Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The problem with GMOs is that you can skip to dangerous islands of viability that would be impossible with standard breeding.

At least that's my understanding of Taleb's argument against GMOs.



Imho the problem with GMO is patents on gene sequences.

I don't see how altering plants to produce chemicals is more dangerous than introducing new chemicals produced in a lab. We do the latter all the time, most chemicals we use in industrial processes are basically untested for safety (e.g. look at all the additives in plastics or textiles). GMOs can help reduce the need to pesticides and fertilizers so their use can help the environment. But due to overblown fears even completely harmless modifications like introducing new colors of flowers are treated as if they were literally the devil [1].

As with all new techniques it's probably good to be careful and test things for long term adverse effects, but the kneejerk reaction of GMO=dangerous does more harm than good.

[1] https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/how-transgenic-petun...


This sounds like a good argument agains new untested chemicals, not an argument for GMOs.


Non GMO crops are patented


> The problem with GMOs is that you can skip to dangerous islands of viability that would be impossible with standard breeding.

I don't think that's true. GMO only provides an average of 5% more production in the developed world, and that's what I've read from the studies cited on the Monsanto website, so presumably the studies which put them on the best light possible. It's a clear increase of revenue and production but it's not a game changer revolution either.


Yeah there's a weird logical disconnect amongs the people that Taleb would call IYI "Intellectual Yet Idiots", many of which subscribe to mainstream left-progressive politics.

X is bad for natural diversity. X has the potential to make it much easier to produce enough food to feed people. X might result in all insects, in particular bees, dying. The biggest danger of X is that it could trigger a positive feedback loop, a runaway process that ruins the world. Although X also happens naturally albeit at a much slower rate, we don't have enough understanding of X to ensure it's safe.

If X == "global warming", then X is bad. If X == "GMOs", then X is good. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


I work for a company that has sibling companies that do GMO work.

I myself feel like there are plenty of legit discussions to have about GMOs, yet we cant have those discussions because of the startlingly large number of people that think GMOs will mutate YOU.

It is refreshing to see a comment on the topic that doesn't trigger a reflex laugh/sob.


> "At least that's my understanding of Taleb's argument against GMOs."

I'm interested in reading more about this perspective. Is this in one of his books? Or does he have articles about this somewhere?


He talks about it in Antifragile and has written a few articles on the topic

This one: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/14/business/dealbook/another...

is more of a popular-science take and this one: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8nhAlfIk3QIbGFzOXF5UUN3N2c/... is a more rigorous analysis.

He also talked about his thoughts about GMOs on an econtalk podcast here: http://www.econtalk.org/nassim-nicholas-taleb-on-the-precaut...




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: