kravietz 🦇 @kravietz@social.privacytools.io

@hushroom @feld

In short-term it certainly did work for them in terms of creating fear of GMO or nuclear power ("filthy") and promoting the technologies they liked at that moment - wind, solar, organic farming ("pure").

Playing with human emotions never comes without side effects. So now, when someone (like Gibbs and Moore) says "wait, but solar panels are also manufactured using dirty mining" they fall into a trap they set themselves. Suddenly they found themselves on the "filthy" side 😂

@hushroom

> you have set up a binary distinction

Sorry but it's neither me nor @feld who did it. It was Greenpeace and other environmental activists who created this black-and-white world of "good" vs "evil", "pure" vs "filthy", "natural" vs "chemical" etc in the first place.

They turned something that is - as you correctly noted - nuanced and should be analysed using tools like cost-benefit analysis and risk analysis into a fight between two moral categories.

@feld

Yes, I have only learned about all that like a couple of years after reading books like "Whole Earth Discipline".

Large part of opposition to GMO originates from simple ignorance - people don't realize how plants and animals they've been eating for decades were engineered - now, 50 years ago or 5000 years ago.

None of the plants we eat are growing out there in the wild, the whole "natural" and "organic" thing is 100% marketing scam.

@feld

And history of this "non-GMO" label is even more stupid. Literally thousands of edible plant breeds were created by introducing random DNA mutations using radiation or toxic mutagens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_breeding) over the course of 20th century. Everyone has been eating them for decades.

Now in 2010's EU came up with a new Greenpeace-lobbied regulation that essentially says anything that was engineered before that date is not GMO, but if after - it is :)

@middlepath @alrs @feld

Please note that I did not disagree with any of your points - it's just that the fact that they're using GMO crops is orthogonal to the fact what they're growing is a monoculture.

@middlepath @alrs @feld

Source: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0205713

@middlepath @alrs @feld

What you are talking about is monocultures and they're certainly bad, but they have nothing to do with GMO. If anything, modern GMO crops reduce land usage *and* reduce pesticide usage. In case of Bt brinjal in Bangladesh it was some crazy numbers - like 80% reduction in herbicide usage and 50% increase in harvest.

@middlepath @alrs @feld

Many people thing farming is just like gardening, just on larger scale. It's not - farmers plan soil rotation for decades. And as already explained, *any* crops currently in use is GMO and has been for thousands of years. The fact that Greenpeace lobbied calling GMO developed after 1980 "the GMO" is just a manipulation.

Regarding soil etc I can only recommend Talking Biotech podcast as they discuss it all the time http://www.talkingbiotechpodcast.com/

@alrs @feld

Now *this* is still not retraction technically but it is a large correction from the original authors who admit incorrect conclusions and methodologic mistakes:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-62398-w

@alrs @feld

If my wording is now your best argument, that's a good thing already...

No, it's not "retraction" technically. It's experimental confirmation that the hypothesis from the first article was false:

"Despite the alarming tone of the paper, no trace of these traits was found in this or any earlier study"

@alrs @feld

You stopped in the most interesting moment:

“The data published in this paper and in the entire body of peer-reviewed literature do not support this (hybrid vigor) hypothesis,” an Oxitec representative told us. “The natural, background genetics passed into the local population declined over time, after releases of Oxitec mosquitoes stopped.”

@alrs @feld

And yes, this way you can actually "prove" COVID-19 is being spread by 5G towers. Disputes are frequent in science and they improve science. If you're knowingly quoting an article with outdated or incorrect conclusions, it's not science, it's propaganda.

@alrs @feld

The updated article:

@alrs @feld

First two paragraphs?

@alrs @feld

This one https://newatlas.com/science/gm-mosquito-study-oxitec-rebuttal/

@alrs @feld

But you have certainly noted the two paragraphs of retractions and disclaimers in the beginning? Why are you not linking the updated article?

@alrs @feld

I strongly recommend the book by Stewart Brand "Whole Earth Discipline" (2010) from an environmentalist who did a lot of research on GMO and actually sees it as a chance to combat climate change.

@alrs @feld

This is a common misconception - that some GMO plant can suddenly take over the whole area or something. This doesn't work this way - no cultivated plant is better adapted to the local biosphere than the local wild plants (we call them "weeds"). This is precisely why farmers need to put a lot of effort into weeding to keep their plants cultivated. Leave a nicely cultivated orchard for a decade, and it will all turn back into wilderness.

@feld

Humans are GMO too. We have transgenic parts from viruses and bacteria :)