Anti-GMO activist admits he was wrong

Wuglife said:
The biggest obstacle to feeding people is politics, perhaps along with distribution logistics.

The food is there--there is more than enough food for everyone. I've yet to see any actual evidence that this is caused by the availability of GM crops over the last 19 years, might I add. Especially considering much of the surplus is wheat.

By the way, in addition to wheat, tomatoes on the commercial market are NOT produced with biotechnology--yet in Spain, enough surplus is produced for this:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ndIFZ92KC...NvbDyZDj8/s1600/tomatina_festival_2011_01.jpg
Click to expand...

Yes, there is more food produced then needed, but as you mentioned the problem is logistics. GMO's can be used to make food in areas that previously were unable to sustain argiculture (i.e. parts of Africa) and provide food in the local area.
 
Just more convinced that that the Anti GMO movement is really about politics and hatred of large corporations then about science.
 
Unabogie said:
I am not reflexively anti-GMO, even though many people I know are. But what I do think is that patent laws can be very dangerous. I do not think food should be patented. If that hinders R&D on the part of companies like Monsanto, I'd pay taxes to keep food as "open source" everywhere. Food is too intrinsic to our very survival to allow its production to be dictated by the profit motive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Seeds

If the science supports GMO as safe, then I will happily accept the science. But I also oppose regulatory capture and seed patents. Monsanto can sell what it wants, but food seeds should be free, as in free beer, to buy, propagate, replicate, etc. The goal is feeding people, full stop.
Click to expand...

So a small farmer has no right to sell his crop for a profit?

Nice going.
 
dudalb said:
Just more convinced that that the Anti GMO movement is really about politics and hatred of large corporations then about science.
Click to expand...

You say that as if science is Jesus and Monsanto is Paul.
 
dudalb said:
Just more convinced that that the Anti GMO movement is really about politics and hatred of large corporations then about science.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

The nut right hates big government and is certain they are conspiring to take away their guns/property/etc.

The nut left hates big corporations (Big Ag, Big Pharma, etc) and is certain they are conspiring to take away their health/life/money, etc.

Opposite sides of the same idiot coin.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Exactly.

The nut right hates big government and is certain they are conspiring to take away their guns/property/etc.

The nut left hates big corporations (Big Ag, Big Pharma, etc) and is certain they are conspiring to take away their health/life/money, etc.

Opposite sides of the same idiot coin.
Click to expand...

Like this religious logic above
 
!Kaggen said:
No what?
They aren't? I agree so stop making them out to be by using religious logic on "anti GMO people" whatever they are supposed to be and use scientific arguments.
Click to expand...

'Anti GMO people' are people who are against GMOs.
No religious logic, just short, descriptive and to the point. No scientific arguments are required when describing people's positions.
 
kerikiwi said:
'Anti GMO people' are people who are against GMOs.
No religious logic, just short, descriptive and to the point. No scientific arguments are required when describing people's positions.
Click to expand...

Ah, so you have no scientific argument against the many different positions of the individuals that make up "these people" you only have ad hominem's.
 
!Kaggen said:
Ah, so you have no scientific argument against the many different positions of the individuals that make up "these people" you only have ad hominem's.
Click to expand...

Where is the ad hominem? It is a simple description of people who oppose GMOs.
It requires no argument, scientific or otherwise. It is just a description.
 
Morrigan said:
My local grocery store is so annoying lately. They've started promoting all manners of "bio" and non-GMO foods (which are invariably more expensive too), with stupid slogans such as "good for nature, good for me". Nevermind that GMOs get more crop yields for less space, and therefore destroys the environment less.... ugh, "good for nature" indeed.
Click to expand...

It plays on the "It's natural, so it must be good for you" belief that is very common among people who thing organic food is the best thing since sliced non-organic bread. Yet they never want to try my 100% natural, organically produced rattlesnake venom.
 
timhau said:
It plays on the "It's natural, so it must be good for you" belief that is very common among people who thing organic food is the best thing since sliced non-organic bread. Yet they never want to try my 100% natural, organically produced rattlesnake venom.
Click to expand...

mithradatismWP would work against that strawman
 
!Kaggen said:
mithradatismWP would work against that strawman
Click to expand...

He's describing the Naturalistic Fallacy often, though not universally, employed by advocates of 'organic' foods and anti-GMO activists. It's no straw man because he hasn't leveled the claim against anyone who hasn't actually used that fallacy.
 
!Kaggen said:
mithradatismWP would work against that strawman
Click to expand...

You mean Mithridatism, named after Mithridates VI of Pontus, who is said to have developed immunity to various poisons by ingesting them in small doses to build up immunity. And when he was eventually defeated by the Romans, he tried to poison himself and failed. :rolleyes:
 
ddt said:
You mean Mithridatism, named after Mithridates VI of Pontus, who is said to have developed immunity to various poisons by ingesting them in small doses to build up immunity. And when he was eventually defeated by the Romans, he tried to poison himself and failed. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

For the anti-GMO crowd, Roman mythology counts as science!! :)
 
Last edited:
tyr_13 said:
He's describing the Naturalistic Fallacy often, though not universally, employed by advocates of 'organic' foods and anti-GMO activists. It's no straw man because he hasn't leveled the claim against anyone who hasn't actually used that fallacy.
Click to expand...
And this argument is often, though not universally a strawman since the idea is not that the natural is morally acceptable but that it is antifragile. It benefits from unpredictable events.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom