|
Axxslinger posted:It's a complete tangent, but anyway: You only reinforced how little you know outside fear. You'd make an excellent Green Party VP candidate in 2016. To be more specific, literally your only argument is "I am scared of something I have cursory knowledge of, why aren't you scared? Why isn't everyone scared? Be scared!". But of course you'd whitewash any scary poo poo some half baked blog didn't tell you to fear, like organic or whatever anti knowledge kick you particularly subscribe to. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 08:12 on Nov 3, 2014 |
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 08:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 14:06 |
|
|
Axxslinger posted:But forget the GMO thing -- Yeah, there is more monsanto hate nowadays than, say, dupont hate or tyson foods hate, and I suppose that is unfair, insofar as I can feel sorry for a multi-billion dollar corporation that knowingly marketing toxic PCBs, advertised false scientific claims, and dumped mercury into a drinking water supply. I can't see how the fact that other companies also lie and pollute makes going after or distrusting Monsanto invalid. Back up these claims with sources. You may like to think that these stories are verified and common knowledge, but they are not. And based on the number of made-up stories directed at Monsanto that have been posted in this thread alone, I'm inclined to think these are just myths, too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
Question: Is there any truth to the idea that it's really important you rinse stuff like blueberries that you buy from the grocery store in order to remove pesticides? This sort of sets off a BS-alarm in my head because it seems like, if it were so easy to remove said pesticides, they would have been run through an industrial rinser at some point before ending up in the grocery aisle.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Question: Is there any truth to the idea that it's really important you rinse stuff like blueberries that you buy from the grocery store in order to remove pesticides? This sort of sets off a BS-alarm in my head because it seems like, if it were so easy to remove said pesticides, they would have been run through an industrial rinser at some point before ending up in the grocery aisle. It probably doesn't hurt. It's like how my parents always wash the cans of food they buy because they think rats poop on them in the warehouse.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Question: Is there any truth to the idea that it's really important you rinse stuff like blueberries that you buy from the grocery store in order to remove pesticides? This sort of sets off a BS-alarm in my head because it seems like, if it were so easy to remove said pesticides, they would have been run through an industrial rinser at some point before ending up in the grocery aisle. You also rinse off loose produce from the grocery store because other people probably got their hands all over them several times before you bought 'em. It's just good practice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
Taffer posted:Back up these claims with sources. You may like to think that these stories are verified and common knowledge, but they are not. And based on the number of made-up stories directed at Monsanto that have been posted in this thread alone, I'm inclined to think these are just myths, too. Fair enough - 2012, Alabama: final settlement ruling regarding release of PCBs and "liable on...claims of wantonness, the tort of outrage, 'suppression of the truth,' negligence, trespass, nuisance and public nuisance." http://legalnewsline.com/news/236012-ala.-sc-makes-ruling-in-cases-over-300m-monsanto-settlement More background, from Washington Post: http://www.iatp.org/documents/monsanto-hid-decades-of-pollutionpcbs-drenched-ala-town-but-no-one-was-ever-told http://www.iatp.org/files/Monsanto_Hid_Decades_Of_PollutionPCBs_Drenched.htm NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/27/us/pcb-pollution-suits-have-day-in-court-in-alabama.html AP: Couldn't find full article for free: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-78562005.html Local paper, re: Hg specifically http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1817&dat=20010721&id=-EogAAAAIBAJ&sjid=WKYEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5411,7697731 http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Monsanto-Mercury-Pollution.htm More links to court docs: http://www.worc.org/userfiles/Monsanto%20PCB%20Summary.pdf Regarding false advertising convictions as to harmlessness of Roundup: http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/29/b...monsantocompany http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8308903.stm http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/fraud.pdf http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14142-brazil-court-convicts-monsanto-for-false-advertising-of-gm-soy-and-glyphosate (translation from a Brazilian article) data re: roundup and aquatic life (most of which are testing concentrations that do occur in nature): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23454306 http://nctc.fws.gov/resources/course-resources/pesticides/Aquatic%20Effects/Relyea2005.pdf http://usf.usfca.edu/fac_staff/dever/roundup_paper.pdf environmental risk assessment for human development and health (no significant danger) http://www.ask-force.org/web/HerbizideTol/Williams-Safety-Evaluation-Risk-Assessment-RR-2000.pdf