|
Slanderer posted:My thread wasn't even meant to be about discussing Monsanto, as I explicitly stated in the OP. There was more confusion and contention about the issues than I had anticipated (too many people reading the same blog-spread memes without context popping in), which directed the conversation away from the original goal of determining how people get into certain irrational mindsets and if they can be argued with. I think this is part of the relevant point of view from Kuhn regarding mind sets. What it points to for me is the impossibility of persuading someone of something from within a paradigm. He suggests something directional here, and elsewhere, about what is needed when we encounter this condition you are asking about, it seems to me. quote:This genetic aspect of the parallel between political and scientific development should no longer be open to doubt. The parallel has, however, a second and more profound aspect upon which the significance of the first depends. Political revolutions aim to change political institutions in ways that those institutions themselves prohibit. Their success therefore necessitates the partial relinquishment of one set of institutions in favor of another, and in the interim, society is not fully governed by institutions at all. Initially it is crisis alone that attenuates the role of political institutions as we have already seen it attenuate the role of paradigms. In increasing numbers individuals become increasingly estranged from political life and behave more and more eccentrically within it. Then, as the crisis deepens, many of these individuals commit themselves to some concrete proposal for the reconstruction of society in a new institutional framework. At that point the society is divided into competing camps or parties, one seeking to defend the old institutional constellation, the others seeking to institute some new one. And, once that polarization has occurred, political recourse fails. Because they differ about the institutional matrix within which political change is to be achieved and evaluated, because they acknowledge no supra-institutional framework for the adjudication of revolutionary difference, the parties to a revolutionary conflict must finally resort to the techniques of mass persuasion, often including force. Though revolutions have had a vital role in the evolution of political institutions, that role depends upon their being partially extrapolitical or extrainstitutional events. Sogol fucked around with this message at 08:26 on Jul 5, 2013 |
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 07:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 14:41 |
|
|
FRINGE posted:Well yes, that would be the extent of what you can conclude. This is perfectly in line with your communication skills, as you highlighted in the OP. You seem to be with company, so at least you have internet friends! Well, I can tell you were already well into your one-man-war against
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 07:17
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Well yes. Yes that might be part of it. Okay, you've successfully showed that both sides in this thread have used some of the same rhetoric. You've failed to do what I asked, which was to justify your choice of an ideologically motivated war against an equally ideological position, rather than a good faith attempt at finding the truth. The fact that ideological war exists doesn't mean it's justified. I'll make this easy. Name one incident caused by pro-GMO ideologues that has caused anywhere near the damage that burning down a GMO research lab has. Just one. icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 07:24 on Jul 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 07:21
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:I'll make this easy. Name one incident caused by pro-GMO ideologues that has caused anywhere near the damage that burning down a GMO research lab has. Well, Monsanto is Pro-GMO, and they destroyed freedom and made farmers start killing themselves before even selling them seeds (temporal seed technology? Must investigate further.), so Pro-GMO has caused harm. QED
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 07:24
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Not to mention all the implicit belief that GMOs increase yield.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 07:38
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:Well, I can tell you were already well into your one-man-war against  I remember that thread. That was the thread where pro-GMO fans jumped from "it will feed the world" to "I dont want to eat plants grown in dirt because bugs are yucky!". Nothing but reasonableness from the fantasy-science crowd. Too bad the actual lab people never talk as much as the fanboys who have nothing to actually contribute. I know theres a few out there. icantfindaname posted:burning down a GMO research lab Look at these meaningful demands we can fabricate! This is fun. Now name me 13 Eskimo Tribes, 9 strains of potato, and 16 kinds of ants! (No googling!) Jetsetlemming posted:"GMO" and "Organic" aren't opposites. As far as the lower yield of non-GMOs goes, the UCS citing the Dept of Ag numbers claims that in some cases: quote:Organic and low-external-input methods (which use reduced amounts of fertilizer and pes-ticides compared to typical industrial crop pro-duction) generally produce yields comparable to those of conventional methods for growing corn or soybeans. For example, non-transgenic soybeans in recent low-external-input experiments produced yields 13 percent higher than for GE soybeans, although other low-external-input research and methods have produced lower yield. Even the -cide use is no longer a good argument in favor of Monsantos pet products. http://grist.org/food/superweeds-story/ quote:Benbrook’s results undercut one of the main arguments in favor of the seeds — the idea that they have significantly brought down pesticide use. In fact, according to Benbrook’s analysis, since their introduction in the 1990s, pesticide use for commodity crops like corn and soy has increased by approximately 7 percent. Which brings me back to my stance from before the usual suspects started wailing. The research is important, it should still be in the lab - not in the fields.