Of course Ted is taking the side of empirical science and not the naturalistic fallacy.
Anti-GMO alarmism ultimately comes down to the naturalistic fallacy. People are putting in enormous stress and effort trying to prove that it is not a fallacy. "Natural is better! Artififical is dangerous!" It is an endless circular argument. Mike Adams has dedicated his life to trying to disprove the fallacy (and profiting off of fear-mongering). It's anti-science. Instead of starting with an observation and doing experiments to reach a conclusion, it is starting with a conclusion and desperately trying to find evidence to prove the conclusion. Any evidence that contradicts the forgone conclusion that "natural" is the only way is rejected as conspiracy.
I've noticed that the angriest and most passionate anti-genetic engineering activists are those with the weakest science backgrounds. Many of the people marching in the streets against Monsanto have never taken a science course. "IT'S COMMON SENSE" they yell. How insulting and ignorant arrogance. So molecular biology is common sense? Everyday the blast these web sites with alarmist blogs that repeat the same propaganda over and over again.
"GMOS ARE DESTROYING SOCIETY. HERE ARE LINKS TO 15 DIFFERENT ALARMIST BLOGS PROVING IT."
I have realized that getting people who refuse to accept science to understand the naturalistic fallacy is impossible.
I love natural news, it's just too bad when they go to the ninth level of insanity all the time. This article is linked to the letter that apparently stirred this up wherein they say, "these are NOT banned topics". They just want people presenting information as accurately as they can so they don't get in trouble. There are probably a lot of legal ramifications for free speech that people don't like, which is insane I grant you, but Natural News just plain lies in this article. Fortunately I trust no one completely with the exception of my wife and God. Ha. Soooo... anywho, keep on keepin on Natural News, just try not to go insane while trying to fight the good fight.
I have boycotted Natural News for a few years now. Mike Adams is an alarmist and never sources any info except for links to his other articles. I remember when he did a hit piece on Etsy.com for their self-policing policies which warped the facts to make the company look evil.
We need to look at these issues with a rational mindset and look at the facts and evidence. Many of these health issues are real but they need to be presented in a way that we can have a intellectual discussion and not emotionally charged rhetoric.
That being said, I have read the actual TEDx letter and it is slanted toward corporate interests. Science is not a religion and we are not stupid children. As adults, we should be able to see all sides of an issue and make our own decisions on what is good for us.
We all share this eternally evolving present moment- The past and future only exist as inconsequential mental fabrications.
If you hear anything that sounds remotely like, “Vaccines are related to autism,” — RUN AWAY.
who ALSO may not have known...TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design.
Another one of my pet peeves: the over-usage of acronyms in today's world...with the assumption that everyone knows of what you speak!
I think 'we' should hang tough, though...'we' are, step-by-step, beating the Monsanto beast!
O.P.O.G.G. - Fighting the attempted devolution of the rEVOLution
Ron Paul 2012...and beyond
BAN ELECTRONIC VOTING!!
First _ I do not agree with their memo
But the anti GMO crowd do not apply logic to their arguments, they just make blanket claims against a technology.
Genetic modification is a technique, nothing more
this technique is NOT inherently bad, as the critics suggest.
What is bad however, is when a militaristic chemical company purposefully makes weaponized food
this does not mean that genetic modification is bad, just currently misused.
This is no different then the argument for self defense
"guns don't kill people, people kill people"
Regulators Discover a Hidden Viral Gene in Commercial GMO Crops
January 21, 2013
How should a regulatory agency announce they have discovered something potentially very important about the safety of products they have been approving for over twenty years?
In the course of analysis to identify potential allergens in GMO crops, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has belatedly discovered that the most common genetic regulatory sequence in commercial GMOs also encodes a significant fragment of a viral gene
Among the affected transgenic events are some of the most widely grown GMOs, including Roundup Ready soybeans (40-3-2) and MON810 maize. They include the controversial NK603 maize recently reported as causing tumors in rats.
The researchers themselves concluded that the presence of segments of Gene VI “might result in unintended phenotypic changes”. They reached this conclusion because similar fragments of Gene VI have already been shown to be active on their own (e.g. De Tapia et al. 1993). In other words, the EFSA researchers were unable to rule out a hazard to public health or the environment.
In my original post, I mentioned that weponized food is bad
I was clearly referring to Monsanto
Their record as a company is horrendous.
Therefore I do not trust them with food
Unfortunately your reply does not attempt to address my original post
Which is the anti GMO crowd does not use logic in their arguments.
They just give examples of bad uses of the technology, and claim that there can be no good uses.
Of course this is ridiculous, and does not stand up to logic.
If you use the same logic train with self defense, you would be against arming yourself, as there is many of bad examples of people misusing self defense techniques.
I somewhat agree with you in that Genetically modifying certain things (i.e. Industrial Hemp to make it stronger) could be used for positive ideas. But isn't screwing around with nature probably not the best idea? I mean, if certain foods like Apricot Seeds have the potential to cure Cancer already(Laetrile, B-17, whatever you want to call it), isn't that a sign that we don't need to be modifying our food if it already contains the nutrients necessary to live a very healthy life?
If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.
You want me to say "yes"
However, there is no correct answer
Is it 'good' to split an atom?
Splitting an atom is a technique, which can be used for good or for bad
Just like genetic modification
The problem 'good' and 'bad' are subjective to the user
Personally I grow a lot of my own food via rooftop gardening and aquaponics, so you see where I stand on consuming current GMO's
but who knows what the future brings
what you actually think. It wasn't rhetorical, so that was a false assumption on your part.
There is a correct answer if we have official, peer-reviewed studies on GMO's. Yes, obviously, I have a bias and you already know that. But all I'm doing is asking questions where there are no answers.
Again, I'm not trying to make you do anything. I"m trying to provoke discussion so there is more of an understanding.
And kudos to your aqua garden. I wish I had one right now.
Very Easy to make
My first prototype, was constructed with 2 laundry tubs, 2 20 dollar pond pumps from home depot and a used fish tank from craigslist
Here is a slideshow that id did for my class
After a few renditions, I came up with this
scroll down to view
also click on the 'read more' buttons
TED has an agenda, and the number of their agenda is 21.
"TED is now part of the new Cult of Scientism, a dogmatic circle jerk of intellectual bullies who insist the only "science" that's true is their own selected brand of corporate-sponsored science."
What a great line!
"Cowards & idiots can come along for the ride but they gotta sit in the back seat!"
It's been going this way for a while now. They have taken down talks by Rupert Sheldrake, Hancock and a few other knowledgeable minds. They are becoming, or always have been just as bad as the establishment science community aka science' info Nazi's.
It's gotten to where I won't even take a look anymore because I know most are preapproved lectures.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: