A degree is a tool. It's a tool to demonstrate ability. It's not perfect, but it's what we have. People who don't have that tool need to find another tool, perhaps a tool such as entrepreneurship, or exceptional skills of persuasion.
I sincerely appreciate the link. I considered scoffing, but instead I took a little time and looked over those documents. They all seem to be from 1991-3 (and so does the website), so I'm wondering where is the science from the last two decades. Nevertheless, science from my childhood is still valid, so I started reading.
I didn't have time to read every link, but I read "our summary" of about ten papers. Unfortunately they weren't really summaries, which would have saved some time, but I persisted. I focused on the sentences which were underlined, but in the end I was underwhelmed.
is a request for the FDA to review a marker gene. There is no alarming warning, let alone the result of a study showing harm. Honest question: is a request for a study supposed to make me worry?
which appears to be a statement of purpose for the FDA and options for regulating foods. The options strike me as boring and procedural. Honext question: is that supposed to make me worry?
this one is interesting. It is a critique of some report. The critique suggests some language changes. To me, it sounds perfectly reasonable to 'focus on the safety of food, not the method of production', but maybe other people want to focus on the method of production instead of the safety of the food? Honest question: is it your position that the method of production deserves more attention than the safety of the end product?
When you engage in this kind of discussion in the future, you might do well to find a different list of links to provide. Otherwise you might run across a person like me who (ahem) puts on his reading glasses, checks your facts, and finds them uncompelling. I remain unconvinced by your arguments.
You might not have quite understood my post, where I said that I would support labeling, not because the thing being labeled is meaningful, but because a sufficient number of people think it is. Even if I'm not one of them, many people want that label, and since it's not unduly difficult to have, we should have it. In the future, I would hope that people would stop caring about the label, because they come to my position on GM crops, and thus the label would no longer be needed.
So, I should not prevent labeling, and I don't and wouldn't.
Do you question the safety of GM crops, or do you question Monsanto's ability to produce GM seeds safely? From what you said it sounds like you oppose both.
I'm fine with GM crops (if done safely), and my impression of Monsanto is that they are plenty good at the science, and way TOO good at the bad shit like suing poor farmers. Those are all different issues and I encourage you to consider them separately.
Sure, I want a safe, well-regulated food supply. I want it based on a good diversity of crops. I want any genetic manipulation done carefully with oversight. I want all patents for living organisms eliminated. I want farmers to have the right to save seeds for later if they can.
I also want GM crop seeds to have terminator genes -- perhaps not forever, but at least for the next, say, fifty or a hundred years. That's an inexpensive hedge against problems with interbreeding. I want GM crop seeds to be produced by a wide variety of organizations: my preference would be non-profit scientific organizations; or perhaps universities; but for-profit corporations are also okay so long as they are watched carefully.
I don't trust BP to do anything, but that doesn't mean I'm against all drilling. The Chernobyl disaster doesn't make me think we should abandon all nuclear energy.
Does that sound unreasonable to you? Try to work some subtlety and nuance into your beliefs. Break them down and determine how different parts of the puzzle fit together. You don't have to throw out the baby (GM crops) with the bathwater (Monsanto).
Oh okay I get you now. So it's not genetic engineerign per se, or even most common forms of it, but rather just some rare kinds of the most extreme manipulations that you oppose? Yeah, okay, it's a sliding scale. The more crap we mess with, the more careful we should be. For sure.
Also, totally agreed about monocultures and other non-genetic-type problems with modern crop production. Lots of issues not related to GM are big problems that we need to address.
By using logic and reason based on everything we know about the world, of course. That is how we judge the goodness or badness of just about everything.
Yes. "Free market" is a misleading phrase. It sounds so good -- who would oppose a free anything? But it's a marketing term which means something other than what people first imagine. I belabor the point to an annoying degree because I think it's important. I'm glad you weren't put off. Be well.
If your point is that you are upset that the meaning of free market has changed into something you don't like, then I agree.
But we're stuck with the definition. It means what it means. I like free speech and free software and free beer and free love, so I'm etymologically inclined to like free markets -- but knowing what it really means, I must say that free markets are bad. Please excuse me for annoyingly repeating my point, I truly think it's sorely understated overall.
