Science: Vaccine = safe. ACC =real. GMOs = safe. How do some progressives ignore this?

[HuckleB]

Last edited Sat Sep 5, 2015, 09:32 AM - Edit history (1)

Science matters, no matter the topic.

We need to be on the same page, and that page needs to be supported by science.

[Cal Carpenter]

1. Disingenuous

Don't conflate things as though there are no nuances or unknowns. Because THAT is an unscientific way to make an argument.

[HuckleB]

2. Pretending that there are no nuances and unknowns does not justify ugly anti-science propaganda.

[Cal Carpenter]

5. Pretending that there are no nuances and unknowns seems to be the very *basis* of pro-GMO propaganda

I have never posted any anti-science propaganda, so I'm not sure who you think you are arguing with anyway.

My point is that one can be pro-science, pro-vaccine, and see the very real problems and potential problems with GMOs. This isn't just about whether or not they are safe for consumption.

The last word is yours because you are clearly NOT here to have an honest discussion, rather you are perpetuating the dig-your-heels-in false dichotomy that poses as debate around here.

[PETRUS]

9. +1

[HuckleB]

14. Derp.

[HuckleB]

13. The opposite is true.

Last edited Sat Sep 5, 2015, 09:52 AM - Edit history (1)

Almost every concern/accusation about GMOs is ten times more a concern for other seed development technologies.

I'll wait for you to show me differently.

[GoneFishin]

26. +1.

[StopTheNeoCons]

32. + 1

Most GMO proponents are corporate shills

[HuckleB]

34. Where have I been dishonest about this topic?

It's very disingenuous for you to make such a claim.

[alarimer]

3. Because they are no smarter than anyone else.

They have inherent biases, just like anyone. And many lack critical thinking skills. Big corporation = bad, no matter what it actually is. (This despite the fact that many "alternative" medicines and organic foods are made by gigantic megacorps too.

(I"m not sure what AW stands for, but the point still stands).

[HuckleB]

4. "They."

Hello, who is "they?"

[LiberalAndProud]

6. Should we be agnostic about how much the science can demonstrate at this time?

Are the current standards sufficient? These are questions I find myself asking.

I suppose I could dive into reading the studies and evaluating the controls and understanding what our current standards are, but that would be tedious. So as it stands, I would be demonstrating a blind faith in science to make a declarative statement about how safe is safe.

[HuckleB]

10. Well, you just ignore it, or you acknowledge it, as you decide.

[LiberalAndProud]

17. I have already acknowledged that the science is out there.

But it has never been outside of the scientific purview to examine the methods and the standards being employed. When speaking of GMOs, I'm not yet convinced. As I said, this is because I haven't examined the material. I don't care to be embarrassed by my ignorance should new evidence present itself.

If you're comfortable with your conclusion, that is commendable. I am less certain, which I find isn't a terribly comfortable position.

[Shandris]

7. Spontaneous Generation was once 'supported by science'.

Tell me, the day before the great Meat Experiment, was the science still correct?

'Backed by science' means it hasn't been disproven YET. Much like the Black Swan, it is considered 'settled' only because science has whored itself out to capitalism (as have some people...).

So thanks, but no...it isn't 'backed by science' it's backed by faith,and until it can be reasonably shown by a period of usage upwards of, oh, say, a few human lifetimes to be safe, then it won't BE settled either. Now that I have bothered to respond to your shilling, I will make absolutely certain I never do so again by removing the ability to even see the...things you post. Have a nice day.

EDIT: And why does this thread and this thread alone keep setting off my Cross-Site Scripting warning? I find that odd.
EDIT 2: And apparently unrelated. VERY odd. Ah well.

[HuckleB]

11. Well, there is thing called reality/actual science.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_was_wrong_before

[Gormy Cuss]

42. Whoa, there's some serious bullshit at that link

like this:

To describe outdated or discredited theories as "wrong" misses a major subtlety in science: discarded theories aren't really wrong, they just fail to explain new evidence, and more often than not the new theory to come along is almost the same as the old one but with some extensions, caveats or alternatives. Often enough, these "new" theories are already in existence and just waiting in the wings ready for new evidence to come along and differentiate them.

