Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[LuckyR]

It needs to be approached properly but it almost universally isn't because it's all for the sake producing not the highest quality food, but the cheapest and highest quantity. The modifications usually made aren't for nutritional benefit.

I think this might be the strongest reason why one would object to, and resist, GMO products.

Well marketability and quantity has been the goal for millenia of genetic manipulation. It's nothing new.

[value]

Those are purely utilitarian arguments. What can GMO do for poor little human?

For any number of utilitarian arguments you may conceive of GMO proponents can argue a multiple more arguments. Who is to decide what arguments have conclusive significance when it concerns the question whether GMO should be permitted or not? It would be political, opinionated and ideological motives that would decide.

In general GMO proponents are likely to win the battle on the long term when it concerns a purely utilitarian perspective since they can argue (and politically lobby with billions of dollars in funding) that their arguments deserve an equal chance of consideration.

When the train is set in motion and it cannot be denied that GMO proponents have an equal case in the face of opinionated/ideological opposition, then it becomes a simple question "why not?" and it can potentially be pushed through any ideological/opinionated opposition, which can happen because trillions of dollars of profit ultimately weigh just a bit heavier than the - by equal validity of utilitarian arguments - neutralized ideological/opinionated arguments of the opposition.

What about the perspective of nature?

In my opinion vitality of nature should be leading in the GMO debate and from an utilitarian perspective it would serve the highest purpose possible: the foundation of human life. A purposeful food source is logically a stronger foundation for humanity.

Humans want to find meaning and purpose in life. Why would that be different for plants and animals?

A level of respect for nature might be vital for its prosperity.

With GMO scientists are seeking to establish an empirical result. How can the empirical be the origin of itself - of love - of symbiosis - of nature's prosperity?

The root of the GMO practice is 'eugenics ideology' that resides on the essence of inbreeding of which it is known to cause fatal problems.

[Baby Augustine]

Just translate this to the bogus Global Warming debate.
Africa is the continent that least contributes to this non-existent GW but it is the continent that most needs fossil fuels to reach the level we got to by fossil fuels. It is immoral to stop their use. They are talking about basic existence whereas most GW folks just don't want the BMW to get to hot.

GMOs were turned back years ago in Africa when a ship arrived with food for truly hungry people and demons like Greenpeace objected as they do now with Yellow Rice

Over 100 Nobel winners urge Greenpeace to support GMOs
They want the non-profit to end its campaign against potentially life-saving Golden Rice.

I have followed this follow the science nonsense for decades. Whether they are evil or just foolish, how sad that PRes Biden gave a whole speech about OMNIcron virus. Lazy and stupid he has always been

[value]

Business science is discovering the value of the concepts purpose, meaning and empowerment. It is a recent movement that follows the previous 'authenticity' movement. Increasingly employees in companies are put in control and are valued to pioneer - to determine a path forward - on behalf of the company. This involves morality which makes it very interesting.

Businesses and business thinkers/science are really struggling with the concept and to bring it into practice.

(2022) What Is the Purpose of Your Purpose? Your why may not be what you think it is.
"The current fixation on moral purpose puts pressure on executives to be seen as running a “good” business. Defining your purpose (morality) as embedded in culture—as operating in a thoughtful, disciplined, ethical manner—can be both pragmatic and genuine. The full potential of purpose is achieved only when it’s aligned with a company’s value proposition and creates shared aspirations both internally and externally."
https://hbr.org/2022/03/what-is-the-pur ... ur-purpose

Studies have shown that giving people autonomy improves their health and well-being significantly. Modern workers simply demand it so companies are forced to deliver.

Why would human requirements for performance and prosperity be different for plants and animals?

Nature defenders often use the concept 'biodiversity' to call for protection measures. In my opinion the origin of biodiversity in nature involves the same aspect that is discovered in the concepts purpose and meaning for human performance.

Biodiversity in nature is the key to resilience and strength. While that statement can be shown to be true empirically, the why question is very important.

