$ jlc (10,317)

GMO and Organic are psychological scams, but anyone who wants to indulge themselves in those labels is welcome to do so.

From Matt Ridley's Green Scare article:
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are a case in point. After 20 years and billions of meals, there is still no evidence that they harm human health, and ample evidence of their environmental and humanitarian benefits. Vitamin-enhanced GM “golden rice” has been ready to save lives for years, but opposed at every step by Greenpeace. Bangladeshi eggplant growers spray their crops with insecticides up to 140 times in a season, risking their own health, because the insect-resistant GMO version of the plant is fiercely opposed by environmentalists. Opposition to GMOs has certainly cost lives.

Besides, what did GMOs replace? Before transgenic crop improvement was invented, the main way to breed new varieties was “mutation breeding”: to scramble a plant’s DNA randomly, using gamma rays or chemical mutagens, in the hope that some of the monsters thus produced would have better yields or novel characteristics. Golden Promise barley, for example, a favorite of organic brewers, was produced this way. This method still faces no special regulation, whereas precise transfer of single well known genes, which could not possibly be less safe, does.

Environmentalists are currently opposing neonicotinoid pesticides on the grounds that they may hurt bee populations, even though the European Union notes that honeybee numbers have been rising in the 20 years since they were introduced. The effect in Europe has been to cause farmers to return to much more harmful pyrethroid insecticides, which are sprayed on crops instead of used as seed dressing, hitting innocent bystander insects. And if Europeans had been allowed to grow GMOs, then less pesticide would be necessary. Again, green precaution increases risks.
- See more at: http://rationaloptimist.com/blog/the-...

The full article also addresses global warming and resistance to implementation of nuclear power.

Jan

Detroit?

Jan

Well, it does seem to be the Ruling Ourobouros, which biteth its own tail. But, while I do note the obvious bias in the article, what is most interesting to me is 'why' the lowering of taxes, especially business taxes, did not result in more jobs and a better financial picture.

Can someone explain this to me in small words and simple sentences?

Jan

I found it interesting that the demand was made that the US accept 65K refugees before the end of Obama's term of office! It is as if there is a predictability to the US's refusal to accept them after Obama leaves office...

Jan

I am not saying that legalizing drugs will erase human stupidity. Ha! Fat chance! But the problems you cite above can be achieved by 'driving whilst tired' or 'driving whilst angry after your relationship blew up in your face' or 'driving whilst crying your eyes out because your mom just died'. Of course you should not drive on drugs, or while IM-ing, or while half-asleep.

But there is a persistent perception that recreational drugs are per se unhealthy and cause such things as hepatitis or that drugs cause violence by their own druggy nature. With the exception of stuff such as PCP, most drugs do not cause health problems - with an important proviso: they cause health problems to a degree similar to overeating, sugar consumption, or alcohol.

You are right, no one should have to scrape a baby off a windshield. But I think that by legalizing recreational drugs, we will not increase irresponsible driving, and we will undermine the infrastructure of organized crime. And we will improve our freedom.

Jan

Consumer Report wrote a book on drug use, back in the 1970's (I think - gave away my copy). They stated in the intro that they were astounded at the conclusions they had come to - the reverse of what they had expected, going into the project. Their conclusion was that the crimes and health problems considered to derive from drug use were attributes of its illegality, not of the drugs themselves. (They made an exception for PCP.)

The long term effects of heroin addiction, for example, is that - you must have heroin. It does not otherwise alter your health nor does it per se cause you to behave in a criminal fashion. So the decriminalization of drugs should result in the reduction of the drugs = looter equation. (It will not erase that equation because of the high percent of non-producers in our society, but it should reduce it from 'causation' to mere 'correlation'.)

Jan

Thank you.

Jan

(Had to look for a good one)

Always in motion is the future.
(Yoda)

There! Now you're gettin' the hang of it!

The gov should get out of the business of personal relationships, making babies (or not), healthcare in general...as a matter of fact...it's better if they get out of everything (to paraphrase Gandalf). OK - they can keep national defense and a few other things.

Jan, feeling generous

All the time, you will see 'scientific' news announcements that results from a particular survey indicate that [eating meat causes cancer]. People forget that the correct progression for scientific study is: anecdote ->survey -> experiment. This leads to Science.

The flip side of this is that you need anecdotes and surveys in order to generate possible entry points for experiments and hence scientific medicine. I agree with jbrenner, mcnab, and michaelaa in that 'alternative' does not equate to 'does not work'. But if there is a successful therapy in scientific medicine...eh - go with it!

Insofar as alternative medicine 'not working', please remember that in clinical trials you need a control group to which you can compare the results of your pharmaceutical - because that is the only way to distinguish between chemical results and the noise produced by the placebo effect. Please see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWQfe... for some additional comments (though there are some logical holes in the presentation, too). All you would need to do is increase the feeling in the patient that they were going to be cured and a certain percentage of cures will happen. And those cures will be real.

I am currently involved in helping a doctor investigate whether or not EM radiation has a detectable effect on the human body. Jury's still out on that one.

Jan

I discussed this situation with another Randist (one who is not in the Gulch), who commented that Ayn Rand said that everyone should live a 'productive' life, not that they must 'have a job'. I found this an interesting touchstone to apply to the image of a post-affluence world.

Given that everyone has an affluent lifestyle, provided by a robotic workforce, only a small number (5%? 10%?) of the population would need to work. These people would work in innovation, thinking up qualitative changes to our environment (which changes would then be implemented by robots). But the rest of the population can still be productive in art, entertainment, and sports.