From Merriam -Webster:

Full Definition of DISCREDIT
transitive verb
1: to refuse to accept as true or accurate : disbelieve <discredit a rumor>

2: to cause disbelief in the accuracy or authority of <a discredited theory>

3: to deprive of good repute : disgrace <personal attacks meant to discredit his opponent>

"causing disbelief in the accuracy or authority" sure sounds a lot like "wrong" even if within science circles it's not considered as such.

[hifiguy]

8. i don't worry about the science of GMO so much

as I worry about the possibility of unintended consequences that could arise from cross-pollination with traditional crops. I also frown on a gigantic corporation patenting a life form and slapping shackles on farmers to "protect" its "intellectual property" and stamp out natural seeds.

I trust Monsanto no further than I can throw the Sphinx.

[HuckleB]

12. If that's your only worry about GMOs, then you should be far more worried...

...about other seed development technologies.


After all, your fear, is much of a concern with them.

[NuclearDem]

15. GMOs are the only topic I've seen make a bunch of socialists

demand the "free market decide."

[HuckleB]

19. Alas, far too many anti-vaccine folks go the same route. Hmm.

[Bluenorthwest]

16. Well then you need to get the science crowd to start acting like the science crowd and not like

a marketing division with a legal arm. If you want to talk about GMOs as if it was great progressive science, the first step would not be coming on with patented food crops and law suits against poor farmers. The entire concept has been used as a profit driving thing, not a breakthrough which could help feed the world but a hotly protected intellectual property.
The other thing the GMO crowd did wrong in terms of public relations is they fought to keep foods from being labeled, that indicates the need to hide the product and sneak it into the food chain. If these products are so great, they should be proud to label them as GMO products. Demanding no labeling and furtive use of the products makes the products look bad. Vaccine = proven, labeled, sourced and ingredients listed. So what's the problem, if they are same same?

So I think you might be confusing 'science' with 'industry' in some ways.

[HuckleB]

18. What's funny is that it's the anti-science crowd that acts in the way you pretend here.

Science and ethics matter. Either act under that reality, or acknowledge that you are acting unethically. Which is it?

Yes, I am pointing out the reality that the anti-GMO contingent acts unethically. If I am wrong, prove it.

[hunter]

20. You speak of GMOs as if they are one thing.

GMOs making medicine, I think that's great.

GMOs for biological weapons, no, no, not safe.

GMOs in agriculture are a mixed bag. The ones developed to increase the sales of specific herbicides are not safe, because most herbicides are not safe. As the years pass, "superweeds" evolve, requiring more herbicides. The same sort of evolution occurs in pests. The benefits of the GMO are lost. Furthermore these modified plants often damage natural populations of non-pest organisms; birds, bees, butterflies, and insect predators.

Perhaps the greatest danger in the long term from the current industrial model of agriculture, including GMOs, is the loss of diversity in our agricultural heritage.

I'm an Open Source software user, I haven't used Microsoft or Apple products since Windows 98SE. I strongly believe that the genes of our food sources out to be open source too, that farmers ought to be able to save their seeds, even develop local genetically diverse varieties of food.

I also think that most GMO research, in both medicine and agricultural ought to be publicly funded, in publicly funded university labs, motivated not by profit, but by doing what's best for farmers, the natural environment, and humankind in general.

Processes for the mass production of certain GMOs, medicines and seeds, might be patented, but not the genes themselves. No farmer or breeder, amateur or professional, would get into trouble for saving seeds or incorporating novel genes into their own experiments, by accident or intent.

Yes, I think patenting genes in agriculture is a bad idea. I also think industrial agriculture, especially monoculture requiring regular inputs of herbicides and pesticides, and synthetic nitrogen fertilizers to the extent ground and surface water are polluted, is another bad idea.

I control insects in my yard by making it attractive to small insectivore birds, and hospitable to beneficial invertebrate predators like spiders and ladybugs. I even tolerate ants so long as the stay out of the kitchen. When we moved into our house we had some problems with aphids, and ants tending "aphid farms" in our garden, but the little birds of various species have taken care of that. When they discover an minor aphid infestation, they quickly devour them all.

We enjoy bees, butterflies, a variety of humming birds, and countless species of other birds, many who nest in our yard. In spite of the drought our yard is a lively place.

Acres and acres of industrial mono-culture -- corn and soybeans drenched in herbicides and pesticides; crowded pig, dairy cows, chicken, beef cattle feedlots, etc. -- are the extreme deserts of this planet, and we humans have created those.

