Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The double-edged metaphor of Frankenstein. Fear GMOs, but Fear decisions driven by The Angry Mob more.
8 views
Skip to first unread message
James Warren
Jun 22, 2016, 10:12:32 AM6/22/16
to
http://bigthink.com/risk-reason-and-reality/the-double-edged-metaphor-of-frankenstein-fear-gmos-but-even-more-fear-decisions-driven-by-the-angry-mob
The double-edged metaphor of Frankenstein. Fear GMOs, but Fear decisions driven by The Angry Mob more.
by David Ropeik
The Frankenstein metaphor that opponents of genetically modified food use to promote their fears is more
apt than they realize. Yes, the monster is an unnatural life form created by scientific hubris that wreaks death and
destruction, the way they describe biotechnology. But remember that frightened angry mob in the Frankenstein movie, the
terrified townspeople that take up torches and pitchforks and follow their baying hunting dogs to kill what they fear?
It’s a more-than-apt metaphor for how the most virulent segments of the anti-GM mob are behaving. And for society as a
whole, between the perceived risk of GMOs and the real risks of making policy about safety under the torches of an
emotion-driven mob that distorts and ignores the evidence, the latter is the FAR scarier of the two.
Let’s acknowledge right away, with respect, that the emotions we ALL have toward various risks are an
innate part of the way human cognition sees the world. None of our perceptions, about risk or anything, are simply an
objective matter of the facts alone. We interpret the facts through powerful and subconscious instinctive and emotional
lenses. We ALL fear human-made risks more than natural ones. We ALL fear risks that are imposed on us more than risks we
take voluntarily (choice is why we want labeling, so we can know what’s in our food). We ALL fear risks more if we
suffer all the harm while somebody else, who is exposing us to the risk and who we mistrust, reaps all the rewards.
(Monsanto, et. al.) And, like Frankenstein, we ALL fear the unknown and what we don’t understand, more than the familiar.
The research of psychologist Paul Slovic and others have established that these ‘fear factors’ are a
built-in component of the risk perception systems that has successfully gotten us this far through evolution’s
challenges. They are an innate part of how, quite rationally, we use every tool at our disposal, including our ancient
instincts, to stay safe…to survive. The problem is, these emotional filters sometimes lead to perceptions that cause us
to light the torches and scream in fear “Kill The Monster”, even when there is no real monster there. And once those
passions are in place, no amount of evidence or reason can talk us down. Instead, we cherry pick and distort the
evidence, or ignore it altogether, to support the views we already have, perceptions we’ve established that help us feel
safe. It literally feels dangerous to change your mind about a risk once it’s made up.
That, in a nutshell, is what’s starting to happen in the United States regarding genetically modified food
(and how things have already played out in Europe). Amy Harmon’s excellent report in the New York Times, A Lonely Quest
for Facts on Genetically Modified Crops, captures this brilliantly; a County Councilor on the island of Hawaii
considering a proposal to ban GMOs studied up on things, found that almost all the arguments against GMOs didn’t stand
up to even the most basic open-minded scrutiny, but watched in dismay and frustration as a mob of frightened opponents
dominated government hearings, overwhelming the political process and, invoking passionate fears of a risk specifically
because it’s unnatural, uncertain, imposed, by mistrusted companies that unfairly reap the reward while we suffer the
risks, rammed the ban through. The only thing missing were the torches and pitchforks.
This is SCARY….REALLY scary, for all of us, because GMOs aren’t the only risk issue where emotion driven
mob rule has overwhelmed the evidence. Portland, Oregon just rejected fluoridating their public drinking water supply,
despite overwhelming evidence that the tiny risks (mostly fluorosis, white spots on kids’ teeth) are vastly outweighed
by the public health benefits. A majority of frightened Americans blindly accepted increased government surveillance –
you know, all that NSA data mining that we’re now so upset about - when in our fear we bought the Bush/Cheney
administration lies that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda were teaming up to threaten us with Weapons of Mass Destruction. (I
wonder how Edward Snowden felt back then.)
What’s at issue here is far more than genetic modification of crops. This is really about how society makes
decisions about risk in general, and how in a democracy we should balance our emotions and values against the evidence.
