3 ms·

I actually am getting more concerned about transgenic food. Nassim Taleb’s arguments about limited upside with unlikely, but massive downside of these organisms

by scoofy 2y ago

I actually am getting more concerned about transgenic food. Nassim Taleb’s arguments about limited upside with unlikely, but massive downside of these organisms if they have unexpected outcomes. I’m obviously fine with genetic modification to plants to create crossbreeds of various types of, say, lettuce, but it seems like we are trying to change out plants instead of trying to change our farming practices. --- Edit: since people are likely looking for a citation here, and are likely to down by default (again, I don't think their is anything "wrong" or "unhealthy" about genetically modification), I'll add one of his papers on the subject. Again, the concern is only to do with the effects that significant modification could have on wild species, and not on consumption: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267214303_The_Precautionary_Principle_with_Application_to_the_Genetic_Modification_of_Organisms https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267214303_The_Preca... >Genetically Modiﬁed Organisms (GMOs) and their risk are currently the subject of debate. Here we argue that they fall squarely under the PP [Precautionary Principle] because their risk is systemic. There are two aspects of systemic risk, the widespread impact on the ecosystem and the widespread impact on health. >Ecologically, in addition to intentional cultivation, GMOs have the propensity to spread uncontrollably, and thus their risks cannot be localized. The cross-breeding of wild-type plants with genetically modified ones prevents their disentangling, leading to irreversible system-wide effects with unknown downsides. The ecological implications of releasing modified organisms into the wild are not tested empirically before release.

fsckboy 2y ago
pretty sure they were actually trying to change this plant without any need to change farming methods, so I think your intuition is on point.
parineum 2y ago
I understand these kind of concerns but it's comes from ignorance of context. Direct genetic modification is an improvement of the previous method of forced mutation by exposing seeds to UV and hoping for positive mutations. That method does not count as GMO. The major concerns of agriculture are still the same, monocultures and disease vulnerability.
- scoofy 2y ago
  I mean, again, the negative outcomes of these practices are unlikely. His concern is one of unlikely, but unforeseen negative outcomes with systemic risk regarding effects on wild species.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Taleb’s arguments about limited upside with unlikely, but massive downside of these organisms if they have unexpected outcomes When did Taleb become an expert on bioengineering? Nassim Taleb is the Malcom Gladwell of popular finance. He had to shutter his fund in 2005 after three consecutive years of losses [1]. (In fairness, after a 50+ percent gain in 2000. Nobody lost money on him. But a 4% CAGR over four years isn't hedge fund stuff, nor qualification to speak authoritatively on finance much less bioengineering.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirica_Capital https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirica_Capital
- scoofy 2y ago
  I mean, this seems entirely sensible if you want to completely ignore the creation of Universa a couple years later: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universa_Investments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universa_Investments
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    Fair enough, I wasn’t aware they had $16bn AUM [1]. [1] https://adviserinfo.sec.gov/firm/summary/146052 https://adviserinfo.sec.gov/firm/summary/146052
sandworm101 2y ago
>> change out plants instead of trying to change our farming practices. Because investors. Because new plants can be copyrighted/trademarked/patented/owned and then sold. New farming practices must be taught and cannot generally be owned by their inventors.

by scoofy 2y ago

fsckboy 2y ago

pretty sure they were actually trying to change this plant without any need to change farming methods, so I think your intuition is on point.

parineum 2y ago

I understand these kind of concerns but it's comes from ignorance of context. Direct genetic modification is an improvement of the previous method of forced mutation by exposing seeds to UV and hoping for positive mutations. That method does not count as GMO. The major concerns of agriculture are still the same, monocultures and disease vulnerability.

scoofy 2y ago
I mean, again, the negative outcomes of these practices are unlikely. His concern is one of unlikely, but unforeseen negative outcomes with systemic risk regarding effects on wild species.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Taleb’s arguments about limited upside with unlikely, but massive downside of these organisms if they have unexpected outcomes When did Taleb become an expert on bioengineering? Nassim Taleb is the Malcom Gladwell of popular finance. He had to shutter his fund in 2005 after three consecutive years of losses [1]. (In fairness, after a 50+ percent gain in 2000. Nobody lost money on him. But a 4% CAGR over four years isn't hedge fund stuff, nor qualification to speak authoritatively on finance much less bioengineering.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirica_Capital https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirica_Capital

scoofy 2y ago
I mean, this seems entirely sensible if you want to completely ignore the creation of Universa a couple years later: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universa_Investments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universa_Investments
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  Fair enough, I wasn’t aware they had $16bn AUM [1]. [1] https://adviserinfo.sec.gov/firm/summary/146052 https://adviserinfo.sec.gov/firm/summary/146052

sandworm101 2y ago

>> change out plants instead of trying to change our farming practices. Because investors. Because new plants can be copyrighted/trademarked/patented/owned and then sold. New farming practices must be taught and cannot generally be owned by their inventors.