Nature seeks diversity not from an empirical perspective (e.g. to have many chances or to be diverse) but for fundamental reasons. It is not the diversity that is what matters and should respected but 'that what is required for existence'. It is the respect that makes biodiversity possible and a natural result that should be facilitated within humanity, which concerns morality.

A top UK GMO expert said: “When introducing animals of a particular lack of biodiversity we cannot say that we are not harming the planet.”

Many have called his plea weak but what could he subtlely mean with 'particular lack of biodiversity'? Perhaps the plea is stronger than it appears from the outlook, considering that it is directed at the UK Government.

Top geneticist warns UK is embarking on a GMO 2.0 experiment that could ‘cause great harm to the planet’
Precision breeding describes a range of technologies, such as gene editing (GMO 2.0), that allows DNA to be edited more precisely than with old GMO.
https://gmwatch.org/en/106-news/latest- ... great-harm

What does the professor mean with 'particular lack of diversity'?

What's difficult to say might not be irrelevant.

Emmanuel Levinas: The saying and the said
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_saying_and_the_said

What is good? This question is where morality starts and where humanity finds infinite growth potential not only to secure its future on the planet but to go 'beyond' what exists today.

In my opinion it is the facilitation of urgency in the enhancement of moral consideration potential within humanity that is required to secure humanity's future on the planet.

[david1]

The GMO debate often succumbs to an 'anti-science' narrative, overshadowing the nuanced discussion needed. While concerns about safety and environmental impact are valid, vilifying the entire field undermines potential benefits. A balanced approach, rooted in evidence-based assessment, is crucial to navigate the complexities of genetic engineering responsibly.

[A Material Girl]

The GMO debate often succumbs to an 'anti-science' narrative, overshadowing the nuanced discussion needed. While concerns about safety and environmental impact are valid, vilifying the entire field undermines potential benefits. A balanced approach, rooted in evidence-based assessment, is crucial to navigate the complexities of genetic engineering responsibly.

Please, can you tell us what are the present benefits ?

[LuckyR]

The GMO debate often succumbs to an 'anti-science' narrative, overshadowing the nuanced discussion needed. While concerns about safety and environmental impact are valid, vilifying the entire field undermines potential benefits. A balanced approach, rooted in evidence-based assessment, is crucial to navigate the complexities of genetic engineering responsibly.

Please, can you tell us what are the present benefits ?

Generally higher yields per acre.

[ConsciousAI]

The GMO debate often succumbs to an 'anti-science' narrative, overshadowing the nuanced discussion needed. While concerns about safety and environmental impact are valid, vilifying the entire field undermines potential benefits. A balanced approach, rooted in evidence-based assessment, is crucial to navigate the complexities of genetic engineering responsibly.

The idea that [the ever growing light of] science will naturally protect animals and plants from harms of GMO might be mistaken.

Relevant aspects could be authentic integrity and moral values of which David Hume once wrote:

(2019) Science and Morals: Can morality be deduced from the facts of science?
The issue should have been settled by philosopher David Hume in 1740: the facts of science provide no basis for values. Yet, like some kind of recurrent meme, the idea that science is omnipotent and will sooner or later solve the problem of values seems to resurrect with every generation.
Duke University: New Behaviorism

[Lagayascienza]

Yes, it's an old chestnut that won't rot but won't germinate either. People want their moral values to be objectively true. That's like wanting religious beliefs to be objectively true. I'm glad they are not. The world is awful enough already.

[value]

"The past does not determine the future." (wisdom)

It is the primary argument against GMO from a fundamental perspective.

GMO as food would result in a situation similar to incest (inbreeding) because the output of science is history.

Were the human to base its feed on the output of science, it would feed itself figuratively speaking through its anus, by sticking its head (its face into the future) into its anus (the output of science). Hence, my assertion that eugenics resides on the essence of inbreeding, for which there is evidence that I discussed in another topic:

Animal eugenics: Cows driven to extinction
How many cows are in the field? Just 1 in 180,000 according to genetics! While there are 9 million cows in the USA, from a genetic perspective, there are just 50 cows alive.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=19096

Knowledge resides within a historical context. Before knowledge is present, it requires actions to have taken place: observing, testing and describing (i.e. defining) the results. The outcome of science is history.

