GMO debate and the 'anti-science' narrative

[psyreporter]

For reference, as it is relevant for the topic since I was (and still am) personally attacked for critically questioning GMO.

As it appears, the following reply was deleted from this topic 5 days ago. However, after I replaced it, it wasn't deleted again.

Atla recently wrote the following on a different philosophy forum:

you have a personal persecutory complex coupled with messiah syndrome, have you not?

I responded with the following:

I have communicated clearly and repeatedly, perhaps literally over 1000x times, that I have no political, ideological or religious motives. I have no intention in any way to tell other people what they should think, believe, or how they should live.

...

When it concerns psychiatry, it appears that they have attempted to divert attention away from them by playing a 'Jesus joke', among other things, and that it ultimately may explain the origin of all the fuzz. In a way, what has been observed, was a fight to survive by a practice that can't stand on its own legs. This is just my 'two cents' with regard what happened. Officially, it has remained a mystery.

That was in reply to the sad story where they've been after you for two years, trying to murder you. They also destroyed your apartment using air pollution, you had to endure violance by your landlord, and there was defamation, harassment, and even intimidation by the police. People even used paranormal intention, threatening to shoot you. Yet the media and human rights organisations are ignoring you.
Etc. the list goes on. You realized a handful of truths that would change the world for the better, which made you the enemy of some big players, no wonder they're after you.

The facts are the facts. I simply reported about it and I have provided a sound basis for the claims that were made.


How it started: Coca Cola and then Rabobank

coca-cola-logo.png (5.94 KiB) Viewed 3702 times

As mentioned in the OP. It all started with a sneaky cola TV ad after I had reported about GMO in Coca Cola. Shortly after that TV ad a flood of nonsensical negative 0- reviews for a popular WordPress optimization plugin followed, then to be followed by a plugin ban after a moderator performed an absurd slander attack to which I had responded decently, turning it into a true mystery.

After the cola TV ad, Rabobank, a fortune 500 investment bank dedicated to GMO with its headquarter in Utrecht, the Netherlands, invested into my business to sabotage it. That directly (chronologically) preceded all of what happened with the attack on my home in Utrecht, the Netherlands.

It is evident that the Rabobank performed an attack on my business. Without providing a reason, the Rabobank investor closed a 6 months old startup company and gave up their € 45,000 Euro investment. There was simply no logical reason to give up their investment. They closed the startup company after 6 months, the originally planed time for R&D, in which my company had delivered an exceptional result, in time.

The project could have been worth a billion USD. It was seriously watched by over 200.000 people. (cutting edge innovation)

https://psyreporter.com/rabobank/

In internal communication with a new business partner from Hollywood, USA, it was established that I perceived Rabobank to have been the culprit and I was then seriously warned that taking on against a fortune 500 company such as the Rabobank would not be wise, by which I received the impression that they might be involved with Rabobank as well.

It is only logical, that with the exposing of a subsequent business partner from Hollywood, USA as a saboteur (who invested a sum on behalf of an investment banker in Massachusetts, USA) that the logical (unspoken) conclusion would be in 2018/2019 that Rabobank was behind that malicious business practices as well. They played a ‘billionaire’ joke on a project to waste time on purpose, then walked away again (leaving their investment behind) ‘for no reason’.

Considering the whole situation, it is only logical that the Rabobank, considering its business link with me and its head quarter in Utrecht, at least has had some influence or oversight over what happened with the attack on my home in Utrecht.

Attempted murder?

An attempted murder, the facts do point in that direction, regrettably. Since there are literally dozens of independent facts that all point in that direction, one should simply consider what else the motive could have been to do what they did?

I am author of a critical blog on psychiatry that has been read by 2 million people in the Netherlands. The name is 'Zielenknijper' and the Polish construction workers that caused the air pollution wore orange suites with the name "Zielinski" printed on the back. They made a loud wining sound when entering my home, as if expressing pity for the damage that was clearly visible (everything was destroyed). It can be an accident, but that is not likely.

zielinski-orange-suit.png (10.43 KiB) Viewed 3702 times

There was an incident at the official national legal council that sent a threatening paranoid story of a psychiatric patient in its reply. That cannot have been an accident and it is also unlikely that an employee of the legal council would do such a thing, since you could lose your job or worse as a result.

