Wait really? I thought it was considered common knowledge that organic food uses less pesticides and doesn't damage the environment as much. Is that not the case?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Left leaning anti-scientific beliefs
- Thread starter Opiate
- Start date
- Status
Wait really? I thought it was considered common knowledge that organic food uses less pesticides and doesn't damage the environment as much. Is that not the case?
Interfectum
Member
The anti-vaccine and anti-GMO people immediately come to mind. The anti-gluten nuts too.
But this type of argument about categories is more typically the realm of philosophy. (Scientific categorization is more about having standards in place so that everyone can understand what they're talking about. See e.g. arguments about Pluto--is it really not a planet? The answer is that it isn't really anything, but it's convenient to define it as not a planet because then we don't have to worry about whether a bunch of other stuff is or is not a planet, and because it's generally useful to agree on terminology.)
"Life begins at conception" is not a statement of scientific fact, it's an attempt to sneak in an argument via categorization. Life implies human life implies moral weight. This is fairly typical of argument by definition. Other examples include "affirmative action is racist by definition" (sneaking in the argument that affirmative action is bad), "genetic engineering is eugenics by definition" (sneaking in the argument that genetic engineering is bad), etc etc.
I don't really see a broad scientific consensus that human life begins at conception or that a fertilized egg immediately gains moral weight. So yeah, I don't see how it's anti-science to disagree with the argument-by-definition and its sneaky implied arguments.
"Does being ethically opposed to Islamic terrorism count as being anti-Muslim?"
Elected officials will tell you anything to get elected.
DoktorEvil
Banned
No, that is a misconception.
https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html
http://ag.arizona.edu/pubs/health/foodsafety/az1079.html
It uses pesticides, but of "synthetic free" origins.
Simply Sarah
Member
No, that's the common image projected. "Organic" does not inherently mean the process was more environmentally friendly. In fact, it can result in more wasteful farming and lower quality products. Basically, are there ways farming can be/has been improved? Sure. But "organic" is nonsense.
Of course people make these arguments. My point was that plenty on both sides do not. They arbitrarily pick when personhood begins, which does little to support the credibility of their argument or lets me justify my opinion.
The part where the soul comes in just muddies the waters of the whole debate, as you said. I guess my problem comes from, being a pro-life person myself who is more-or-less non-religious, explaining my views to others using simple moral values I apply to aborting a fetus. "Oh, but it isn't life at that point" isn't what I want to hear, because then it just becomes an argument of when life begins, not an argument of the ethics of aborting a potential human life.
I'm getting super off-topic at this point so I'll just leave it at that, but I suppose the bottom line for me is that both sides of the abortion debate like to argue upon a set of biases, out of conveniences, in order to skirt the larger ethical ramifications of aborting a fetus VS protecting a women's rights to do what she wishes with her body. For pro-life: "all fetuses have a soul", and for pro-choice "the fetus isn't a human until X, anyway".
Raonak
Banned
The hate for GMOs is fucking frustrating, I mean, yes the companies are doing some shady stuff, but the concept behind it is great, and the way of the future.
genetically engineering vegetables is something that we have always done, but far slower, like how we breed dogs, we bred vegetables to grow better, taste sweeter, etc. It's just now we can modify it extremely well, and not waste generations.
It's currently the best way we're gonna solve world hunger.
genetically engineering vegetables is something that we have always done, but far slower, like how we breed dogs, we bred vegetables to grow better, taste sweeter, etc. It's just now we can modify it extremely well, and not waste generations.
It's currently the best way we're gonna solve world hunger.
Overall biggest problem is most people don't even eat their fruit and veggies in the first place.
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
Generally I hear a lot about pesticides before I hear about either of those.
Environmental reasons don't really pan out either.
http://news.discovery.com/earth/plants/organic-farms-can-pollute-too-140221.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebat...e/the-ecological-case-against-organic-farming
Ethical reasons I could understand for meat etc.
I'm againts GMO in the following issues:
- Patenting of DNA sequences: making the code of life a private property.
