Why is it a stretch or anti science to say you worry about corporations intentions when they are funding science. After all, they have a duty to their shareholders to prioritize profits vs the well being of humans everywhere.
If we humans are going to get out of the mess we are in science is going to be responsible for a large percentage of that.
But we need to change what we prioritize as a society too.
Corporate science funding is cancer. Not just because of the research they fund being narrowly tailored toward boosting their bottom line, but because of the power they acquire in the scientific community… which they predictably use to kill scientific study into things they’d prefer didn’t happen.
There’s nothing wrong with GMO’s, but there’s plenty wrong with Monsanto being the biggest non government game in town in the field.
There’s nothing wrong with economics, but there’s plenty wrong with think tanks operated by defense contractors and anti tax rich people to be the biggest non government game in the field.
And then there’s the fact that if an area of scientific inquiry doesn’t have potential military applications it’s chance to get funded is much lower. If it needs a LOT of money to study it had better be able to help kill people better or it’s not getting done period.
I double dare someone to say ‘but NASA’. So much of their technology has ended up having military applications it’s actually hilarious.
There is a weird confusion itt that seems to think generating profit and generating value for people are two different things.
The way a corporation’s R&D team generates profit is by developing something that people want or need.
That’s not to say externalities aren’t an issue nor is there any doubt that the distribution of profits is often problematic. Nonetheless, the problem isn’t that corporate science is somehow uniquely bad because it generates profit.
There is no doubt there are significant inefficiencies in industrial agriculture. I conceded that in all my posts.
Um…they can be two different things.
That doesn’t mean that they are always two different things.
Or with Monsanto: generate a need for something they develop.
Most of the problems that exist with capitalism, IME and IMO can be linked to externalities. Why do corporations emit so much carbon? Because it’s free. This is true for basically every other form of pollution as well. Why do corporations pay less than a living wage? Because it’s their job to figure out how to operate as cheaply as they can without breaking any laws. The laws are the big problem there.
I’m not better. One of my principals that is literally in a text file on my desktop while I’m working at all times (I like to look at the first principles every time I get a decision point that isn’t automatic) is this: “Find out what the customer actually wants and supply that. Additional service above what the customer actually desires is waste and will ultimately come from YOUR gross profit.” Pretty easy to see how that one turns toxic in a vacuum. I’ve got other principals that temper it some, but it’s not even a particularly weird one.
Their business model, at least for some of their seed/herbicide products, is far more ruthless than the Perdue/Oxycontin sales model.
Leftist anti-vaxxing during a Trump second term would probably come from the same people who would be anti-GMO even if there was nearly universal consensus among scientists that such food was safe.
Yeah those are the ones I’m talking about, they’re still anti vaxx now though.
They will drop some pills or tabs without testing them without hesitation though almost always.
A subset I think.
Those people can be anti GMO at no discernible cost to themselves. A lot of that “conviction” would evaporate if they were facing personal condequences.
I’m skeptical that their anti-GMO opinions are scientifically rigorous.
AFAIK the many studies that have evaluated GMOs included the environment also.
Currently there is a social and political controversy about the safety of foods produced from genetically modified (GM) crops, however, in the scientific community there is no dispute or controversy regarding the safety of these technology. To date, more than 3000 scientific studies [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8] have assessed the safety of these crops in terms of human health and environmental impact .
No thanks not that interested. Was just pointing out that studies have in fact been done on the environmental issues also.
As with COVID, I believe in deferring to the scientific consensus on GMOs.
Most people should operate using the heuristic of trusting the scientists. Sure, sometimes that will lead to a mistake from a results-oriented perspective, but the general process is sound. The problem is how non-scientists should evaluate when there is no scientific consensus.
I never claimed to have an opinion on GMOs. I probably don’t care about the subject as most people on here. I just have similar faith in the ability of non-scientists to do their own research on GMOs as they do on COVID. I feel like I’m arguing for a more general method of how to think rather than any specific issue.
On either subject, I would pay more attention to the posters here with the more relevant educational background.
I know the argument I’m trying to make. I’m not sure if you understand the point I’m making.
I kind of don’t care too much about the GMO issue. I don’t even know what the scientific consensus is on the narrow aspect of safety of GMO foods, but if there is scientific consensus that such things are safe to eat (ignoring all other issues), then I expect anti-GMO people to do their own research, engage in a lot of confirmation bias, and make shit up if necessary to avoid agreeing that GMO food is safe to eat even if it is bad for the economy/environment/etc.
You’re mixing up a lot of things here, and attributing them to gmo crops. No gmo plants that I’ve heard of have been developed to take more fertilizer. From a very practical level, that doesn’t make much sense. Fertilizer is expensive, so for most of my life at least, there has been very strong economic incentive to use less fertilizer, not more. I think there have been some efforts to figure out how to make more crops nitrogen-fixing like some crops do naturally.
The main worry about gmo crops, I think, comes from the use of pesticides in conjunction with them.