risk assessment for human health (significant risks found when considering formulation chemicals and bio-accumulation effects) http://www.researchgate.net/publica...db0a0fa566d.pdf i.e., roundup = completely safe is not a closed book Counterpoint to "but they've won all of their seed patent cases!" http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805 Regarding the recent proposition in Maui: http://mauinow.com/2014/11/05/monsanto-to-file-lawsuit-challenging-maui-gmo-moratorium/ "The initiative calls for the moratorium until industry funded and county administered safety studies are conducted and reviewed" - I'm not a knee-jerk GMO-banner, but I do believe the onus should be on the creator of any new chemical, substance, product, etc. to prove its safety before it is implemented, rather than regulators need to prove harm before they can ban it. I know the legal precedent in the US is for the latter (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/24/safe-chemicals-act-flame-retardants_n_1699384.html), but the former is the main regulatory framework in Europe, and it is a much more sensible philosophy. In this case, certainly seems reasonable for a community to require their own evaluations, especially in a islanded ecosystem with many endemic species and high sensitivity to exotics such as Hawaii. Regarding anti-trust litigation, investigations (which were eventually dropped): http://agriculturedefensecoalition....ire_Article.pdf http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/28/AR2009112802471.html http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/17/us-usa-antitrust-monsanto-idUSBRE8AG0BI20121117 List of active Monsanto superfund sites, more "archived" sites but search form is not working for some reason. http://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cu...b433da36775d342
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It probably doesn't hurt. It's like how my parents always wash the cans of food they buy because they think rats poop on them in the warehouse. Oh, it's definitely easy and doesn't hurt to just run some water over my blueberries, it's just that my dad acts like they're just totally coated in dangerous pesticides that will give me cancer, and it seems strange that if something as simple as rinsing them fixed that it wouldn't take place at some point between them being grown and sold in the grocery store.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
Back when I worked at a food safety lab, the main concern with leafy greens and fruits was the use of grey water more so than pesticides.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Oh, it's definitely easy and doesn't hurt to just run some water over my blueberries, it's just that my dad acts like they're just totally coated in dangerous pesticides that will give me cancer, and it seems strange that if something as simple as rinsing them fixed that it wouldn't take place at some point between them being grown and sold in the grocery store. The water soluble nature of many pesticides is a part of reducing their exposure to humans and washing your produce does probably reduce lifetime exposures. However, I imagine the exposure to a lifetime of unwashed fruit is likely lower than working one day in the field with that fruit. Solkanar512 posted:Back when I worked at a food safety lab, the main concern with leafy greens and fruits was the use of grey water more so than pesticides. That's a good point too. The spinach Salmonella outbreak was basically this. Also, I'd take PCB contamination with a grain of salt, since any company that makes a thing and is older than 20 years old, has likely leaked PCBs or created a superfund site somehow (e.g. Intel). Monsanto has its problems, but pointing out they dumped PCBs before they were banned isn't exactly a damning claim.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
More excellent work by Greenpeace: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30037531 quote:Researchers 'appalled' as EU chief scientist role is axed Standard fare. Remove any person who might bring inconvenient scientific evidence into policymaking; if you can't change the science, sack the scientist. [edit] This is a more thorough article: http://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2014/nov/13/juncker-axes-europes-chief-scientific-adviser BRAKE FOR MOOSE fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Nov 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
Europe has been on a really bad anti-science binge lately, which includes other topics but is especially clear when it comes to GMOs. I really don't understand it. "Yeah we don't have any evidence that GMOs cause harm but we're going to ban them anyway"
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Europe has been on a really bad anti-science binge lately, which includes other topics but is especially clear when it comes to GMOs. I really don't understand it. "Yeah we don't have any evidence that GMOs cause harm but we're going to ban them anyway" Just shows the disconnect between their excellent scientific community and their disreputable politicians. That is one of the biggest things that cheese me off: "So and so country banned GMOs, GMOs must be EVIL" No, it just means that so and so countries politicians did what their constituents pushed for. It has no bearing on scientific findings.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
