11–20 of 85 posts
I'm not saying that's an easy separation to make, but science and technology will continue to move forward. If it brings about our end, so be it. You can say the same about a lot of different technologies. It just happens to be the dangerous phase we are in (transitioning from a Type 0 to a Type 1 civilization on the Kardashev scale).
Along the line of the argument, "John Smith, leading health care reform advocate, admits health care reform is unnecessary." And "Renowned atheist, on deathbed, admits atheism was a mistake." At least with the atheist guy I had heard of him.
So it is an 'appeal to authority' argument, but it's not even an authority who many people have heard of, and fewer still have ever thought of as an authority on the topic, and in fact who it looks like the side he is now aligned did not consider to be an authority until he said he now agreed with them.
Also the article's suggestion that this guy created GMO criticism and without him no one would have asked questions about GMO safety is absurd. Lots of people have reasonably been asking those questions. It's absolutely not something that one person created out of nothing and became the undisputed world leader as if he is some kind of pope. The article reads a lot like propaganda trying to create a straw man leader and then watch as the straw man commits suicide.
Another problem is the conflating of criticism with attacks/vilification, and the ad-hominem use of claiming critics are anti-science: "To vilify GMOs is to be as anti-science as climate-change deniers". This is the opposite of reality. It is very science oriented to ask about risks and be as interested in long term safety trials as we are with pharmaceuticals.
(To be clear, I am not getting to pros or cons of the argument, just noting this article makes a poor argument.)
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I know enough to know that we don't know enough. Too many times we've done things that in hindsight should never have been done had we had more information. I fear this may be one of those times.
His views are insubstantial. His main argument is that his previous ad hominem positions were not sufficient to condemn GMOs (correct) and that GMOs haven't caused any problems yet. He has not presented evidence that GMO's are safe. He has two main arguments: 1. Trial and error crossbreeding affects entire genes. 2. Viruses sometimes spread genes from one organism to another. First, trial and error crossbreeding isn'…
I'm curious what sort of realistic disaster scenario you think might occur due to cross-species gene transfer (and for that matter, purely synthetic genes) in GMOs, and how the existing safeguards are inadequate against it. Normally I'm against FUD, but please, go nuts, so long as there's a reasonable chance of it occurring (i.e. we're not talking about a mad scientist who wants to create man-eating plants)
Some mutation makes crop more vulnerable to a particular plant virus, destroying 80% of that crop in EU or US?
A huge multinational wants to include "TERMINATOR GENES" in their crops to make sure the cropped seed cannot grow; environmentalists freak out at the name and oppose that; the multinational doesn't include that gene but now inspect the fields of people on the route of seed delivery and if they find any gene-manipulated crop (which is probable from wind-blown seed) they sue the farmer into oblivion.
His views are insubstantial. His main argument is that his previous ad hominem positions were not sufficient to condemn GMOs (correct) and that GMOs haven't caused any problems yet. He has not presented evidence that GMO's are safe. He has two main arguments: 1. Trial and error crossbreeding affects entire genes. 2. Viruses sometimes spread genes from one organism to another. First, trial and error crossbreeding isn'…
I read his argument differently. He is not claiming they are safe in an absolutist sense, merely that they are safe enough to alleviate the food shortage the world faces without them.
One of the big concerns is micronutrients in Asia. We don't need GMOd crops for vitamin and mineral supplementation.
His views are insubstantial. His main argument is that his previous ad hominem positions were not sufficient to condemn GMOs (correct) and that GMOs haven't caused any problems yet. He has not presented evidence that GMO's are safe. He has two main arguments: 1. Trial and error crossbreeding affects entire genes. 2. Viruses sometimes spread genes from one organism to another. First, trial and error crossbreeding isn'…
I've never understood this argument. It basically amounts to "yes, there are advantages to GMOs, but we haven't found any disadvantages yet, therefore they are unsafe!"
This is basically the equivalent of early seafarers being afraid of uncharted waters and writing on their maps "here be dragons".
edit: I should also point out that the complexity of a system does not necessarily mean that messing with it will cause problems. If anything, that same complexity may include many fail-safe mechanisms to prevent problems when the system is messed with.
Never heard of this guy. Along the line of the argument, "John Smith, leading health care reform advocate, admits health care reform is unnecessary." And "Renowned atheist, on deathbed, admits atheism was a mistake." At least with the atheist guy I had heard of him. So it is an 'appeal to authority' argument, but it's not even an authority who many people have heard of, and fewer still have ever thought of as an auth…
Never heard of this guy. Along the line of the argument, "John Smith, leading health care reform advocate, admits health care reform is unnecessary." And "Renowned atheist, on deathbed, admits atheism was a mistake." At least with the atheist guy I had heard of him. So it is an 'appeal to authority' argument, but it's not even an authority who many people have heard of, and fewer still have ever thought of as an auth…
The headline was written by a poor winner, but that doesn't make the content less interesting.
His views are insubstantial. His main argument is that his previous ad hominem positions were not sufficient to condemn GMOs (correct) and that GMOs haven't caused any problems yet. He has not presented evidence that GMO's are safe. He has two main arguments: 1. Trial and error crossbreeding affects entire genes. 2. Viruses sometimes spread genes from one organism to another. First, trial and error crossbreeding isn'…
Q. What do you call someone who supports nuclear power, shale gas fracking and GM crops?
A. An environmentalist.