Philosophy Discussion Forums

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 24th, 2022, 5:48 am

psyreporter wrote: ↑April 24th, 2022, 4:25 am In my opinion, neglect of the question 'why' life exists is not a justification for a belief in determinism, and similarly, such neglect would not be a justification for the claim that morality is merely subjective and that an animal or plant on a human's plate is all that one would need to consider.

You opinion is of little use to anyone if not backed up by reason and evidence.

One could argue that it is reasonable to question the validity of a belief that is based on neglect of a fundamental question. Such a questioning would logically pose the idea of an aspect that - especially after centuries of science - cannot be grasped within the scope of empirical evidence but is still to be considered of significance. That aspect would be what provides the basis for the concept or idea 'free will'.

Some claim that empirical science can never explain the most fundamental question(s) while others maintain the conviction that science will be able to explain it, or at least a lot. The latter idea is considered favourable because it provides a drive for science to make progress.

There are serious consequences of a belief in determinism, for example when it concerns the use as basis for moral questions, guiding principles and similar aspects.

With determinism an animal or plant on a human's food plate is all that one would need to consider while in a world in which meaning is fundamental, a basis of respect for animals and plants may be of vital importance.

Therefore, the question whether morality can be safely ignored and the demand of an answer before GMO is practised, is an important one.

Currently, GMO is an unguided practice in which morality is completely ignored, primarily driven by the short term financial interest of companies.

A citation from The Economist (Redesigning Life, April 6th, 2019):

Reprogramming nature (synthetic biology) is extremely convoluted, having evolved with no intention or guidance. But if you could synthesize nature, life could be transformed into something more amenable to an engineering approach, with well defined standard parts.

Biotechnology is already a bigger business than many people realize. Rob Carlson of Bioeconomy Capital, an investment company, calculates that money made from creatures which have been genetically engineered accounted for about 2% of American GDP in 2017.

GMO is affecting billions of animals and plants - the foundation of human life.

psyreporter wrote: ↑May 13th, 2022, 12:19 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 24th, 2022, 5:48 am

psyreporter wrote: ↑April 24th, 2022, 4:25 am In my opinion, neglect of the question 'why' life exists is not a justification for a belief in determinism, and similarly, such neglect would not be a justification for the claim that morality is merely subjective and that an animal or plant on a human's plate is all that one would need to consider.

You opinion is of little use to anyone if not backed up by reason and evidence.

One could argue that it is reasonable to question the validity of a belief that is based on neglect of a fundamental question. Such a questioning would logically pose the idea of an aspect that - especially after centuries of science - cannot be grasped within the scope of empirical evidence but is still to be considered of significance. That aspect would be what provides the basis for the concept or idea 'free will'.

Some claim that empirical science can never explain the most fundamental question(s) while others maintain the conviction that science will be able to explain it, or at least a lot. The latter idea is considered favourable because it provides a drive for science to make progress.

There are serious consequences of a belief in determinism, for example when it concerns the use as basis for moral questions, guiding principles and similar aspects.

With determinism an animal or plant on a human's food plate is all that one would need to consider while in a world in which meaning is fundamental, a basis of respect for animals and plants may be of vital importance.

Therefore, the question whether morality can be safely ignored and the demand of an answer before GMO is practised, is an important one.

Currently, GMO is an unguided practice in which morality is completely ignored, primarily driven by the short term financial interest of companies.

A citation from The Economist (Redesigning Life, April 6th, 2019):

Reprogramming nature (synthetic biology) is extremely convoluted, having evolved with no intention or guidance. But if you could synthesize nature, life could be transformed into something more amenable to an engineering approach, with well defined standard parts.

Biotechnology is already a bigger business than many people realize. Rob Carlson of Bioeconomy Capital, an investment company, calculates that money made from creatures which have been genetically engineered accounted for about 2% of American GDP in 2017.

GMO is affecting billions of animals and plants - the foundation of human life.

Seriously? - I cannot be expected to respond to hyperbole.

The following article addresses the ethics of GMO from a status quo position.

URL: theconversation - com/because-we-can-does-it-mean-we-should-the-ethics-of-gm-foods-28141

Morality of nature

There are also concerns about the moral status of the organism itself – does the modification of an organism’s genetic makeup represent a wrong to the dignity or integrity to the organism?

This position depends on arguments that nature has dignity and interests beyond those of its human inhabitants. Such arguments are not readily accepted due to their metaphysical or theological overtones and dependence on essentialist idea of nature.

Appeals to nature can led to what British philosopher G.E. Moore described as the naturalistic fallacy – the idea that we can derive moral statements from facts of nature. Examples include:

1. raw milk is good because it’s natural
2. standing desks are good because we weren’t meant to sit
3. genetically modified crops are wrong because they’re unnatural.

