interesting article about GMO controversy.

[xyzzy]

Whose logic can also apply to other science related controversies like
climate change.

http://grist.org/food/what-i-learned-from-six-months-of-gmo-research-none-of-it-matters/?utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=update

Key paragraph:

Similarly, people care about GMOs because they symbolize corporate control
of the food system, or unsustainable agriculture, or the basic
unhealthiness of our modern diet. On the other side, people care about GMOs
because they symbolize the victory of human ingenuity over hunger and
suffering, or the triumph of market forces, or the wonder of science. These
larger stories are so compelling that they often obscure the ground truth.

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

Interesting read - I like how he emphasized the all or nothing approach - but really wish he had gone into the benefits/risks on an individual level - say the upside of golden rice v the risk of something going wild

I'm not sure of the right word - close to "hubris" - but not exactly - which seems to describe so much of this - on one side, you have a faction which is positive that man is the causative agent - and is bad - think anti-gmo and pro AGW. On the other side you have those who see man an extension of nature and that there is often some good to be found in the results of his actions.

Thanks for posting

[Emperor Wonko the Sane]

I think the term you're looking for is self-righteousness. When people pick sides in arguments like these, usually on some simplistic or emotional basis, there seems to be some strong emotional need to prove that they are right or, perhaps, a strong fear of being proven wrong. It's like their whole self worth is tied up with being right.

Doug

[xyzzy]

On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 11:41:13 PM UTC-4, The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior wrote:
> On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 9:02:59 PM UTC-5, xyzzy wrote:
> > Whose logic can also apply to other science related controversies like
> > climate change.
> >
> > http://grist.org/food/what-i-learned-from-six-months-of-gmo-research-none-of-it-matters/?utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=update
> >
> > Key paragraph:
> >
> > Similarly, people care about GMOs because they symbolize corporate control
> > of the food system, or unsustainable agriculture, or the basic
> > unhealthiness of our modern diet. On the other side, people care about GMOs
> > because they symbolize the victory of human ingenuity over hunger and
> > suffering, or the triumph of market forces, or the wonder of science. These
> > larger stories are so compelling that they often obscure the ground truth.
>
> Interesting read - I like how he emphasized the all or nothing approach - but really wish he had gone into the benefits/risks on an individual level - say the upside of golden rice v the risk of something going wild

I think his point is that in the debate today, that's beside the point. The debate isn't really about the science, in most people's minds it's about the overall narrative that the science supports. Which is why I have a lot of respect for people who can look at the science regardless of their political beliefs, like Mark Lynas who was an anti-GMO crusader, decided to spend a year with the science to make his anti-GMO arguments more effective, and came out pro-GMO. That is so rare today, on either political side. Because in the end we see everything through our ideological glasses.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Mon, 25 May 2015 07:52:55 -0700 (PDT), xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>I think his point is that in the debate today, that's beside the point. Th=
>e debate isn't really about the science, in most people's minds it's about =
>the overall narrative that the science supports. Which is why I have a lot=
> of respect for people who can look at the science regardless of their poli=
>tical beliefs, like Mark Lynas who was an anti-GMO crusader, decided to spe=
>nd a year with the science to make his anti-GMO arguments more effective, a=
>nd came out pro-GMO. That is so rare today, on either political side. Beca=
>use in the end we see everything through our ideological glasses.=20

That's not exactly true. Even I admit Obie has been right twice in his
term of office. I don't remember why but there are two tally marks in
his score book.

Hugh

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

No....that's not where I was going - not doing a very good job of putting it into words - but there's a group of people who seem to think/feel that humans are somehow more than nature and their actions are almost always "bad"

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

Good point - guess I was thinking that using "examples" might have made things clearer - I see what you're saying here.

Indeed it is rare to have a viewpoint, be willing to openly investigate the "other side" and then find out that maybe there's more than a point there.

It seems human nature to want to make everything black/white - to draw hard lines on issues which are filled with grey - and it makes discussions very frustrating when we want to talk about the greys, but get lumped into the margins - especially when there's a moralizing/demonizing layer added on.

[Ken Olson]

As I get older, see more and experience more, especially in local
political things, I see a lot more grey than black or white. Few things
are 'good' or 'bad' and it's usually subject to being relative to
varying degrees - food, gubment, etc.

[Emperor Wonko the Sane]

If you think about why someone might reach that conclusion, IMO, you'll find that we disagree less than you think.

Doug