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 07:54
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Name one Monsanto Exec that is a better person than a hippie just one! Okay, I'll take that as no, you can't actually back up your thesis in any meaningful way, and are apparently also unable to make a good faith argument, instead relying on emotional crusades against ideological positions which may or may not exist outside of your fevered imagination. If you think this attitude will make the world better in any way, I think you're in for a surprise when ideological bickering prevents people who actually know what the gently caress they're talking about from getting anything done. Or you're just threadshitting for its own sake. Given your post history unearthed by Slanderer, I'd say that's also likely. I will say that the thread probably could've been focused better by the OP, though. Making an insightful meta-critique of the negative effects that ideological positions are having irl probably requires more careful policing of the bounds of debate and a more well developed initial suggestion for inquiry. Well whatever, it's devolved into identity politics and poo poo slinging by the exact kind of people it was intended to criticize to begin with. icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 08:18 on Jul 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 08:04
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Okay, I'll take that as no You used a small rhetoric to deflect the conversation. When I clarified your intention by reflecting back at you, you had nothing of substance to say except NEENER NEENER. This is one source of the "communication problems" that occur. You, for one, have no interest in it. You are here to point and laugh, and when that fails you have nothing at all. icantfindaname posted:the exact kind of people it was intended to criticize to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 08:24
|
|
|
You have not offered and defended one single good faith argument in this entire thread. In between your paranoid rants about pro-Monsanto whiteknights, trolls, and shills who don't exist in the thread you've poo poo out some vague points about GMO food and Monsanto that have all been either debunked or strongly challenged, which you then failed to defend, opting instead to claim that your opponent was an evil caricature of either an authoritarian corporate executive or a reddit libertarian. There are essentially two debates going on in this thread, a debate and a meta-debate, the one being "Is GMO agriculture harmful" and the other being "Are ideologues either for or against GMO having a negative effect on the world". The thread was started around the meta-debate. You have consistently failed to say anything at all interesting about either one. W/r/t The first one you either don't know what you're talking about or are entirely uninterested in arguing it, and w/r/t the second you've been incredibly duplicitous and dishonest the entire thread and refuse to make a good faith effort to engage others on the topic. icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 08:46 on Jul 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 08:40
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:you've been incredibly duplicitous and dishonest the entire thread and refuse to answer callouts on this behavior.  I am calling you out! Let us hear something of substance from "icantfindaname". icantfindaname posted:some vague points about GMO food and Monsanto This is a communication thread. Let us all play along! I think what the OP (and maybe you?) wanted was a religion thread. The OP would start something like: "In this thread we All Believe In Something, and only people that Also Believe can post. Unbelievers will be taunted and chastised." The "communication problems" cited in the OP come down to that. This was the only place we came together for a moment: icantfindaname posted:Okay, you've successfully showed that both sides in this thread have used some of the same rhetoric. The "communication problems" need a mirror more than they need a support group. I should not even be a hard one to communicate with*. I at least want to see the research move along faster and faster in competent hands. *Assuming the opening of communication is successful, otherwise I have no problem being difficult. If you cannot see the nature of our interaction as interesting within the bounds of "communication" as a topic, then you dont actually care about it. (Which may(?) be the case, the OP does not, which is one of the problems with the direction of the thread to begin with. I am willing to assume otherwise for now, since I do not remember already going around about this kind of meta-discussion with you (at least under that name) a dozen times like some of the other people.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 09:04
