4 ms·

But we've been fucking around with nature for a long time without fully understanding it. In fact a lot of that fucking around has led to us understanding natu

• api 13y ago
  You're both right IMHO. I actually think the GMO people would have more credibility if they admitted that there were possible risks and explained the risks vs. the benefits. Pretending there are no risks makes you sound like a shill, and today the instant people get a whiff of shill they blacklist you and anything you stand for. Re: #2 above: I asked a friend of mine who is very anti-GMO whether she would be more open to them if they were produced by open non-profit organizations working in the public interest. She said yes, she'd be more willing to consider their benefits in that case, but that she wasn't going to eat food "designed by corporations that are all run by sociopaths." The perception that corporations are "run by sociopaths" is not wholly unfounded or irrational. Obviously all of them aren't, but even Peter Thiel admits that the percentage of sociopaths in high-up corporate and government positions is far larger than in the general population. I have to ask then: do we really want organizations run by sociopaths programming the genome of the world's food supplies?
  • hitchhiker999 13y ago
    "if they admitted that there were possible risks and explained the risks vs. the benefits." I think that nicely sums up my viewpoint. Hanging around with 'intellectuals' these days can leave you tired and disillusioned, though this little thread was a refreshingly pleasant bit of discourse. All I want is a balanced perspective, it's never "this OR that"!