Perhaps we aren’t so concerned about the essential dignity of rice or wheat, but what about GM pigs that glow in the dark, featherless chickens, cows that produce human milk or the integrity of an ecosystem? Although the arguments are relatively the same, in discussing GM animals, the idea of a natural integrity or dignity seems more compelling.

What is described is the only consideration provided with regard nature having a dignity and interests beyond the human.

The article continues and concludes to make a case for an utilitarian approach to address the ethics of GMO, which is skewed to human interests.

Is this all the human is capable of? Merely considering the idea of animals to have a dignity beyond the human, and then retreating again to an utilitarian perspective?

The article did mention the following:

"Debates over consequences tend to avoid the question of whether there is something inherently objectionable about GM foods and crops. So long as there is appropriate management of risks, then theoretically, there is no ethical problem."

The article ends with the following:

"Describing opponents of golden rice, even those that destroy test crops, as anti-science Luddites that commit crimes against humanity does little to move the debate forward."

The article communicates a hope for a better morality (moral reasoning capability) as it appears, but what is one to make of that when it concerns the year 2022 and a pending exponential growth evolution in synthetic biology (GMO)?

value wrote: ↑July 6th, 2022, 12:05 pm"Describing opponents of golden rice, even those that destroy test crops, as anti-science Luddites that commit crimes against humanity does little to move the debate forward."

https://theconversation.com/because-we- ... oods-28141

An article on Scientific American mentioned the following about the growing "Antiscience Movement":

The Antiscience Movement Is Escalating, Going Global and Killing Thousands
Antiscience has emerged as a dominant and highly lethal force, and one that threatens global security, as much as do terrorism and nuclear proliferation. We must mount a counteroffensive and build new infrastructure to combat antiscience, just as we have for these other more widely recognized and established threats.

Antiscience is now a large and formidable security threat.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... thousands/

What does the concept antiscience mean? It seems that the essence of antiscience is mere 'lack of trust'.

How can a demand for blind trust in science - the prevention of the label 'antiscience' - be justified philosophically?

Antiscience as a concept seems to be equal to 'heresy of science', a judgement (and demanded punishment) based on 'lack of belief'.

Scientific evidence equals repeatability. When it concerns the idea of anti-science people are dogmatically believing that science is justified to assume a certainty factor when it concerns repeatability in time. It involves the belief that science can be practised without philosophy (that science is not a philosophy) and that is an error in my opinion.

Science is philosophy and philosophy is questionable. The dogmatic conviction that science can be valid without philosophy is a fallacy.

The labelling of people as 'antiscience' originates from a dogmatic belief.

Anti-GMO advocates are blamed to 'sow doubt' about science. Why would doubt - the questioning of validity of science - be wrong?


Anti-GMO advocates are being blamed of committing crimes against humanity. In the article on Scientific American they are blamed for posing a serious security threat that should be combatted.

But global outrage ensued after group of Filipino farmers destroyed a test crop of golden rice. There has been little recognition of the Sisyphean struggle of farmers in countries such as the Philippines, Bangladesh and India, yet these farmers have been described as anti-science Luddites and contributing to the deaths of thousands of children.

Is the term anti-science justified or is it in practice similar to declaring heresy of science and based on a mere faith based devotion to a belief?

Can the success of science function as as basis for a concept such as anti-science?

value wrote: ↑July 23rd, 2022, 5:47 pm What does the concept antiscience mean? It seems that the essence of antiscience is mere 'lack of trust'.

I think it's gone far beyond a simple lack of trust. There are people for whom their right to their opinion have somehow extended to include their 'right' for that opinion to be right (correct). There are many things in our culture that buoy up this idea, including the cult of the individual, disdain for experts and expertise, and a large dose of wishful thinking.



Such cloudy thinking is also helped along by those who misapply science, trying to use science to justify things upon which science cannot usefully pronounce...

We have too many mouths to feed. Therefore, we need reliable crops (GMO).
We have GMO crops, now everyone is upset and want normal crops.
Normal crops are not reliable, which can equal less food.
Less food, more problems. So, effectively no one is ever happy in this cycle.
Do we want food, or not?

JDBowden wrote: ↑July 26th, 2022, 9:34 am We have too many mouths to feed. Therefore, we need reliable crops (GMO).

...or less mouths.

JDBowden wrote: ↑July 26th, 2022, 9:34 am We have GMO crops, now everyone is upset and want normal crops.
...
Do we want food, or not?

Scientists — and their employers!!! — have a history of pushing new stuff onto the market, often without any real knowledge of the full effects.

E.g., in the 1940s, they had soldiers roll around in the dust remaining after nuclear explosions, to see if it would do them any harm! [It did: most of them died of cancer.]

There are many reasons for this type of behaviour, many of which have nothing directly to do with science, but the history is what it is. Concern for the public or the environment is not common or usual when we consider the release of new products. Those who have concerns about GMO crops do have a point...