|
|
|
So essentially you decided from post one that the thread was tainted by ideological bad faith, and proceeded to threadshit. It's interesting that nowhere in your post did you deny arguing entirely in bad faith. Your post is one big honking tu quoque. FWIW I agree to an extent that the OP was not arguing in the best of faith, but instead of simply ignoring it and making a coherent argument you've decided to destroy any kind of insightful debate or discussion that may otherwise be going on in the thread. You see, one of the things that good faith entails is that you have to assume the other person is acting in it, or it collapses. It requires both people to work. If your skin is so thin that the mildest of criticism outside the bounds of good faith results in a single minded effort to burn the whole thing down, then nothing will be accomplished. Now, to start fresh; Based on what I've seen, pro-GMO ideologues / reddit libertarians / Richard Dawkins have not really caused any measurable harm in the area of GMO agriculture. If you have evidence to the contrary please share it. Of course, this would require you to drop the threadshitting act you've been putting up for the last 10 pages, but just try it once, just to humor the rest of us. icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 09:34 on Jul 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 09:22
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:That is good for you, me, and a handful of other people. Unfortunately it is as common on the pro-GM side to believe that they have magically elevated yields as it is on the anti-GM side to believe that they will cause you to lose a limb. Hybridization is still giving us phenomenal increases in yields. Probably the best way to think about it is the current top performing GMO crops are probably the top performing performing hybrids from ~5 years ago. GM is to solve other problems, specifically weed control. Yes there are bt GMO's and bt GMO's are under all circumstances better than spraying bt. When you spray bt you spray indiscriminately hitting not only your fields but also the trees in your windbreak and forested areas that are near your fields. Getting back to weed control there are numerous ways to control weeds, but no good way to control weeds. Traditionally tilling and burndown (with fire) is the oldest and the one probably considered the most "organic". Tilling destroyed the Minnesota, Mississippi, Ohio, Missouri and numerous other rivers, thousands of lakes and wetlands and caused the Gulf Dead zone. Btw we knew about the gulf dead zone in late 40s/early 50s. Very likely it existed before WWII. Tilling also destroys earthworms and organic matter in the soil. Tilling is great for destroying weeds at the end and beginning of a crop season (and destroying rivers and wetlands) but it doesn't do poo poo for weeds that pop up after you plant. Traditionally you sent your By this point you should have the feeling that I am not too much of a fan the traditional weed control method of tilling. Oh I forgot to mention that it also caused the dust bowl. It is the most destructive farming practice ever invented. And Organic farming relies on it. "Oh there is no-till organic" No there isn't. http://extension.psu.edu/plants/sustainable/news/2011/Sept-2011/4-org-no-till posted:So far none of the organic no-till systems being tested are continuous no-till. They are instead “rotational no-till”: tillage is avoided entirely in some phases of the rotation, but is used sparingly in others, often to establish cover crops in fall. Nonetheless, tillage is drastically reduced. For instance, Dr. Matt Ryan, a postdoctoral researcher at Penn State, estimates that tillage operations in a three-year organic grain rotation can be cut from 24 tillage events to just 9 using the roller-crimper system. Tilling 9 times over a 3 year crop rotation is not no till. Thankfully there is an option that will allow us to have true continuous no-till (not the bullshit 9 times over 3 years organic no-till). That is the non-selective herbicide. Unlike selective herbicides like Glufosinate and everyone's favorite Glyphosate. They killed all plants. They killed all plants fast. They killed all plants fast while having a short half life in the soil. The non-selective herbicides allow for TRUE continuous no-till (not the bullshit 9 times over 3 years organic no-till). Downside, they kill all plants, except the genetically engineered ones which I guess isn't a downside. The downside is you have to deal with Monsanto and Dow, but that is better than calling tilling 9 times on a 3 year rotation "no-till". karthun fucked around with this message at 09:59 on Jul 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 09:52
|
|
Fringe posted:I remember that thread. That was the thread where pro-GMO fans jumped from "it will feed the world" to "I dont want to eat plants grown in dirt because bugs are yucky!". This still makes more sense then the "GMOs are bad because nature is good" argument. The Earth is the creator of decay and death. I'd rather food engineered as closely by people as possible rather than trusting to random evolutionary chance. Monsanto may be 'evil' (though I think that cedes ground to the Luddites) but its still done more net good than people trying to stop its crops (who tend to also try and stop vaccines and fluoride). Any suggestions on arguing this point with people?
