4 ms·

>Do you have any scientific argument against genetic manipulation? The line of thinking behind this type of question always strikes me as either incredibly nai

>Do you have any scientific argument against genetic manipulation? The line of thinking behind this type of question always strikes me as either incredibly naive or purposely misleading. There is a gaping hole in the way we sometimes wield our scientific approach to these things. On one hand, we say that a thing (such as ill-effects of GMO crops) must be observed, measured and quantified in order for us to accept that it exists. The fallacy enters when we then state categorically that in the absence of such evidence, the thing does not exist. The presumption is then that virtually anything is safe until proven otherwise. Human history is literally filled with applications of this logic that ultimately proved harmful and even disastrous. Yet, we go on repeating this process and scratching our heads over questions such as, "why is x health-problem on the rise? Why is y animal dying?" And, when we inject such flawed logic into something as complex and interconnected as nature, we are literally begging for unintended consequences--the ecosystem and all that. Someone else on this thread suggested that we solve this problem by engineering hardier milkweed. I think that pretty much says it all. I am not saying that GMOs are without benefit or even that its risks or too high for those benefits. It just strikes me as both arrogant and short-sighted that we presume to know that the risks are worth the benefits, simply because we haven't yet proved otherwise.

hitchhiker999 12y ago
It's so refreshing to know that there are other people applying (what I previously assumed was ubiquitous) common sense rationale to these issues. What's frightening is how far and wide you need to search to find comments like yours. Most are simply mindlessly perpetuating one side or another of the artificial polarity: "You 'hate' GMO, so you hate science" vs "GMO is evil, without any merit" Childish, tiring. It has also begun to fracture society into more factions, more extremes. It's time for us to grow up. My opinion is: GMOs are most likely a very useful tool, however the people in-charge of the direction appear to lack the emotional maturity to handle the greater responsibility. Until better people are in the driver's seat, we should proceed with extreme caution (which we are not doing).
- Oletros 12y ago
  > It's so refreshing to know that there are other people applying (what I previously assumed was ubiquitous) common sense rationale to these issues. I'm still trying to find common sense in his or your comments. You don't want GMO because you don't trust big companies even if you don't know what GMOS is used for. That argument is not common sense, is just ignorance and bias. Can both of you just provide ONE scientific reason against GMO, and no, GMOS are not just crops.
Oletros 12y ago
> The fallacy enters when we then state categorically that in the absence of such evidence, the thing does not exist. So, how many years must something being observed before saying that is safe? 20 years, 100 years, 1.000 years? Are you saying that GMO insulin is not safe? > It just strikes me as both arrogant and short-sighted that we presume to know that the risks are worth the benefits, simply because we haven't yet proved otherwise. Can you explain why after more than 30 years of observation not finding adverse effects is just short-sighted and arrogant ?
- unclebucknasty 12y ago
  >So, how many years must something being observed before saying that is safe? >Are you saying that GMO insulin is not safe? To the extent that you've addressed my point at all, you've helped to make it. I mean everything is safe until it isn't right? And, this is the part where I respond by offering some evidence that you contest, thus again declaring all GMOs completely safe. But, the irony of your response doesn't appear to have occured to you, so let me ask you a question: is it your claim that everything that was declared safe after some "acceptable" period of observation has ultimately proven to be so? If not, then what could possibly have gone wrong in our conclusions? Feel free to think beyond GMOs if that helps you to see more clearly.
  - Oletros 12y ago
    > To the extent that you've addressed my point at all, you've helped to make it. I mean everything is safe until it isn't right? No, this is not my point. > And, this is the part where I respond by offering some evidence that you contest, thus again declaring all GMOs completely safe Where I have declared all GMO's completely safe? > is it your claim that everything that was declared safe after some "acceptable" period of observation has ultimately proven to be so? No, this is not my claim > is it your claim that everything that was declared safe after some "acceptable" period of observation has ultimately proven to be so? If not, then what could possibly have gone wrong in our conclusions? No, my claim is that using your argument we can't use anything because in some distant future we can find that it is not safe. I ask again, how many time we can wait until we can use some technology/medicine/etc > Feel free to think beyond GMOs if that helps you to see more clearly. I'm not thinking in GMO's

hitchhiker999 12y ago

It's so refreshing to know that there are other people applying (what I previously assumed was ubiquitous) common sense rationale to these issues. What's frightening is how far and wide you need to search to find comments like yours. Most are simply mindlessly perpetuating one side or another of the artificial polarity: "You 'hate' GMO, so you hate science" vs "GMO is evil, without any merit" Childish, tiring. It has also begun to fracture society into more factions, more extremes. It's time for us to grow up. My opinion is: GMOs are most likely a very useful tool, however the people in-charge of the direction appear to lack the emotional maturity to handle the greater responsibility. Until better people are in the driver's seat, we should proceed with extreme caution (which we are not doing).

Oletros 12y ago
> It's so refreshing to know that there are other people applying (what I previously assumed was ubiquitous) common sense rationale to these issues. I'm still trying to find common sense in his or your comments. You don't want GMO because you don't trust big companies even if you don't know what GMOS is used for. That argument is not common sense, is just ignorance and bias. Can both of you just provide ONE scientific reason against GMO, and no, GMOS are not just crops.

Oletros 12y ago

> The fallacy enters when we then state categorically that in the absence of such evidence, the thing does not exist. So, how many years must something being observed before saying that is safe? 20 years, 100 years, 1.000 years? Are you saying that GMO insulin is not safe? > It just strikes me as both arrogant and short-sighted that we presume to know that the risks are worth the benefits, simply because we haven't yet proved otherwise. Can you explain why after more than 30 years of observation not finding adverse effects is just short-sighted and arrogant ?

unclebucknasty 12y ago
>So, how many years must something being observed before saying that is safe? >Are you saying that GMO insulin is not safe? To the extent that you've addressed my point at all, you've helped to make it. I mean everything is safe until it isn't right? And, this is the part where I respond by offering some evidence that you contest, thus again declaring all GMOs completely safe. But, the irony of your response doesn't appear to have occured to you, so let me ask you a question: is it your claim that everything that was declared safe after some "acceptable" period of observation has ultimately proven to be so? If not, then what could possibly have gone wrong in our conclusions? Feel free to think beyond GMOs if that helps you to see more clearly.
- Oletros 12y ago
  > To the extent that you've addressed my point at all, you've helped to make it. I mean everything is safe until it isn't right? No, this is not my point. > And, this is the part where I respond by offering some evidence that you contest, thus again declaring all GMOs completely safe Where I have declared all GMO's completely safe? > is it your claim that everything that was declared safe after some "acceptable" period of observation has ultimately proven to be so? No, this is not my claim > is it your claim that everything that was declared safe after some "acceptable" period of observation has ultimately proven to be so? If not, then what could possibly have gone wrong in our conclusions? No, my claim is that using your argument we can't use anything because in some distant future we can find that it is not safe. I ask again, how many time we can wait until we can use some technology/medicine/etc > Feel free to think beyond GMOs if that helps you to see more clearly. I'm not thinking in GMO's