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

[Sculptor1]

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

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.

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

SO why ask me to produce negative evidence.
Think about it!

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?

Yes and the use of herbicides and insecticides has reduced.
Sadly because of people like you the benefits could have been greater.
oh um

[value]

GMO mosquitoes spreading out of control in Brazil
According to a new scientific publication, genetically engineered mosquitoes have escaped human control after trials in Brazil. They are now spreading in the environment.

The yellow fever mosquitos (Aedes aegypti) are genetically engineered to make it impossible for their offspring to survive. After release they were supposed to mate with female mosquitos of the species which transmit infectious diseases, such as Dengue fever, to diminish the natural populations.

However, the newly published research shows that many offspring of the genetically engineered mosquitos survived and are spreading and propagating further.

These insects used in the laboratory have now mixed with the Brazilian insects to become a robust population which can persist in the environment over a longer period of time, spreading more disease. They might replace the original insects in the long term and even enhance the problems associated with the mosquitoes.
https://non-gmoreport.com/gmo-mosquitoe ... in-brazil/

Rootworms have become resistant to GMO Bt corn causing a potential disaster.

(2020) Corn Rootworms Poised to Stage a Comeback as Bt Resistance Spreads
https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/a ... e-comeback

Science intends to achieve a result that should remain as it is which in practice creates a situation in which an artificial wall is created behind which threats are growing (becoming stronger) exponentially while what is 'hiding' behind that wall remains behind with increasing weakness.

[value]

Overcoming problems results in strength.

Creating an artificial wall to hide behind - filtering out genes - introducing artificial non-natural genes - is likely not similar to overcoming problems from the perspective of the plant and therefore may result in increased weakness over time because the rootworms would become stronger while the plant just enjoys some period of artificially created 'easy time'.

In my opinion it might be best when the plant is motivated to learn to overcome the rootworms by themselves so that the plant is able to maintain a winning situation on the long term.

The idea that genetic information can be considered a provider of a tool that is just 'given' (e.g. the result of natural selection) might be wrong.

What would it take to overcome a problem from the perspective of a plant? Perhaps one should start with considering their intelligence - their ability to learn - and 'why' a plant could be motivated to learn.

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

There is some evidence that this logic would apply to rootworms:

Researchers discover that corn plants call in hungry nematodes when rootworms attack
https://phys.org/news/2019-02-corn-hung ... worms.html

A strategy by a 'cooperative' human might be to ensure the presence of those nematodes.

It would require the consideration that plants are intelligent creatures that talk to animals.

Philosopher: Plants are sentient beings that should be treated with respect
His claim that a plant is an “intelligent, social, complex being” (i.e. sentient) has been contested by some biologists, but a stronger reaction has come from animal-rights activists and vegans who fear their cause is undermined by extending a duty of respect to plants.
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/unth ... -1.1965980
https://www.michaelmarder.org/

[value]

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.

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]

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.

Do you believe that your reasoning would be a justification to destroy fields of GMO crops?

I'm not sure. I am advocating caution, not prohibition, although perhaps the latter might be appropriate? Too many times in our past history, we have released products onto the market without being sure they were safe. If the severity of things going wrong is minor, it probably doesn't matter. But if we are talking about, for example, the detonation of nuclear weapons, the worst possible consequences are very severe, and a great deal of caution would seem warranted. The worst case consequences of GMOs are similarly severe...

[value]

Do you believe that your reasoning would be a justification to destroy fields of GMO crops?

I'm not sure. I am advocating caution, not prohibition, although perhaps the latter might be appropriate? Too many times in our past history, we have released products onto the market without being sure they were safe. If the severity of things going wrong is minor, it probably doesn't matter. But if we are talking about, for example, the detonation of nuclear weapons, the worst possible consequences are very severe, and a great deal of caution would seem warranted. The worst case consequences of GMOs are similarly severe...

A common wisdom is "when in doubt, don't do it".