Oh, gosh, your grocer doesn't say whether the cows are fed KOSHER grass? I only eat KOSHER-fed beef, but it's so hard to find that label.
Also, I only drink water drawn from wells deeper than 70 feet, because I think it's healthier. But gosh, I almost never see on the label how deep the well was.
Another thing, when I bought my house it didn't come with a statement of whether tall people or short people laid the cement in my driveway. I hate short people, so I want to make sure my driveway was poured by people at least 5'11".
My point is that some labels are reasonable, some are ridiculous. At this point, I think a GM label might be just barely reasonable, only because so many people want it, not because there is any plausible distinction to be made. I hope that the next decade or two puts this issue completely to rest, at which point a GM label will go from just barely reasonable to woo-woo crazy.
Moreover, it is unethical to do many such studies. What are we going to do, take some babies and feed them nothing but GM corn all their life, and other babies only organic corn?
It's clever when people demand studies before a policy is implemented, when those studies are either technically or ethically impossible. Actually, it's not clever, it's just stupid. It's even stupider when they do it without realizing it.
3. Legal liability attaches when a person knows or should have known of the harm. So, they would pay dearly if they cover up evidence, or willfully ignore an obvious problem. Otherwise, no, that's not how our legal system works.
Hmmm. Well, genetically engineered food is almost indistinguishable from conventional food (which is also genetically modified), so as a scientist the evidence suggests that the effects would be almost indistinguishable as well.
It is an extraordinary claim to say that genetically engineered food would be harmful, so really we would need extraordinary evidence for that. I know of none, and would be surprised to learn of a pathway by which engineered food could affect a body differently than conventional food. What could that pathway be? I can't think of any.
Similarly, although it is possible that the position of planets in the sky foretells the futures of individual humans, I just can't imagine the pathway for that effect, so I reject it until shown extraordinary evidence.
If your book defines "free market" as anything other than "unregulated market", then it is not in line with the contemporary understanding of the term. My guess is that the book doesn't actually say that.
You are mistaking the term "free market" for something else. I used to make that mistake. I thought "free markets" meant "transparent, functional, competitive markets", but that is not at all what it means.
"Free market" means "unregulated market". Unregulated markets are almost universally bad, bad, bad!
What you want is a "market". A "free market" is something we should all spend time trying to avoid. It's important to make the distinction because that slip of nomenclature bolsters the policy makers who want to strip away consumer protections and other regulations which result in transparent, competitive markets.
I don't want to address any of your points except one: "free market" is tantamount to "unregulated market". That is literally the definition of the term. It has nothing to do with perfect information (which is a basis of general market theory).
For instance, if we required GM foods to be labeled, then you (and perhaps I) would cheer for that -- and that would be a specifically non-free market because it is a market regulation. That is why free markets tend to be opaque and non-competitive, specifically because the lack of regulations typically results in poorly informed consumers.
Any call for "free markets" lends credence to an untenable anti-consumer economic ideology, which is why I ask you to reject free markets in favor of carefully, minimally regulated non-free markets.
Slashdot Mirror
A degree is a tool. It's a tool to demonstrate ability. It's not perfect, but it's what we have. People who don't have that tool need to find another tool, perhaps a tool such as entrepreneurship, or exceptional skills of persuasion.
In that case we need a WARNING: CONTAINS MONSANTO - MAY CAUSE MORAL DECAY.
I absolutely support that label. I'll help you heap hate on that company.
I sincerely appreciate the link. I considered scoffing, but instead I took a little time and looked over those documents. They all seem to be from 1991-3 (and so does the website), so I'm wondering where is the science from the last two decades. Nevertheless, science from my childhood is still valid, so I started reading.
I didn't have time to read every link, but I read "our summary" of about ten papers. Unfortunately they weren't really summaries, which would have saved some time, but I persisted. I focused on the sentences which were underlined, but in the end I was underwhelmed.
For instance this one
http://biointegrity.org/FDAdocs/14/view1.html
is a request for the FDA to review a marker gene. There is no alarming warning, let alone the result of a study showing harm. Honest question: is a request for a study supposed to make me worry?
