GMO debate and the 'anti-science' narrative

[LuckyR]

It needs to be approached properly but it almost universally isn't because it's all for the sake producing not the highest quality food, but the cheapest and highest quantity. The modifications usually made aren't for nutritional benefit.

I think this might be the strongest reason why one would object to, and resist, GMO products.

Well marketability and quantity has been the goal for millenia of genetic manipulation. It's nothing new.

[value]

Those are purely utilitarian arguments. What can GMO do for poor little human?

For any number of utilitarian arguments you may conceive of GMO proponents can argue a multiple more arguments. Who is to decide what arguments have conclusive significance when it concerns the question whether GMO should be permitted or not? It would be political, opinionated and ideological motives that would decide.

In general GMO proponents are likely to win the battle on the long term when it concerns a purely utilitarian perspective since they can argue (and politically lobby with billions of dollars in funding) that their arguments deserve an equal chance of consideration.

When the train is set in motion and it cannot be denied that GMO proponents have an equal case in the face of opinionated/ideological opposition, then it becomes a simple question "why not?" and it can potentially be pushed through any ideological/opinionated opposition, which can happen because trillions of dollars of profit ultimately weigh just a bit heavier than the - by equal validity of utilitarian arguments - neutralized ideological/opinionated arguments of the opposition.

What about the perspective of nature?

In my opinion vitality of nature should be leading in the GMO debate and from an utilitarian perspective it would serve the highest purpose possible: the foundation of human life. A purposeful food source is logically a stronger foundation for humanity.

Humans want to find meaning and purpose in life. Why would that be different for plants and animals?

A level of respect for nature might be vital for its prosperity.

With GMO scientists are seeking to establish an empirical result. How can the empirical be the origin of itself - of love - of symbiosis - of nature's prosperity?

The root of the GMO practice is 'eugenics ideology' that resides on the essence of inbreeding of which it is known to cause fatal problems.

[value]

Business science is discovering the value of the concepts purpose, meaning and empowerment. It is a recent movement that follows the previous 'authenticity' movement. Increasingly employees in companies are put in control and are valued to pioneer - to determine a path forward - on behalf of the company. This involves morality which makes it very interesting.

Businesses and business thinkers/science are really struggling with the concept and to bring it into practice.

(2022) What Is the Purpose of Your Purpose? Your why may not be what you think it is.
"The current fixation on moral purpose puts pressure on executives to be seen as running a “good” business. Defining your purpose (morality) as embedded in culture—as operating in a thoughtful, disciplined, ethical manner—can be both pragmatic and genuine. The full potential of purpose is achieved only when it’s aligned with a company’s value proposition and creates shared aspirations both internally and externally."
https://hbr.org/2022/03/what-is-the-pur ... ur-purpose

Studies have shown that giving people autonomy improves their health and well-being significantly. Modern workers simply demand it so companies are forced to deliver.

Why would human requirements for performance and prosperity be different for plants and animals?

Nature defenders often use the concept 'biodiversity' to call for protection measures. In my opinion the origin of biodiversity in nature involves the same aspect that is discovered in the concepts purpose and meaning for human performance.

Biodiversity in nature is the key to resilience and strength. While that statement can be shown to be true empirically, the why question is very important.

Nature seeks diversity not from an empirical perspective (e.g. to have many chances or to be diverse) but for fundamental reasons. It is not the diversity that is what matters and should respected but 'that what is required for existence'. It is the respect that makes biodiversity possible and a natural result that should be facilitated within humanity, which concerns morality.

A top UK GMO expert said: “When introducing animals of a particular lack of biodiversity we cannot say that we are not harming the planet.”

Many have called his plea weak but what could he subtlely mean with 'particular lack of biodiversity'? Perhaps the plea is stronger than it appears from the outlook, considering that it is directed at the UK Government.

Top geneticist warns UK is embarking on a GMO 2.0 experiment that could ‘cause great harm to the planet’
Precision breeding describes a range of technologies, such as gene editing (GMO 2.0), that allows DNA to be edited more precisely than with old GMO.
https://gmwatch.org/en/106-news/latest- ... great-harm

What does the professor mean with 'particular lack of diversity'?

What's difficult to say might not be irrelevant.

Emmanuel Levinas: The saying and the said
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_saying_and_the_said

What is good? This question is where morality starts and where humanity finds infinite growth potential not only to secure its future on the planet but to go 'beyond' what exists today.

In my opinion it is the facilitation of urgency in the enhancement of moral consideration potential within humanity that is required to secure humanity's future on the planet.