Slashdot Mirror
Those Opposed To Scientific Consensus Bolstered By 'Illusion of Knowledge' (edmontonjournal.com)
The Edmonton Journal reports:
Recently, researchers asked more than 2,000 American and European adults their thoughts about genetically modified foods. They also asked them how much they thought they understood about GM foods, and a series of 15 true-false questions to test how much they actually knew about genetics and science in general. The researchers were interested in studying a perverse human phenomenon: People tend to be lousy judges of how much they know. Across four studies conducted in three countries -- the U.S., France and Germany -- the researchers found that extreme opponents of genetically modified foods "display a lack of insight into how much they know." They know the least, but think they know the most. "The less people know," the authors conclude, "the more opposed they are to the scientific consensus."
Science communicators have made concerted efforts to educate the public with an eye to bringing their attitudes in line with the experts," they write in the journal Nature Human Behaviour. But people with an inflated sense of what they actually know -- and most in need of education -- are also the ones least likely to be open to new information.... Extreme views often come along with not appreciating the complexity of the subject -- "not realizing how much there is to know," said Philip Fernbach, lead author of the new study and a professor of marketing at the University of Colorado Boulder. "People who don't know very much think they know a lot, and that is the basis for their extreme views."
Slashdot reader Layzej links to Rational Wiki's article on "The Backfire Effect," to illustrate Fernbach's observation that "People double down on their 'counter-scientific consensus attitudes'.
"Epecially when people feel threatened or if they are being treated as if they are stupid."
Science communicators have made concerted efforts to educate the public with an eye to bringing their attitudes in line with the experts," they write in the journal Nature Human Behaviour. But people with an inflated sense of what they actually know -- and most in need of education -- are also the ones least likely to be open to new information.... Extreme views often come along with not appreciating the complexity of the subject -- "not realizing how much there is to know," said Philip Fernbach, lead author of the new study and a professor of marketing at the University of Colorado Boulder. "People who don't know very much think they know a lot, and that is the basis for their extreme views."
Slashdot reader Layzej links to Rational Wiki's article on "The Backfire Effect," to illustrate Fernbach's observation that "People double down on their 'counter-scientific consensus attitudes'.
"Epecially when people feel threatened or if they are being treated as if they are stupid."
The genetic modifications are unlikely to cause many problems. However, glyphosate (Round-Up) is used on these GM crops by the millions of tons and it is toxic.
Herein lies the whole mess over genetically modified foods.
Somehow, Monsanto and their utterly stupid Roundup ready products have been deemed the equivalent of any and every genetically modified foodcrop. D-K is in full power here.
When in fact, we have been eating genetically modified food for thousands of years. Corn and wheat bear very little resemblance to their original plant, having been heavily genetically modified. Teosinte to Zea to a multitude of corn crops makes a good read.
As well, the traditional and presumably acceptable genetic modification methods are quite capable of producing toxic results. Google the Lenape potato.
So anyhow, the anti GMO crowd is simply suffering a milder version of the mindset that produces Anti-Vaxxers, or denial of the energy retention effects of certain atmospheric gases. Enjoy yourselves, and remember to equate all GMO with the BS that Monsato is doing.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
First, there is not much doubt that in the far future humans will drastically modify species including their own
We started that 10,000 years ago when we started selectively breeding for farming.
For example, the ancestor of corn looks absolutely nothing like the plant we farm today. And the plant we farm today can not exist without human intervention (a cob that falls to the ground will produce a ton of offspring right next to each other, and none of them will be able to grow enough to produce another generation.)
So, your framing as "the distant future" is not accurate. The tools changed over the millennia, but that doesn't mean we were not doing it. And no, it is nothing like a "long-term qualitative shift". It utterly alters the plant/animal, to the point where it can not exist without us and its nutritional content is radically different.
And that's not even discussing chemically-driven or radiation-driven natural selection. (The products of which are not legally GMOs, despite "blasting it with gamma rays and see what happens" is modifying the fuck out of the genome)
Once GM food is ubiquitous, maybe animals will be modified next
Again, you're a few millennia too late. Dogs vs wolves/wild canids, Pigs vs boars, Cows vs whatever went extinct after we domesticated cows.
and then humans
We've been doing that too. There's a hell of a lot of human features that do not make sense and are not seen in the "natural world". Like boobs. Human females have them for their entire life after puberty. Chimps and other close relatives only have appreciable breast tissue while breast-feeding. Every other mammal is similar to chimps in this regard. And lifelong boobs are not better at feeding children. So they probably came from artificial selection.
If you combine all those points, especially the third and fifth, then it seems that not being too liberal about GM technology and thinking this through in a bit more detail could be advisable
Your evidence that this "thinking though" did not happen? You not hearing about it isn't evidence. There actually was a good amount of study with test plots and measuring hybridization with wild types before widespread planting.
This experimentation inherently requires participation of the producer of the GMO - they have the seeds. USDA and FDA reviewed the results (in the US).
They also are lobbying very intensively against labelling GM food
So, my problem with this particular piece of the argument is you leave out that "Big Food" is on both sides of the GMO debate. And the fight over labeling exposes that.
A "GMO Free" label is easy to apply. You aren't forcing someone to do what they do not want to do - they're already happily growing without GMOs anyway.
A "GMO Free" label could follow the path used to create the "Organic" label - industry sets up a trade group to come up with standards, growers started following those standards, and pretty quickly the industry standard became a legal standard. Because everyone who was already doing it wanted the label and the extra money that came from it.
So why not do that with a "GMO Free" label? Money. Consumers who are afraid of GMOs can only buy products labeled "Organic" to avoid GMOs. And the profit for Organic is higher than the profit for conventionally-farmed non-GMO crops, but only as long as you give consumers a reason to pay a big premium....like avoidance of GMOs.
Forcing a "Contains GMOs" label created a fight with GMO producers, because they didn't want it. That fight helped amplify fears over GMOs and drive those consumers towards Organic. This fight delayed putting on label on the products that would give the consumers the information the fighters claim to want. The lack of a "GMO Free" label tells you it has