dagblog - Comments for "Who Gets The Benefit Of The Doubt?"

Thanks for the link. I read

trkingmomoe — Thu, 29 Aug 2013 01:22:51 +0000

Thanks for the link. I read some of it and will return to read more of this rather interesting and different look.

There has been a large

trkingmomoe — Thu, 29 Aug 2013 01:08:42 +0000

In reply to I'm sorry MM I didn't mean to

There has been a large outbreak of measles in Texas of a 159 cases this past month. They are all members of a mega church that preaches against vaccinations. Like Donal said up thread that anti science and mis-trust of science is also linked to religion. Southerners are more likely to be in the religious anti science group.

Oh you science types, geez,

artappraiser — Sun, 25 Aug 2013 03:27:36 +0000

In reply to Who would ask for that? It

Oh you science types, geez, so gullible. GMO is an evil plot of the oligarchy, doncha know that? Bill Gates and Monsanto like it, and that's all you need to know. End of story (except for following the money, everyone is welcome to blog on that.)

More seriously, I'd love to see more discussion like this.

Who would ask for that? It

Verified Atheist — Sun, 25 Aug 2013 02:36:21 +0000

In reply to Yes, GMO methods don't create

Who would ask for that?

It seems we've come back full circle to my comments about the food replicators.

In all seriousness, there are at least 2 distinct forces at play with respect to the pro-GMO side: agribusiness and pure science, where I will caricaturize the former as being only out for money (over-simplifying in one direction) and the other being interested in ways to help mankind (over-simplifying in the other). Most scientists will acknowledge the dangers of monocultures, and if science can show that agribusiness will actually help their bottom line, then agribusiness might also change their ways. Of course, unfortunately, science has to show how it will also help in the short term and not just in the long term, where the latter is far more obvious.

Yes, GMO methods don't create

moat — Sun, 25 Aug 2013 02:06:04 +0000

In reply to Biodiversity is very much a

Yes, GMO methods don't create monocultures by themselves. The passage you quoted only looks at the processes as they are being used in the context of a very large means of food production. The scale of that production threatens biodiversity, with or without genetic modifications.

It is possible that GMO methods could even be helpful in mitigating the effects of that production if that was the design criteria that was being asked of the technology.

Who would ask for that?

Biodiversity is very much a

Verified Atheist — Sat, 24 Aug 2013 23:23:00 +0000

In reply to Most of the criticism of GMO

Biodiversity is very much a legitimate claim, but we were already having problems with that before GMOs entered the picture, and we will continue to have problems with that if GMOs are eliminated from the picture. As with arguing climate change issues, I think that one has to be careful to make sure that the arguments being made actually support the position being taken. The page you cite claims:

Since genetically modified crops (a.k.a. GMOs) reinforce genetic homogeneity and promote large scale monocultures

However, I do not see why that is necessarily the case. One can have GMO without a loss of biodiversity (although granted, I wouldn't expect it), and one can have a loss of biodiversity without GMO (and I would very much expect it). Again, I think that biodiversity is a very important issue, but I'm a firm believer in arguing with the best available arguments, and I don't think biodiversity is the best argument against GMOs.

By the way, I think our

Michael Maiello — Sat, 24 Aug 2013 15:07:52 +0000

In reply to I'm sorry MM I didn't mean to

By the way, I think our pediatrician presents a solution to the problem of vax denials. If you won't vaccinate your kid, you're not right for her practice. She's in Manhattan's west village and has no shortage of patients so she has the economic freedom to say no, but it also makes sense -- she wants to treat people who share her philosophy. She's up front about things and is pretty laid back about everything except vaccines. But, her take is that anyone with strong anti-vax feelings is better off with another doctor anyway.

What I never asked her is why she had to have such a policy. Anti-vax seems to be centered both in rural anti-government areas and in urban affluent neighborhoods. I wonder if her decision was pre-emptive or if there isn't a strong anti-vax community in our neighborhood.

I think, aside from being pro-science, that we're not rich enough to be anti-vax. When preventable disease could equal financial ruin, you prevent the disease.

Most of the criticism of GMO

moat — Sat, 24 Aug 2013 00:16:41 +0000

In reply to Well, first of all, it's

Most of the criticism of GMO products I am familiar with come from its relationship to biodiversity.

The link I have given is a typical sort of argument for why one should be concerned. I have read and overheard concerns being expressed on what effect those sorts of products have on individuals but it it seems to me that the ecological question is the one that is most important to answer.

Remember Thalidomide? I've

Resistance — Fri, 23 Aug 2013 23:51:40 +0000

In reply to Hey, my kid's vaccinated!

Remember Thalidomide? I've been hearing of outbreaks of rashes and such on many people and many are blaming Gluten; or would it be unreasonable to question the possibility that it could be genetically modified foods have entered the food chain and are affecting people, but the industry has too much invested in it's creation and that whole populations are the new guinea pigs. Like rats in a cage, to stupid to question what is really going on?

Have a great trip, Tmac.

Michael Maiello — Fri, 23 Aug 2013 22:21:48 +0000

In reply to I'm sorry MM I didn't mean to

Have a great trip, Tmac. I've missed ya, lately!