And at a time when risk issues have become more complex and demand more careful thoughtful analysis, not less, and in a
global world where risks have immense and long term consequences, what’s at stake is nothing less than our safety and
survival, if we let what feels right get in the way of what the evidence says will do us the most good.
There is a telling moment in the Mary Shelley novel Frankenstein (read it here free
http://www.literature.org/authors/shelley-mary/frankenstein/) that perfectly captures the warning the Hawaiian lesson
offers us about how society deals with risk. The hideous creature created by Dr. Frankenstein has hidden outside a
cottage for months, learning by watching and listening to the family inside how to speak, and think. He admires them. He
cares for them. Lonely, he longs to meet them, but he understands that how he looks will scare them. One night, when
only the blind father is home, the creature goes in. The blind man, open-minded, welcomes him and says “the hearts of
men … are full of brotherly love.” He offers the creature food. They have a warm intelligent conversation. The creature
is gentle, caring, respectful.
But when the rest of the family comes home and sees the hideous beast with their father, the sight fills them with
fear, and without regard for the creature’s true nature they attack him and drive him away, turning him into the
murderer he becomes. How’s that as a metaphor for how the emotional nature of risk perception can blind us to evidence
and lead to decisions which, while made in the name of safety, can actually make things much much worse.
In 2012, French sociologist Bruno Latour wrote a fascinating essay on the Frankenstein metaphor, Love Your
Monsters , arguing that our modern sins are not technologies like GMOs or nuclear power themselves, but our failure to
handle them responsibly. He likes this to Dr. Frankenstein’s creature, whose sins arose not from his unnatural creation,
but because at the moment of the creature’s creation, revolted by what he had made, Dr. Frankenstein abandoned him.
Love Your Monsters is an entertaining and thought provoking piece.
The double-edged metaphor of Frankenstein. Fear GMOs, but Fear decisions driven by The Angry Mob more.
by David Ropeik
The Frankenstein metaphor that opponents of genetically modified food use to promote their fears is more
apt than they realize. Yes, the monster is an unnatural life form created by scientific hubris that wreaks death and
destruction, the way they describe biotechnology. But remember that frightened angry mob in the Frankenstein movie, the
terrified townspeople that take up torches and pitchforks and follow their baying hunting dogs to kill what they fear?
It’s a more-than-apt metaphor for how the most virulent segments of the anti-GM mob are behaving. And for society as a
whole, between the perceived risk of GMOs and the real risks of making policy about safety under the torches of an
emotion-driven mob that distorts and ignores the evidence, the latter is the FAR scarier of the two.
Let’s acknowledge right away, with respect, that the emotions we ALL have toward various risks are an
innate part of the way human cognition sees the world. None of our perceptions, about risk or anything, are simply an
objective matter of the facts alone. We interpret the facts through powerful and subconscious instinctive and emotional
lenses. We ALL fear human-made risks more than natural ones. We ALL fear risks that are imposed on us more than risks we
take voluntarily (choice is why we want labeling, so we can know what’s in our food). We ALL fear risks more if we
suffer all the harm while somebody else, who is exposing us to the risk and who we mistrust, reaps all the rewards.
(Monsanto, et. al.) And, like Frankenstein, we ALL fear the unknown and what we don’t understand, more than the familiar.
The research of psychologist Paul Slovic and others have established that these ‘fear factors’ are a
built-in component of the risk perception systems that has successfully gotten us this far through evolution’s
challenges. They are an innate part of how, quite rationally, we use every tool at our disposal, including our ancient
instincts, to stay safe…to survive. The problem is, these emotional filters sometimes lead to perceptions that cause us
to light the torches and scream in fear “Kill The Monster”, even when there is no real monster there. And once those
passions are in place, no amount of evidence or reason can talk us down. Instead, we cherry pick and distort the
evidence, or ignore it altogether, to support the views we already have, perceptions we’ve established that help us feel
safe. It literally feels dangerous to change your mind about a risk once it’s made up.
