4 ms·

I don't think it's unreasonable to want to eat real food, the same we've eaten for thousands of years, or to think it's the healthiest option for us. It's commo

by Pimpus 8y ago

I don't think it's unreasonable to want to eat real food, the same we've eaten for thousands of years, or to think it's the healthiest option for us. It's common sense, which doesn't require years of indoctrination in high school and university. On the other side of the coin, it's also not surprising that people who do not know much about something might feel threatened by it -- not exactly a groundbreaking discovery. That said, I have a strong scientific background and still find the idea of genetically modified food to be inhumane and abhorrent. Anecdotally, it's kind of funny that many of the scientifically "ignorant" people I've met have better values and ethics than many scientists.

fghtr 8y ago
>I don't think it's unreasonable to want to eat real food, the same we've eaten for thousands of years, or to think it's the healthiest option for us. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_fallacy
- pretendscholar 8y ago
  I would argue its a bad logical technique but a good heuristic if you didn't want to invest a lot of time diving deep into the science.
TeMPOraL 8y ago
> I don't think it's unreasonable to want to eat real food, the same we've eaten for thousands of years, or to think it's the healthiest option for us. It's common sense, which doesn't require years of indoctrination in high school and university. I think people need to be taught in school that there is no such thing as eating "the same we've eaten for thousands of years". Ever since people first started doing agriculture those thousands of years ago, the food we grow has been constantly changing on genetic level. Wheat today isn't the same wheat it was 500 years ago, and wheat 500 years ago wasn't the same as it was 1000 years ago, all because farming applies a new set of selection pressures. The difference between "real food" and GMOs is that genetic engineering is a scalpel, where our age-old farming practices are a combination of sledgehammer genetic engineering, and throwing shit at a wall to see what sticks.

by Pimpus 8y ago

fghtr 8y ago

>I don't think it's unreasonable to want to eat real food, the same we've eaten for thousands of years, or to think it's the healthiest option for us. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_fallacy

pretendscholar 8y ago
I would argue its a bad logical technique but a good heuristic if you didn't want to invest a lot of time diving deep into the science.

TeMPOraL 8y ago

> I don't think it's unreasonable to want to eat real food, the same we've eaten for thousands of years, or to think it's the healthiest option for us. It's common sense, which doesn't require years of indoctrination in high school and university. I think people need to be taught in school that there is no such thing as eating "the same we've eaten for thousands of years". Ever since people first started doing agriculture those thousands of years ago, the food we grow has been constantly changing on genetic level. Wheat today isn't the same wheat it was 500 years ago, and wheat 500 years ago wasn't the same as it was 1000 years ago, all because farming applies a new set of selection pressures. The difference between "real food" and GMOs is that genetic engineering is a scalpel, where our age-old farming practices are a combination of sledgehammer genetic engineering, and throwing shit at a wall to see what sticks.