Why the police cooperated

My report about pedophilia (raping of children) in Justice of the Netherlands (by the head of Justice and dozens of judges while they were illogically protected by ministers of Justice) may have been the reason that local police and Justice cooperated with Rabobank to attack me by destroying my home and safety. The local police force of Utrecht attempted to intimidate me and the head of the local police force was directly involved during the attack.

It was a very unnatural experience because the police did not know me and they had nothing on me to justify their disrespectful behaviour.

There are dozens of other facts that clearly show that the attack on my home was a planned action.

If you would read the investigation, I am certain that you will not be able to find a part that can be said to be questionable or untrue.

--

It is not just to mock me for my report about what happened. Considering the clear link with GMO, the origin of the attack is likely GMO.

[psyreporter]

You realized a handful of truths that would change the world for the better, which made you the enemy of some big players, no wonder they're after you.

I have never mentioned anything of the sort, however, there is simply no other reason to explain their 'hate' towards me other than my stance with regard GMO (which correlates with eugenics and Nazi ideology).

I have always been 100% respectful in interaction with psychiatrists and advocates of psychiatry. Not once was someone disadvantaged. It was not political.

My critical questioning of GMO is neutral as well. For example, the idea that GMO may be good for animals and plants (e.g. that they would be happy with it) is an option for consideration.

[Pattern-chaser]

Some perceived defects may be part of a 300 year evolutionary strategy that is essential to acquire solutions for longer term survival.

You write as though evolution has intention – you describe it as indulging in future planning – but I don't think it works that way.

[Sculptor1]

The universe is perfectly deterministic else none of this would work.
You might not like it, but where is your evidence that the universe has some sort of meaning on its own merits?
I really do not think that the inhabitants of the Andromena Galaxy know or would care about a tomato that does not need glyphostate to kill off insects because it has GMO protection.

The origin of a pattern as potential is necessarily meaningful and cannot be a pattern which implies that meaning is applicable on a fundamental nature level (a priori or "before (empirical) value").

Words without meaning.
Mystic gibberish.

My footnote provides simple reasoning to display why determinism cannot be valid: "If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist."

No a bland statement is not an argument. Please look up a definition of "argument".

Firstly, at question would be whether morality is ignored and if it can be said that it is OK to do so. A belief in determinism, which as you say is required to justify GMO and which would abolish morality, does not appear to be a sound theoretical foundation since the determinism vs free will debate is not a settled debate.

So tell me why did your parents ignore morality by bringing you into the world?
I can think of many reasons why spawning a baby into the world in the last few decade could be seen as immoral.
But I see no reason why determinism or GMO would abolish morality. I can think of many reasons why GMO could be highly moral.
You are only reacting. You are not arguing for or against anything except in general terms.

When it concerns morality, it would concern the question whether GMO is good for the animals and plants involved.

Why don't you ask them?

Why would a human be motivated to explore morality for animals and plants? Or alternatively, why would a human be motivated take moral reasoning in consideration when it concerns the question whether GMO should be applied or not, considering the trillion USD profit motive involved?

Please cite your evidence of profits.
SO you are saying that making money is immoral? How did you buy the computer you are tying into?

With regard care for animals and plants when it concerns the use of GMO. When humans would consume an animal or plant anyway, why would it's life stage be worth any more than the value that the animal or plant provides for the human?

In a deterministic world, the animal or plant on the plate is all that one would need to consider.

When determinism isn't valid however, then morality may require to prevent a lack of respect for animals and plants before they enter a human's food plate and thus it would be important to be able to answer the question whether morality for animals and plants can be safely ignored.

I eat plants and animals.
Don't you?

[psyreporter]

Some perceived defects may be part of a 300 year evolutionary strategy that is essential to acquire solutions for longer term survival.

You write as though evolution has intention – you describe it as indulging in future planning – but I don't think it works that way.

Yes, most logical is intelligence beyond conscious mind (empirical retro-perspective).

