4 ms·

It's part of a broader anti-science reaction that we need to keep a close eye on as a society. See also antivaxxers, antimaskers, etc. USA has a serious anti-i

It's part of a broader anti-science reaction that we need to keep a close eye on as a society. See also antivaxxers, antimaskers, etc. USA has a serious anti-intellectualism problem (and to be honest a religion problem as well) and this is manifesting as bizarre pushbacks against some of the least harmful of modern inventions. It's especially ironic because you don't often see these same folks pushing back against car ownership, or micro plastic accumulation from modern consumerism. Instead they advocate against GMO's, vaccines, and sometimes even birth control and abortion... all things that arguably have made the world a far better place. I hope at some point we can move our country beyond arguing over left vs right politics and start realizing that we have deep national problems stemming from religion and our for profit higher education system. The former for actively promoting ancient morals, ideas, and belief systems, and the latter for putting modern morals, ideas, and belief systems behind a paywall that is out of reach of many Americans.

1234fdsazxcv 6y ago
I'm not sure why this is being down-voted. It's disturbing to see given the site we're on.
- lllr_finger 6y ago
  I didn't downvote, but I'm assuming that suggesting an equivalence between concerns with GMO and being antimask/antivaxx comes off as hyperbolic. I sometimes have a difficult time separating legit benefits of GMO with shilling or astroturfing, which is unfortunate when trying to have a reasoned discussion.
- acdha 6y ago
  It’s because they were trying to sound authoritative while presenting an evidence-free narrative which is by some strange coincidence the one favored by a well-funded corporate PR movement. Trying to paint it as anti-science ignores all of the scientists urging caution & regulation, not to mention the other arguments. The antivax and birth control complaints are similarly unfounded - you can find people with any combination of views but that one is not even remotely representative. As a simple example of an argument which the poster omitted, I know multiple scientists - people who use genetic modification techniques for their work – who are in favor of GMOs conceptually but opposed to Monsanto’s sweeping ownership views (hybridization of GMOs with other crops), broader ecological impacts from increased pesticide usage, or want stricter regulation before things are released into the wild. None of those positions are honestly characterized as anti-science.
  - NathanKP 6y ago
    Just to be clear I'm opposed to Monsanto as well. I think that Monsanto is likely the company that plans to do some actual evil with GMO. But Monsanto shouldn't be the only face and implementation of GMO. We need way more GMO research right now from a larger number of organizations. GMO's should be regulated to outlaw things like "plant DRM", but part of that governmental regulation should be active financial encouragement of more GMO research to develop and propagate hardier, more drought and heat tolerant crops so that we still have food as the world faces global warming. This is why it is a moral issue: the longer we delay and argue about widespread GMO research and propagation the more likely we end up in a world where global warming causes dramatically reduced food availability and variety. The rich will be able to eat food that was grown in climate controlled environments, the poor will either outright starve or adopt a massively simplified and less nutritious diet. I draw the parallels between anti GMO and anti-vaxxers because in both cases there is a hyper-focus on a few potentially bad outcomes while ignoring the massive upside. Just like anti-vaxxers worry about their kid getting autism or getting a microchip injected into them or getting injected with something harmful, I find a lot of GMO discussions devolve into excessive worry about a few edge cases that either have not happened, rarely happen, or can and should be outlawed.
    - acdha 6y ago
      I think you'll be far more successful in convincing others if you avoid sounding like you're repeating industry talking points. The “anti-science” tack is guaranteed to produce that outcome and by now many other arguments are rather muddied by all of the industry PR which has been unfolding for years. I agree that we need GMO in our toolbox, as do almost all of the people I know who are hesitant about that, but that's only going to happen through building trust and, importantly, recognizing legitimate arguments and talking about how to address them rather than trying to claim they're not valid.
      - acdha 6y ago
        As an example of a measure I’d like to see for public health reasons, imagine addressing concerns for safety with a federal testing requirement which includes mandatory open data for all tests (no canceling if it’s not looking good) and C-level personal liability and jail time for any attempts to conceal problems or forge results to deter the next VW.

1234fdsazxcv 6y ago

I'm not sure why this is being down-voted. It's disturbing to see given the site we're on.

lllr_finger 6y ago
I didn't downvote, but I'm assuming that suggesting an equivalence between concerns with GMO and being antimask/antivaxx comes off as hyperbolic. I sometimes have a difficult time separating legit benefits of GMO with shilling or astroturfing, which is unfortunate when trying to have a reasoned discussion.
acdha 6y ago
It’s because they were trying to sound authoritative while presenting an evidence-free narrative which is by some strange coincidence the one favored by a well-funded corporate PR movement. Trying to paint it as anti-science ignores all of the scientists urging caution & regulation, not to mention the other arguments. The antivax and birth control complaints are similarly unfounded - you can find people with any combination of views but that one is not even remotely representative. As a simple example of an argument which the poster omitted, I know multiple scientists - people who use genetic modification techniques for their work – who are in favor of GMOs conceptually but opposed to Monsanto’s sweeping ownership views (hybridization of GMOs with other crops), broader ecological impacts from increased pesticide usage, or want stricter regulation before things are released into the wild. None of those positions are honestly characterized as anti-science.
- NathanKP 6y ago
  Just to be clear I'm opposed to Monsanto as well. I think that Monsanto is likely the company that plans to do some actual evil with GMO. But Monsanto shouldn't be the only face and implementation of GMO. We need way more GMO research right now from a larger number of organizations. GMO's should be regulated to outlaw things like "plant DRM", but part of that governmental regulation should be active financial encouragement of more GMO research to develop and propagate hardier, more drought and heat tolerant crops so that we still have food as the world faces global warming. This is why it is a moral issue: the longer we delay and argue about widespread GMO research and propagation the more likely we end up in a world where global warming causes dramatically reduced food availability and variety. The rich will be able to eat food that was grown in climate controlled environments, the poor will either outright starve or adopt a massively simplified and less nutritious diet. I draw the parallels between anti GMO and anti-vaxxers because in both cases there is a hyper-focus on a few potentially bad outcomes while ignoring the massive upside. Just like anti-vaxxers worry about their kid getting autism or getting a microchip injected into them or getting injected with something harmful, I find a lot of GMO discussions devolve into excessive worry about a few edge cases that either have not happened, rarely happen, or can and should be outlawed.
  - acdha 6y ago
    I think you'll be far more successful in convincing others if you avoid sounding like you're repeating industry talking points. The “anti-science” tack is guaranteed to produce that outcome and by now many other arguments are rather muddied by all of the industry PR which has been unfolding for years. I agree that we need GMO in our toolbox, as do almost all of the people I know who are hesitant about that, but that's only going to happen through building trust and, importantly, recognizing legitimate arguments and talking about how to address them rather than trying to claim they're not valid.
    - acdha 6y ago
      As an example of a measure I’d like to see for public health reasons, imagine addressing concerns for safety with a federal testing requirement which includes mandatory open data for all tests (no canceling if it’s not looking good) and C-level personal liability and jail time for any attempts to conceal problems or forge results to deter the next VW.