When 'natural selection' is performed based on science, evolution would be guided based on history (a perspective directly into the past). That provides a fundamental unhealthy situation.

“An attempt to stand above life, as being life, logically results in a figurative stone that sinks in the ocean of time.”

If nature isn't fixed (determinism isn't true), that has implications. History and thus science may not be valid in time (the dogmatic assumption of uniformitarianism may be false). And thus, it may be that besides learning from the past (science), something else ('beyond the scope of science') is needed to serve existence and nature's prosperity in the best way (i.e. to serve as a guiding principle for life, which would involve morality or the thinking about whether it is 'good' what is being done).

The scientific assumption of uniformitarianism invalidates your objections. And the value of uniformitarianism has been validated by all the probes that have investigated the solar system beyond the moon.

[Sculptor1]

"The past does not determine the future." (wisdom)

It is the primary argument against GMO from a fundamental perspective.

One thing is for sure, when a sentence has as its main subject the word "IT" then the writer is unlcear about what they are talking about.

GMO as food would result in a situation similar to incest (inbreeding) because the output of science is history.

Nope. Nothing like it. The first problem here is the confusion of incest wth inbreeding. but the more fundemental problem here is the misconception of the basic process of GM, which does not create inbred species but chimera, which is about as far as you can get from inbreeding.

Were the human to base its feed on the output of science, it would feed itself figuratively speaking through its anus, by sticking its head (its face into the future) into its anus (the output of science). Hence, my assertion that eugenics resides on the essence of inbreeding, for which there is evidence that I discussed in another topic:

Not even worth response.

Animal eugenics: Cows driven to extinction
How many cows are in the field? Just 1 in 180,000 according to genetics! While there are 9 million cows in the USA, from a genetic perspective, there are just 50 cows alive.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=19096

Knowledge resides within a historical context. Before knowledge is present, it requires actions to have taken place: observing, testing and describing (i.e. defining) the results. The outcome of science is history.

When 'natural selection' is performed based on science, evolution would be guided based on history (a perspective directly into the past). That provides a fundamental unhealthy situation.

“An attempt to stand above life, as being life, logically results in a figurative stone that sinks in the ocean of time.”

If nature isn't fixed (determinism isn't true), that has implications. History and thus science may not be valid in time (the dogmatic assumption of uniformitarianism may be false). And thus, it may be that besides learning from the past (science), something else ('beyond the scope of science') is needed to serve existence and nature's prosperity in the best way (i.e. to serve as a guiding principle for life, which would involve morality or the thinking about whether it is 'good' what is being done).

The scientific assumption of uniformitarianism invalidates your objections. And the value of uniformitarianism has been validated by all the probes that have investigated the solar system beyond the moon.

[value]

GMO as food would result in a situation similar to incest (inbreeding) because the output of science is history.

Nope. Nothing like it. The first problem here is the confusion of incest wth inbreeding. but the more fundemental problem here is the misconception of the basic process of GM, which does not create inbred species but chimera, which is about as far as you can get from inbreeding.

GM attempts to produce a result that is defined by a fundamental perspective into the past. That perspective attempts to seek a ground in a dogma, the idea that the facts of science are valid in time (uniformitarianism).

The resulting situation is similar to what happens with incest or inbreeding, both being the same when it concerns the breeding of close relatives.

Inbreeding, in this context, refers to the attempt to achieve a fixed state, as defined by science, which is history or a perception into the past. One therefore moves 'inwards' in the context of an infinite ocean of time, which is opposite of what is vital for prosperity in time. Hence the analogy, "The attempt to stand above life, as being life, results in a figurative stone that sinks in the ocean of time."

The problem of the situation is that it results in fundamental and accumulating weakness in time, whereas nature seeks diversity (one might find an analogue in increasing complexity) for resilience and strength in time. (the notion 'in time' is special in that it is infinite).

The resulting situation of science based GM results in corruption of what is good from within.

[Sculptor1]

GMO as food would result in a situation similar to incest (inbreeding) because the output of science is history.