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 10:28
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Now, to start fresh ... this would require you to drop the threadshitting act you've been Tell me more about threadshitting in the thread on "its so hard to communicate". icantfindaname posted:You've repeatedly failed to back up your claims of Monsanto's infant-devouring, genocidal evil You and I will not be communicating while you have yourself on a delusional pedestal, have not actually commented in any substantial way on any of the material, and are attempting to create a rhetorical straw-post of your preference. karthun posted:Hybridization is still giving us phenomenal increases in yields. Probably the best way to think about it is the current top performing GMO crops are probably the top performing performing hybrids from ~5 years ago. GM is to solve other problems, specifically weed control. Yes there are bt GMO's and bt GMO's are under all circumstances better than spraying bt. When you spray bt you spray indiscriminately hitting not only your fields but also the trees in your windbreak and forested areas that are near your fields. Getting back to weed control there are numerous ways to control weeds, but no good way to control weeds. Things like: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1941795?uid=3739960&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102145893043 quote:When intercrops were composed of two or more main crops, weed biomass in the intercrop was lower than in all of the component sole crops in 12 cases, intermediate between component sole crops in 10 cases, and higher than all sole crops in 2 cases. It is unclear why crop rotation studies have focused on weed density, whereas intercropping studies have focused on weed biomass. quote:Lettuce is harvested much sooner than tomatoes. Consequently, a row of lettuce next to a row of tomato plants competes with the weeds but is harvested before it can compete with the tomatoes. Note that many other crop combinations could be substituted here (e.g., spinach for lettuce and Brussels sprouts for tomatoes). As well as the smaller scale permaculture practices seem promising moving-towards-actual ideal. So far as: "'Oh there is no-till organic' No there isn't.", I have seen first hand that the practice works. The one (very small, single family, 3/4 acre out of 5 cultivated + 1 greenhouse) plot I have been on is on its 5th year so far. If it is going to fail, it is certainly not happening yet. (This is including the clearing of an invasive grass over the first two years.) I am curious why you are saying that these do not exist? : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-till_farming#Management quote:Disease, pathogens, insects and the use of crop rotations I know that you were explicitly referring to: quote:No-till farming is not equivalent to conservation tillage or strip tillage. Conservation tillage is a group of practices that reduce the amount of tillage needed. No-till and strip tillage are both forms of conservation tillage. No-till is the practice of never tilling a field. Tilling every other year is called rotational tillage. ... but that does not mean that the other practices do not exist. What the article you linked said was that: "So far none of the organic no-till systems being tested are continuous no-till. They are instead “rotational no-till”"
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 10:43
|
|
|
Karthun: I would edit that but its already long. Another problem with the -cide focus is the effect on both the crucial fungal, bacterial, and vermicultural aspects of healthy soil. Some of the fungal networks can take years to develop fully, and it seems like they may be one of the keys both to "healthiest plants possible" and "healthiest soils possible" while minimizing certain invasive problems. (I.e. Paul Stamets and crew's work.) Count Chocula: This also applies to any sense of "soil is yucky". Some of those yucky things are the exact things that make things grow well. To the extent that one of the only succesful rainforest restoration efforts (from a wastelend) began with the successful cultivation of the microbial substrate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 10:50
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:America actually does have a specific GMO labeling - all GMO food products that introduce proteins from known-allergenic crops that wouldn't otherwise be present must be labeled as being dangerous for those people. Bit late, but this is perfectly good. There is a real possibility that there may be a risk in ingesting the product; thus, it is labelled. What I'm talking about is the generalised labelling of GMO products as such, which has up 'till now been the main area of discourse in my own country on the issue. To chip in, I really don't think apologising for a company that has abetted some of the most grotesque war crimes in modern American history by stating that other big corporations also completely lack any sense of decency is a good strategy. In a society of aristocrats that murder serfs at will, an aristocrat killing a random serf is still really lovely. I have to continuously combat nuclear-GMO-vaccination paranoia in my own party, so I share a lot of frustration with the "pro"-Monsanto people here, but I really don't think "you are stupid and wrong" is a good starting point. It's like the historical luddites - the movement started out with a perfectly accurate observation (industrialisation only enriches the wealthy at the expense of ordinary people), and chose a futile and ineffective response to that. Redirecting the focus from simple destruction to an appropriation - from "fight industrialisation" to "make industrialisation serve us rather than those bastards". At least this is what's worked for me, working within the radical left. If you're working from anywhere else, your mileage may vary.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 14:52
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:I have to continuously combat nuclear-GMO-vaccination paranoia in my own party, so I share a lot of frustration with the "pro"-Monsanto people here, but I really don't think "you are stupid and wrong" is a good starting point. It's like the historical luddites - the movement started out with a perfectly accurate observation (industrialisation only enriches the wealthy at the expense of ordinary people), and chose a futile and ineffective response to that. Redirecting the focus from simple destruction to an appropriation - from "fight industrialisation" to "make industrialisation serve us rather than those bastards". Could you go into a bit more detail about these sorts of conversations? I'm certainly not going to take the route of defending shitheads like Monsanto, but the "nuclear-GMO-vaccination paranoia" is exactly why I can't fully embrace the far left. Any time I try to have these conversations with friends, it all boils down to a complete lack of understanding about the what GMOs actually are or don't understand that Monsanto isn't the only game in town. Basically, how do you get a bunch of non-science majors who are otherwise intelligent people to stop being weirded out by people in lab coats?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 16:28
|
|
|