Here's another one
http://biointegrity.org/FDAdocs/21/view1.html
which appears to be a statement of purpose for the FDA and options for regulating foods. The options strike me as boring and procedural. Honext question: is that supposed to make me worry?
One more:
http://biointegrity.org/FDAdocs/09/09.pdf
this one is interesting. It is a critique of some report. The critique suggests some language changes. To me, it sounds perfectly reasonable to 'focus on the safety of food, not the method of production', but maybe other people want to focus on the method of production instead of the safety of the food? Honest question: is it your position that the method of production deserves more attention than the safety of the end product?
When you engage in this kind of discussion in the future, you might do well to find a different list of links to provide. Otherwise you might run across a person like me who (ahem) puts on his reading glasses, checks your facts, and finds them uncompelling. I remain unconvinced by your arguments.
You might not have quite understood my post, where I said that I would support labeling, not because the thing being labeled is meaningful, but because a sufficient number of people think it is. Even if I'm not one of them, many people want that label, and since it's not unduly difficult to have, we should have it. In the future, I would hope that people would stop caring about the label, because they come to my position on GM crops, and thus the label would no longer be needed.
So, I should not prevent labeling, and I don't and wouldn't.
Label away. Three cheers for informed decisions.
Yeah. PM paid out a bunch of money for exactly that reason -- hiding and ignoring evidence. Liability attached.
as far as I'm concerned, I'm against Monsanto, and everything they do
Okay. This is plainly stated, and it is what we disagree about.
Do you question the safety of GM crops, or do you question Monsanto's ability to produce GM seeds safely? From what you said it sounds like you oppose both.
I'm fine with GM crops (if done safely), and my impression of Monsanto is that they are plenty good at the science, and way TOO good at the bad shit like suing poor farmers. Those are all different issues and I encourage you to consider them separately.
Sure, I want a safe, well-regulated food supply. I want it based on a good diversity of crops. I want any genetic manipulation done carefully with oversight. I want all patents for living organisms eliminated. I want farmers to have the right to save seeds for later if they can.
I also want GM crop seeds to have terminator genes -- perhaps not forever, but at least for the next, say, fifty or a hundred years. That's an inexpensive hedge against problems with interbreeding. I want GM crop seeds to be produced by a wide variety of organizations: my preference would be non-profit scientific organizations; or perhaps universities; but for-profit corporations are also okay so long as they are watched carefully.
I don't trust BP to do anything, but that doesn't mean I'm against all drilling. The Chernobyl disaster doesn't make me think we should abandon all nuclear energy.
Does that sound unreasonable to you? Try to work some subtlety and nuance into your beliefs. Break them down and determine how different parts of the puzzle fit together. You don't have to throw out the baby (GM crops) with the bathwater (Monsanto).
I don't have a sales brochure, and I'm claiming that GM foods are good for humanity, on balance.
Oh okay I get you now. So it's not genetic engineerign per se, or even most common forms of it, but rather just some rare kinds of the most extreme manipulations that you oppose? Yeah, okay, it's a sliding scale. The more crap we mess with, the more careful we should be. For sure.
Also, totally agreed about monocultures and other non-genetic-type problems with modern crop production. Lots of issues not related to GM are big problems that we need to address.
But GM food, generally, is not at all scary.
By using logic and reason based on everything we know about the world, of course. That is how we judge the goodness or badness of just about everything.
Yes. "Free market" is a misleading phrase. It sounds so good -- who would oppose a free anything? But it's a marketing term which means something other than what people first imagine. I belabor the point to an annoying degree because I think it's important. I'm glad you weren't put off. Be well.
If your point is that you are upset that the meaning of free market has changed into something you don't like, then I agree.
But we're stuck with the definition. It means what it means. I like free speech and free software and free beer and free love, so I'm etymologically inclined to like free markets -- but knowing what it really means, I must say that free markets are bad. Please excuse me for annoyingly repeating my point, I truly think it's sorely understated overall.
Agreed. That's terrible. We should promote widespread adoption of GM crops by first eliminating legal protection of living things.
Up with GM foods! Down with patentable foods!