It doesn't have to be anti-science to decide to use proof of value rather than lack of harm to regulate an activity. Its not a very American idea, but there aren't any really valuable reasons for wealthy countries to allow GMOs. There isn't good proof of harm, but that's not the only regulatory standard that's valid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
It doesn't have to be anti-science to decide to use proof of value rather than lack of harm to regulate an activity. Its not a very American idea, but there aren't any really valuable reasons for wealthy countries to allow pasteurized milk. There isn't good proof of harm, but that's not the only regulatory standard that's valid. It doesn't have to be anti-science to decide to use proof of value rather than lack of harm to regulate an activity. Its not a very American idea, but there aren't any really valuable reasons for wealthy countries to allow penicillin. There isn't good proof of harm, but that's not the only regulatory standard that's valid. It doesn't have to be anti-science to decide to use proof of value rather than lack of harm to regulate an activity. Its not a very American idea, but there aren't any really valuable reasons for wealthy countries to allow internal combustion engines. There isn't good proof of harm, but that's not the only regulatory standard that's valid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:It doesn't have to be anti-science to decide to use proof of value rather than lack of harm to regulate an activity. Its not a very American idea, but there aren't any really valuable reasons for wealthy countries to allow pasteurized milk. There isn't good proof of harm, but that's not the only regulatory standard that's valid. I mean, your "argument" would be better if you'd chosen things that are closer in current applicability than GMOs. What's the GMO that is approved in the USA that isn't in Europe that would save lives (in Europe)? What's the GMO that is approved in the USA that isn't in Europe that would create a massive transportation efficiency improvement (in Europe)? Oh wait, there aren't any. (Besides, you'll find a number of scientists saying banning the ICE would be a good thing, greenhouse gases and all.) My point being that just because a regulatory scheme is holding GMOs to a higher standard than the American one doesn't mean it is anti-science even if you think the standard is too high.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:It doesn't have to be anti-science to decide to use proof of value rather than lack of harm to regulate an activity. Its not a very American idea, but there aren't any really valuable reasons for wealthy countries to allow GMOs. There isn't good proof of harm, but that's not the only regulatory standard that's valid. Actually yes, it is. If you ban something that has lower resource usage, lower environmental impact, and higher yield, and also have no proof of it being harmful in any way at all, banning it is 100% plain-and-simple anti-science. Ignoring evidence based on gut feelings and emotion is exactly what anti-science means. We have proof of value. It's listed repeatedly in this thread. Try looking at some of it. Trabisnikof posted:My point being that just because a regulatory scheme is holding GMOs to a higher standard than the American one doesn't mean it is anti-science even if you think the standard is too high. Please tell us about this "higher standard". What's the evidence that's causing GMO's to be banned in several EU countries? Please, enlighten us.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
You don't think increasing crop yield and lowering environmental impact saves lives? Obviously people don't eat crop density directly but acting like the first order effect is all that matters and artificially constraining arguments to that is silly. My examples were all things that, had they been banned before proven good, would have caused abject harm, just as banning GMOs would.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:It doesn't have to be anti-science to decide to use proof of value rather than lack of harm to regulate an activity. Its not a very American idea, but there aren't any really valuable reasons for wealthy countries to allow GMOs. There isn't good proof of harm, but that's not the only regulatory standard that's valid. This is not a standard applied to other foodstuffs and there is no reason to believe that GMOs produce an enhanced risk such that they should be treated different. Such treatment is arbitrary and anti-science.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:It doesn't have to be anti-science to decide to use proof of value rather than lack of harm to regulate an activity. I completely disagree with that, sorry, that is a fundamentally anti-science stance. To rephrase it to something I do agree with, lack of harm (that is, no proof of harm) is not sufficient reason to call off regulation. Regulations need to ensure reasonable evidence of safety.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
What proof of value could there possibly be for the continued improvement of agriculture? We should just ban all further evolution of agriculture and slowly slide into the Malthusian hell that Europe finds so endearing, interspersed with generation-destroying global wars.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:It doesn't have to be anti-science to decide to use proof of value rather than lack of harm to regulate an activity. Its not a very American idea, but there aren't any really valuable reasons for wealthy countries to allow GMOs. There isn't good proof of harm, but that's not the only regulatory standard that's valid. No, this is literally anti-science. Ignoring evidence in favor of paranoia.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