There is a well worn path of hysteria concerning GMO, but the truth is that we have been genetically modifying everything we eat for more than 10thousand years.
Many of the plants you all think natural are nothing of the sort and mostly incapable of any kind of independent existence outside the care and cultivation of humans.
All brassicas from cabbage to broccoli to cauliflower and sprouts are mutations of wild mustard.
Every apple tree is grown on a root stock from one species attached to a sprig from a bewildering variety of mutations modified from an ancestor apple which was smaller than a golf ball with very little sugar.
Strawberries were the size of peanuts, carrots the size of pencils.
Wheat, barley and oats were practically non-existent and all species originated as ordinary grass seed.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 27th, 2022, 8:45 am There is a well worn path of hysteria concerning GMO, but the truth is that we have been genetically modifying everything we eat for more than 10thousand years.

Yes, we've been through all this before. The difference is that with selective breeding, no new genetic material is introduced. With GMO, other bits are added, and it is quite possible that those 'bits' might have unforeseen circumstances. [E.g. one of these 'bits' is "marker genes".] As I wrote above, we (Western humanity) have a long history of releasing harmful stuff, and finding out about the harm later. Scepticism over GMO is more than justified, IMO. Outright opposition may also be indicated, but I don't have enough detailed knowledge of the subject to reach that conclusion without further knowledge and evidence.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑July 27th, 2022, 11:03 am

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 27th, 2022, 8:45 am There is a well worn path of hysteria concerning GMO, but the truth is that we have been genetically modifying everything we eat for more than 10thousand years.

Yes, we've been through all this before. The difference is that with selective breeding, no new genetic material is introduced. With GMO, other bits are added, and it is quite possible that those 'bits' might have unforeseen circumstances. [E.g. one of these 'bits' is "marker genes".] As I wrote above, we (Western humanity) have a long history of releasing harmful stuff, and finding out about the harm later. Scepticism over GMO is more than justified, IMO. Outright opposition may also be indicated, but I don't have enough detailed knowledge of the subject to reach that conclusion without further knowledge and evidence.

What is your worst fear?
GMO has pretty much deflected the covid pandemic with a range of vaccines. If there had been "outright opposition" then millions more would have died.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 27th, 2022, 8:45 am There is a well worn path of hysteria concerning GMO, but the truth is that we have been genetically modifying everything we eat for more than 10thousand years.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑July 27th, 2022, 11:03 am Yes, we've been through all this before. The difference is that with selective breeding, no new genetic material is introduced. With GMO, other bits are added, and it is quite possible that those 'bits' might have unforeseen circumstances. [E.g. one of these 'bits' is "marker genes".] As I wrote above, we (Western humanity) have a long history of releasing harmful stuff, and finding out about the harm later. Scepticism over GMO is more than justified, IMO. Outright opposition may also be indicated, but I don't have enough detailed knowledge of the subject to reach that conclusion without further knowledge and evidence.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 27th, 2022, 12:59 pm What is your worst fear?

My worst fear is two fears:

1. That scientists misunderstand the function of the genetic material they manipulate, and thereby their work has unintended consequences, that maybe only become obvious long after the offending material is spread throughout our eco-system, or

2. That the additional genetic material added along with the intended changes has unintended consequences, that maybe only become obvious long after the offending material is spread throughout our eco-system.

We are far from omniscient. We make mistakes, sometimes really big ones. And we do it again and again, as we have for many years. We refuse to temper our enthusiasm for novelty, even though we know we should really take longer to consider all the little details that seem so trivial to the companies desperate to recoup their financial investment in R&D.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑July 27th, 2022, 1:13 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 27th, 2022, 8:45 am There is a well worn path of hysteria concerning GMO, but the truth is that we have been genetically modifying everything we eat for more than 10thousand years.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑July 27th, 2022, 11:03 am Yes, we've been through all this before. The difference is that with selective breeding, no new genetic material is introduced. With GMO, other bits are added, and it is quite possible that those 'bits' might have unforeseen circumstances. [E.g. one of these 'bits' is "marker genes".] As I wrote above, we (Western humanity) have a long history of releasing harmful stuff, and finding out about the harm later. Scepticism over GMO is more than justified, IMO. Outright opposition may also be indicated, but I don't have enough detailed knowledge of the subject to reach that conclusion without further knowledge and evidence.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 27th, 2022, 12:59 pm What is your worst fear?

My worst fear is two fears:

1. That scientists misunderstand the function of the genetic material they manipulate, and thereby their work has unintended consequences, that maybe only become obvious long after the offending material is spread throughout our eco-system, or

2. That the additional genetic material added along with the intended changes has unintended consequences, that maybe only become obvious long after the offending material is spread throughout our eco-system.

