This sort of evidence is pointless. It takes one single reproducible instance of harm to disprove it. Health is longitudinal, GMOs young.
Conversation
Replying to
And yet that one case has yet to happen..? That's all the proof we have of the safety of at least most things, isn't it?
1
Replying to
Yeah, except those things are centuries old. It's taken centuries for climate change to manifest visibly. So what?
2
Replying to
So we keep researching it until what exactly? We understand genetics 100%..?
1
Replying to
We just don't fuck ourselves over completely in the arrogant assumption that we understand what we've created. But we will anyway, so meh.
1
Replying to
If we're going to criticise this stuff, I think we should be very careful and explicit in what we're criticising.
3
Replying to
I am being very precise. I am criticising the hubris of abandoning the scientific method and the test of time in favor of projected gain.
1
Replying to
Saying things with expected longitudinal payoffs spanning centuries is safe based on present understanding is unscientific, hubristic.
1
Replying to
We already rely upon industrial farming, with its numerous relatively recent processes and innovations. We're a long way down this road.
1
Replying to
And the resultant fragility of our food supply is well-documented. I am not saying abandon research, but replacing one risk with a greater?
Replying to
We know we're causing harm now, though… how long should we wait to try to do better?
7
Replying to
It's not about that. Think in terms of outcomes. We are not talking just abt risk, but risk times severity of outcomes divided by efficacy.
1