If bacteria (microbes) can do it, then that may indicate a more fundamental capacity for simple life, which may include individual cells and even smaller parts.

(2021) Bacteria can learn to predict the future
New research from Washington University in St. Louis suggests that bacteria could learn from the past to predict the future.
https://source.wustl.edu/2021/09/bacter ... he-future/

(Non-religious) arguments for intelligent design are quite interesting. I just recently purchased the book The Mystery of Life's Origin, a classic on the subject revised with modern info by new authors including philosopher of science Stephen C. Meyer.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/504 ... e-s-origin

There are arguments by which it can be said that it is not logical to believe that life's processes are caused by random chance. It has nothing to do with religion.

https://intelligentdesign.org/

[psyreporter]

The origin of a pattern as potential is necessarily meaningful and cannot be a pattern which implies that meaning is applicable on a fundamental nature level (a priori or "before (empirical) value").

Words without meaning.
Mystic gibberish.

The concept meaning can be said to be mystic gibberish only because of the idea that empirical value (the foundation of scientific evidence) is all that can be considered 'valid' when it concerns an explanation for physical reality.

The provided simple logic indicates that meaning is necessarily applicable as precursor of empirical value.

1. a pattern is necessarily meaningful (without meaning a pattern is not possible)
2. a pattern is signified by perception (signification provides a pattern with meaning)
3. as representative of meaning perception-as-signifier must precede a pattern on a fundamental level

The logic indicates that perception-as-signifier (observer) must precede a pattern on a fundamental level because as signifier it represents ‘pure meaning’ that cannot be a pattern.

Recent scientific studies confirm that the observer precedes reality (and thus precedes empirical value).

(2020) Do Quantum Phenomena Require Conscious Observers?
“Experiments indicate that the everyday world we perceive does not exist until observed,” writes scientist Bernardo Kastrup and colleagues earlier this year on Scientific American, adding that this suggests “a primary role for mind in nature.”
https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/ar ... -observers

My footnote provides simple reasoning to display why determinism cannot be valid: "If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist."

No a bland statement is not an argument. Please look up a definition of "argument".

It is an argument against determinism. What was = empirical value. If life were to originate from empirical value then there would be no meaning (determinism) and thus no reason to exist.

The meaning of the word-combination not not does not have a word. What is indicated is not possible to grasp empirically.

The problem is addressed in the philosophical zombie theory.

(2022) The philosopher’s zombie: What can the zombie argument say about human consciousness?
The infamous thought experiment, flawed as it is, does demonstrate one thing: science can’t explain consciousness.
https://aeon.co/essays/what-can-the-zom ... sciousness

Firstly, at question would be whether morality is ignored and if it can be said that it is OK to do so. A belief in determinism, which as you say is required to justify GMO and which would abolish morality, does not appear to be a sound theoretical foundation since the determinism vs free will debate is not a settled debate.

So tell me why did your parents ignore morality by bringing you into the world?
I can think of many reasons why spawning a baby into the world in the last few decade could be seen as immoral.
But I see no reason why determinism or GMO would abolish morality. I can think of many reasons why GMO could be highly moral.
You are only reacting. You are not arguing for or against anything except in general terms.

Determinism has as consequence that there is no meaning in the Universe which implies that there can be no morality.

What is indicated is that GMO requires determinism to be true which you confirmed in a previous post:

The universe is perfectly deterministic else none of this [GMO] would work.

Your notion that GMO can be moral is deduced from your own conscious experience (meaningful experience) which provides a sort of 'magical moral compass' (moral sense).

Despite the wishful idea that subjective experience (and thus a subjective value claim) can precede the senses, simple logic shows that that is impossible. The senses logically precede subjective experience. Conscious experience is only possible on the basis of information provided by the senses. The senses are primary and for sensing to be possible the potential for a value judgement is primary, which implies that pure meaning must underlay conscious experience and provide the basis for the magical moral compass (moral sense).

When it concerns morality, it would concern the question whether GMO is good for the animals and plants involved.

Why don't you ask them?

www.gmodebate.org: "Because animals and plants cannot speak for themselves!""

