the mask behind the mask...

mask

Those familiar with the debate around genetically modified organisms (GMOs) may be forgiven for thinking that science alone can solve the world’s food problems. The industry asserts that GMOs are vital if the world is to increase agricultural productivity and we are going to feed a growing global population. There is also the distinct impression that the GMO issue is all about ‘science’ and little else.

People who question the need for and efficacy of GM have been labelled anti-science elitists who are responsible for crimes against humanity as they supposedly deny GM food to the hungry. Critics stand accused of waging a campaign of fear about the dangers of GM. In doing so, the argument goes that, due to ideology, they are somehow denying a technological innovation to farmers.

Critics have valid concerns about GMOs and have put forward a credible evidence to support their views. But instead of engaging in open and honest debate, we see some scientists hardening their positions, lashing out at critics and forwarding personal opinions (unrelated to their specific discipline) based on their perceived authority as scientists. There’s a fine line between science and industry-inspired lobbying and spin. Unfortunately, a number of scientists have difficulty locating it.

THE PROBLEM: GLOBAL FOOD REGIME OR GM TECHNOLOGY ITSELF

An accusation sometimes levelled at critics of GM is that they have trouble when it comes to differentiating between the technology and the companies who have come to dominate GM: they are thus overly concerned with waging an assault on big business and capitalism, losing site of the potential benefits of GM.

For sure, GM technology has become associated with large conglomerates that have rolled it out as a tool to further consolidate their dominant market position. These corporations are embedded in a system of capitalism that facilitates corporatisation of the global food regime and all that entails: for instance, a push towards seed monopolies, the roll-out of highly profitable proprietary inputs and chemical/biotech treadmills, leverage over legislation, trade deals and treaties and the general boosting and amalgamation of corporate power (as seen by recent mergers and acquisitions).

https://off-guardian.org/2018/07/27/haughty-imperialism-genetically-modi...

By Gus Leonisky at 30 Jul 2018 - 2:03pm
Gus Leonisky's blog
Login or register to post comments

resistance...

Almost as soon as antibiotics were discovered to be valuable in medicine, resistance emerged among bacteria. Whenever mutating or recombining organisms are faced with extirpation, those individuals with variations that avert death will survive and reproduce to take over the population. This can happen rapidly among organisms that reproduce fast and outpace our efforts to combat them. Thus, our use of chemical entities to rid ourselves of clinical, domestic, and agricultural pathogens and pests has selected for resistance.

Today, we find ourselves at the nexus of an alarming acceleration of resistance to antibiotics, insecticides, and herbicides. Through chemical misuse, resistance also brings widespread collateral damage to natural, social, and economic systems. Resistance to antifungal agents poses a particular challenge because a limited suite of chemicals is used in both agricultural and clinical settings.

Evolution will always circumvent head-on attack by new biocides, and we may not be able to invent all the new products that we need. We must therefore harness evolutionary approaches to find smarter ways to minimize the erosion of chemical susceptibility. We now have it in our means to integrate a variety of approaches to pest and pathogen management, including rigorous regulation of prescription behavior, consistent use of clinical hygiene measures, physical barriers to crop pests, and alternative cropping regimes. We urgently need to revisit our reliance on chemicals to ensure our future medical and food security.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6390/726

Bold type by Gus.

Note: the graphs tell an alarming story...

GMO ISN'T THE ANSWER EITHER.

By Gus Leonisky at 31 Jul 2018 - 6:08am
Login or register to post comments

conserving biological diversity versus regulations...

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) commits its 196 nation parties to conserve biological diversity, use its components sustainably, and share fairly and equitably the benefits from the utilization of genetic resources. The last of these objectives was further codified in the Convention's Nagoya Protocol (NP), which came into effect in 2014. Although these aspirations are laudable, the NP and resulting national ambitions on Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) of genetic resources have generated several national regulatory regimes fraught with unintended consequences (1). Anticipated benefits from the commercial use of genetic resources, especially those that might flow to local or indigenous communities because of regulated access to those resources, have largely been exaggerated and not yet realized. Instead, national regulations created in anticipation of commercial benefits, particularly in many countries that are rich in biodiversity, have curtailed biodiversity research by in-country scientists as well as international collaboration (1). This weakens the first and foremost objective of the CBD—conservation of biological diversity. We suggest ways that the Conference of the Parties (CoP) of the CBD may proactively engage scientists to create a regulatory environment conducive to advancing biodiversity science.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6396/1405

By Gus Leonisky at 2 Aug 2018 - 8:08am
Login or register to post comments

toxic philosophy caught between father xmas and bring a plate...