disheveled posted:I completely disagree with that, sorry, that is a fundamentally anti-science stance. Please explain to me how requiring proof of value before allowing an activity is anti-science. Is the FDA anti-science? Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:You don't think increasing crop yield and lowering environmental impact saves lives? Obviously people don't eat crop density directly but acting like the first order effect is all that matters and artificially constraining arguments to that is silly. Not in Europe they wouldn't. A marginal increase in crop size wouldn't have a meaningful impact on European health or safety. I bet some more Africans might not die, but that's not the purview of European regulators. Taffer posted:Actually yes, it is. If you ban something that has lower resource usage, lower environmental impact, and higher yield, and also have no proof of it being harmful in any way at all, banning it is 100% plain-and-simple anti-science. Ignoring evidence based on gut feelings and emotion is exactly what anti-science means. It would be bad science and bad policy making to weight the currently available evidence as completely valid or in a vacuum. It is still perfectly valid to not approve an activity because the evidence of benefits is marginal and some risks are still unknown. Especially since its not permanent and I'm pretty sure GMOs will keep being made even if they can't be used in Europe. It may not be the decision you like, but its not "anti-science" just because it doesn't come to the conclusion you like.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
Ahh so the european parliament should simply ignore the potential externality of "africans dying"? Really? Any legislative body is responsible for all of the consequences of their decisions, not just the consequences for their constituents. I'm completely ignoring all of the other externalities like "companies are less incentivized to develop potentially life-saving products because they can't be marketed in Europe", that doesn't mean they'll stop entirely but it shrinks demand, and thus supply, in that market. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Nov 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
I want to step back, here. I understand how people can make arguments from ignorance. I understand how people can make assumptions about GMOs based on sound bites, a small amount of reading, or the misinformation campaigns that are being waged by environmental groups. I understand how people can conflate legitimate complications with current GMO utilization, corporate seed production, or industrial farming with the technology itself. It is honestly amazing and baffling to me that people who claim to be educated, who have spent the most marginal amount of time reading up on biology, genetics, or technology, can come away thinking that it even approaches scientific validity to introduce broad and sweeping bans on anything genetically engineered. It's absurd. I strongly believe that there does need to be a regulatory environment that takes into account what the nature of the transformation is, but broad bans are outrageous anti-science scaremongering bullshit. Trabisnikof posted:Please explain to me how requiring proof of value before allowing an activity is anti-science. Is the FDA anti-science? I thought you were referring to a different point of regulation, considering we are talking about GMO bans. BRAKE FOR MOOSE fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Nov 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Please explain to me how requiring proof of value before allowing an activity is anti-science. Is the FDA anti-science? Because its moving the goal posts. The value of GMO food is that its a food or grain product, its up to them to prove that they are unsafe when the vast amount of scientific evidence says they are safe. That is beside the point though: They are banning GMOs because 'OMG GMO' paranoia, not for a well thought out 'value'
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
disheveled posted:It is honestly amazing and baffling to me that people who claim to be educated, who have spent the most marginal amount of time reading up on biology, genetics, or technology, can come away thinking that it even approaches scientific validity to introduce broad and sweeping bans on anything genetically engineered. It's absurd. I strongly believe that there does need to be a regulatory environment that takes into account what the nature of the transformation is, but broad bans are outrageous anti-science scaremongering bullshit. They're either scaremongering or very conservative. Why can't the latter be an option? Why can't European regulators not be ignorant and not be swayed by the public but instead just be conservative? Maybe more conservative than you think is reasonable, but still a decision based on scientific thought.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