Why would a human be motivated to explore morality for animals and plants? Or alternatively, why would a human be motivated take moral reasoning in consideration when it concerns the question whether GMO should be applied or not, considering the trillion USD profit motive involved?

Please cite your evidence of profits.
SO you are saying that making money is immoral? How did you buy the computer you are tying into?

Biotechnology is already a bigger business than many people realize. Rob Carlson of Bioeconomy Capital, an investment company, calculates that money made from creatures which have been genetically engineered (GMO animals) accounted for about 2% of American GDP in 2017.
Source: https://www.ft.com/content/80a21ca2-136 ... f78404524e

At question is whether a short-term financial profit motive is an optimal or 'good' influence (guide) for evolution of animals.

I eat plants and animals.
Don't you?

That doesn't imply that one can argue that morality can be ignored and that animals and plants can be reduced to empirical value (i.e. how they end up on a human's food plate).

Philosophy professor: Plants are sentient beings that should be eaten with respect
His claim that a plant is a sentient “intelligent, social, complex being” has been contested by some biologists, but a stronger reaction has come from animal-rights activists and vegans who fear their cause is undermined by extending a duty of respect to plants.
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/unth ... -1.1965980

How a plant is treated, cared for and eaten may make a difference and can be considered vital for longer term prosperity from diverse perspectives. There may be many perspectives that are applicable to the individual selves of animals and plants (i.e. morality applicable to animals and plants).

[Sculptor1]

The origin of a pattern as potential is necessarily meaningful and cannot be a pattern which implies that meaning is applicable on a fundamental nature level (a priori or "before (empirical) value").

Words without meaning.
Mystic gibberish.

The concept meaning can be said to be mystic gibberish only because of the idea that empirical value (the foundation of scientific evidence) is all that can be considered 'valid' when it concerns an explanation for physical reality.

The provided simple logic indicates that meaning is necessarily applicable as precursor of empirical value.

1. a pattern is necessarily meaningful (without meaning a pattern is not possible)
2. a pattern is signified by perception (signification provides a pattern with meaning)
3. as representative of meaning perception-as-signifier must precede a pattern on a fundamental level

The logic indicates that perception-as-signifier (observer) must precede a pattern on a fundamental level because as signifier it represents ‘pure meaning’ that cannot be a pattern.

Recent scientific studies confirm that the observer precedes reality (and thus precedes empirical value).

(2020) Do Quantum Phenomena Require Conscious Observers?
“Experiments indicate that the everyday world we perceive does not exist until observed,” writes scientist Bernardo Kastrup and colleagues earlier this year on Scientific American, adding that this suggests “a primary role for mind in nature.”
https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/ar ... -observers

My footnote provides simple reasoning to display why determinism cannot be valid: "If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist."

No a bland statement is not an argument. Please look up a definition of "argument".

It is an argument against determinism. What was = empirical value. If life were to originate from empirical value then there would be no meaning (determinism) and thus no reason to exist.

The meaning of the word-combination not not does not have a word. What is indicated is not possible to grasp empirically.

The problem is addressed in the philosophical zombie theory.

(2022) The philosopher’s zombie: What can the zombie argument say about human consciousness?
The infamous thought experiment, flawed as it is, does demonstrate one thing: science can’t explain consciousness.
https://aeon.co/essays/what-can-the-zom ... sciousness

Firstly, at question would be whether morality is ignored and if it can be said that it is OK to do so. A belief in determinism, which as you say is required to justify GMO and which would abolish morality, does not appear to be a sound theoretical foundation since the determinism vs free will debate is not a settled debate.

So tell me why did your parents ignore morality by bringing you into the world?
I can think of many reasons why spawning a baby into the world in the last few decade could be seen as immoral.
But I see no reason why determinism or GMO would abolish morality. I can think of many reasons why GMO could be highly moral.
You are only reacting. You are not arguing for or against anything except in general terms.

Determinism has as consequence that there is no meaning in the Universe which implies that there can be no morality.

What is indicated is that GMO requires determinism to be true which you confirmed in a previous post:

The universe is perfectly deterministic else none of this [GMO] would work.

Your notion that GMO can be moral is deduced from your own conscious experience (meaningful experience) which provides a sort of 'magical moral compass' (moral sense).