We are far from omniscient. We make mistakes, sometimes really big ones. And we do it again and again, as we have for many years. We refuse to temper our enthusiasm for novelty, even though we know we should really take longer to consider all the little details that seem so trivial to the companies desperate to recoup their financial investment in R&D.

Such as....

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 27th, 2022, 8:45 am There is a well worn path of hysteria concerning GMO, but the truth is that we have been genetically modifying everything we eat for more than 10thousand years.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑July 27th, 2022, 11:03 am Yes, we've been through all this before. The difference is that with selective breeding, no new genetic material is introduced. With GMO, other bits are added, and it is quite possible that those 'bits' might have unforeseen circumstances. [E.g. one of these 'bits' is "marker genes".] As I wrote above, we (Western humanity) have a long history of releasing harmful stuff, and finding out about the harm later. Scepticism over GMO is more than justified, IMO. Outright opposition may also be indicated, but I don't have enough detailed knowledge of the subject to reach that conclusion without further knowledge and evidence.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 27th, 2022, 12:59 pm What is your worst fear?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑July 27th, 2022, 1:13 pm My worst fear is two fears:

1. That scientists misunderstand the function of the genetic material they manipulate, and thereby their work has unintended consequences, that maybe only become obvious long after the offending material is spread throughout our eco-system, or

2. That the additional genetic material added along with the intended changes has unintended consequences, that maybe only become obvious long after the offending material is spread throughout our eco-system.

We are far from omniscient. We make mistakes, sometimes really big ones. And we do it again and again, as we have for many years. We refuse to temper our enthusiasm for novelty, even though we know we should really take longer to consider all the little details that seem so trivial to the companies desperate to recoup their financial investment in R&D.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 27th, 2022, 3:11 pm Such as....

Thalidomide, Agent Orange, nuclear weapons; we could even consider our burning of fossil fuels in this light...?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑July 28th, 2022, 9:04 am

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 27th, 2022, 8:45 am There is a well worn path of hysteria concerning GMO, but the truth is that we have been genetically modifying everything we eat for more than 10thousand years.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑July 27th, 2022, 11:03 am Yes, we've been through all this before. The difference is that with selective breeding, no new genetic material is introduced. With GMO, other bits are added, and it is quite possible that those 'bits' might have unforeseen circumstances. [E.g. one of these 'bits' is "marker genes".] As I wrote above, we (Western humanity) have a long history of releasing harmful stuff, and finding out about the harm later. Scepticism over GMO is more than justified, IMO. Outright opposition may also be indicated, but I don't have enough detailed knowledge of the subject to reach that conclusion without further knowledge and evidence.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 27th, 2022, 12:59 pm What is your worst fear?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑July 27th, 2022, 1:13 pm My worst fear is two fears:

1. That scientists misunderstand the function of the genetic material they manipulate, and thereby their work has unintended consequences, that maybe only become obvious long after the offending material is spread throughout our eco-system, or

2. That the additional genetic material added along with the intended changes has unintended consequences, that maybe only become obvious long after the offending material is spread throughout our eco-system.

We are far from omniscient. We make mistakes, sometimes really big ones. And we do it again and again, as we have for many years. We refuse to temper our enthusiasm for novelty, even though we know we should really take longer to consider all the little details that seem so trivial to the companies desperate to recoup their financial investment in R&D.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 27th, 2022, 3:11 pm Such as....

Thalidomide, Agent Orange, nuclear weapons; we could even consider our burning of fossil fuels in this light...?

None of these have anything to do with GMO.
Shall I ask again?

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 27th, 2022, 12:59 pm What is your worst fear?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑July 27th, 2022, 1:13 pm My worst fear is two fears:

1. That scientists misunderstand the function of the genetic material they manipulate, and thereby their work has unintended consequences, that maybe only become obvious long after the offending material is spread throughout our eco-system, or

2. That the additional genetic material added along with the intended changes has unintended consequences, that maybe only become obvious long after the offending material is spread throughout our eco-system.

We are far from omniscient. We make mistakes, sometimes really big ones. And we do it again and again, as we have for many years. We refuse to temper our enthusiasm for novelty, even though we know we should really take longer to consider all the little details that seem so trivial to the companies desperate to recoup their financial investment in R&D.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 27th, 2022, 3:11 pm Such as....

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑July 28th, 2022, 9:04 am Thalidomide, Agent Orange, nuclear weapons; we could even consider our burning of fossil fuels in this light...?

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 28th, 2022, 9:49 am None of these have anything to do with GMO.
Shall I ask again?

There's no point in asking again, you aren't listening to the answer(s). The examples I gave are of new discoveries released into the environment that subsequently caused significant and 'unexpected' damage, when hindsight confirms that we should have been more cautious, and tested the discovery in question more thoroughly. GMO has the potential to be one such discovery.