Nope. Nothing like it. The first problem here is the confusion of incest wth inbreeding. but the more fundemental problem here is the misconception of the basic process of GM, which does not create inbred species but chimera, which is about as far as you can get from inbreeding.

GM attempts to produce a result that is defined by a fundamental perspective into the past. That perspective attempts to seek a ground in a dogma, the idea that the facts of science are valid in time (uniformitarianism).

I am sorry to have to inform you but this makes zero sense

The resulting situation is similar to what happens with incest or inbreeding, both being the same when it concerns the breeding of close relatives.

I am sorry to have to inform you but this makes zero sense.
No inbreeding is when close relatives are bred together. GM takes completely different DNA, most often from completely different species, to create chimeras.

Inbreeding, in this context, refers to the attempt to achieve a fixed state, as defined by science, which is history or a perception into the past. One therefore moves 'inwards' in the context of an infinite ocean of time, which is opposite of what is vital for prosperity in time. Hence the analogy, "The attempt to stand above life, as being life, results in a figurative stone that sinks in the ocean of time."

I can only suggest you consult a dictionary.
THe analogy is false.
Careful use of inbreeding can be a great boost to the health of a species, and is more common in nature than you think. You are just reacting to a all too human taboo, which is mostly groundless.
I speak from a perspective of anthroplogy and science.

The problem of the situation is that it results in fundamental and accumulating weakness in time, whereas nature seeks diversity (one might find an analogue in increasing complexity) for resilience and strength in time. (the notion 'in time' is special in that it is infinite).

Nope.
It's the complete opposite of what is achieved by GM.
GM introduces completely novel DNA into the GMO.
You really need to look into this somewhat.

The resulting situation of science based GM results in corruption of what is good from within.

THat is hilarious.
"Good from Within". Good is a value judgement, and not a force of nature. You might as well say it has become possessed by "evil"

[value]

GMO as food would result in a situation similar to incest (inbreeding) because the output of science is history.

GM attempts to produce a result that is defined by a fundamental perspective into the past. That perspective attempts to seek a ground in a dogma, the idea that the facts of science are valid in time (uniformitarianism).

The resulting situation is similar to what happens with incest or inbreeding, both being the same when it concerns the breeding of close relatives.

Inbreeding, in this context, refers to the attempt to achieve a fixed state, as defined by science, which is history or a perception into the past. One therefore moves 'inwards' in the context of an infinite ocean of time, which is opposite of what is vital for prosperity in time. Hence the analogy, "The attempt to stand above life, as being life, results in a figurative stone that sinks in the ocean of time."

The problem of the situation is that it results in fundamental and accumulating weakness in time, whereas nature seeks diversity (one might find an analogue in increasing complexity) for resilience and strength in time. (the notion 'in time' is special in that it is infinite).

The resulting situation of science based GM results in corruption of what is good from within.

"Good from Within". Good is a value judgement, and not a force of nature.

That notion is exactly the problem behind eugenics or GMO. In the case that you are not right, GMO or eugenics is corruption of good.

I am more aligned with Plato's idea of Good, a force beyond comprehension (non-existent but meaningfully relevant) that is fundamental to the cosmos.

Emmanuel Lévinas (University of Paris) - an icon of Western philosophy that is researched by dedicated scholars today, concluded with the same in his advanced phenomenological philosophy:

"The creation of the world itself should get its meaning starting from Goodness." (Levinas in film Absent God 1:06:22)
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/levinas/

My logic initially also resulted in the idea of a fundamental Good (per se) but further investigation resulted in the idea that what is fundamental must be more pure than Good, and that 'pure meaning' is more accurate, a concept that might be captured by Quality of Robert Pirsig.

[Sculptor1]

My logic initially also resulted in the idea of a fundamental Good (per se) but further investigation resulted in the idea that what is fundamental must be more pure than Good, and that 'pure meaning' is more accurate, a concept that might be captured by Quality of Robert Pirsig.

You are not addressing GMO. You are addressing a Frankenstein myth.
Thanks for playing.