Despite the wishful idea that subjective experience (and thus a subjective value claim) can precede the senses, simple logic shows that that is impossible. The senses logically precede subjective experience. Conscious experience is only possible on the basis of information provided by the senses. The senses are primary and for sensing to be possible the potential for a value judgement is primary, which implies that pure meaning must underlay conscious experience and provide the basis for the magical moral compass (moral sense).

When it concerns morality, it would concern the question whether GMO is good for the animals and plants involved.

Why don't you ask them?

www.gmodebate.org: "Because animals and plants cannot speak for themselves!""

Why would a human be motivated to explore morality for animals and plants? Or alternatively, why would a human be motivated take moral reasoning in consideration when it concerns the question whether GMO should be applied or not, considering the trillion USD profit motive involved?

Please cite your evidence of profits.
SO you are saying that making money is immoral? How did you buy the computer you are tying into?

Biotechnology is already a bigger business than many people realize. Rob Carlson of Bioeconomy Capital, an investment company, calculates that money made from creatures which have been genetically engineered (GMO animals) accounted for about 2% of American GDP in 2017.
Source: https://www.ft.com/content/80a21ca2-136 ... f78404524e

At question is whether a short-term financial profit motive is an optimal or 'good' influence (guide) for evolution of animals.

I eat plants and animals.
Don't you?

That doesn't imply that one can argue that morality can be ignored and that animals and plants can be reduced to empirical value (i.e. how they end up on a human's food plate).

Philosophy professor: Plants are sentient beings that should be eaten with respect
His claim that a plant is a sentient “intelligent, social, complex being” has been contested by some biologists, but a stronger reaction has come from animal-rights activists and vegans who fear their cause is undermined by extending a duty of respect to plants.
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/unth ... -1.1965980

How a plant is treated, cared for and eaten may make a difference and can be considered vital for longer term prosperity from diverse perspectives. There may be many perspectives that are applicable to the individual selves of animals and plants (i.e. morality applicable to animals and plants).

Nothing you say is any kind of argument against GMO. Nothing.
It is just a vague disquiet against science and determinism which has very little to do with GMO.
And the fact that you are ignoring the obvious hypocrisy of eating food, whilst pretending some sort of morality against GMO, for the sake of Plants.
You cannot treat a plant worst than eating it.
If you have a problem with GMO you might want to learn something about it. But you cannot argue from ignorance.

[Pattern-chaser]

Some perceived defects may be part of a 300 year evolutionary strategy that is essential to acquire solutions for longer term survival.

You write as though evolution has intention – you describe it as indulging in future planning – but I don't think it works that way.

Yes, most logical is intelligence beyond conscious mind (empirical retro-perspective).

If bacteria (microbes) can do it, then that may indicate a more fundamental capacity for simple life, which may include individual cells and even smaller parts.

Here I see echoes of my own (Gaian) spiritual beliefs, so I'm hardly going to attack them. But this isn't a religious topic, so I will not derail it by asserting religious 'truths', OK?

[psyreporter]

(2018) Immoral advances: Is science out of control?
To many scientists, moral objections to their work are not valid: science, by definition, is morally neutral, so any moral judgement on it simply reflects scientific illiteracy.
Source: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... f-control/

So, to paraphrase the final words from your quote, any judgement on science and scientists probably reflects their moral illiteracy. They place the acquisition of knowledge above all else, and deliberately set aside the morality, leaving such difficult problems as responsibility for others to struggle with. For some people, this dereliction of (moral) duty is a Really Big Deal. I think it's a valid criticism.

What would be the opposite of moral illiteracy?

Moral awareness? Moral rectitude? Decency? Consciousness of one's being a part of life, the universe, and everything, and acting accordingly? ...

Would you return on your argument with regard applicability of moral illiteracy?

If it cannot be said that a belief in determinism is invalid which would have as consequence that there is no meaning in the Universe and thus no basis for morality, how can it be said that someone is morally illiterate?

