Another interesting talk at the Oxford Skeptics in the Pub meeting — Mark Lynas is an eco-activist who came to the conclusion that GMO is not necessarily bad, and that Organic isn’t necessarily good, using the power of critical thinking. One interesting point he made is that the degree of scientific consensus supporting GMO safety is roughly the same as that supporting climate change. So if you think critically you have to accept both (or possibly neither?)
↓ Transcript
Science in the Age of Post-Truth, by Mark Lynas 2017-02-01
Trump for a reason - we abandoned reason.
Royal Society - Nullius in Versa
GMO - destruction of crops
Science support for climate change = science support for GMO saftey
Virus resistant cassava
an entire maize crop (drought in Tanzania)
BT aubergines
Dosimeter at Fukushima
Golfball sized piece of Uranium
Wind turbines won't be enough
E. Coli from Organic food - kidney failure
1961 technology -- you'd need this much extra land for agriculture [2 x USA]
join Refugees Welcome in Oxford
Gene drive vs. Malaria
40% coal (UK) -> 10% coal
identity bubbles get smaller and smaller
Plea: be an activist on critical thinking.
Trump for a reason - we abandoned reason.
Royal Society - Nullius in Versa
GMO - destruction of crops
Science support for climate change = science support for GMO saftey
Virus resistant cassava
an entire maize crop (drought in Tanzania)
BT aubergines
Dosimeter at Fukushima
Golfball sized piece of Uranium
Wind turbines won't be enough
E. Coli from Organic food - kidney failure
1961 technology -- you'd need this much extra land for agriculture [2 x USA]
join Refugees Welcome in Oxford
Gene drive vs. Malaria
40% coal (UK) -> 10% coal
identity bubbles get smaller and smaller
Plea: be an activist on critical thinking.
There’s the small fact of GMO disasters that have already occurred. Climate change can be recognized via measurements and apart from the greenhouse gases there’s not much we can do, other than adapt. GMO on the other hand, is a human cause and the effects already are frightening.
Of course I can’t answer for Mark, but he started from your position on GMO – he used to go out and destroy GMO crops. But when asked for evidence of the harm caused by the crops he couldn’t find any peer-reviewed science, other than quoting Greenpeace pamphlets (and he made a public recantation on TV. Incidentally, TV tried to make him out to be a failure for “changing his mind in the face of facts” which is to them, apparently, a terrible weakness.) He works with people in the third world, and explained how GMO prevents starvation and poverty caused by drought and crop disease, so there are definite positive advantages. I’d be very interested to hear about the GMO disasters you mention, though. The point of the talk was that you need to check the data, not just accept the word of people with political motivations. I might change my mind yet…
Oh, and I forgot to say — he didn’t say that every GMO is always safe or beneficial. But he did suggest that each one should be judged individually on its merits.