Philosophy Discussion Forums

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑July 29th, 2022, 6:39 am

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.

You are talking about toxic chemical and metabolic derangements.
GMO is completely different.
It's like you are not listening to my questions. GMO species like any other have to cope with natural selection. That makes them more vulnerable than non GMO.
I won't ask again, since you do not seem to want to think this through completely.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 29th, 2022, 7:13 am You are talking about toxic chemical and metabolic derangements.
GMO is completely different.

I repeat:

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑July 29th, 2022, 6:39 am 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.

Do you disagree that "GMO has the potential to be one such discovery"?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑July 29th, 2022, 8:55 am

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 29th, 2022, 7:13 am You are talking about toxic chemical and metabolic derangements.
GMO is completely different.

I repeat:

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑July 29th, 2022, 6:39 am 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.

Do you disagree that "GMO has the potential to be one such discovery"?

No.
No more than a sailing ship causes global warming.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑July 29th, 2022, 6:39 am 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.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑July 29th, 2022, 8:55 am Do you disagree that "GMO has the potential to be one such discovery"?

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 29th, 2022, 10:03 am No.
No more than a sailing ship causes global warming.

From your words, I think you mis-read my question, and intended to answer "yes". If so, what has convinced you that there is no significant possibility of some sort of significant negative consequence of releasing GMO products into the environment?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑July 29th, 2022, 10:13 am

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑July 29th, 2022, 6:39 am 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.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑July 29th, 2022, 8:55 am Do you disagree that "GMO has the potential to be one such discovery"?

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 29th, 2022, 10:03 am No.
No more than a sailing ship causes global warming.

From your words, I think you mis-read my question, and intended to answer "yes". If so, what has convinced you that there is no significant possibility of some sort of significant negative consequence of releasing GMO products into the environment?

I think the possibility is far more remote than you think.
GMO crops tend to be very fragile, and dependant on technology to grow them. Golden Rice for example requires the grower continue to buy seed stock each year, as the inventors are keen to maintain copy rights.
And this is true of most developments in crop innovations.
GMO does not contain alien DNA, but DNA from other plants. In the "environment" they are not likely to thrive in a situation where natural selection is in play.
They might upset pre-existing highly modified (though not GMO as such) crops that are also fragile.

But the feeling I get is that you simply have unfounded fears based on sensationalist "Frankenstein" headlines and not practical objections.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑July 25th, 2022, 11:08 am

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...

I am not so certain that that perspective is correct in a general sense. For example, the people that question science on grounds such as moral concerns and that then decide to destroy fields of GMO crops do not necessarily need to act with the idea that they are right or that their idea of right is better than that of the GMO industry.

There mere ability to argue that the GMO practice is questionable and that grave unresolved concerns apply would provide a ground for a demand to prevent GMO crops to be planted until those issues are resolved in a decent manner (with reason).

For example, a valid question would be: can morality for plants and animals be safely ignored?

The following discussion provides an example:

psyreporter wrote: ↑April 24th, 2022, 4:25 am

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 17th, 2022, 8:21 am

psyreporter wrote: ↑April 17th, 2022, 8:11 am

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 17th, 2022, 6:11 amThis is somewhat laughable. For some reason the mysteries of the universe which have puzzled humans for thousands of years you seem to have the answer to.
So what are your concrete objections to GMO?

You are demanding an answer within the scope of empirical value (utilitarian value) while at question is whether morality on behalf of animals, which would concern their meaningful experience of which the philosophical zombie theory has indicated that science cannot grasp or explain it, can be safely ignored.

In other words...
I am asking if you have any evidence of any kind for anything you say, yes.

Well, if the question cannot be answered by science, wouldn't that be evidence (that it cannot be safely ignored, simply because the concept safety would require an answer)?

Would you disagree with my conclusion? If not, do you believe that it is wrong to demand prevention of GMO crops until the question has been answered?

The 'blunt' labelling of people as being 'anti-science' that should be combatted like a major security treat is not indicative that the issues have been addressed in a decent manner (with reason).