[Pattern-chaser]

(2018) Immoral advances: Is science out of control?
To many scientists, moral objections to their work are not valid: science, by definition, is morally neutral, so any moral judgement on it simply reflects scientific illiteracy.
Source: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... f-control/

So, to paraphrase the final words from your quote, any judgement on science and scientists probably reflects their moral illiteracy. They place the acquisition of knowledge above all else, and deliberately set aside the morality, leaving such difficult problems as responsibility for others to struggle with. For some people, this dereliction of (moral) duty is a Really Big Deal. I think it's a valid criticism.

Would you return on your argument with regard applicability of moral illiteracy?

No, I don't think I would. The point here is not the detail of what 'moral illiteracy' might be, but rather whether (in this example) scientists should shoulder some of the responsibility for the terrible weapons that they make.

[psyreporter]

Nothing you say is any kind of argument against GMO. Nothing.
It is just a vague disquiet against science and determinism which has very little to do with GMO.

You mentioned yourself that GMO requires determinism to be true: "The universe is perfectly deterministic else none of this (GMO) would work."

Determinism has as consequence that there is no meaning in the Universe which implies that there can be no morality.

As mentioned in my previous post, there may be many perspectives (arguments against GMO) that are applicable to the individual selves of animals and plants. Therefore at question is: can morality for animals and plants be safely ignored? If so, what would be the justification for that or would it merely consist of a belief in determinism?

And the fact that you are ignoring the obvious hypocrisy of eating food, whilst pretending some sort of morality against GMO, for the sake of Plants.
You cannot treat a plant worst than eating it.

I did not ignore that:

When humans would consume an animal or plant anyway, why would it's life stage be worth any more than the value that the animal or plant provides for the human?

In a deterministic world, the animal or plant on the plate is all that one would need to consider.

When determinism isn't valid however, then morality may require to prevent a lack of respect for animals and plants before they enter a human's food plate and thus it would be important to be able to answer the question whether morality for animals and plants can be safely ignored.

In short: animal and plant morality may be an important factor to consider before GMO is practised.

When it concerns animal an plant morality it concerns an inside-out perspective on behalf of animals and plants and aspects such as vitality of meaningful experience, which is impossible to grasp using empirical science as the philosophical zombie theory has shown, but which respectability may be vital for long term prosperity of nature.

When it concerns arguments against GMO, one should start with the question: can it be said that morality can be ignored? If a case can be made that the answer is no, then there may be a lot of intensive philosophical research work to make it certain that arguments related to animal and plant morality are discovered and addressed appropriately.

As it appears however, humans are just about to start considering that plants may be sentient. GMO would potentially bulldoze over vital discoveries related to plant intelligence and applicability of plant morality (plant morality may not even exist yet in academic philosophy).

A search on academia.edu for plant morality provides 1 result with the term in the title dating 1999:

[psyreporter]

(2018) Immoral advances: Is science out of control?
To many scientists, moral objections to their work are not valid: science, by definition, is morally neutral, so any moral judgement on it simply reflects scientific illiteracy.
Source: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... f-control/

So, to paraphrase the final words from your quote, any judgement on science and scientists probably reflects their moral illiteracy. They place the acquisition of knowledge above all else, and deliberately set aside the morality, leaving such difficult problems as responsibility for others to struggle with. For some people, this dereliction of (moral) duty is a Really Big Deal. I think it's a valid criticism.

Would you return on your argument with regard applicability of moral illiteracy?

No, I don't think I would. The point here is not the detail of what 'moral illiteracy' might be, but rather whether (in this example) scientists should shoulder some of the responsibility for the terrible weapons that they make.

When the term is vague, even in the most basic sense when it concerns the question whether morality is applicable at all, why should scientists consider morality noteworthy?

A demand for moral consideration requires substance to be effective. If science can be said to be morally neutral based on a belief in determinism and the corresponding idea that there is no meaning in the Universe, then it seems impossible to demand moral consideration from scientists.

[Sculptor1]

Nothing you say is any kind of argument against GMO. Nothing.
It is just a vague disquiet against science and determinism which has very little to do with GMO.

You mentioned yourself that GMO requires determinism to be true: "The universe is perfectly deterministic else none of this (GMO) would work."

Determinism has as consequence that there is no meaning in the Universe which implies that there can be no morality.