A problem that affects a complete 'natural environment' - the foundation of human life - would be out of control and most likely unfixable. Issues with GMO might be a lot worse than a major oil spil and even a nuclear disaster (when it concerns the natural environment, since GMO can affect a greater area).

GMO mosquitoes spreading out of control in Brazil
https://non-gmoreport.com/gmo-mosquitoe ... in-brazil/

The GMO mosquitoes that were engineered to prevent reproduction may replace the native specie and increase the problems they caused to humans. Besides that effect on humans, there may be a lot of hidden effects that could cause a disaster to the environment.

The bizarre and ecologically important hidden lives of mosquitoes
Mosquitoes have many functions in the ecosystem that are overlooked. Indiscriminate mass elimination of mosquitoes would impact everything from pollination to biomass transfer to food webs.
https://theconversation.com/the-bizarre ... oes-127599

I noticed that you are a Gaian-Daoist. I noticed people reporting to perceive a 'spirit' of nature, e.g. of a complete forest or of an underwater environment, which is perceived by them to be an intelligence that surpasses them (a human) in greatness. Some mention such an experience with mountains. Astronauts seem to report it for Earth as a whole.

Astronauts report to experience an extreme transcendental experience of 'interconnected euphoria' when they view Earth from space. It is called 'Overview effect on Earth'.

First we should understand why we don't already know of this profound experience, despite decades of astronaut reports. It’s hard to explain how amazing and magical this experience is. First of all, there’s the astounding pure beauty of the planet itself, scrolling across your view at what appears to be a smooth, stately pace... I’m happy to report that no amount of prior study or training can fully prepare anybody for the transcendental experience this causes.

https://overviewinstitute.org/
http://overview-effect.earth/

My concerns with regard GMO are not practical (e.g. damage to an environment) but fundamental (what it takes for the environment to come about, be happy and thrive).

My questions would be for example: is the spirit of nature served by GMO? (does GMO improve the happiness potential in nature?)

[Pattern-chaser]

I noticed that you are a Gaian-Daoist. I noticed people reporting to perceive a 'spirit' of nature, e.g. of a complete forest or of an underwater environment, which is perceived by them to be an intelligence that surpasses them (a human) in greatness. Some mention such an experience with mountains. Astronauts seem to report it for Earth as a whole.

For me, you go a little too far when you refer to "an intelligence that surpasses them (a human) in greatness", but yes, that's about right. And also, for me, the Gaia Hypothesis extends beyond our Earth, to 'life, the universe, and everything'.

My questions would be for example: is the spirit of nature served by GMO? (does GMO improve the happiness potential in nature?)

My answer? No.

[value]

My questions would be for example: is the spirit of nature served by GMO? (does GMO improve the happiness potential in nature?)

My answer? No.

In my opinion it would be best to maintain an open mind with regard the potential good-use potential of GMO. The uncertainty whether GMO is good for Nature however would be sufficient ground to demand answering certain questions before GMO is practised, in my opinion.

GMO is currently an 'unguided practice' primarily driven by the short term financial interest of companies. Those companies mostly originate from the Pharmaceutical Industry that has a history of profound corruption.

A quote from The Economist with a special on GMO in 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.
https://www.economist.com/weeklyedition/2019-04-06

My concerns would be mostly with the way GMO is applied and the fundamental ideas behind it, about life and what it takes for Nature to prosper on the long term etc.

There are parasites and bacteria that apply GMO naturally, however, the question 'should the human?' (for a short term financial profit motive) is a question that seems to be neglected which might be irresponsible, with the stake being 'Nature' - the foundation of human life.

In the case of the parasites and bacteria GMO is a destruction of 'the other'. It might not be wise to allow humans to perform such a practice 'on Nature' in a dumb way merely for a short term profit motive.

[value]

The following might be of interest for the discussion. It is located on https://nature-protection.org/corruption/

The author of gmodebate.org has over a decade of experience with investigating the corruption of the pharmaceutical industry through a critical philosophical blog.

