4 ms·
From the TFA > In general, a higher democracy index correlates with greater GM acceptance, although large differences exist between individual nations.5 South
by abdullahkhalids 1y ago
From the TFA
> In general, a higher democracy index correlates with greater GM acceptance, although large differences exist between individual nations.5 South America contains both pro-GM and GM-skeptical nations. When comparing the two using the Democracy Index, however, the pro-GM countries have a consistently higher Democracy Index (6.8) than those that ban GM (4.4). Similarly, the mean Democracy Index for Sub-Saharan African countries that cultivate or are currently legislating towards GM crop cultivation (4.7) is higher than those that ban it (3.5).
> This suggests that fostering democratic accountability is not simply a political good in itself, but also a precursor for enabling science-based agriculture. For countries looking to promote GM, the priority may not be exporting “democracy” wholesale, but supporting governments in building credibility, transparency, and public trust — the very conditions under which new technologies can take root.
This makes this piece sound like a political propaganda post. There is no concrete causal mechanism posited here, just vague assertions. Two seconds of thought would reveal that all non-democratic countries have adopted technologies of all sorts. And people in those countries use technologies extensively in daily life.
I would assume it is easier for corporations to spread bribes around in a decentralized decision making system like representative democracy, than it is in centralized authoritarian systems.
- hollerith 1y agoI agree: at first glance it is a very flimsy argument -- made by an organization whose entire purpose seems to be to advocate for what they consider to be technological progress specifically in the biological domain.
- kranke155 1y agoGMOs allowed for the huge expansion on the use of pesticides in America, since the crops are "pesticide ready".
- Symmetry 1y agoThey've allowed for a huge expansion of the use of herbicide but drastically reduced the use of insecticide. I'd much rather have the former than the later.
- kranke155 11mo agoHerbicide was initially decreased but then increased due to resistance. Could the same happen to insecticide?
- parineum 1y agoWhat do you think farmers were doing before GM crops?
- kranke155 11mo agoUsing a bit less pesticide
- arandr0x 1y agoIs there not a confounding factor at play that a more functional government would facilitate both more democracy and more legislation on newer technology? Is this notion that "it might be nice to help your target market have a generally working government to facilitate them being willing to divert money towards non-corruption goals and able to protect your market with laws" really that new? (Here the model would be that democracy is something that countries develop once they have some OK government systems, not that democracy in itself makes those systems better, but it works with the causation the other way too)
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- margalabargala 1y ago> I would assume it is easier for corporations to spread bribes around in a decentralized decision making system like representative democracy, than it is in centralized authoritarian systems. I would assume the opposite. The more authoritarian the country, the fewer people who need to be bribed to get what you want, generally speaking (placing things like lobbying under the umbrella of bribes).