4 ms·

GMO crops hold incredible potential to feed a world population that continues to grow by leaps and bounds. It has the power to do that with reduced pesticide us

GMO crops hold incredible potential to feed a world population that continues to grow by leaps and bounds. It has the power to do that with reduced pesticide use, taking pressures off of endangered species, and by bringing crops to parts of the world where they will not grow. There is ZERO evidence that GMO crops have any detrimental health effects, and as hackers we have to stand up to this anti-science nonsense[1]. As for Monsanto. After the Organic Seed Growers brought a class-action suit against the company for unjustly suing innocent farmers whose crops were inadvertently cross-pollinated, I found it incredibly damning that the judge had to throw the case out because the organic farmers could not produce one single example of this ever happening[2]. Nevertheless, this case being dismissed for lack of a victim has actually been used as more proof of Monsanto's control over all branches and departments of government by the tin-foil hat brigade. [1] http://ideonexus.com/2011/12/05/gmo-foods-and-the-promise-a-second-green-revolution/ http://ideonexus.com/2011/12/05/gmo-foods-and-the-promise-a-... [2] https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B83aJv4L7U-iYzYyMzQxOTktZjY5Mi00MDA1LWE0NjgtNjg2YTgzY2MxMDAy/edit https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B83aJv4L7U-iYzYyMzQxOTktZjY5...

hkolek 13y ago
> a world population that continues to grow by leaps and bounds not so much: http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/#growthrate http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/#growthrate
stefantalpalaru 13y ago
> as hackers we have to stand up to this anti-science nonsense As hackers we have to question everything instead of being true believers (in science or anything else).
- hga 13y ago
  As hackers we have to apply heuristics as to what to seriously question or we'll go bonkers, not to mention be seriously unproductive.
- splawn 13y ago
  Perhaps its a semantic thing, but isn't questioning everything instead of being a true believer the basis of science?
  - stefantalpalaru 13y ago
    In theory, yes, but in practice it's highly unlikely that the vast majority of people would be able to duplicate experiments and verify results. And I'm not talking just about the "I fucking love science" crowd. Even people working in labs will have a very hard time finding resources to repeat an already published (and presumably correct) scientific experiment instead of doing new publishable work. For the rest of us it all boils down to trusting those held in respect by their peers and that is a belief system. Occasionally reinforced by shunning the nay-sayers as "anti-science"...
    - hga 13y ago
      You don't have to reproduce the results to implicitly verify them. As I understand it, the normal pattern is that if the results are important, researchers will do stuff based upon then, and if the results were wrong their experiments won't go right. Eventually they try reproducing the original to figure out what's wrong, and that can lead to people deciding the original was wrong. If the results aren't important, they don't tend to get built upon, they mostly just matter for someone getting tenure, the next grant, whatever.

hkolek 13y ago

> a world population that continues to grow by leaps and bounds not so much: http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/#growthrate http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/#growthrate

stefantalpalaru 13y ago

> as hackers we have to stand up to this anti-science nonsense As hackers we have to question everything instead of being true believers (in science or anything else).

hga 13y ago
As hackers we have to apply heuristics as to what to seriously question or we'll go bonkers, not to mention be seriously unproductive.
splawn 13y ago
Perhaps its a semantic thing, but isn't questioning everything instead of being a true believer the basis of science?
- stefantalpalaru 13y ago
  In theory, yes, but in practice it's highly unlikely that the vast majority of people would be able to duplicate experiments and verify results. And I'm not talking just about the "I fucking love science" crowd. Even people working in labs will have a very hard time finding resources to repeat an already published (and presumably correct) scientific experiment instead of doing new publishable work. For the rest of us it all boils down to trusting those held in respect by their peers and that is a belief system. Occasionally reinforced by shunning the nay-sayers as "anti-science"...
  - hga 13y ago
    You don't have to reproduce the results to implicitly verify them. As I understand it, the normal pattern is that if the results are important, researchers will do stuff based upon then, and if the results were wrong their experiments won't go right. Eventually they try reproducing the original to figure out what's wrong, and that can lead to people deciding the original was wrong. If the results aren't important, they don't tend to get built upon, they mostly just matter for someone getting tenure, the next grant, whatever.