The voice of the skeptic - Paleolithic diet, genetically modified food and food prohibitions / Michael Shermer

Comments

1. Tzur
   Saying you're against genetically modified food just shows you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about. And to slander modern medicine is impudence mixed with stupidity.

   If you have a concrete argument, which is based on facts, then talk about it, and don't slander in a blanket way. The same medicine that you underestimate triples your life expectancy. Your disdain is really irrelevant.

2. Non-GMO and pesticide-free organic corn, appetizing
   https://www.facebook.com/Meat4All/photos/a.545152075507588.1073741828.544822185540577/971197016236423/?type=3

3. Tzur T - Please, first of all, grow food commercially and then give learned advice.

   Thanks

4. Hi Zion, I agree with you by and large.
   I am not in favor of a total denial approach. As you mentioned, the negative should be of foods that have not been tested properly,
   But here the question arises as to how one decides what has been properly tested.
   Hence the answer is subjective.

   My personal answer, based on the concept I developed, is that in most cases I would not trust the food companies
   What is at the forefront of their minds is profit and not the modern scientific medical establishment, which, in my opinion, still understands too little about the human body. Why do I think so? That's another discussion.

   יחד עם זאת חשוב לשאול את השאלה, מדוע יש צורך להנדס מזון? אם התשובה היא "כדי לחסוך ליצרנים עלויות, כגון השקיה, טיפול במזיקים וכדומה" אז הסיכון לטעמי לא שווה את זה. אם התשובה היא כדי לספק מזון לעולם הולך וגדל, אז זוהי אכן מטרה ראויה. עם זאת חשוב לשאול, האין דרך אחרת שנוכל לעשות זאת? למשל, בעיות המזון בעולם כיום אינן דווקא קושי ביצור מזון, אלא עניין פוליטי. לכן, אם ניתן לפתור את הבעיה בדרכים אחרות, ואני מקווה שכן, אז ניתן להשאיר את ההנדסה הגנטית במסגרת למחקר, ולוותר עליו כפתרון לבעיות המזון של האנושות.

5. flint
   להחליט לא לעשות כלום עד שנדע באופן מלא ומוחלט איך גוף האדם בנוי, ומה משפיע עליו, הוא גישה שמרנית מטורפת. כמעט כל דבר שנוצר, הוא תוצאה של ניסוי טעיה ושיפור, אחרת היינו נשארים בג'ונגל.
   In the genetic diversity that exists in billions of people, there will always be something that affects someone.
   If you are rich enough, you can only consume supposedly non-GMO food. But are you sure it wasn't engineered? Are you convinced that the genes of your tomato have been the same for thousands of years? Do you even have the ability to know how the genetic information of what you eat developed? You can know that certain varieties of certain foods come from such and such commercial sources, even if you avoid them, everything you eat is the product of thousands of years, which you only know what happened to it in the last few years.
   Wouldn't you try a drug that would save your life with an 80% probability?

   Therefore the negation should be of foods that have not been tested properly. If we wait for the certainty of everything, we will not progress anywhere. Some will pay a price, but many will benefit.
   There is no 100% in anything. We take risks at any given moment

6. As someone who opposes genetically modified food I think Michael Shermer missed the main point.
   Although I only represent my opinion, and I don't know what others think, but for some reason it doesn't seem to me that the main objection is the fairness in relation to the food, but the health concern.

   The starting point is that the human body is a very complex system. We know a great deal about her, but it is still very little.
   We know many details, but do not understand well enough how all these details affect each other.
   This is the reason, for example, that almost every drug we create has side effects. We still do not know the connections between body systems well enough to be able to change one thing for the better without changing another thing for the worse.

   Man has evolved over thousands of years of evolution so that his systems adapt to the food in his environment.
   Genetic engineering may disturb this balance and create properties in food that have a negative effect on human health.
   The opposition to genetically modified food is not an absolute opposition that claims that genetic improvement cannot fundamentally be beneficial. Of course, theoretically, genetic improvement is possible which is beneficial, but as I explained before,
   As long as we do not understand the systems of the human body in a sufficiently complete manner, so as not to create side effects (and the pharmaceutical industry illustrates to us how far we are from this), we can with great certainty expect side effects as well
   as a result of genetic engineering.

   By the way, the improvement of food by hybridization is also not perfect in terms of health problems. For example, we have developed varieties of vegetables that are larger, but nutritionally poorer.
   However, the assumption is that the damage that may be caused by genetic engineering may be much greater than crossbreeding, because while in the second case we select and crossbreed based on the food that evolution has created over thousands of years,
   בהנדסה גנטית אנחנו עושים "מה שבראש שלנו".

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.