- Genetic Divide: Not only in the Gataca sense, but these advances, given the current capitalist neo-liberal model, will come to the rich first.
- Unintended consequences.
- Patenting of DNA sequences: making the code of life a private property.
- Genetic Divide: Not only in the Gataca sense, but these advances, given the current capitalist neo-liberal model, will come to the rich first.
- Unintended consequences.
No its definitely the most interesting thing we could be talking about in regards to liberal anti science because attacking it will get you such vitirol.
I would argue that it won't matter what it is, rich will get it first. Anti-human genetic engineering stance won't solve this.
(No comment on actually being anti- or pro-GE.)
EDIT And if not genetic enhancing, then cybernetic or some other. Rich will get it first... and likely could get away with such even if they were illegal or taboos.
I'm having a hard time picturing the argument you're trying to describe. When you explain your views to others are you starting from principles like: "it's wrong to end a human life"? And then they say "well the fetus isn't life at that point"? I think this is a perfectly reasonable response if you understand "life" to mean "person", which is how lots of people use the word, and which is the only way you could be using the word in order to not be begging the question. So then of course you get into an argument about when life (i.e. personhood) begins, because that's precisely where the disagreement is.
Now, if you're arguing that it's wrong to end a potential human life, then it's a non sequitur to respond with "the fetus isn't a human life yet", but this strikes me as an implausible sort of argument to be having because it's obvious that you've already granted that the fetus is not a human life (it's merely a potential one).
Simply Sarah
Member
On your second point: Most GMO stuff is quite specifically intended for mass consumption. That's kind of the entire point.
On your third point: This statement is so generic and lacking in context that it has no value.
I certainly think so. Not sure if republican but conservative: yes. He's a scientologist. What can you expect from that?
It's not a rule of thumb you now, but in general, I think it is.
Genuinely the irony of a lot of left-leaning anti-scientific beliefs which I'd argue come down mainly to alternative medicine and organic food.. plus GMO to a extent (although the ironic point doesn't really apply that heavily to GMO unless you are making a comparative comparison) is the root of the ideology behind such beliefs comes down to a kind of form of resistance against the profit-driven exploitative nature of capitalism.. which can make such beliefs seem sincere in a way, but the problem is the alternative medicine and organic food industry generally is a profit-driven industry with high profit margins like anything else, but unlike the medical industry, it's profits purely on the basis of lies and deception (this partly applies to big pharma but only in certain cases, simply because the majority of drugs do actually work despite their problems).
CheDominik
Member
Okay than the EU restrictions are much stricter when it comes to pesticides and the pollution of water.
theepicoftyler
Member
In my experience, people opposed to this issue are chiefly educated by things such as the Academy Award nominated documentary "Gasland", which is disingenuous at best, and complete and utter bullshit at worst. It's a glowing example of the problem with liberal anti-science in that a person with no scientific background puts a lot of effort into trying to educate the public about something.
The scientific literature finds that most of the claims made in the movie (and widely in apposition to fracking and shale gas) are untrue, or again, disingenuous.
Fracking doesn't cause earthquakes (of notable magnitude). However, USGS and other reports of waste water injection wells causing earthquakes are often used as evidence of fracking caused earthquakes.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/induced/
Lighting your tap water on fire happens anywhere there are hydrocarbon bearing rock strata (i.e. places where fracking is done). There are a variety of reasons for this (poor well casing, permeable strata adjacent to water-bearing units), but it's natural and common.
http://pubs.cas.psu.edu/FreePubs/pdfs/XH0010.pdf
Fracking is the process of retrieving gas from impermeable shale. That fact alone explains why the gas doesn't migrate into other strata. It can't escape that shale strata. Also, most aquifers are relatively shallow (think hundreds of feet), and most of the units used for fracking are thousands of feet below the surface.
