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.
Conversation
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?
1
Replying to
We know we're causing harm now, though… how long should we wait to try to do better?
7
Replying to
but we can't say with such certainty that we are choosing between extinction and food for everyone. In fact we already have that food.
1
Replying to
We do at the moment, but GM tech may be necessary to cope with a growing population in a changing climate.
3
Replying to
What makes you think population will keep growing if Asia is hit by drought? Death toll would likely exceed 2 billion.
Replying to
The only argument I don't perceive as sheer nonsense us that we're already losing and might want to increase volatility rather than decrease