[pnwmom]

22. And most GMO's have been developed as a way of controlling the market, for maximum profit. nt

[HuckleB]

24. You attribute things to GMO agriculture that are just as valid for all seed development technologies

That's the problem. It's about GMO tech. It's about other issues. Stop convoluting that reality.

[hunter]

38. GMO is the pinnacle of that "seed development technologies."

Large $$$ investments in expectation of large $$$ profits. That's all that matters in the process.

I'd say the same of hybrid seed and other "development technologies."

Hybrid seeds were brilliant marketing. Look at this farmers, buy our magical high yield seeds! Seeds you can't save, even if it wasn't a violation of our patents, because the next generation will have pathetic yields...

Many of these innovations are nothing more than poisoning the well and then selling the antidote, all in the name of corporate profits.

That's why I would do away with gene patents. It would take the profit out of this nasty "scientific" business.

[HuckleB]

39. I'd be fine dumping patents, as long as we fund the research in some other manner.

Yes, I'd prefer that. It would be good for everyone. That doesn't mean farmers aren't just fine buying the seeds they buy. They don't want to save them, anyway, because it's not financially viable.

[hunter]

40. WTF? Financially viable?

Make that argument with some farmer in India or Mexico who's feeling a bit suicidal today because a giant corporation, backed by force of law, is kicking him in the face with steel toed boots because it's "profitable" for wealthy strangers in distant places to turn every last square centimeter of the living earth into monocultural deserts.

Too many "scientists" seem incapable of noticing the larger patterns in the world around them.

Or maybe some of those patterns are simply too scary to think about, a jeopardy to their hard-won careers.

Everyone likes to think they are making the world a better place. Most of us are not.

Theodore Sturgeon was correct, 90% of everything humans do is crap. That crap often becomes much more toxic as big money is added to it.

[pnwmom]

21. Some scientists said thalidomide was safe and covered up data showing it wasn't.

Some scientists insisted cigarettes were safe long after data showed they weren't.

Some scientists said perfluorooctanoic acid was safe.

Every product of science is not created equal, and every vaccine and GMO needs to be evaluated on its own. Scientists and engineers have created products that make all of our lives easier -- and also products that have caused great injury. Just because a scientist or engineer invents something, and publishes some data about it, doesn't make it safe.

How can some progressives not understand this?

http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/welcome-to-beautiful-parkersburg/

[Chathamization]

23. Artificial Intelligence=safe. Why give a pass to anti-science people like Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk

and Bill Gates?

[oberliner]

25. What is AW?

Still can't figure that one out.

[Shrike47]

27. Me, too. Atmospheric warming? Altruistic warlocks? Atomic weenies? Still pondering...

[HuckleB]

28. My bad. I corrected it.

[Shrike47]

29. The American College of Gastroenterolgy? Still confused here.

Do agree with your point re: accepting science.

[HuckleB]

30. Anthropogenic Climate Change.

[immoderate]

31. I think it's root beer.

--imm

[krawhitham]

33. We pick and chose what science to believe the same as the GOP does.

But we belittle them for doing it

[HuckleB]

35. Or non-science, as is the case regarding the three topics in the OP.

[Archae]

36. It comes down to one main point.

Actual science is difficult.

And our "news media" doesn't help matters, especially when the latest fossil discovery is made, it's called a "missing link."
An outdated and obsolete term.

The anti-GMO activists have painted this picture of GMO's like this:



This same technique is used by anti-vaxxers, creationists, geocentrists (oh yeah, they still exist!) anyone and everyone who doesn't like science because "It's too hard," but will gladly listen or read stuff by a "graduate" of the Maharishi Yogi "university."

[HuckleB]

37. Indeed, but the propaganda is so blatantly bad that it's still odd...

... that so many people fall for it.

And, of course, the results of anti-GMO hysteria are real. It harms people.

http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/conservation-and-development/the-human-toll-of-anti-gmo-hysteria

[Archae]

41. The biggest problem are the "lebel them!" anti-GMO people.

Sure, put a label on all GMO's, meanwhile, the anti-GMO hysterics are putting out the most vile propaganda, like this:



And the "organic" producers are laughing all the way to the bank.