False.
Free will has the consequence of no meaning, since, if you can do whatever you want regardless of cause or purpose what meaning can there possibly be? None!
But whether or not free will exists, this has very little to do with GMO.

As mentioned in my previous post, there may be many perspectives (arguments against GMO) that are applicable to the individual selves of animals and plants.

Name ONE!

Therefore at question is: can morality for animals and plants be safely ignored? If so, what would be the justification for that or would it merely consist of a belief in determinism?
{/quote]
If free will exists then we are capable of ignoring, by choice, any moral questions.
I continue to submit that the determinism/free will argument is not relevant.

A search on academia.edu for plant morality provides 1 result with the term in the title dating 1999:

academia-plant-morality.png

This is no surprise to me. Plants are not moral creatures for obvious reasons.

If you had a child or other relative with Type 1 Diabetes would you allow that child to use insulin? Insulin is made with GMO bacteria or would you let that child die?

[psyreporter]

You mentioned yourself that GMO requires determinism to be true: "The universe is perfectly deterministic else none of this (GMO) would work."

Determinism has as consequence that there is no meaning in the Universe which implies that there can be no morality.

False.
Free will has the consequence of no meaning, since, if you can do whatever you want regardless of cause or purpose what meaning can there possibly be? None!
But whether or not free will exists, this has very little to do with GMO.

Non-determinism implies that there is meaning in the Universe as precursor to empirical value. Free will is a concept relative to human choice as a derivative consequence from that fundamental nature aspect. The reason that the debate is framed as free will vs determinism is because the fundamental nature aspect of non-determinism requires to be defended on the basis of meaningful experience (conscious experience). Therefore, one will look at one's ability to choose as evidence for non-determinism and faces an inability to capture that apparent common sense ability within the scope of empirical value.

In a deterministic Universe empirical value is all that exists which implies that morality isn't applicable.

As mentioned in my previous post, there may be many perspectives (arguments against GMO) that are applicable to the individual selves of animals and plants.

Name ONE!

The plausibility of the consideration of the concept vitality of meaningful experience, for one. That concept has far reaching implications that includes the foundation for human life.

Therefore at question is: can morality for animals and plants be safely ignored? If so, what would be the justification for that or would it merely consist of a belief in determinism?

If free will exists then we are capable of ignoring, by choice, any moral questions.
I continue to submit that the determinism/free will argument is not relevant.

In a deterministic Universe, moral questions are irrelevant. With free will, moral questions can be considered in potential, which is all that is required to be able to argue that morality is applicable.

A search on academia.edu for plant morality provides 1 result with the term in the title dating 1999.

This is no surprise to me. Plants are not moral creatures for obvious reasons.

This is not true. Evidence for plant intelligence is fairly recent however.

(2009) Can a plant be altruistic?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 092047.htm

(2013) Plants are altruistic, too, new study finds
https://phys.org/news/2013-02-altruistic.html

(2019) Once considered outlandish, the idea that plants are moral is taking root
Some plants appear to move leaves, roots and share resources to help other plants prosper.
https://www.science.org/content/article ... aking-root

If you had a child or other relative with Type 1 Diabetes would you allow that child to use insulin? Insulin is made with GMO bacteria or would you let that child die?

Moral questions with regard applicability of GMO would concern whether GMO is good for the bacteria involved. Perhaps minor GMO is not a problem for bacteria, especially since they perform GMO themselves or are victim of it by viruses. That latter notion is impossible, bacteria would become victim of GMO and are destroyed by it. Therefore, in such cases GMO would not be good for bacteria.

When it concerns morality for animals and plants, it would concern the question whether GMO would be good from their inside-out perspective (e.g. their meaningful experience) on behalf of long term prosperity of the foundation of human life.

Compared to bacteria, plants, especially bigger plants and animals, may require more profound moral consideration to secure vital prosperity.

[Pattern-chaser]

When the term is vague, even in the most basic sense when it concerns the question whether morality is applicable at all, why should scientists consider morality noteworthy?

Why? Perhaps because scientists are human beings too, and humans tend to consider most things to be morally noteworthy?