5 ms·

People in the developing world do starve, actually. And if in some instances (i.e. Zimbabwe) reasons are mostly political, in many places arable land isn't exac

by Fins 9y ago

People in the developing world do starve, actually. And if in some instances (i.e. Zimbabwe) reasons are mostly political, in many places arable land isn't exactly abundant, and climate isn't ideal for growing crops. Improving irrigation etc. would improve yields even without GMOs, but given the economic realities of those countries it is a less feasible option. Also, there is no contradiction between selling some crops on export markets and not having enough food for internal ones. These could be different crops for one, and for another, farmers need to make some money, too. It is not surprising that HuffPo would get confused about anything that smells of science, I would think that an opinion of a large number of Nobel laureates is as good as appeals to authority go. While they might be wrong (although conflating them with paid-for doctors advertising cigarettes seems rather disingenuous). At the very least I would expect some well-designed studies showing some negative effects of GMOs, not arguments ad hitlerium or that Monsanto might make a profit. By itself I do not see how it is a bad thing, unless it can be shown that they are trying to hide known dangers.

TangoTrotFox 9y ago
There are neither inherent negative effects nor positive effectives of genetically engineered foodstuffs. GMOs themselves are just a class of invention, which is why their conflation as a thing in and of themselves is so inappropriate. And so one must consider each and every GMO on a case by case basis, which is exactly the opposite of what we're doing. And this leads to the next problem. Genetically engineered products are patented inventions that come with a litany of terms and conditions on their usage. Among the terms Monsanto includes is that their seeds cannot be used for public research without specific permission from the company. [1] There was also an editorial on this here [2]. In other words most of every study you've seen on Monsanto products has been rubber stamped by Monsanto. There couldn't be a conflict of interest there, could there? As an aside Monsanto in turn then uses this bias to create appeals to authority. When new work is done that does cast their product in a negative light they then immediately appeal to the quantity of their 'approved' work to try to discredit the new work by authority alone. It's like arguing that the Sun must indeed revolve around the Earth because we have 200 years of science showing it does! Again, anytime you see an appeal to authority - I think it should make you rather curious about why somebody would go this route. And there's also the issue of retaliation. The examples on the individual level are extensive, but let's consider how this goes all the way to the top in large part thanks to Monsanto's extreme success in we'll say 'influencing' the US government. Here's a quote: "Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits. The list should be measured rather than vicious and must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect an early victory." What is that from? That was a response, proposed in a confidential US cable, to a retaliation against a grievous act from France. What was France's decision? The heinous and unspeakable act of ceasing cultivation of Monsanto Corn!!! The exact tactics vary, but in general themes this is very similar to how leaded fuel persisted as long as it did. Similarly with CFCs. And again there are also plentiful other issues and themes in play here, but I'm trying to avoid writing a novel! [1] - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies... [2] - http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/13/opinion/la-oe-guriansherman-seeds-20110213 http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/13/opinion/la-oe-gurian... [3] - https://search.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07PARIS4723_a.html https://search.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07PARIS4723_a.html
- Fins 9y ago
  Well, that's exactly the thing -- GMO by itself means pretty much nothing in regard to dangers or benefits. But the anti-GMO crowd isn't interested in them, they don't want GMOs to begin with. Aren't there any newer articles about GMO-research coverups than these? For all its worth, I did see one study, and it was the kind I would have gotten an "F" for back when I was in high school with advance biology classes. And it is interesting to note that while in the US it was hard to find leaded gas even in 1990, it was the only kind sold in USSR where concerns of TEL manufacturers or patent holders would be of no consequence. And it was phased out much later, too. IP and patent discussion is probably off-topic here, but if GMOs do what they are said to do, what it the problem with Monsanto having their own licensing terms on it? And so far there are good indications that they do have benefits and no well-designed studies showing dangers. And appeal to authority as a logical fallacy or not, I find the idea that all 100+ signatories (including some who, judging by the year when they got their Nobels could not care less by now about Monsanto's alleged threats) are either scared of or paid by the Big Agriculture to be an even greater conspirological fallacy.
  - TangoTrotFox 9y ago
    That's quite amazing. I find 1, 2, 3, 4 straw men in so few words. That's usually an indicator that somebody's not really interested in rational discussion, but we've already gone beyond the grain of normal chat here so I'm a bit confused. So let me ask you a simple question, do you think everything you just said fairly represents what I have stated and/or implied in our discussion? If I point out misrepresentations you're making, would this be meaningfully likely to change your views?
    - Fins 9y ago
      I am just trying to figure out your angle on this, because I do not think Monsanto being the devil incarnate, or some scientists believing in eugenics 100 years ago has much bearing on whether we should use GMOs now to let people in areas where conventional crops do not grow well feed themselves. Argument that "there are too many people in the world" aside, I do not see how it could be a bad thing.

