= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Romashka comments on Rationality when Insulated from Evidence - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (60)
yes.
One difficulty about GMO specifically is that as you said,
Golden rice - probably fine. Pesticide resistant stuff, probably not as fine for various reasons already published in the public domain.
The problem is when talking about GMO you cover the existing proven bad (and since no longer used) as well as the unproven bad. As well as the good and the unproven good and the neutral. you just talk about GMO. It might help to be more specific. Can you be more specific about what you are calling GMO? And what you are saying is the problem? There is no inherent problem with the concept of GMO (modifying genes). It depends on how you use it (which genes and how you modify).
As another example of probably fine GMO, I've just come across a review highlighting the urgency of engineering microbes able to assimilate lactose (to use whey and other wastes of dairy industry as substrates for exopolysaccharide synthesis). They also argue for creating (more) efficient EPS-producers culturable on cellulose-containing wastes, although that does seem to me rather more dangerous, on technical glycerole after biodiesel production, etc.