I was going to place this item in "in the middle of nowhere..." centrepiece but I realised it would debase my point of being off the planet while enjoying poor satire...

Thus here is a philosopher who totally misunderstands the music... Enters Yuval Noah Harari who "is an Israeli historian who has written two bestsellers: Sapiens, which examined the course of early human history, and Homo Deus, which speculated on where we might be heading as a post-human species. His new book, 21 Lessons for the 21st Century, is an exploration of the difficulties that confront us at the present.

So here we are, on YD, after having debated these questions in depth, we have to wade through a swamp of philosophical small mid:

Why is liberalism under particular threat from big data?

Liberalism is based on the assumption that you have privileged access to your own inner world of feelings and thoughts and choices, and nobody outside you can really understand you. This is why your feelings are the highest authority in your life and also in politics and economics – the voter knows best, the customer is always right. Even though neuroscience shows us that there is no such thing as free will, in practical terms it made sense because nobody could understand and manipulate your innermost feelings. But now the merger of biotech and infotech in neuroscience and the ability to gather enormous amounts of data on each individual and process them effectively means we are very close to the point where an external system can understand your feelings better than you. We’ve already seen a glimpse of it in the last epidemic of fake news.

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2018/aug/05/yuval-noah-harari-free-i...

Nothing here to titilate the average Gus. Having dealt with fake news since the 1950s (though fake news is more than 2,500 year old), one cannot stress enough that we are more and more told that "an external system can understand your feelings better than you". This has been our delusion since we invented god to fill our idiotic mind. Now we busy inventing electronically devices that can prevent reality to enter out mind. At lest they might improve our peanuts...

By Gus Leonisky at 5 Aug 2018 - 10:30pm
Login or register to post comments

rounding them up...

Australia's peak cancer body is calling for an independent review into the world's most popular weedkiller, which has been linked to non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Cancer Council Australia is concerned there has not been an independent or formal review of the chemical glyphosate — the active ingredient in Roundup — in more than two decades.

The chemical is the most widely used herbicide on the planet and is popular with home gardeners and farmers in Australia.

In 2015, the World Health Organisation body, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans".

"We are concerned that this issue's not being taken seriously enough in Australia, particularly by the agricultural industry," Cancer Council Australia CEO Dr Sanchia Aranda said.

"The IARC report is independent and does suggest that there is absolutely a reason for concern."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-08/cancer-council-calls-for-review-am...

Read from top.

Disclaimer: Gus does not use insecticides, weedkillers and other fratricides agents in his little plot.

By Gus Leonisky at 8 Oct 2018 - 7:36am
Login or register to post comments

bugger orf...

If economics is a science, why isn't it being more helpful?

Richard Denniss

Economists know the price of everything and the value of nothing. Values are up to us

The government’s top two economic advisers are in stark disagreement about something straightforward: whether the Australian economy would benefit from a bigger budget deficit or not.

The governor of the Reserve Bank says he is running out of room to cut interest rates any more, and that some government spending would help stimulate the economy. The secretary of treasury says no such stimulus is necessary. Who to believe?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/30/if-economics-is-a-...

Anyone who reads Gus's columns on YD, would know that "Economics" isn't a science... "Economics" is an art form that uses statistics and mathematics in an artful way. As explained many times here, Sciences are based on natural observations, while art forms (such as economics) are based on chosen (arbitrary) criteria. Simply, "economics" is based on who chooses the "price of fish" and why such a choice...

Read from top and mor about "economics" on this site.

By Gus Leonisky at 30 Oct 2019 - 1:08pm
Login or register to post comments

Primary links

Search

Recent comments

Democracy Links

Member's Off-site Blogs