I condemn them because of the negative consequences their actions will have and don't particularly care about their intention or values. I would prefer a candidate who consistently does the right thing because their stuffed bear tells them to than one that has a clear and well-reasoned value system which tells them to do things which cause harm to the people as a whole.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:I condemn them because of the negative consequences their actions will have and don't particularly care about their intention or values. You must say that about every policymaker ever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:They're either scaremongering or very conservative. Why can't the latter be an option? Why can't European regulators not be ignorant and not be swayed by the public but instead just be conservative? I shall now introduce a ban on wearing the color blue. I hypothesize that the color blue causes cancer. It's not anti-science, just very conservative. People who support wholesale bans of genetic engineering have exactly that much evidence. These bans are not based on scientific thought, they are based on not understanding a drat thing about genetic engineering.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You must say that about every policymaker ever. I absolutely judge every act solely by its consequences. (A judgement of a person rather than an act is more nebulous, I probably should made it explicit that I was condemning the act.) I could write a whole bunch of words about consequentialism as a moral framework. One day I might make a D&D thread about it but I don't really have time to do such a thing properly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:I absolutely judge every act solely by its consequences. (A judgement of a person rather than an act is more nebulous, I probably should made it explicit that I was condemning the act.) I could write a whole bunch of words about consequentialism as a moral framework. One day I might make a D&D thread about it but I don't really have time to do such a thing properly. I'm just pointing out every policy has unforeseen (or potential but never actualized) negative consequences worth condemning the policymakers over. disheveled posted:I shall now introduce a ban on wearing the color blue. I hypothesize that the color blue causes cancer. It's not anti-science, just very conservative. Do you consider the USA's ban of UAVs to be "anti-science"? If so, then I'll concede within the framework you're using that if the UAV ban is anti-science than so must be any GMO ban. However, I'd contend that such a monolithic definition of science is both anti-science and detrimental to wise policymaking.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I'm just pointing out every policy has unforeseen (or potential but never actualized) negative consequences worth condemning the policymakers over. Well I mean net negative consequences. If you mean every policy does more bad than good then I disagree.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
Sorry for multiposting here, but I want to talk more about regulation v. bans. Anti-GMO activists, environmental groups, etc. are taking the easy and way out because they really don't give a gently caress about scientific progress. They don't trust or understand it, so it's scorched earth all the way (ironic turn of phrase there, I guess). I'd be singing a very different tune if people were legitimately interested in having a discussion about this, we never actually get that far with anyone. It would be beyond refreshing for their PR to come out and say "Hey, we value genetic engineering as a concept, and we think some people have had great ideas and that this can do some amazing things for the world, but we want to have guidelines and regulations in place so that we don't dump something toxic into the food supply or cause environmental damage." That's awesome. Then we're just in a discussion about things like whether Bt corn is totally safe for consumption, whether it's ecologically better or worse than corn treated with conventional methods, and so on. These are things that I believe the industry has need to do its due diligence on, and while I think present evidence is easily on the side of the GMOs, I'll happily admit it is a valid debate and not something to be arrogantly brushed aside. Instead, these fuckheads are burning down test plots of crops that are more vitamin-rich and calling for a ban on cultivation of anything that is genetically modified. Not okay, not valid, not worth treating them with respect. Trabisnikof posted:Do you consider the USA's ban of UAVs to be "anti-science"? If so, then I'll concede within the framework you're using that if the UAV ban is anti-science than so must be any GMO ban. However, I'd contend that such a monolithic definition of science is both anti-science and detrimental to wise policymaking. I can't answer that because I know almost nothing about UAVs, and so I have no clue how it relates. BRAKE FOR MOOSE fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Nov 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Do you consider the USA's ban of UAVs to be "anti-science"? If so, then I'll concede within the framework you're using that if the UAV ban is anti-science than so must be any GMO ban. The current ban of UAVs has more to do with the FAA not having any real rules regarding UAV and the risk they create for normal air traffic and privacy issues. But you are making another logical fallacy by comparing the two, they are in no way related. Trabisnikof posted:However, I'd contend that such a monolithic definition of science is both anti-science and detrimental to wise policymaking. What the gently caress is this bullcrap? No, go back, re-read our replies before you step in another pile of illogical bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Do you consider the USA's ban of UAVs to be "anti-science"? If so, then I'll concede within the framework you're using that if the UAV ban is anti-science than so must be any GMO ban. However, I'd contend that such a monolithic definition of science is both anti-science and detrimental to wise policymaking. Umm... what? How is the UAV ban in any way analogous to the GMO ban?