The people that destroy GMO crops are blamed for 'killing thousands of children' due to the utilitarian value that those crops would provide to those children. That isn't addressing any issues with reason. That is 'combatting' and personally attacking with multi-million USD marketing budgets based on an ideology - a certain belief about science - the belief that 'sowing doubt about science' is a wrong that should be combatted and punished as a major security threat. It concerns prosecuting people for heresy of science.

The essence of anti-science therefore, seems to be mere lack of trust, despite the actions and specific motivations of people involved, until it can be shown that reason applies for the label, which according to philosopher Justin B. Biddle, a specialist on the subject, is not the case.

The “anti-science” or “war on science” narrative has become popular among science journalists. While there is no question that some opponents of GMOs are biased or ignorant of the relevant facts, the blanket tendency to characterize critics as anti-science or engaged in a war on science is both misguided and dangerous.
https://philpapers.org/rec/BIDAZVPhilPapers

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 29th, 2022, 4:48 pm I think the possibility is far more remote than you think.

I think we both know that. But how do you know? On what is your confidence based? You assert that I am wrong, but you don't offer the reassurance that any sceptic might reasonably request. Given the severity of the risk if it comes to pass, it is reasonable, I think, to request some clear and conclusive evidence of safety. Where is that evidence?

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 29th, 2022, 4:48 pm But the feeling I get is that you simply have unfounded fears based on sensationalist "Frankenstein" headlines and not practical objections.

What about the will to live in plants and animals? What about their 'meaningful experience'? What about that what it takes for animals and plants to have come into existence?

The idea of natural selection or Darwinian evolution might be wrong. Arguing this might 'sow doubt about science' but can it be said that that is wrong?

Can meaningful experience in animals and plants be safely ignored?

It seems that a whole lot of understanding about plants and animals is evidently missing.

The most basic question is unanswered: why does life exist? unknown

• Is determinism true and is the idea of a spirit invalid? unknown
• Is the concept happiness important for animals and plants? unknown
• Does the spirit merely use genetic information and is altering genes like giving the spirit a new tool? unknown

Life might not be as simple and purely technical as it is assumed when it concerns GMO.

In my opinion, the complex coherence of genes provides in more than the human can possibly 'see' in it. It might be an error to factor out the unknown future in which the genetic information performs in the form of a spirit or will to live.

A plant might have 'feelings' that are important in its interaction with animals such as insects. Those feelings might provide subtle guiding roles in an eco-system that enables the eco-system to perform and advance optimally, i.e. to be happy and healthy in the face of an unknown future, which requires concepts such as resilience.

The guiding role that those presumed feelings and expressions may play in an eco-system might involve a motivating role: a reason for existence for fragile pieces of nature. Tiny insects and other creatures.

Humans themselves often argue that all humans need love. Why would that be different for a tiny insect? The love that they might receive from a happy and healthy plant might underlay their 'raison d'être' (reason for being).

Flowering plants can hear buzzing bees—and it makes their nectar sweeter
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/scie ... ar-sweeter

Plants 'Scream' in the Face of Stress
https://www.livescience.com/plants-sque ... essed.html

Flowers are talking to animals—and humans are just starting to listen
https://qz.com/1522637/humans-are-learn ... d-animals/

Plants Attract Enemy's Enemies To Survive
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... nemys-ene/

When plants can talk, what about happiness?

GMO - corruption of the foundation of the spirit - could cause fatal damage to eco-systems by disrupting the will for being in tiny creatures.

Is the above issue addressed? no

Are people who address the issue labelled anti-science and prosecuted (combatted) for heresy of science? yes (because 'sowing doubt' about scientific beliefs such as 'natural selection' is considered a 'wrong').

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑July 30th, 2022, 8:07 am

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 29th, 2022, 4:48 pm I think the possibility is far more remote than you think.

I think we both know that. But how do you know? On what is your confidence based? You assert that I am wrong, but you don't offer the reassurance that any sceptic might reasonably request. Given the severity of the risk if it comes to pass, it is reasonable, I think, to request some clear and conclusive evidence of safety. Where is that evidence?