That, in a nutshell, is what’s starting to happen in the United States regarding genetically modified food
(and how things have already played out in Europe). Amy Harmon’s excellent report in the New York Times, A Lonely Quest
for Facts on Genetically Modified Crops, captures this brilliantly; a County Councilor on the island of Hawaii
considering a proposal to ban GMOs studied up on things, found that almost all the arguments against GMOs didn’t stand
up to even the most basic open-minded scrutiny, but watched in dismay and frustration as a mob of frightened opponents
dominated government hearings, overwhelming the political process and, invoking passionate fears of a risk specifically
because it’s unnatural, uncertain, imposed, by mistrusted companies that unfairly reap the reward while we suffer the
risks, rammed the ban through. The only thing missing were the torches and pitchforks.
This is SCARY….REALLY scary, for all of us, because GMOs aren’t the only risk issue where emotion driven
mob rule has overwhelmed the evidence. Portland, Oregon just rejected fluoridating their public drinking water supply,
despite overwhelming evidence that the tiny risks (mostly fluorosis, white spots on kids’ teeth) are vastly outweighed
by the public health benefits. A majority of frightened Americans blindly accepted increased government surveillance –
you know, all that NSA data mining that we’re now so upset about - when in our fear we bought the Bush/Cheney
administration lies that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda were teaming up to threaten us with Weapons of Mass Destruction. (I
wonder how Edward Snowden felt back then.)
What’s at issue here is far more than genetic modification of crops. This is really about how society makes
decisions about risk in general, and how in a democracy we should balance our emotions and values against the evidence.
And at a time when risk issues have become more complex and demand more careful thoughtful analysis, not less, and in a
global world where risks have immense and long term consequences, what’s at stake is nothing less than our safety and
survival, if we let what feels right get in the way of what the evidence says will do us the most good.
There is a telling moment in the Mary Shelley novel Frankenstein (read it here free
http://www.literature.org/authors/shelley-mary/frankenstein/) that perfectly captures the warning the Hawaiian lesson
offers us about how society deals with risk. The hideous creature created by Dr. Frankenstein has hidden outside a
cottage for months, learning by watching and listening to the family inside how to speak, and think. He admires them. He
cares for them. Lonely, he longs to meet them, but he understands that how he looks will scare them. One night, when
only the blind father is home, the creature goes in. The blind man, open-minded, welcomes him and says “the hearts of
men … are full of brotherly love.” He offers the creature food. They have a warm intelligent conversation. The creature
is gentle, caring, respectful.
But when the rest of the family comes home and sees the hideous beast with their father, the sight fills them with
fear, and without regard for the creature’s true nature they attack him and drive him away, turning him into the
murderer he becomes. How’s that as a metaphor for how the emotional nature of risk perception can blind us to evidence
and lead to decisions which, while made in the name of safety, can actually make things much much worse.
In 2012, French sociologist Bruno Latour wrote a fascinating essay on the Frankenstein metaphor, Love Your
Monsters , arguing that our modern sins are not technologies like GMOs or nuclear power themselves, but our failure to
handle them responsibly. He likes this to Dr. Frankenstein’s creature, whose sins arose not from his unnatural creation,
but because at the moment of the creature’s creation, revolted by what he had made, Dr. Frankenstein abandoned him.
Love Your Monsters is an entertaining and thought provoking piece.
HRM Resident
Jun 22, 2016, 10:36:19 AM6/22/16
to
On 22/06/16 11:12 AM, James Warren wrote:
>some GMO stuff trying to get that argument going again!<
Don't care, didn't read it. Got my NON-GMO garden honking this
year. Found a source of free range/non-GMOed meat. Costs more and
tastes better. Also have taken up a hobby that is physically demanding.
Feels good to work hard and eat well. Some prefer to pig out in front
of the TV with GMO popcorn and fake pop laced with artificial sweeteners
swimming in butter! :-)
I'm happy these days! You're not because no one will argue with
you except Jack trying to promote the orange haired fascist who thinks
he's going to become the leader of a foreign country! :-) C'ya, Gringo!
--
HRM Resident
>some GMO stuff trying to get that argument going again!<
Don't care, didn't read it. Got my NON-GMO garden honking this
year. Found a source of free range/non-GMOed meat. Costs more and
tastes better. Also have taken up a hobby that is physically demanding.