karthun posted:The downside is you have to deal with Monsanto and Dow, but that is better than calling tilling 9 times on a 3 year rotation "no-till". Why not shut them down and appropriate anything useful they've made and continue research in the public realm(they are heavily subsidized by the public in the first place, as with most advances under state capitalism research costs are socialized and profits are privatized)? Or simply ignore their predatory legal teams and directly put such things in the hands of as many people as possible and have those countries simply ignore any attempts to stop it. If its truly going to help feed people, it would immoral NOT to do this. If say Pfizer was bogarting a surefire cure for AIDS or something comparable, it would be a moral imperative to forcibly liberate it. Profiting from private use of something that saves life is equivalent to profiting from letting people die unless a big dose of ideology is slathered on. What you present is a false dichotomy, there's no imperative to "deal with" Monsnato and Dow. V. Illych L. posted:To chip in, I really don't think apologising for a company that has abetted some of the most grotesque war crimes in modern American history by stating that other big corporations also completely lack any sense of decency is a good strategy. In a society of aristocrats that murder serfs at will, an aristocrat killing a random serf is still really lovely. There's lots of people who are pro-GMO but anti-agribusiness (and anti-capitalist in general) but people have gone as far to say that these people don't exist in this thread. Its not as simple as lunatic luddite antivaccers versus righteous zealots of Science Almighty, many simply want to see science used for the betterment of mankind instead of another tool in the belt of hegemony. Solkanar512 posted:is exactly why I can't fully embrace the far left Solkanar512 posted:Basically, how do you get a bunch of non-science majors who are otherwise intelligent people to stop being weirded out by people in lab coats? Mr. Self Destruct fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Jul 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 16:32
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Could you go into a bit more detail about these sorts of conversations? I'm certainly not going to take the route of defending shitheads like Monsanto, but the "nuclear-GMO-vaccination paranoia" is exactly why I can't fully embrace the far left. Any time I try to have these conversations with friends, it all boils down to a complete lack of understanding about the what GMOs actually are or don't understand that Monsanto isn't the only game in town. Similarly, I have a sister (with a PhD in history) who refused to used a microwave oven for years because the idea of deliberately bombarding food with microwave radiation completely weirded her out. I think the real barrier is an emotional one. Lots of people have no need of a scientific viewpoint on the world for their every day life and never really get used to it. Then they get hit by some issue that pretty much requires being able to analyze it scientifically and they freak out. The easiest course of action is to push the offending issue away and pretend it's all bad so they don't have to think about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 16:33
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Similarly, I have a sister (with a PhD in history) who refused to used a microwave oven for years because the idea of deliberately bombarding food with microwave radiation completely weirded her out. I was filling my water bottle with tap water in a lab where I was an intern in Singapore, and one of the chemists who was working there asked me "Aren't you afraid of drinking THAT?" At that moment I was like: "Oh my god. You have been testing YOUR OWN FREAKING TAP WATER FROM YOUR OWN LAB and those all around the country for years and they always passed. Why you even are asking this sort of question?" In case anyone of you didn't know, Singapore has a reputation for the safest piped potable water in the world. I can only extrapolate the general populace is goddamn irrational went it comes to science.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 17:18
|
|
|
Count Chocula posted:This still makes more sense then the "GMOs are bad because nature is good" argument. The Earth is the creator of decay and death. I'd rather food engineered as closely by people as possible rather than trusting to random evolutionary chance. Monsanto may be 'evil' (though I think that cedes ground to the Luddites) but its still done more net good than people trying to stop its crops (who tend to also try and stop vaccines and fluoride). Just show them this:  Every food crop in existence today has been modified an absurd amount from what it was like in nature.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 17:32
|
|
|
Amarkov posted:Just show them this: This reminds me of the banana thing that I've heard Christians go on about. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 17:35
|
|
|
So corn is grass with super cancer. Tasty super cancer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 18:20
|
|
|
This isn't anything not known, but this is how it is for me. This is just a model. I imagine that one of the things that happens is that the conversation ends up being one about identity, in which the person is identified with something as if it were a need. Often this assertion of need is sublimated. The argument then occurs at a much higher level of abstraction without ever surfacing the structure of inference and belief associated with the asserted need. One of the reasons this happens is that the models related to the need are not experienced as models, but as if they were self evident. As such it becomes very difficult to see the model sufficiently to make choices about it. Contraindication to the held model is either deleted or distorted and argued from within the model that is held as if self evident truth. Occasionally, some aspect of the model is complexified to account for the contraindication, without dealing with asserted necessity or fundamental assumption of the model. Sadly this means that no amount of data will serve to create the possibility of change in most cases. Ptolemy is an iconic example of this. If something like this is happening (which is the case for most of us, most of the time) there are only a few ways to come into contact with our own model such that we can consider a set of alternative models and make choices. Often this emerges as conflict. When we find ourselves in a conflict, offended in some area, it might be a clue that we have encountered the edges of such a model. Of course this is not necessarily immediately useful since arguments will tend to reinforce the model. It is pretty much impossible to persuade someone in this condition. It is possible to modify superficial behavior through the use of force, manipulation and attempts at domination, whether physical, cognitive or otherwise. This involves objectifying the people in the conversation in some way. This only creates a temporary shift that lasts only as long as force is applied and it creates trauma, which then spawns all of its own dynamics and consequences. Because of this it is not sustainable and tends to be exhausting for the entity attempting to apply force and manipulation. When the force is removed the behavior returns to some form aligned with the originally asserted necessity and model, since that is still in tact. Sometimes this 'force' dynamic is produced by crisis in the world that has a transcendental relationship to the asserted model, such that the model no longer functions, but as we can see in areas like climate change the scale of this crisis has to be experienced as reaching