The only evidence of groundwater contamination comes from instances where the drilling well itself was not properly cased, or surface spills causing contamination. There are no documented instances of a properly cased well causing groundwater contamination.
http://www.jsg.utexas.edu/news/2011...w-no-direct-link-to-groundwater-contamination
Rambling post. Sorry, I'm at work and don't have time to edit into something more coherent. Back to work (being a geologist
).Just to be clear, this is a valid position to hold but 1) it's not the typical complaint and 2) It's a purely ideological position.
Again, a great comparison here are libertarian climate change deniers: the core of their objection is typically that they don't believe the government should intervene in private businesses. This is an ideological position that isn't necessarily "true" or "false." It's just a belief or value.
It's certainly something that we should always consider, but almost every change in the world has unintended consequences. I am not reflexively against every change because it could possibly affect the world in ways I cannot anticipate. If I were, I'd be against all change.
I have little/no issue with making crops more resistant to plagues, or even designing a total new organism for the terraformation of Mars. I don't like that the new super-humans are going to be the sons of the Kochs, Kardashians, Abramovichs of the world.
The third point is more a call for very strict regulation.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
A lot of vegetarians/vegans went that route strictly because they were uncomfortable with animals being killed/mistreated. But then they felt the need to justify not having meat in their diet from a nutritional standpoint. Some even went so far as to convince themselves that meat was nothing but poison.
Vat-grown meat is meat, but without the issues that drove these people away from meat.
It's going to be interesting to see the mental gymnastics that readily available vat-grown meat will cause.
Since people tackle the other two points, let me tackle the first. I'm assuming you are okay with GMOs, just don't like these specific things.
Lets say someone makes a GMO - and they spent hundreds of millions on R&D - how would you suggest they protect this asset, aside from patents (which expire in 10 years, I think it is, by the way).
CurlySaysX
Banned
There is mercury in the flu shot.
Currently bad ass action movies.
I think it's more valid if your opposition exclusively remains towards corporations like Monsanto.
GMOs are just GMOs - if you are making that argument (which I'm incredibly sympathetic towards) you are making a argument against how GMOs are implemented in the political economy not what they are inherently.
Without speaking for Lonely1, I know people who would rather have the government or a non-profit do it, even if this process proves profoundly less efficient and effective, just so that the information can be available in the public domain.
That is, they instinctively dislike the notion that a company can own patents on DNA, and would be willing to accept alternatives even if those alternatives were proven to be less effective and more costly.
DoktorEvil
Banned
Damn food pyramid confusing the American public.
I'd also say that based on rapid increases every decade that require recalibration of IQ tests themselves the issue is purely cultural/social stratification and more accurately reflects haves vs have nots than white vs black.
Okay, again, how is Monsanto uniquely abhorrent as a company? It has been my experience through investigation (significant thanks to Kinitari for encouraging me to dig) that Monsanto has become a boogeyman for the anti-GMO cause without any real merit. By making Monsanto look bad, people can say, "Well, it's not just my personal beliefs. Look at how evil Monsanto is!"
Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Monsanto really is particularly evil. Can you provide evidence to show that to be the case?
Simply Sarah
Member
Oh, sure, but stopping GMO crops won't do much to prevent the elites from attempting that.
There was at one point. But it was ethyl mercury, not elemental, which isn't enough of a distinction for some people. Thimerosal is no longer used as a preservative purely because of public fears, and it's never been shown to cause problems.
radios shipping overview
Member
I think stoner utopianism would fall under this category. You know, when somebody gets REALLY into weed and considers it a cure for all ills and will talk your ear off about how hemp is a wonder-plant that can be used to solve all the world's resource shortages.
That is going to vary on a case-by-case basis. If we are talking about using standardized tests as a replacement for individualized tests, in theory you ought to be able to reallocate whatever grading resources were going to be used to score the individualized tests. Now with current policies, that would be a problem, since individualized tests are usually graded by the person teaching the class and tying test scores to compensation for those teachers creates an incentive for them to cheat on the grading. But the basic principle still makes sense - if the standardized tests being used as a replacement, there should be resources being freed up that could in some way be shuffled around so that they could be applied to grading the standardized exams.