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:It would be bad science and bad policy making to weight the currently available evidence as completely valid or in a vacuum. It is still perfectly valid to not approve an activity because the evidence of benefits is marginal and some risks are still unknown. Especially since its not permanent and I'm pretty sure GMOs will keep being made even if they can't be used in Europe. This is not how science works. You can FOREVER say that "risks are still unknown" because it's literally impossible for us to know everything. This is the same kind of argument that is behind people who say "prove that god doesn't exist". You can't. That's not how proof works. Right now we have lots of proof that GMO's are good for resource usage, good for reduced environmental impact, and good for increased output. We have no proof of harm, nor any legitimate reason to suspect harm. What exactly is your reason for thinking that the current evidence isn't valid?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Do you consider the USA's ban of UAVs to be "anti-science"? If so, then I'll concede within the framework you're using that if the UAV ban is anti-science than so must be any GMO ban. However, I'd contend that such a monolithic definition of science is both anti-science and detrimental to wise policymaking. ... The USA doesn't have a ban on UAVs, though. What the gently caress are you on about?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:... The USA doesn't have a ban on UAVs, though. What the gently caress are you on about? They have a limit on what sort of UAVs you can legally fly as a hobbyist, not so much a ban.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Umm... what? How is the UAV ban in any way analogous to the GMO ban? There are tons of papers showing how economically and scientifically valid UAVs are in terms of use and positive impact. But yet, the FAA hasn't approved them because of excuses, thus it must be an anti-science decision. That's the basic logic to prove that any blanket GMO ban is anti-science, so it seems to hold here. They're both technologies (like the person who brought up the ICE). Taffer posted:This is not how science works. You can FOREVER say that "risks are still unknown" because it's literally impossible for us to know everything. This is the same kind of argument that is behind people who say "prove that god doesn't exist". You can't. That's not how proof works. Right now we have lots of proof that GMO's are good for resource usage, good for reduced environmental impact, and good for increased output. We have no proof of harm, nor any legitimate reason to suspect harm. There's a big difference between requiring all risks to be known and to say that there are still meaningful unknown risks. I personally think we should be cautiously moving ahead, but I don't think its "anti-science" to disagree with me. Like if someone said "GMOs cause cancer", that's anti-science. But until we see some scientific research on comparing GMO policy models, I'd hesitate to say someone is anti-science just because they come to different policy conclusions based on available evidence. Likewise, it wouldn't be "anti-science" to agree that global warming exists, but that we should just let it happen instead of fixing it. GlyphGryph posted:... The USA doesn't have a ban on UAVs, though. What the gently caress are you on about? The FAA says that you need an experimental permit to fly a UAV (except for that recent exemption for movies) unless you're the government.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 14:06 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:They have a limit on what sort of UAVs you can legally fly as a hobbyist, not so much a ban. That's not a ban though, that's just reasonabel regulation (for the most part, some of it might be unreasonable). There are rules about what and where and whether you can justify it, but they aren't trying to prevent UAVs from being a thing that exists and banning them across the board. Trabisnikof posted:There are tons of papers showing how economically and scientifically valid UAVs are in terms of use and positive impact. But yet, the FAA hasn't approved them because of excuses, thus it must be an anti-science decision. That's the basic logic to prove that any blanket GMO ban is anti-science, so it seems to hold here. They're both technologies (like the person who brought up the ICE). There's no UAV ban though. If there was one, yeah, it would probably be anti-science, if it were rejected on such grounds unless it had good evidence that drones were causing problems, and even then it might still be plain unreasonable or political or anti-science depending on the justifications. Temporary bans while a regulatory framework is set up or reasonable regulations based around what, who, and where, are fine though and not really analagous. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Nov 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 21:03
|
|