5 ms·

> We were able to genetically modify plants so they generated natural pesticides as a defense against insects. Isn't this the good old "naturalistic fallacy" t

> We were able to genetically modify plants so they generated natural pesticides as a defense against insects. Isn't this the good old "naturalistic fallacy" though? Would you eat a poisonous mushroom because the poison is "natural"? You can at least wash some pesticides off. I'm not a biologist but I'm sure there is a difference between crossing different varieties of peas versus introducing a non-pea (or maybe non-plant) gene into the pea DNA.

asdff 5y ago
Different means to the same ends. DNA is DNA no matter what organism it is in. Many genes are conserved through most orders of life.
- selcuka 5y ago
  Again, I'm not a biologist but I highly doubt that. Evolution had millions of years to create very specialised genes in different organisms. Genes have complex interactions between them and we don't always have a full grasp of those interactions. Cherry picking a single gene from an insect and transplanting it onto a plant might have unforeseen effects. I'm neither pro-pesticide nor anti-GMO but we should refrain ourselves from a blanket "GMO is natural, hence better than chemicals" statement.
  - samatman 5y ago
    Well you shouldn't. We share about 50% of our DNA with a banana.
    - immibis 5y ago
      And that 50% seems to do something very different in humans than in bananas
      - asdff 5y ago
        Usually it does the exact same things actually!
    - selcuka 5y ago
      Exactly my point. It's a huge difference.
rmason 5y ago
Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is a naturally occurring bacterium in the soil that produces proteins specifically active against certain insects. This is the exact same insecticide used by certified organic growers. Plant breeders have just engineered the plants to produce it in their leaves, not in the corn itself. For thirty years objections have been raised, scientific research has been done disproving the objections. Yet Bt corn is still banned in a large part of Europe.
- londons_explore 5y ago
  There are other political reasons for the ban... Do you want your whole food supply dependant on licensing from another nation who is an ally today, but could use this as a bargaining chip to "do as we say or we'll stop licensing you corn and destroy your agriculture industry".
  - Clewza313 5y ago
    Sure, but licensing/patents are entirely separate from the environment benefits here.
    - londons_explore 5y ago
      If you say "I'll take the environmental benefits, but pass on the patents/licensing", you're quickly gonna get slapped with sanctions. So they aren't really seperate.
    - fogihujy 5y ago
      They're definitely separate issues, but decision makers still need to take both into account. "It's better for the environment" is a poor excuse when you have angry farmers yelling outside one door, and poor hungry people outside the other.
  - puchatek 5y ago
    If this was the only driver then the logical response wouldn't be a ban but rather more r&d spending to develop European alternatives.
smhost 5y ago
"we shouldn't mess with nature" is also a naturalistic fallacy, fyi
- FooHentai 5y ago
  No it isn't. While the naturalistic fallacy is the belief that natural = preferable, and that does sit very close to 'don't mess with nature', so too does the Precautionary Principle, and I would argue that sits supreme. We can argue about the degree of overlap of course, but it's not clear cut. I believe our scientific understanding in this area is at best partial, and so minimal interference only where strong justification exists is preferable.
  - smhost 5y ago
    yes it is. "we shouldn't mess with nature" and "we should be cautious when we are messing with nature" are two completely different things.
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    The precautionary principle is false though. If you have a good explanation of the dangers of a particular action, then that’s sufficient to argue for caution—there’s no need for an additional principle, because you have an explanation about the dangers involved. If you don’t have a good explanation of the dangers of a particular action, then you definitely don’t need a principle to tell you how cautious you ought to be. Presumably even when abiding by the precautionary principle one must estimate the plausibility of any hypothetical danger (to avoid universal hypothetical dangers of the form “there could be a wizard out there who has decided that they will kill us if we do X”), but developing good explanations for the plausibility of dangers is precisely the work mentioned in the previous paragraph that obviates the need for the precautionary principle.
- selcuka 5y ago
  If you are pointing at me, I have never said that.
  - 5y ago

asdff 5y ago

Different means to the same ends. DNA is DNA no matter what organism it is in. Many genes are conserved through most orders of life.

selcuka 5y ago
Again, I'm not a biologist but I highly doubt that. Evolution had millions of years to create very specialised genes in different organisms. Genes have complex interactions between them and we don't always have a full grasp of those interactions. Cherry picking a single gene from an insect and transplanting it onto a plant might have unforeseen effects. I'm neither pro-pesticide nor anti-GMO but we should refrain ourselves from a blanket "GMO is natural, hence better than chemicals" statement.
- samatman 5y ago
  Well you shouldn't. We share about 50% of our DNA with a banana.
  - immibis 5y ago
    And that 50% seems to do something very different in humans than in bananas
    - asdff 5y ago
      Usually it does the exact same things actually!
  - selcuka 5y ago
    Exactly my point. It's a huge difference.

rmason 5y ago

Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is a naturally occurring bacterium in the soil that produces proteins specifically active against certain insects. This is the exact same insecticide used by certified organic growers. Plant breeders have just engineered the plants to produce it in their leaves, not in the corn itself. For thirty years objections have been raised, scientific research has been done disproving the objections. Yet Bt corn is still banned in a large part of Europe.

londons_explore 5y ago
There are other political reasons for the ban... Do you want your whole food supply dependant on licensing from another nation who is an ally today, but could use this as a bargaining chip to "do as we say or we'll stop licensing you corn and destroy your agriculture industry".
- Clewza313 5y ago
  Sure, but licensing/patents are entirely separate from the environment benefits here.
  - londons_explore 5y ago
    If you say "I'll take the environmental benefits, but pass on the patents/licensing", you're quickly gonna get slapped with sanctions. So they aren't really seperate.
  - fogihujy 5y ago
    They're definitely separate issues, but decision makers still need to take both into account. "It's better for the environment" is a poor excuse when you have angry farmers yelling outside one door, and poor hungry people outside the other.
- puchatek 5y ago
  If this was the only driver then the logical response wouldn't be a ban but rather more r&d spending to develop European alternatives.

smhost 5y ago

"we shouldn't mess with nature" is also a naturalistic fallacy, fyi

FooHentai 5y ago
No it isn't. While the naturalistic fallacy is the belief that natural = preferable, and that does sit very close to 'don't mess with nature', so too does the Precautionary Principle, and I would argue that sits supreme. We can argue about the degree of overlap of course, but it's not clear cut. I believe our scientific understanding in this area is at best partial, and so minimal interference only where strong justification exists is preferable.
- smhost 5y ago
  yes it is. "we shouldn't mess with nature" and "we should be cautious when we are messing with nature" are two completely different things.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  The precautionary principle is false though. If you have a good explanation of the dangers of a particular action, then that’s sufficient to argue for caution—there’s no need for an additional principle, because you have an explanation about the dangers involved. If you don’t have a good explanation of the dangers of a particular action, then you definitely don’t need a principle to tell you how cautious you ought to be. Presumably even when abiding by the precautionary principle one must estimate the plausibility of any hypothetical danger (to avoid universal hypothetical dangers of the form “there could be a wizard out there who has decided that they will kill us if we do X”), but developing good explanations for the plausibility of dangers is precisely the work mentioned in the previous paragraph that obviates the need for the precautionary principle.
selcuka 5y ago
If you are pointing at me, I have never said that.
- 5y ago