by Fins 9y ago

TangoTrotFox 9y ago

There are neither inherent negative effects nor positive effectives of genetically engineered foodstuffs. GMOs themselves are just a class of invention, which is why their conflation as a thing in and of themselves is so inappropriate. And so one must consider each and every GMO on a case by case basis, which is exactly the opposite of what we're doing. And this leads to the next problem. Genetically engineered products are patented inventions that come with a litany of terms and conditions on their usage. Among the terms Monsanto includes is that their seeds cannot be used for public research without specific permission from the company. [1] There was also an editorial on this here [2]. In other words most of every study you've seen on Monsanto products has been rubber stamped by Monsanto. There couldn't be a conflict of interest there, could there? As an aside Monsanto in turn then uses this bias to create appeals to authority. When new work is done that does cast their product in a negative light they then immediately appeal to the quantity of their 'approved' work to try to discredit the new work by authority alone. It's like arguing that the Sun must indeed revolve around the Earth because we have 200 years of science showing it does! Again, anytime you see an appeal to authority - I think it should make you rather curious about why somebody would go this route. And there's also the issue of retaliation. The examples on the individual level are extensive, but let's consider how this goes all the way to the top in large part thanks to Monsanto's extreme success in we'll say 'influencing' the US government. Here's a quote: "Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits. The list should be measured rather than vicious and must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect an early victory." What is that from? That was a response, proposed in a confidential US cable, to a retaliation against a grievous act from France. What was France's decision? The heinous and unspeakable act of ceasing cultivation of Monsanto Corn!!! The exact tactics vary, but in general themes this is very similar to how leaded fuel persisted as long as it did. Similarly with CFCs. And again there are also plentiful other issues and themes in play here, but I'm trying to avoid writing a novel! [1] - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies... [2] - http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/13/opinion/la-oe-guriansherman-seeds-20110213 http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/13/opinion/la-oe-gurian... [3] - https://search.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07PARIS4723_a.html https://search.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07PARIS4723_a.html

Fins 9y ago
Well, that's exactly the thing -- GMO by itself means pretty much nothing in regard to dangers or benefits. But the anti-GMO crowd isn't interested in them, they don't want GMOs to begin with. Aren't there any newer articles about GMO-research coverups than these? For all its worth, I did see one study, and it was the kind I would have gotten an "F" for back when I was in high school with advance biology classes. And it is interesting to note that while in the US it was hard to find leaded gas even in 1990, it was the only kind sold in USSR where concerns of TEL manufacturers or patent holders would be of no consequence. And it was phased out much later, too. IP and patent discussion is probably off-topic here, but if GMOs do what they are said to do, what it the problem with Monsanto having their own licensing terms on it? And so far there are good indications that they do have benefits and no well-designed studies showing dangers. And appeal to authority as a logical fallacy or not, I find the idea that all 100+ signatories (including some who, judging by the year when they got their Nobels could not care less by now about Monsanto's alleged threats) are either scared of or paid by the Big Agriculture to be an even greater conspirological fallacy.
- TangoTrotFox 9y ago
  That's quite amazing. I find 1, 2, 3, 4 straw men in so few words. That's usually an indicator that somebody's not really interested in rational discussion, but we've already gone beyond the grain of normal chat here so I'm a bit confused. So let me ask you a simple question, do you think everything you just said fairly represents what I have stated and/or implied in our discussion? If I point out misrepresentations you're making, would this be meaningfully likely to change your views?
  - Fins 9y ago
    I am just trying to figure out your angle on this, because I do not think Monsanto being the devil incarnate, or some scientists believing in eugenics 100 years ago has much bearing on whether we should use GMOs now to let people in areas where conventional crops do not grow well feed themselves. Argument that "there are too many people in the world" aside, I do not see how it could be a bad thing.