"Soylent Contains GMOs-And Proud Of It"


#1

#2

Pleasantly surprised with the direction the article took. Couldn’t help but notice the typical Kickstarter mistake.


#3

I think I’m one of the few pro-gun/pro-gmo liberals. :smiley:


#4

Just from those two data points, you sound libertarian.


#5

That saddens me but you’re right, that does make me sound libertarian. XD


#6

All the picking on Monsanto reminds me of people around the web always bringing up the fact that the company used to manufacture Agent Orange. Uh yea, they were forced to. What business in their right mind would willingly tie themselves to chemical warfare? People act like if a business makes a single mistake, or is just too rich, then its fishy and they need to be destroyed. Trying to copyright GMO’s is morally questionable, sure, but it isn’t outright evil. Monsanto deserves a lot more credit in the agri-business than they get from headlines.


#7

I’d like to see more pro-GMO campaigns out there. It makes me sad how everyone just laps up the pseudo-science and fear-mongering of the anti-GMO groups. Why fear what you don’t understand?


#8

Politics is a dangerous subject, but I hate the “all or nothing” view most people have. If you’re a liberal you have to have this specific set of views. If you’re conservative you have to have a different set. Heaven forbid an atheist wants low taxes or a gun fan wants single payer health. In reality I think there’s a lot of overlapping views for the actual independent voters. People probably agree on a lot more than they realize despite identifying as liberal or conservative.


#9

I agree. I think most people are in the middle somewhere, and probably decide things on an issue-by-issue basis, if they are being honest with themselves. I know that I have a tough time identifying with any one political movement because of the supposed baggage that comes along with such identifications.

I was just making a (lame?) attempt to be provocative to a self-professed liberal.


#10

Because all too often things you don’t understand end up killing you?


#11

Not really, pretty sure studies have shown that most people just vote along party lines. Children of R’s still vote R and such. If you actually talk to them you might eventually find that they don’t agree with their party on all the issues, or even most of them…

Worst case I’ve seen was my cousin who calls himself a Libertarian, but if you listen to him talk he’d sound like a Green Party supporter. (For non-Americans, the Green party is largely the opposite of Libertarianism.)


#12

There was a time when I didn’t understand how babies are made, or how colours are perceived, or why bananas are berries, or what the role of oxygen is in aerobic cells. Coming to understand these things, among many many other facts, has been enlightening and has not harmed me in any way. Should I have feared oxygen back when I didn’t understand exactly what it did for me?


#13

Maybe not, but then you’re cherry picking examples aren’t you?

For contrast: Should Marie Curie have feared radiation a little more?


#14

What’s the difference between me picking positive examples and you picking negative ones? “Things we don’t understand” tends to be a category dominated by harmless things. Should Marie Curie have feared radiation more? I don’t think so, because at the time there was no reason to fear it. We are bombarded with radiation every moment of every day and survive well enough; Curie had no reason to believe that her research put her into a position that was more dangerous than typical exposure.

It may seem like reckless thinking to you, but honestly the amount of caution appropriate when looking at unknowns depends on the situation. For example, encountering a spider that you’ve never seen before and know nothing about. You should stay away from it because there’s a reasonable chance of it having medically significant venom. But if you encounter a type of rock that you’re unfamiliar with, it’s probably safe to go ahead and touch it. Chances are pretty slim that it’ll turn out to be a dangerous substance.


#15

Oh I get it, you’re one of those people who thinks humans are rational. :stuck_out_tongue:

I hate to break this to you, but people tend to fear what they don’t understand. There is fear about Soylent, fear about GMOs, fear about Mexicans, etc. It may not be rational, but it’s common enough that it probably served us well while we were evolving into humans. You know, like when that new furry thing no one’s ever seen before might want to eat you?


#16

Not trying to say that humans are rational, just that they should be :wink: Our evolution can’t have been guided entirely by fear anyway, since many of our ancestors are known to have hunted large animals and also engaged in combat with each other. But alas it is easier to be fearful than to be bold. I know too well; I’m that person who camps next to a doorway with an energy sword and ambushes anyone who comes in because I’m afraid of getting shot if I go out in the open…(I don’t enjoy playing Halo…)

But when it comes to science I never cower. Curiosity always beats any fears I might have in that area!


#17

Well, science to most folks is the same as the rest of the Halo map to you then. :stuck_out_tongue:

That said, the anti-gmo side has some arguments I’ve personally never seen adequately refuted and a lot of the science side seems to be placing their faith in “the science” because it’s “science.” To me that’s not much better than religion… so right now I’m still undecided on GMO’s but I don’t really go out of my way to avoid them.


#18

I feel the GMO acceptance polls are pretty skewed. A lot of people are bound to make wrong assumptions if they aren’t literate over the subjects they’re being asked about. But if the polls were of non-scientists that had some amount of science education, you would probably see numbers closer to 90% approval. The public shouldn’t be polled on things they’re too incompetent to comment on, and their incompetent opinions should never be used as evidence of harm.


#19

There are actually some valid points on the anti-GMO side, but not enough to dismiss GMOs altogether. In fact, any valid problems I’ve seen arise have been a result of human corruption rather than being a result of genetic modification. They might be good arguments for regulation of GMOs(though the extent to which many anti-GMO groups propose is extremely excessive, in my opinion), but not for ending genetic modifications. The potential benefits of the practice are too great to ignore.

And my opinion isn’t just “because it’s science”. There is “science” used to argue both sides, but there’s a difference between good science and bad science, and many people can’t tell the difference.


#20

I agree with you there, it just seems like every time I see a study it’s done by the people trying to sell it to us. Then I see valid questions on the methodology from anti-gmo scientists. I’m just not sure enough study is done before they go to market and I’m afraid it’s being pushed too quickly in the name of profits. (That said it’s also always talked about as a whole, whereas each case could be different and should be studied separately.)

I didn’t mean you… I’ve heard scientists say they were for it just because studies had been done. It didn’t sound like they’d even read the studies, and it wasn’t even their field anyway. It’d be like me commenting on some COBOL code, I mean yeah I understand programming in general but I wouldn’t understand the specifics of the code.