Obviously - if you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, you are going to have to offer something more than hysteria

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 29th, 2022, 4:48 pm I think the possibility is far more remote than you think.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑July 30th, 2022, 8:07 am I think we both know that. But how do you know? On what is your confidence based? You assert that I am wrong, but you don't offer the reassurance that any sceptic might reasonably request. Given the severity of the risk if it comes to pass, it is reasonable, I think, to request some clear and conclusive evidence of safety. Where is that evidence?

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 30th, 2022, 8:48 am Obviously - if you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, you are going to have to offer something more than hysteria

So you don't have an answer, and you don't have the evidence I asked for? As I thought. My case is not hysterical if you cannot offer real and persuasive sureties that the release of GMOs into the environment is safe.

My first perspective on GMO when I first looked into it was that it would result in a situation in which humans would feed themselves through the anus - as if they would stick their head in their anus.

The anus would be the output of science - a result that is how it is intended to be from the perspective of the human. The core of the human (its head) would be stuck into its anus. Such a result cannot facilitate what it takes to have become.

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

The idea: “It may be best to serve life instead of trying to stand above it.”

GMO as a food source can be seen as a form of inbreeding.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑July 30th, 2022, 8:53 amSo you don't have an answer, and you don't have the evidence I asked for? As I thought. My case is not hysterical if you cannot offer real and persuasive sureties that the release of GMOs into the environment is safe.

Do you believe that your reasoning would be a justification to destroy fields of GMO crops? Alternatively, do you understand people who would when their concern is neglected as being 'anti-science'?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑July 30th, 2022, 8:53 am

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 29th, 2022, 4:48 pm I think the possibility is far more remote than you think.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑July 30th, 2022, 8:07 am I think we both know that. But how do you know? On what is your confidence based? You assert that I am wrong, but you don't offer the reassurance that any sceptic might reasonably request. Given the severity of the risk if it comes to pass, it is reasonable, I think, to request some clear and conclusive evidence of safety. Where is that evidence?

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 30th, 2022, 8:48 am Obviously - if you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, you are going to have to offer something more than hysteria

So you don't have an answer, and you don't have the evidence I asked for? As I thought. My case is not hysterical if you cannot offer real and persuasive sureties that the release of GMOs into the environment is safe.

I've been doing this far too long to fall for that cheap trick.
The burden is on you to produce evidence.
So where is the nightmare Frankenstein scenario?

On the other hand GMO has saved the Papaya crop with extinction from ringworm carried by aphids.
It has produced rice that includes vitamin A in its tissues.
Meanwhile as the Frankenstein villagers are waving their torches about GMO corn has offered increased yields for over 20 years.

But watch out for those Triffids, on the way home.

IN addition to yield benefits GMO crops need less insecticide and are resistant to herbicides.
This means less pollution and less fossil fuels burned in factories making chemicals.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 29th, 2022, 4:48 pm I think the possibility is far more remote than you think.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑July 30th, 2022, 8:07 am I think we both know that. But how do you know? On what is your confidence based? You assert that I am wrong, but you don't offer the reassurance that any sceptic might reasonably request. Given the severity of the risk if it comes to pass, it is reasonable, I think, to request some clear and conclusive evidence of safety. Where is that evidence?

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 30th, 2022, 8:48 am Obviously - if you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, you are going to have to offer something more than hysteria

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑July 30th, 2022, 8:53 am So you don't have an answer, and you don't have the evidence I asked for? As I thought. My case is not hysterical if you cannot offer real and persuasive sureties that the release of GMOs into the environment is safe.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 30th, 2022, 12:02 pm I've been doing this far too long to fall for that cheap trick.
The burden is on you to produce evidence.

There is no such "burden"; this is a philosophy forum, not a nursery school.

We are having this discussion (too) late, in actuality, as GMOs have been created and released. Nevertheless, I am recommending caution, and you are asserting the safety of GMOs, but you can't seem to say why, or on what basis. The worst-case consequences of GMOs are severe, but you recommend taking this risk ... without offering evidence on which this recommendation is based. Is your position not somewhat reckless?