5 ms·

"I think there are similarities between the nuclear power debate and the GMO debate. In both case, I think it's stupid to be fundamentally opposed to the techno

by wissler 13y ago

"I think there are similarities between the nuclear power debate and the GMO debate. In both case, I think it's stupid to be fundamentally opposed to the technology/research itself. But in both case, the industry is so fucked up (lies, too close ties with control authority, ...) that I don't trust them at all." If you look around you'll find a lot more examples than these two, and you'll trace the root cause as illegitimate use of government force, i.e. use or threat of violence for what is simply peaceful activity. If someone threatens you with violence, "for your own good", you tend not to trust. But for some reason, when government does this very same thing, most people still trust it. It's like how children still trust parents even though the parents might restrain or even spank them (and this makes good evolutionary sense), but the difference is that the government is not your parent, it does not actually have a concern for you as an individual, it doesn't love you. It is a collection of strangers with their own agendas. Somehow, government has figured out how to not only co-opt this evolutionary circuitry that was meant for trusting parents at a time when the child really doesn't know what's good for him, and what's more, extend this infantile frame of mind beyond childhood. All of this recent NSA stuff is just getting toward the final consequences of allowing yourself to adopt such a childish frame of mind. The government has no more right to take a threatening or coercive action against innocent people than any stranger does.

moens 13y ago
I think this childishness is the essential requirement of centralized power. Our current economic system rises from our (personal) taste for the conveniences of centralized power. For it we are willing to relinquish personal responsibility and individuality. Many early people groups (nomads, pueblos, even manors and unfederated fifedoms), had optimized for small communities. Presumably they were not aware of the efficiency of centralized power, or capable of the centralization we can accomplish today. Some apparently were aware, and chose the benefits of small communities. I believe we are now at a crossroads. We choose small communities and relinquish the convenience of centralized power, or we submit to the requirements of centralized power (lack of privacy, lack of individuality, etc).
anigbrowl 13y ago
What does this have to do with the government not exerting sufficient regulatory force against bad actors in the nuclear industry? After all, people who don't like being regulated frequently trot out your very complaint as an excuse for why they should not be subject to more regulation. I think you're confused.
- wissler 13y ago
  I think you're confused. Actually, you're just misinformed, e.g. read this: http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/priceanderson-act-is-it-consistent-sound-energy-policy http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/priceanders...
  - nl 13y ago
    For those who didn't click the link: This is a 1984 argument from the Cato institute that an act limiting liability to nuclear power facilities should not be renewed. I think wissler is implying that this shows that the government does "not exert[ing] sufficient regulatory force against bad actors in the nuclear industry" I think many non-libertarians would agree with that analysis, but would add that the existence of bad regulation does not invalidate the idea that regulation is appropriate. To be clear: most non-libertarians are less inclined to agree with the idea that this use of government force is illegitimate.
    - wissler 13y ago
      Whether most agree or disagree is irrelevant. It is immoral to attack someone who has not attacked or threatened you. It is likewise immoral to advocate attacking innocents. Take that how you will. Nuclear power is a special case since it arguably represents a threat, even libertarians would argue that it should be "regulated", in the sense of being required to prove that it's safe. Part of proving safety is by being able to obtain private insurance from a reputable insurer, which is precisely contrary to the non-libertarian solution of just having the government say "just trust us, the nuclear power is fine, and besides, it helps us build nuclear weapons."
mtdewcmu 13y ago
Has GMO ever been confirmed to have harmed anybody? Confusion between real and imagined threats could be part of the problem. Nuclear accidents will kill you, as in -- dead.
- specialist 13y ago
  GMO is like hammering. It can be used for good or evil. The informed opposition to GMO covers two types of modifications. #1 Making plants more resistant to herbicides, so that more herbicides can be used. #2 Giving plants new abilities to create their own insecticides. Both are terrible ideas. Mostly because they're pumping the biological arms race as well as the side effects. GMO for increased yield, durability, flavor, whatever are totally okay (depending on ones esthetics). We've been doing that for millennia thru breeding, artificial selection, and hybridization.
  - mtdewcmu 13y ago
    "Both are terrible ideas. Mostly because they're pumping the biological arms race as well as the side effects." The notion that the genes spliced into crops could spark an evolutionary feedback loop that spirals out of control -- the evidence doesn't indicate any great cause for alarm, afaik. And the toxic side effects are unlikely to be of greater concern than from chemicals made in labs. I think the amount of public alarm about GMO is way out of proportion to the actual risk. This technology holds the promise of making agriculture less damaging and more efficient. I think the fixation on this issue is related to traits that make it a good a viral meme, and have nothing to do with rational risk-assessment.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >Has GMO ever been confirmed to have harmed anybody? There are sereval of studies that show that those examined can be harmful -- but it's a whole field, one cannot speak for all of them as harmful, can only examine them one by one. The general practice is harmful to me, because profit motives and patents are involved. I don't think just because they found out how to genetically modify plants that they also can understand the long term effects of their creations (to other plants, insects, animal life, the consumer, etc). Nor do I believe that they have the scientific rigor and patience to study those with the timeframes needed. It's more: "fuck it, let's sell these things". Plus it's a huge industry, with trillions to be made, that dwarfs smoke -- not many research labs get the funds to examine it critically. It's like pre-eighties, when tons of smoke studies were sponsored by tobacco companies, and found "little or no evidence" of it causing cancer.
leot 13y ago
When those in power (in the U.S.) take as a prior that gov't can't/won't work, then they're given an excuse to not really act in the public's interest in good faith, or to try hard to design a regulatory framework that could actually function. Belief in government dysfunction becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy (that conveniently most benefits those who are already most powerful, those individuals whose power can only be checked by government). The solution to "regulatory capture" is sometimes less regulation, but at other times transparency and better regulation. This is the real world, and there aren't any silver bullets.