all the way to the level of identity in order for change to even be considered. Scale and scope are considerations in all of this. The shift from one model to another is based on an examination and understanding of the consequences of the lived reality of various models. Of course in order to do this the models must be revealed and this cannot be accomplished by just telling someone that it is just a model, since it is occurring as a self evident truth and they will tell you to gently caress off. If you can reach a sufficient articulation of models, assertions and assumed necessities scenario thinking can be useful at this point. There are two things to do in order to start. One is to deconstruct your own model sufficiently that you yourself are in a place of experiencing it at whatever level possible for you as a model you have chosen based on consequences, rather than based on an asserted necessity to which you are attached. Once something about this is seen (for yourself), to then actually be in a cross model conversation with another human being requires a willingness to suspend your own model. This does not mean abandon it. It means suspending it sufficiently that it becomes possible to actually inquire into the nature of some other, possibly contradictory model. If you can do that, the first thing to do is to fully recreate the model of the person you are talking with. This does not mean recreating it with the secret strategy of then showing them how wrong and ignorant they are and persuading them of the truth. This won't work. If you really wish to talk with them you have to be able to enter into their model. This does not mean you think it is true or even agree with it. In this process of recreating the model it is extremely useful to reflect it back. If you are able to do this without changing their model to suit your own interests, this has several effects. It tends to allow a person to unfold the model sufficiently that the background assertions of necessity become visible to them. It also begins to move the conversation toward the domain of choice. It is an emancipatory conversation, based on the possibility that in any case it is fully possible that the inhabited model has not actually been consciously chosen. It is habit, or an unconscious choice based on maintaining some aspect of self identity or interest. This is not asserted, it is just a possibility. In order to engage in such 'recreation' or reiteration a profound quality of listening is required and this must be practiced and developed. It is necessary to be able to listen to the human being involved, rather than the positions or conditions. If you feel you can't do that, it might be best not to engage at all. Sometimes the identity associated with the model is held in place by negation. 'I am not that'. The process of suspension and reiteration can help shift the conversation from that dynamic of negation to one in which some form of commitment that keeps the model in place can be articulated. If you can do this together you are now shifting the conversation from something that is often a fear based survival dynamic to one that is generative. The expression of the commitment is not formal. It is not expressed as some necessary form. This means that you can now begin to work with the forms that were fixed in place in the previous expression of the model. It unpins them. Of course this means that you want to be able to distinguish between the material, process, formal and commitment aspects of the model and conversation. One of the things that has to be tracked is that living this sort of shift involves a shift in self-identification. As such there is often a profound emotional landscape that has to be sensed and navigated. This means you have to authentically experience some compassion in the matter. Not pity or a disposition of condescension. If you ignore this the whole thing will stay stuck. This is often one of the things that is skipped over in the attempt to persuade someone of something rationally. This is a partial description of one process for dealing with the question in OP. It is possible to do this one to one, but the process is usually best served by a group in which a diversity of such models are represented. Until such a time as something like this has occurred there is no reason for a person to explore new information, such as encountering a scientific interpretation of phenomena. Indeed, even in the presence of new information they are likely to delete or distort it in order to keep the historic model in place. In such a group, this is not something that happens in a couple of hours, but rather it takes a year or two of consistent practice and effort. This raises the question of why the hell you would want to do it. It is necessary to be very clear about that before embarking on such a process unless you interest is simply entertainment, distraction or some interest in proving yourself right the and refuting another model. These latter will functionally only serve to reinforce the pre-existing models, rather than create any landscape for possible change and movement. This means that you yourself need to be very clear about whether you actually care enough, and why you care in order to authentically enter into it. This sort of process is possible in a forum such as this, but very difficult and takes a great deal of effort and time. The righteous frame is much easier, but does not lead to any real possibility of development or change, except in the most accidental ways. One of the things implied here is that before embarking on such an endeavor you may really want to consider whether or not the structural conditions and capacities are in place to even allow such a process. Often they are not. This means that the entire first part of the process is designing those and building such capacity, which is another reason why it takes so long. One of the first things to do is to work on a building community in which such a process can take place. What is implied here is that you cannot reasonably expect to just jump into such a conversation and have it be successful unless you are very lucky or extremely skilled. This suggests that it is necessary to design the conversation. One of the things that a forum like this is very good for is trying out such designs in which things like the common structure of reasoning, 'named arguments' and such are made explicit and can be mapped. If this is well done it becomes possible to see much of the structure of the conversation before it occurs. Of course all of the above is a model and only one way among many to approach the question about communication in the OP. Somewhere I have some pictures and process maps of this if anyone has any interest. If I can't find them I can recreate them pretty easily when I am back home next week. Sogol fucked around with this message at 18:35 on Jul 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 18:22
|
|
|
Amarkov posted:Just show them this: I think Mann asserts in ”1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus" that we do not entirely understand the horticultural process used to develop corn and cannot recreate it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 18:25
|
|
|
There is a book called something like "A Guinea Pig's History of Biology" that has an interesting chapter on how much humans have changed corn over the last few thousand years. While most of the stuff that we grow for food could probably get by fine without us, corn as we know it would basically die out if we stopped cultivating it.