The blog also investigated the origin of the Nazi holocaust and eugenics ideology and in extension it was noticed that the pharmaceutical industry has been funnelling their money (literally trillions of dollars per year) to synthetic biology (GMO) for what in essence is a holocaust on nature (eugenics).

The pharmaceutical industry and the establishment of science attempted to smartly take control over opposition so that opposition could be efficiently curbed. An often seen strategy is that pharmaceutical companies donate big sums of money to apparent honest interest group organizations that will then act in their favour, for promotion and marketing purposes or for political advantages such as legislation. Sometimes pharmaceutical companies also completely faked such organizations.

Why would pharmaceutical-like (i.e. proven to be profoundly corrupt) companies sit back and let honest anti-GMO activism proceed naturally? Most logical is to expect a strategy for the trillions of dollars in revenue.

Anti-GMO campaign in Nigeria - A corruption strategy or honest?

Would real anti-GMO activists shout out loud "No Monsanto, we do not want your bio tech!"? Images of protestors with such messages are propagated globally as the paragon of GMO opposition.

A honest protest in Nigeria? "We Do Not Want Your Bio Tech"
nigeria-no-gmo.jpg (81.36 KiB) Viewed 4564 times

The following example shows how a global marketing machine can use anti-GMO opposition to their advantage.

A group of US and European activists entered Nigeria and propagated presumable 'false claims' that GMO causes cancer and infertility. Scientists globally as a knight on a white horse then moved in and used public channels to show scientifically that the claims are false, successfully curbing opposition to GMO on the basis of utilitarian value arguments (human health and food safety).

Anti-GMO protest Nigeria, 2022
nigeria-anti-gmo-campaign-2.jpg (54.58 KiB) Viewed 4564 times

As a knight on a white horse…

(2022) How scientists beat back anti-GMO activists ‘insidious campaign’ to block Nigeria’s approval of GMO
While the Nigerian government considered the application, there was a period of public consultation. The anti-GM group “Health of Mother Earth Foundation” rolled into action. Repeating standard tropes, they falsely claimed the GM cowpea would cause cancer and infertility, or that the new GM cowpea would take over and eliminate genetic diversity. These activists were “branches of opposition from US and European groups planted here,” said a local. They leveraged social media, newspaper articles and public rallies to roll out scare campaigns. They filed a court case to try and stop the technology.
Source: https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2021 ... mo-cowpea/

The GMO industry competes on human health and food safety arguments. GMO is often masked under the term 'food security'. A win on the basis of such utilitarian value arguments would benefit the GMO industry in multiple ways.

GMO is primarily driven by short term financial self-interest of companies that originate mostly from the pharmaceutical industry that has a history of profound corruption.

A history of faking and misleading

Some time ago it was revealed that the publisher of The Lancet (Elsevier) published 6 fake scientific journals for pharmaceutical companies, to mislead scientists and doctors in the financial interest of pharmaceutical companies.

elsevier.png (59.72 KiB) Viewed 4564 times

Reputational damage for medical publisher Elsevier, which publishes The Lancet, among others. Last week the Dutch-English company admitted that from 2000 to 2005 it had published six fake journals that were issued for scientific journals. In reality, they were marketing magazines paid for by pharmaceutical companies. The papers published in Australia had names such as Australasian Journal of General Practice and Australasian Journal of Bone & Joint Medicine. The magazines look solid, also because the name Elsevier is prominent on the front page and the sponsor's name is not.

Unleashed on plants and animals

What if companies are let on the loose for a synthetic biology revolution? The potential for damage may be much greater as there will logically be less control and oversight.

With their massive often ill gotten funds, the pharmaceutical industry invests into bio tech to secure further growth, directly affecting billions of plants and animals on earth, of creatures that may posses of meaningful experience.

In 2019, the pharmaceutical industry was already investing more than $1 trillion USD per year in synthetic biology ($1,000 billion USD per year). The pharmaceutical industry has been funnelling their money to GMO.

(2019) Pharmaceutical industry raises bet on biotech as frontier for growth
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.
Source: https://www.ft.com/content/80a21ca2-136 ... f78404524e

GMO is forced with corruption.