Feels good to work hard and eat well. Some prefer to pig out in front
of the TV with GMO popcorn and fake pop laced with artificial sweeteners
swimming in butter! :-)
I'm happy these days! You're not because no one will argue with
you except Jack trying to promote the orange haired fascist who thinks
he's going to become the leader of a foreign country! :-) C'ya, Gringo!
--
HRM Resident
James Warren
Jun 22, 2016, 11:09:13 AM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 11:36 AM, HRM Resident wrote:
> On 22/06/16 11:12 AM, James Warren wrote:
>
> >some GMO stuff trying to get that argument going again!<
>
> Don't care, didn't read it. Got my NON-GMO garden honking this year. Found a source of free range/non-GMOed meat.
> Costs more and tastes better. Also have taken up a hobby that is physically demanding. Feels good to work hard and eat
> well. Some prefer to pig out in front of the TV with GMO popcorn and fake pop laced with artificial sweeteners swimming
> in butter! :-)
Watch out for that thinking stuff. It can play havoc with our blind faith. :)
> On 22/06/16 11:12 AM, James Warren wrote:
>
> >some GMO stuff trying to get that argument going again!<
>
> Don't care, didn't read it. Got my NON-GMO garden honking this year. Found a source of free range/non-GMOed meat.
> Costs more and tastes better. Also have taken up a hobby that is physically demanding. Feels good to work hard and eat
> well. Some prefer to pig out in front of the TV with GMO popcorn and fake pop laced with artificial sweeteners swimming
> in butter! :-)
What you got against butter?
I agree with working hard and eating well. Why can't free range be genetically modified?
I can understand where banging on hot iron can be satisfying. Go for it!
>
> I'm happy these days! You're not because no one will argue with you except Jack trying to promote the orange haired
> fascist who thinks he's going to become the leader of a foreign country! :-) C'ya, Gringo!
>
That orange haired fascist just might do it; then what?
lucreti...@fl.it
Jun 22, 2016, 12:00:32 PM6/22/16
to
:)
HRM Resident
Jun 22, 2016, 12:59:55 PM6/22/16
to
century. I can't think of another hobby that was destroyed so rapidly
by cell phones and the Internet. Sailing, skiing, building model
trains, collecting stamps, you name it. All are going strong and even
stronger because of the new means of communications. Yet Ham radio took
it on the chin. Why? Probably because a newly interested person soon
understands they can:
(1) Study for a license for a few months and hopefully pass the exam.
Buy a $2K-3K radio and put up a 100-200 foot wire antenna 20-40 feet in
the air and listen to hissing until the sunspots co-operate, and then
they *might* be able to talk to someone hundreds or thousands of
kilometres away for a few minutes until conditions change.
-- or --
(2) They can use Skype or equivalent and talk all day to anyone in the
world with FM quality audio for free. Or send off a quick text.
Which would you rather try? :-) And the remaining Hams are really
old Hams . . . most are over 80. Hard to get a 16-year old interested.
Especially when they discover sex!
73/88, HRM Resident
James Warren
Jun 22, 2016, 1:19:38 PM6/22/16
to
On 6/22/2016 1:59 PM, HRM Resident wrote:
> On 22/06/16 01:00 PM, lucreti...@fl.it wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:36:16 -0300, HRM Resident
>> <hrm.res...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 22/06/16 11:12 AM, James Warren wrote:
>>>
>>> >some GMO stuff trying to get that argument going again!<
>>>
>>> Don't care, didn't read it. Got my NON-GMO garden honking this
>>> year. Found a source of free range/non-GMOed meat. Costs more and
>>> tastes better. Also have taken up a hobby that is physically demanding.
>>> Feels good to work hard and eat well. Some prefer to pig out in front
>>> of the TV with GMO popcorn and fake pop laced with artificial sweeteners
>>> swimming in butter! :-)
>>>
>>> I'm happy these days! You're not because no one will argue with
>>> you except Jack trying to promote the orange haired fascist who thinks
>>> he's going to become the leader of a foreign country! :-) C'ya, Gringo!