If, on the other hand, the standardized tests are being used in addition to the individualized exams, then you do have a problem of supplying additional resources to grade them and there's not really any easy answer to that. You either pay for the resources you need, or you modify the test so it requires fewer resources. That is, after all, why the bulk of these exams are multiple choice. But it's not that hard to envision solving this problem with technology. The very simplified scoring rubric you described early could certainly be automated, and I imagine that we already have the capability to do more sophisticated computer-based scoring. Even if we are not confident enough in completely relying on computer systems, we could do computer pre-scoring with manual adjustments afterward.
biggersmaller
Banned
It speaks to a moralistic fallacy, meaning that just because something should be a certain way - there is then a real desire to claim that that's the way things actually are despite the scientific evidence. Basically, to say everybody should be treated equally, because there are no genetic differences between black and white that matter sounds really fucking awesome, but is ultimately a fallacy.
Of course, a little cognitive dissonance in these cases is a positive - as who really wants to get on the soapbox proclaiming genetic superiority?
Simply Sarah
Member
Wait, wait. Are you proposing the whole "standardized tests to determine if teachers are good" nonsense again? Because this will cause issues regardless and it's not just that NCLB did things badly (Which it did). It also basically allows people to completely ignore many structural and societal issues because all the focus is on how well teachers make kids perform, however the hell that's supposed to work.
Not sure if a evil corporation but transgenic maize became a real problem in Mexico. Take this for example:
From FoodTank
This is about protecting culinary endemic tradition and endemic gene diversity rather than just saying 'GMO's are bad'. It's fare more complicated than what it looks like. Further, as far as I'm concerned, because Monsanto's genes are patented, who would own the maize if your stock is contaminated? These are questions that are not answered entirely.
Simply Sarah
Member
Or, you know, we might say "Sure, there are differences, but treating IQ as some universal and all-telling RPG stat value is absolutely ridiculous." because that seems to be how people want to treat it. In fact, it's a pretty awful number and it shouldn't be used for much of anything. I know there are multiple ways and testing methods that give an IQ, but the situations where I've gotten a value were when I took various cognitive test batteries looking for strengths and weaknesses. Sure, they gave an IQ at the end too, but that's probably the least important result from the entire thing. People are different, with their own strengths and weaknesses. Only a fool limits their view to things that they happen to seem strong at and consider themselves superior. I'm not even going to get into all the other sorts of issues using IQ as some magical number creates.
I'm not sure how this is particular to Monsanto as a company, or even to companies working on GMOs generally. This would be a problem for GMOs whether they were created by governments or non-profits or by corporations.
Not that the problem isn't real, mind you. It's something worth considering. But it's sort of like saying "if we let Space X build space shuttles, their shuttles may be faulty and people might die." Yes, they may; they also may die if other companies build them, or if our government builds them, or if the Russian government builds them. It's a problem, but it's not particular to Space X nor is it particularly to a capitalist approach.
biggersmaller
Banned
Monsanto (and other biotech firms) are evil not because their genetically-engineered seeds are inherently unhealthy, but because their corruptly obtained patents are used to back litigation forcing non-participating farmers to either buy their product or go bankrupt. It's anti-competitive and potentially harmful in the way of biodiversity.
I would just Google Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association et al v. Monsanto.
No. If you read my posts in this thread on the topic that ought to be pretty clear.
Simply Sarah
Member
I did and I'm honestly still not sure what you want to use standardized testing for.
My problem with the whole GMO debate is that the ethics of big agro and the environmental impact too often is overlooked or dismissed. I agree that GMOs themselves are not a problem, but it's the baggage that comes with it that very well may be.
Exactly. This is what the debate should be about.
If you acknowledge that Monsanto is a "hard capitalist" company, isn't it potentially problematic that they control a large portion of our food source? Do you really want an organization whose sole motivation is profit having that much impact on your diet?
Exactly. This is what the debate should be about.
If you acknowledge that Monsanto is a "hard capitalist" company, isn't it potentially problematic that they control a large portion of our food source? Do you really want an organization whose sole motivation is profit having that much impact on your diet?
- Status