WikiLeaks: US targets opponents of GM crops: "Eat GMOs! or We'll Cause Pain"
The cables show US diplomats working directly for GM companies such as Monsanto and Bayer.
Opponents of GMO punished with "retaliation and pain".

--

Questions:

1. Do animals and plants need to be protected against corruption?
2. Would it be correct to view GMO as a holocaust from the perspective of nature?

[CWANANGWA1]

I think that an attack on GMO would an attack towards Science. This is because Science is the breeding ground for GMOs. The antiscience narrative is due to the fact that scientific discoveries were not easily recognised up until today. It had to take more than one more than scientist with each coming from a different century or generation, for us to accept the information they relayed. But there are other factors such as competiton, jealousy and varying opinions. All of these are contributing factors for our feelings, thoughts and actions. Then talk about the merits, demerits, effects and results of Science.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think that an attack on GMO would an attack towards Science. This is because Science is the breeding ground for GMOs. The antiscience narrative is due to the fact that scientific discoveries were not easily recognised up until today. It had to take more than one more than scientist with each coming from a different century or generation, for us to accept the information they relayed. But there are other factors such as competiton, jealousy and varying opinions. All of these are contributing factors for our feelings, thoughts and actions. Then talk about the merits, demerits, effects and results of Science.

I think the 'anti-science narrative' is due, at least in part, to the misapplication of science. I.e. the application of science to a subject outside science's area of competence and relevance. Within its proper scope, science is the most powerful tool we have for investigating the world. Outside of that scope, for example in moral or (human-)cultural matters, science can do more harm than good.

[value]

I agree with your notion however the people using the term are self proclaimed 'science believers'. Therefore, the term might not so much hold denotative sway but instead be opinionated to denounce people who do not subscribe to the same belief.

It seems to have been a popular 'thing' on the internet to use the phrase "I believe in science" to enforce the opposition to what is denounced to be 'anti-science beliefs'.

https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopini ... ul_phrase/ ("I believe in science" is an awful phrase)
https://www.quora.com/What-does-the-pop ... ually-mean (What does the popular phrase "I believe in science" actually mean?)

The idea that science can be misapplied is likely to be challenged by the 'science believers'. From their perspective a belief in non-empirical morality might be similar to a religious belief.

The following publication by an organization that actively combats anti-science shows that 'doubt' about science is to be considered a wrong.

(2018) Anti-GMO activism sows doubt about science
Russian trolls, aided by anti-GMO groups such as the Center for Food Safety and Organic Consumers Association, have been strikingly successful in sowing doubt about science in the general population.
https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/ ... t-science/

Bertrand Russell: "Doubt is the essence of science"

An example story of a scientist that diverted from the 'status quo' (believers) path shows that it is literally perceived to be heresy of science.

The Prion Heretic
She knows that the history of science is littered with heretics who reject conventional wisdom, insisting that their experiments reveal the truth while others’ do not. Often they turn out to be wrong and either abandon their view when the evidence against it grows overwhelming or go to their grave still believing. Sometimes they’re right. Manuelidis, comfortable in the role of dissenter, likes to quote 20th century mathematician and philosopher Bertrand Russell: “Doubt is the essence of science,” she says.
https://science.umd.edu/classroom/HONR2 ... 202011.pdf

Anti-science therefore is a term used to enable prosecution of heretics of science. By posing that people are 'against' science it opens a door for combat.

An example publication shows that it is the desired result:

(2021) 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/

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.

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 that cause the deaths of thousands of children.

A perspective on the 'war on science' propaganda by an academic philosopher:

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 of GMO as anti-science or engaged in a war on science is both misguided and dangerous.
https://philpapers.org/rec/BIDAZV

[value]

Summarized:

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

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?

A current development is that GMO trees are being released into forests globally.

https://stopgetrees.org/

It seems very difficult for humans to consider the perspective of an other and therefore arguments against GMO are mostly based on scare mongering with as a result that opponents of GMO compete directly with the GMO industry within the scope 'food security' (human health and food safety). The term food security is often used to mask GMO. It would be a losing battle.