withak fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Jul 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:From what I understand, so far, weed (and pest) control can be mitigated partially by mixed-crop planting, in that certain plants repel certain pests and work to synergisticly aid one another in preventing the kind of "plague" that can easily ruin a monocrop. (Sure, there is no help for corporate monocropping aside from the lovely practices we currently see.) Two things, first mix-crop planting can do good against some pests but broadleaf weeds can still destroy a crop. Secondly please stop with this monocrop bull, it makes it really hard to take you seriously. Monocrop hasn't existed since the 70's. Best conventional practices are for crop rotations. Every farmer I know practices crop rotations. quote:As well as the smaller scale permaculture practices seem promising moving-towards-actual ideal. We disagree on small permaculture gardening practices being an ideal for farming. quote:So far as: "'Oh there is no-till organic' No there isn't.", I have seen first hand that the practice works. The one (very small, single family, 3/4 acre out of 5 cultivated + 1 greenhouse) plot I have been on is on its 5th year so far. If it is going to fail, it is certainly not happening yet. (This is including the clearing of an invasive grass over the first two years.) A) Labor intensive practices that work for a garden will not scale up for a farm. B) Have you ever used a shovel on your garden?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 19:00
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:Bit late, but this is perfectly good. There is a real possibility that there may be a risk in ingesting the product; thus, it is labelled. What I'm talking about is the generalised labelling of GMO products as such, which has up 'till now been the main area of discourse in my own country on the issue. The risk argument is exactly why I can't buy into labeling. Right now there is one mutation for every 10 - 100 million letters of DNA. Corn has 2 billion base pairs and 32,000 genes. Every generation of corn there could be as many as 200 new genes that have never been expressed in nature before. Yes I know that it is not likely that a single mutation will not lead to a new gene but lets just assume the worst case. And you are worried about EPSSP instead. If labels go on GMO food I want labels on all food, including organic, that say "The corn in this product may contain up to 200 new mutated genes that have never been expressed in nature before. These genes have never been tested for safety and you eat the product at your own risk." I want that label repeated for every single crop that is in the foodstuff. You still willing to take that trade?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 19:25
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Similarly, I have a sister (with a PhD in history) who refused to used a microwave oven for years because the idea of deliberately bombarding food with microwave radiation completely weirded her out. People want to believe that they can, through their actions and choices, control bad things happening. The idea of incurable, or unavoidable, or random chance just refuses to sit right in their minds. Everything must be preventable, there has to be SOME 100% proper method of living that avoids all problems! This kinda descends from Protestant thinking: Obviously poor people and invalids are morally corrupt, because if they weren't they wouldn't be poor and invalid. If you want to avoid being poor or losing bodily function, you can act in a certain manner that makes these things preventable. Thus, this leads to looking for what those "proper" actions and things are, that will avoid all negative consequences in life. Companies take advantage of this and deliberately advertise based on it: Product X will make sure you don't get Condition Y! Product Z might just cause terrible problems, best buy from us instead! We've invented certifications and stamps that make things look officially Good and Harmless! "Western" medicine tell you your cancer or disease is incurable? We've got crystals and magic water for that, don't listen to those "doctors" they're obviously just shills for "Big Medicine" and want you to be sick! Because... uh, reasons. Having non-Organic foods and crops be fine removes the benefit they've mentally attached to Organic products, then, by making the choice to eat Organic not especially helpful in preventing bad things (like stomach inflammation or whatever) from happening to you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 19:33
|
|
|
karthun posted:The risk argument is exactly why I can't buy into labeling. Right now there is one mutation for every 10 - 100 million letters of DNA. Corn has 2 billion base pairs and 32,000 genes. Every generation of corn there could be as many as 200 new genes that have never been expressed in nature before. Yes I know that it is not likely that a single mutation will not lead to a new gene but lets just assume the worst case. And you are worried about EPSSP instead. If there's a possibility of a product containing peanut proteins which could realistically be allergenic, labelling it as such is a matter of public health, whether that is because it's a GMO or because it's been worked in the same process as peanuts. I, uh, don't see that this should be controversial.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 19:56