I predict that most of the population that can be productive will not choose to do so, however. We will probably end up with another 20% or so who are productive but not employed...and the rest of the people will be an audience for life and not participants therein.

Jan

Without marrying trees (yes, I saw the pics!), there are still a ton of civil marriages per year. In the US, I have found estimates of 10% - 40%. In the UK, I found an analysis: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/vsob1/m...

So the use of the term 'marriage' to apply to a civil union is well established. I don't think I am using it out of context.

Jan

I totally disagree with her, but I am 'on her side' insofar as not obeying orders if you think they are wrong. I do not think that she should try to weasel out of the repercussions of a stance you take, though. If you are going to make a statement, have the balls to see it through.

Let me tell you a story. It was in about 1989. I was working night shift in the lab of a hospital. I was called to the ER to draw a legal blood alcohol level on a person brought in by the police. I refused. I told the police and the doctors that I believe that this constitutes making a person 'testify against themselves' - even though it has been ruled in court that it does not.

I was told by the lab chief and admin, the next day, that I was required to do this as a part of my job. I stated that I would not do so. I told the people from whom I was renting a room that about what was going on - they evicted me from my room on the grounds that 'I might loose my job and be unable to pay my rent'.

My colleague, Curry, on evening shift, entered a strong statement that said that he objected to drawing legal blood alcohols too (for diff reasons). Ultimately, faced with objections from key people working two different shifts that no one likes to cover, the hospital backed down.

I found another, and much better, place to live. I worked for that hospital for another 3 or so years (until this programmer fellow lured me into starting a company with him...Hi, Wm).

Jan

You did not include trees! But - joking aside - I literally agree with your list, and more. The gov has no business being involved with marriages. They should all be civil contracts; you should tell the gov what you have done and not have to ask permission to do it; if you want to be religiously married, go to your local druid.

I especially like the smartphone relationship - know a couple of people who are married to theirs!

Jan

Agreed. But she is a wuz. She wants to take a moral stance and dodge the bullet at the same time. She should resign, or ask for a transfer to a different department.

Jan

Yes. This is the correct answer.

Jan

The progressives are not destroying the family. It is not the job of any political party to destroy or protect the family. The family is a personal concept. Politics should stay out of the way and let individuals protect the family in whatever way suits them.

Jan, let them marry trees

Michael Aarethun -
I have mentally referred to it as 'a different set of premises' but I like the Framing The Reference term. Doing so also necessitates not looking too closely at things like the percentage of human suffering that has been alleviated by technology invented for profit vs the amount that has been alleviated by charitable efforts.

I am going to a party with them tonight. There may be one other person there who is a Randist - but a closet Randist. There will be fascinating conversation and much eating of large red boiled bugs.

Jan

OUCarl -
They are really excellent people, but their premises are different than mine. Logically, I should be able to demonstrate to them that their views are inaccurate, but they do not want to go there. One cannot 'drive them' to changing their beliefs, though I can occasionally chip away at individual points. I think that the most I can do to influence their worldview is to be open about my beliefs and make them realize that they cannot pigeonhole the 'Randists' in a virtual oubliette...since they would have to include me (and they do not want to do that).

Jan

Bringing the American people to that realization is going to be an expensive job. 'Expensive' as in cost to our civilization, I fear.

Jan

RealBill -
I tried to be careful to distinguish between 'represent to me' and 'represent me'. The Queen of England was never elected by the people of England, but she represents a lot to her people. Similarly, whether or not Putin represents the Russian people is a different discussion entirely. He represents to the Russian people the ability of Russia to stand amongst the premier (!) nations of the world. A PR victory is not an insignificant gain.

Jan
(I agree with your last sentence.)

This is an interesting thread. The article seems to be in error in a few respects. For example, infanticide by exposure was not an innovation by the Empire, it was a tradition in Europe from ancient times. Romans wrote in amazement that the barbaric Germanic tribes believed that every baby born should be raised. The Egyptians took it further: they would even rescue babies exposed on dung heaps (by Greeks or Romans) and raise them.

Also, Rome continued on past its fall. When the Roman rulers had been deposed by the Visgoths, the Visgoths, in love with Roman culture, became imitation Romans...to the extent of learning Latin. The difference was that rule was openly monarchical and you had to be a Visgoth to get elected to be king.

Civilizations have a life cycle the root dependency of which has been the food supply. Killing off the big game, an ice age, overpopulation, drought...these are the ultimate destroyers of civilizations (with an occasional volcano thrown in for good measure). The parallels with Rome are pretty significant, and I cannot help but be impressed with them, but I do wonder if we are on a different track.

We are more affluent than any other civilization. What is more: we have birth control. Using birth control, the population of the Earth is not likely to get above 10 billion (could be a billion less). Even an ice age would only inconvenience us, not destroy us (but we would long for global warming!).

It is possible that, to reconstruct Stalin's quote: A high quantity of technology has a quality all its own. This may have spun us off the historical track and into a future for which there is scant historical model.

It is very interesting for me to see proposed the idea that the Great Wall of China actually WORKED...and that the Mongols came westward as a consequence, driving all before them.

Jan

I hope not. Caligula was bad enough in an early tech world. Now...brrrr.

Jan

What a wonderful story! I am enchanted.

Jan

I think you are right in general, TheRealBill, but I suspect that this antic did not cost Putin at the 'opinion polls'. I would suspect that he is being roundly cheered by the Russian people for this demonstration of Slavic audacity. Were I there (and of a Russian mindset), I would be amongst them because Putin would represent to me 'making me feel proud' of a country that is kinda down on its heels otherwise.

Jan