In my opinion it is important to look at it from the perspective of plants and animals. Is GMO good for them? What's missing is their perspective!

Neglect of a proper addressing of the question whether GMO is good from the perspective of nature should be leading and might prevent GMO intelligently when needed.

Professor Forest Ecology Susanne Simard once said the following:

Her 30 years of research in Canadian forests have led to an astounding discovery: trees talk, communicating often and over vast distances. Trees are social creatures that are much more like humans than you may think.
https://suzannesimard.com/

Another professor:

Plants, according to professor Jack C. Schultz, “are just very slow animals”.

This is not a misunderstanding of basic biology. Schultz is a professor in the Division of Plant Sciences at the University of Missouri in Columbia, and has spent four decades investigating the interactions between plants and insects. He knows his stuff.
https://www.bbc.com/earth/story/2017010 ... nd-respond

Philosophy professor: Plants are sentient beings that should be treated with respect
His claim that a plant is an “intelligent, social, complex being” (i.e. sentient) has been contested by some biologists, but a stronger reaction has come from animal-rights activists and vegans who fear their cause is undermined by extending a duty of respect to plants.
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/unth ... -1.1965980
https://www.michaelmarder.org/

With trees: who will protect them? In the case of forests humans are not concerned about health or food. Why would they care what goes on in the forests? Is the faith of the forests dependent on the good will and effort of an ideologically driven few without funds to drive or sustain their effort on the long term?

Stop GMO trees campaign:

https://twitter.com/STOPGETREES (www.stopgetrees.org)

Regrettably they use a scare mongering theme which is negative marketing and most likely to be a factor to cause doubt by the general public and could be indicative of corruption by the GMO industry. Scare mongering may seem to produce click bait but people are more likely to care for plants when they correlate GMO with corruption of the beauty and health of forests and trees, in my opinion.

Show the positive (what is 'good') and let it naturally result in shunning of what is corruptive. (this would be my strategy). The logic can be compared with the fighting fire with fire argument.

I have over a decade of experience with investigating the corruption of the pharmaceutical industry through a critical philosophical blog. An example article that exposes corruption: https://en.zielenknijper.com/archive/et ... nasia.html

The pharmaceutical industry often attempted to strategically take control over opposition so that opposition could be efficiently curbed. An often seen strategy is that pharmaceutical companies donate big sums of money to apparent honest interest group organizations that will then act in their favour, for promotion and marketing purposes or for political advantages such as legislation. Sometimes pharmaceutical companies also completely faked such organizations.

The pharmaceutical industry has been funnelling their money to GMO (trillions of dollars per year!).

Some time ago it was revealed that the publisher of The Lancet (Elsevier) published 6 fake scientific journals for pharmaceutical companies, to mislead scientists and doctors in the financial interest of companies.

Reputational damage for medical publisher Elsevier, which publishes The Lancet, among others. Last week the Dutch-English company admitted that from 2000 to 2005 it had published six fake journals that were issued for scientific journals. In reality, they were marketing magazines paid for by pharmaceutical companies. The papers published in Australia had names such as Australasian Journal of General Practice and Australasian Journal of Bone & Joint Medicine. The magazines look solid, also because the name Elsevier is prominent on the front page and the sponsor's name is not.

So it is important to guard against advanced corruption strategies from the GMO industry on behalf of the trillions of dollars of profit!

[d3r31nz1g3]

There's no problem with GMOs in and of themselves.

However, when tinkering with nature, you're likely to introduce new problems. For example, ripe fruit is a biochemically complex entity. The acids, the sugars, the ionized water content, even the presence of the seed all work in harmony to create a battery-like source of energy.

Often times in seedless or GMO fruits, some element is missing from this "battery".

Nature is complex. To tinker with DNA is a simple modification of a complex entity. 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.

[Pattern-chaser]

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.