5 ms·

I think we live in a pretty skeptical and critical age. There are plenty of decently-educated people ready to jump into any discussion and either a) share their

I think we live in a pretty skeptical and critical age. There are plenty of decently-educated people ready to jump into any discussion and either a) share their contrary opinion, regardless of the basis for it, or b) point out weaknesses/downsides/concerns as a "contribution" to the conversation. I don't mean to claim that this is always bad or inappropriate. Just that it's the in thing to do these days.

jjcon 5y ago
> There are plenty of decently-educated people ready to jump into any discussion and either a) share their contrary opinion I completely disagree with you sir!
- chrisco255 5y ago
  Reminds me of the classic Monty Python skit, where a guy goes to a clinic to pay to argue with someone: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ "I'd like to have an argument, please."
  - not1ofU 5y ago
    https://youtu.be/QereR0CViMY?t=29 https://youtu.be/QereR0CViMY?t=29
ehnto 5y ago
I also find people make dichotomies out of every topic, and lump everyone into the extreme ends of each view. This turns every discussion into a Team A vs Team B win or lose scenario, which just isn't how most things work. Two ideas can be perfectly valid at the same time, even if they conflict on some points, and the ideas likely exist on a spectrum of possible views with neither Team A or Team B truly being at the logical conclusion of their ideologies. Likewise, it's perfectly valid to know something is good for the environment on paper, yet still "feel" like it's the wrong thing. Humans are not calculators, and whether or not you'll get the right outcome from going by your feelings, you're fully entitled to them all the same.
- bedobi 5y ago
  Sadly I think you're right. People who have an intuitive, intense opposition reaction to this idea probably think anyone who advocates it are literally Jurassic Park style insane evil villains who want to genetically destroy the planet and make money doing it. Or something. And it's just not true, but changing anyone's mind about that is probably impossible.
- 3grdlurker 5y ago
  I think that people who automatically frame every disagreement into a narrative of “two extremist parties making false dichotomies out of every topic” are profoundly confused. Specifically in issues that are actionable (as most issues are, as this one is), there is a true dichotomy with relevance to action: you either do something, or you don’t. There is simply no middle ground. What’s so extreme about disagreeing with releasing genetically modified organisms into the wild? Even if a person believed that some combination of both options should be done instead, that person would still, by the end of the day, decide to disagree with releasing genetically modified mosquitoes in the wild as it is currently being done precisely because it is not how they believe it should be done. The extremists-fighting-over-false-dichotomies narrative is honestly so tired and lazy, IMO.
  - breischl 5y ago
    >you either do something, or you don’t. There is simply no middle ground. Only in the narrowest sense. Another valid response is "you can't do this as-is, but if you make changes X, Y and Z then you can." Or "do more experiments with captive populations first." Or "do this in an area where it's less likely to cause unexpected side effects (eg an unpopulated island somewhere)" Or "use a different set of genes or tweaks" It's pretty rare that the _only_ possible choices are to do this _one exact thing_, or do nothing at all.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - 3grdlurker 5y ago

jjcon 5y ago

> There are plenty of decently-educated people ready to jump into any discussion and either a) share their contrary opinion I completely disagree with you sir!

chrisco255 5y ago
Reminds me of the classic Monty Python skit, where a guy goes to a clinic to pay to argue with someone: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ "I'd like to have an argument, please."
- not1ofU 5y ago
  https://youtu.be/QereR0CViMY?t=29 https://youtu.be/QereR0CViMY?t=29

ehnto 5y ago

I also find people make dichotomies out of every topic, and lump everyone into the extreme ends of each view. This turns every discussion into a Team A vs Team B win or lose scenario, which just isn't how most things work. Two ideas can be perfectly valid at the same time, even if they conflict on some points, and the ideas likely exist on a spectrum of possible views with neither Team A or Team B truly being at the logical conclusion of their ideologies. Likewise, it's perfectly valid to know something is good for the environment on paper, yet still "feel" like it's the wrong thing. Humans are not calculators, and whether or not you'll get the right outcome from going by your feelings, you're fully entitled to them all the same.

bedobi 5y ago
Sadly I think you're right. People who have an intuitive, intense opposition reaction to this idea probably think anyone who advocates it are literally Jurassic Park style insane evil villains who want to genetically destroy the planet and make money doing it. Or something. And it's just not true, but changing anyone's mind about that is probably impossible.
3grdlurker 5y ago
I think that people who automatically frame every disagreement into a narrative of “two extremist parties making false dichotomies out of every topic” are profoundly confused. Specifically in issues that are actionable (as most issues are, as this one is), there is a true dichotomy with relevance to action: you either do something, or you don’t. There is simply no middle ground. What’s so extreme about disagreeing with releasing genetically modified organisms into the wild? Even if a person believed that some combination of both options should be done instead, that person would still, by the end of the day, decide to disagree with releasing genetically modified mosquitoes in the wild as it is currently being done precisely because it is not how they believe it should be done. The extremists-fighting-over-false-dichotomies narrative is honestly so tired and lazy, IMO.
- breischl 5y ago
  >you either do something, or you don’t. There is simply no middle ground. Only in the narrowest sense. Another valid response is "you can't do this as-is, but if you make changes X, Y and Z then you can." Or "do more experiments with captive populations first." Or "do this in an area where it's less likely to cause unexpected side effects (eg an unpopulated island somewhere)" Or "use a different set of genes or tweaks" It's pretty rare that the _only_ possible choices are to do this _one exact thing_, or do nothing at all.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - 3grdlurker 5y ago