There's a a difference between being "anti-technology" and being cautious. Nassim Taleb's paper applying of the precautionary principle to the GMO debate is pro

There's a a difference between being "anti-technology" and being cautious. Nassim Taleb's paper applying of the precautionary principle to the GMO debate is probably the most lucid piece on the matter. There's a reason that most of the US population views the anti-vaccine crowd as delusional, while at the same time being skeptical of GMO's. Vaccines have been used for over a hundred years and have a very clear payoff. GMO's, not so much. You're writing these people off as anti-technology. That's wrong. These people use all modern technology just like you do. The odd-balls are actually people like you (and most engineers), who are eager to embrace new technology without thinking through potential negative consequences. I'm not saying that GMO's are bad or should be banned. But I do believe that the pro-business American approach is dead wrong. Just as the American approach to weight loss and nutritional supplements (just put them on the market, no need to test), is wrong. I'd argue that your approach (the American, pro-business approach) shows disdain for the scientific method. It's the kind of policy vomited out of a Congress where only 2 out of the 535 representatives are scientists. In China on the other hand, where 8 of the 9 top government officials are trained scientists [1], they're very skeptical of GMO's and have only allowed them, I believe, for the papaya crop. But as the data continues to comes in, the Chinese government is showing signs of warming up to GMO's -- as they should. [1] http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/why-dont-americans-elect-scientists/ http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/why-dont-a...