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:If there's a possibility of a product containing peanut proteins which could realistically be allergenic, labelling it as such is a matter of public health, whether that is because it's a GMO or because it's been worked in the same process as peanuts. I, uh, don't see that this should be controversial. That isn't controversial, and that is the current practice in the US. Infact if DNA from a major food allergen were to be used in a GMO crop, say a wheat gene in corn, then the corn product would have to be labeled as containing wheat. The entire GMO labeling controversy isn't about labeling peanut genes being used in other crops, it strictly about labeling GMO foods just for being GMO.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 20:06
|
|
|
karthun posted:That isn't controversial, and that is the current practice in the US. Infact if DNA from a major food allergen were to be used in a GMO crop, say a wheat gene in corn, then the corn product would have to be labeled as containing wheat. The entire GMO labeling controversy isn't about labeling peanut genes being used in other crops, it strictly about labeling GMO foods just for being GMO. Yes, and as previously stated I'm of the opinion that labelling GMOs as such is silly. Reading again, you might not actually have disagreed with me initially, making this a rather odd tangent.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 20:09
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:Yes, and as previously stated I'm of the opinion that labelling GMOs as such is silly. It does sound like we don't disagree. That being said I have talked to people that don't realize that if the DNA comes from a known allergen then that must be labeled. It doesn't help that the anti-GMO community has been less than honest about their reasoning for GMO labeling.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 20:27
|
|
|
karthun posted:It does sound like we don't disagree. That being said I have talked to people that don't realize that if the DNA comes from a known allergen then that must be labeled. It doesn't help that the anti-GMO community has been less than honest about their reasoning for GMO labeling. The real reason seems to come down to vitalism. There is something magical about chemicals coming from living creatures, so "natural" and "organic" are good and "synthetic" and "artificial" are bad. GMOs cross the line from being natural to being manufactured, and are thus bad. That's all I can figure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
Jesus loving christ. I am honestly dumbstruck. http://www.morgellons-research.org/morgellons/agrobacteriumAndMorgellonsFull.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 20:55
|
|
|
Morgellons is completely fictitious are you really that surprised that people are making poo poo up about it? If anyone is beyond reasoning its Morgellons people, unlike basically most fringe beliefs theirs are pretty firmly rooted in psychosis.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 22:07
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:According to norton_l and the following link, http://www.agbioforum.org/v3n23/v3n23a14-collier.htm, rBST is found in cows milk at levels of ~1 parts per billion both for cows treated with rBST and not treated with the hormone. After pasteurizing the milk, rBST is undetectable in cows milk. Whether rBST is bad for humans is a moot point, because it isn't found in detectable levels in pasteurized milk. Well, your link didn't work but I'm sure it was legitimate. Not sure what Norton_l is but interested to know. rSBT is a cellular growth hormone and it can still be found in milk after pasteurization. Very small amounts of course, like you said. This can certainly effect some people, such as those with a genetically higher risks for cancer (a disease caused by uncontrollable cellular growth). This is what I believe. Not to mention that the cows themselves are more prone to illness therefor antibiotics..which can also be present in pasteurized milk. Don't forget that overuse of antibiotics can create problems with resistance. Increased production is a positive, though. Add that in and we find ourselves with some mighty fine grey area.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 04:06
|
|
|
Mr. Self Destruct posted:Morgellons is completely fictitious are you really that surprised that people are making poo poo up about it? If anyone is beyond reasoning its Morgellons people, unlike basically most fringe beliefs theirs are pretty firmly rooted in psychosis. Like fibromyalgia on steroids?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 04:11
|
|
|
Puddums posted:Like fibromyalgia on steroids? Like fibromyalgia except crazier and on the internet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 04:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 14:41 |
|
|
You know that thing meth-heads get where they think there's invisible bugs under their skin and they pick the hell out of it trying to get them out? Basically like that without the meth.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 04:48
|
|