>>
>> 'Specially for you HRM, tomorrows Maritime Noon is about Ham Radioers
>> :)
>>
>
> Regrettably Ham Radio was, for the most part, a hobby of the 20th century. I can't think of another hobby that was
> destroyed so rapidly by cell phones and the Internet. Sailing, skiing, building model trains, collecting stamps, you
> name it. All are going strong and even stronger because of the new means of communications. Yet Ham radio took it on
> the chin. Why? Probably because a newly interested person soon understands they can:
>
> (1) Study for a license for a few months and hopefully pass the exam. Buy a $2K-3K radio and put up a 100-200 foot wire
> antenna 20-40 feet in the air and listen to hissing
About 1% of that hiss is the Cosmic Microwave Background.
> On 22/06/16 01:00 PM, lucreti...@fl.it wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:36:16 -0300, HRM Resident
>> <hrm.res...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 22/06/16 11:12 AM, James Warren wrote:
>>>
>>> >some GMO stuff trying to get that argument going again!<
>>>
>>> Don't care, didn't read it. Got my NON-GMO garden honking this
>>> year. Found a source of free range/non-GMOed meat. Costs more and
>>> tastes better. Also have taken up a hobby that is physically demanding.
>>> Feels good to work hard and eat well. Some prefer to pig out in front
>>> of the TV with GMO popcorn and fake pop laced with artificial sweeteners
>>> swimming in butter! :-)
>>>
>>> I'm happy these days! You're not because no one will argue with
>>> you except Jack trying to promote the orange haired fascist who thinks
>>> he's going to become the leader of a foreign country! :-) C'ya, Gringo!
>>
>> 'Specially for you HRM, tomorrows Maritime Noon is about Ham Radioers
>> :)
>>
>
> Regrettably Ham Radio was, for the most part, a hobby of the 20th century. I can't think of another hobby that was
> destroyed so rapidly by cell phones and the Internet. Sailing, skiing, building model trains, collecting stamps, you
> name it. All are going strong and even stronger because of the new means of communications. Yet Ham radio took it on
> the chin. Why? Probably because a newly interested person soon understands they can:
>
> (1) Study for a license for a few months and hopefully pass the exam. Buy a $2K-3K radio and put up a 100-200 foot wire
> antenna 20-40 feet in the air and listen to hissing
I didn't have a $2k radio but I did have a shortwave radio and I ran
a piece of wire to a metal fence. All I could pick up was a few overseas
broadcasts and a bunch of AM radio stations from the US. This interest
didn't last very long. :)
> until the sunspots co-operate, and then they *might* be able to talk
> to someone hundreds or thousands of kilometres away for a few minutes until conditions change.
>
> -- or --
>
> (2) They can use Skype or equivalent and talk all day to anyone in the world with FM quality audio for free. Or send
> off a quick text.
>
> Which would you rather try? :-) And the remaining Hams are really old Hams . . . most are over 80. Hard to get a
> 16-year old interested. Especially when they discover sex!
>
> 73/88, HRM Resident
lucreti...@fl.it
Jun 22, 2016, 1:22:27 PM6/22/16
to
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 13:59:53 -0300, HRM Resident
Lol - are you becoming cynical or what?? As a kid when we were in HK
and Japan I used to think my fathers old Zenith was magical on sw
listening to BBC all the way back in the UK. I realise that's not ham
but close enough, now I simply podcast what I want.
Although I was gratified to see the big BBC debate yesterday on
Brexit. I expect they will stay - just - it reminds me of PQ and
Scotland with referendums - the heart was saying one thing but common
sense said another. With the exception of Boris, the UK Trump, it was
a great debate - they had what was coming up on Twitter running
alongside the screen, so anytime one of them stretched the truth, they
looked idiots :)
and Japan I used to think my fathers old Zenith was magical on sw
listening to BBC all the way back in the UK. I realise that's not ham
but close enough, now I simply podcast what I want.
Although I was gratified to see the big BBC debate yesterday on
Brexit. I expect they will stay - just - it reminds me of PQ and
Scotland with referendums - the heart was saying one thing but common
sense said another. With the exception of Boris, the UK Trump, it was
a great debate - they had what was coming up on Twitter running
alongside the screen, so anytime one of them stretched the truth, they
looked idiots :)
0 new messages