I am a cognitive scientist, who uses/writes computer algorithms (AI) to emulate / model cognitive processes by emulating biological processes. I am not a biologist, just someone who likes to read science papers. In my area, I am a prof that runs a research lab with 1 postdoc and 8 PhDs and have wrote over 80 published papers. I have done research / was faculty at SFU, Stanford and NYIT - typically teaching conciousness, cog sci, AI and VR. I am not or never claimed to be an expert in the food science or biology space, just a scientist who cares that we speak the truth and read journals to understand that truth.
omg! just read this whole thread. Was surprised to see this. SFU is Simon Fraser University? I’m at a neuroscience lab at UBC. My background is in cognitive systems (specializing in AI) and I write VR software for the Vancouver general hospital (or rather I started and will finish when my bloody thesis is completed). So we’re practically in the same field plus both like Soylent. Cool!
Yea I revived the thread. Couldn’t help myself. It was like the last thing I expected to read and it forced me to read the whole thread. I leave more in favour of Soylent advertising that they are pro-GMO than I was before.
So many companies advertise as “non-GMO” when it’s hard to argue their products are even non-GMO or any more safe. Case in point being made by the link in the original post - you can irradiate seeds to change their genome and it’s still considered non-GMO and I’m guessing these food-types are considered non-GMO in Europe? If folks are going to continue arguing over whether GMOs are good or bad can we please operationalize what “GMO” means please? Maybe we’ll all find out we’ve been arguing over very different things and actually once a definition for GMO can be agreed on we’ll find we all agree GMO’s are sage/unsafe.
Anyway, reading this thread is me procrastinating. Sighs, back to my doomed thesis.