What did the school nurse say about masturbation? Doesn't cause blindness.
What did the doctors say about Thimeresol? Doesn't cause autism.
What did Salk say about his vaccine? Not a secret conspiracy to give kids polio.
What did the nerd say about video games? Doesn't cause violence.
Sometimes the rational cool thinkers are right.
I wish more people were capable of making that distinction. I get tired of hearing this argument:
Person 1: "GM food is safe to eat"
Person 2: "No it isn't, because Monsanto sues poor farmers."
Person 2 is a retard.
Agreed. Fuck Monsanto.
But I think you'll starve if you try very hard to avoid Monsanto-tainted food.
Both breeding and genetic manipulation cause changes to genes. Those are different scales of the same effect.
Burning wood combusts chemical bonds, whereas nuclear energy breaks nuclear bonds. Those are the same scale of completely different things.
I see the analogy, sort of, but I don't think it's a strong way to support your point.
Oh, gosh, your grocer doesn't say whether the cows are fed KOSHER grass? I only eat KOSHER-fed beef, but it's so hard to find that label.
Also, I only drink water drawn from wells deeper than 70 feet, because I think it's healthier. But gosh, I almost never see on the label how deep the well was.
Another thing, when I bought my house it didn't come with a statement of whether tall people or short people laid the cement in my driveway. I hate short people, so I want to make sure my driveway was poured by people at least 5'11".
My point is that some labels are reasonable, some are ridiculous. At this point, I think a GM label might be just barely reasonable, only because so many people want it, not because there is any plausible distinction to be made. I hope that the next decade or two puts this issue completely to rest, at which point a GM label will go from just barely reasonable to woo-woo crazy.
Moreover, it is unethical to do many such studies. What are we going to do, take some babies and feed them nothing but GM corn all their life, and other babies only organic corn?
It's clever when people demand studies before a policy is implemented, when those studies are either technically or ethically impossible. Actually, it's not clever, it's just stupid. It's even stupider when they do it without realizing it.
3. Legal liability attaches when a person knows or should have known of the harm. So, they would pay dearly if they cover up evidence, or willfully ignore an obvious problem. Otherwise, no, that's not how our legal system works.
Hmmm. Well, genetically engineered food is almost indistinguishable from conventional food (which is also genetically modified), so as a scientist the evidence suggests that the effects would be almost indistinguishable as well.
It is an extraordinary claim to say that genetically engineered food would be harmful, so really we would need extraordinary evidence for that. I know of none, and would be surprised to learn of a pathway by which engineered food could affect a body differently than conventional food. What could that pathway be? I can't think of any.
Similarly, although it is possible that the position of planets in the sky foretells the futures of individual humans, I just can't imagine the pathway for that effect, so I reject it until shown extraordinary evidence.
That's how a scientist thinks.
You responded to a point about GM foods with a point about corporate behavior. That is a non-sequitur, so you lose the argument.
But you are right, Monsanto is an abomination.
If your book defines "free market" as anything other than "unregulated market", then it is not in line with the contemporary understanding of the term. My guess is that the book doesn't actually say that.
You are mistaking the term "free market" for something else. I used to make that mistake. I thought "free markets" meant "transparent, functional, competitive markets", but that is not at all what it means.
"Free market" means "unregulated market". Unregulated markets are almost universally bad, bad, bad!
What you want is a "market". A "free market" is something we should all spend time trying to avoid. It's important to make the distinction because that slip of nomenclature bolsters the policy makers who want to strip away consumer protections and other regulations which result in transparent, competitive markets.
Regulated markets are good; free markets are bad.
I don't want to address any of your points except one: "free market" is tantamount to "unregulated market". That is literally the definition of the term. It has nothing to do with perfect information (which is a basis of general market theory).
For instance, if we required GM foods to be labeled, then you (and perhaps I) would cheer for that -- and that would be a specifically non-free market because it is a market regulation. That is why free markets tend to be opaque and non-competitive, specifically because the lack of regulations typically results in poorly informed consumers.
Any call for "free markets" lends credence to an untenable anti-consumer economic ideology, which is why I ask you to reject free markets in favor of carefully, minimally regulated non-free markets.