) is not necessarily a winning long-term strategy.

TangoTrotFox 9y ago
Cigarette companies would disagree. The goal, as always, is the maximum extraction of short to medium term extraction of revenue. So long as you're not immediately killing your customers off, profits often greatly exceed costs. And actually that part about not even immediately killing them off is not entirely true. Check out the 'pinto memo.' [1] When Ford was manufacturing the Pinto they discovered a critical flaw with the vehicle that could cause the gas tank to explode in rear end impacts, resulting in grievous injury or death. It would have cost about $10/car to fix the problem, but in an analysis - the 'pinto memo' - they discovered that it would cost less just to settle the cases of injury and death. They chose to not spend that $10/car and hundreds of people did end up burning to death because of it. Fords' latest revenue numbers were $157 billion. Phillip Morris' latest revenue figures were $78 billion. It's for these reasons that I think things like consumer choice and information are critical. Genetically engineered foodstuffs are not inherently good or bad. Any given invention can be good or bad. This decision by the FDA, paired with their adamant stance against any sort of labeling, means they're forcing customers to simply take it on faith that companies like Monsanto have the customers' best interests in mind, even when doing otherwise could potentially be more beneficial for Monsanto. And now finally to top all of this we also have regulatory capture. Obama created a special position new head role at the FDA, which he half jokingly referred to as the 'Czar of Foods'. He then appointed one Michael R. Taylor [2] to it. Taylor is former vice president lawyer and lobbyist for Monsanto whose legal career was pinned by a case in which he argued that companies ought be allowed to add at least a small amount of carcinogenic chemicals to processed foods. This capture goes well beyond corruption. You, indirectly, had Monsanto regulating Monsanto. [1] - https://www.motherjones.com/politics/1977/09/pinto-madness/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/1977/09/pinto-madness/ [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_R._Taylor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_R._Taylor
- 9y ago