by wissler 13y ago

moens 13y ago

I think this childishness is the essential requirement of centralized power. Our current economic system rises from our (personal) taste for the conveniences of centralized power. For it we are willing to relinquish personal responsibility and individuality. Many early people groups (nomads, pueblos, even manors and unfederated fifedoms), had optimized for small communities. Presumably they were not aware of the efficiency of centralized power, or capable of the centralization we can accomplish today. Some apparently were aware, and chose the benefits of small communities. I believe we are now at a crossroads. We choose small communities and relinquish the convenience of centralized power, or we submit to the requirements of centralized power (lack of privacy, lack of individuality, etc).

anigbrowl 13y ago

What does this have to do with the government not exerting sufficient regulatory force against bad actors in the nuclear industry? After all, people who don't like being regulated frequently trot out your very complaint as an excuse for why they should not be subject to more regulation. I think you're confused.

wissler 13y ago
I think you're confused. Actually, you're just misinformed, e.g. read this: http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/priceanderson-act-is-it-consistent-sound-energy-policy http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/priceanders...
- nl 13y ago
  For those who didn't click the link: This is a 1984 argument from the Cato institute that an act limiting liability to nuclear power facilities should not be renewed. I think wissler is implying that this shows that the government does "not exert[ing] sufficient regulatory force against bad actors in the nuclear industry" I think many non-libertarians would agree with that analysis, but would add that the existence of bad regulation does not invalidate the idea that regulation is appropriate. To be clear: most non-libertarians are less inclined to agree with the idea that this use of government force is illegitimate.
  - wissler 13y ago
    Whether most agree or disagree is irrelevant. It is immoral to attack someone who has not attacked or threatened you. It is likewise immoral to advocate attacking innocents. Take that how you will. Nuclear power is a special case since it arguably represents a threat, even libertarians would argue that it should be "regulated", in the sense of being required to prove that it's safe. Part of proving safety is by being able to obtain private insurance from a reputable insurer, which is precisely contrary to the non-libertarian solution of just having the government say "just trust us, the nuclear power is fine, and besides, it helps us build nuclear weapons."

mtdewcmu 13y ago

Has GMO ever been confirmed to have harmed anybody? Confusion between real and imagined threats could be part of the problem. Nuclear accidents will kill you, as in -- dead.

specialist 13y ago
GMO is like hammering. It can be used for good or evil. The informed opposition to GMO covers two types of modifications. #1 Making plants more resistant to herbicides, so that more herbicides can be used. #2 Giving plants new abilities to create their own insecticides. Both are terrible ideas. Mostly because they're pumping the biological arms race as well as the side effects. GMO for increased yield, durability, flavor, whatever are totally okay (depending on ones esthetics). We've been doing that for millennia thru breeding, artificial selection, and hybridization.
- mtdewcmu 13y ago
  "Both are terrible ideas. Mostly because they're pumping the biological arms race as well as the side effects." The notion that the genes spliced into crops could spark an evolutionary feedback loop that spirals out of control -- the evidence doesn't indicate any great cause for alarm, afaik. And the toxic side effects are unlikely to be of greater concern than from chemicals made in labs. I think the amount of public alarm about GMO is way out of proportion to the actual risk. This technology holds the promise of making agriculture less damaging and more efficient. I think the fixation on this issue is related to traits that make it a good a viral meme, and have nothing to do with rational risk-assessment.
coldtea 13y ago
>Has GMO ever been confirmed to have harmed anybody? There are sereval of studies that show that those examined can be harmful -- but it's a whole field, one cannot speak for all of them as harmful, can only examine them one by one. The general practice is harmful to me, because profit motives and patents are involved. I don't think just because they found out how to genetically modify plants that they also can understand the long term effects of their creations (to other plants, insects, animal life, the consumer, etc). Nor do I believe that they have the scientific rigor and patience to study those with the timeframes needed. It's more: "fuck it, let's sell these things". Plus it's a huge industry, with trillions to be made, that dwarfs smoke -- not many research labs get the funds to examine it critically. It's like pre-eighties, when tons of smoke studies were sponsored by tobacco companies, and found "little or no evidence" of it causing cancer.

leot 13y ago

When those in power (in the U.S.) take as a prior that gov't can't/won't work, then they're given an excuse to not really act in the public's interest in good faith, or to try hard to design a regulatory framework that could actually function. Belief in government dysfunction becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy (that conveniently most benefits those who are already most powerful, those individuals whose power can only be checked by government). The solution to "regulatory capture" is sometimes less regulation, but at other times transparency and better regulation. This is the real world, and there aren't any silver bullets.