Neils thoughts on the viral video

*** August 3, 2014 -- Anatomy of a GMO Commentary ****
Ten days ago, this brief clip of me was posted by somebody.

It contains my brief [2min 20sec] response to a question posed by a French journalist, after a talk I gave on the Universe. He found me at the post-talk book signing table. (Notice the half-dozen ready & willing pens.) The clip went mildly viral (rising through a half million right now) with people weighing in on whether they agree with me or not.

Some comments...

1) The journalist posted the question in French. I don't speak French, so I have no memory of how I figured out that was asking me about GMOs. Actually I do know some French words like Bordeaux, and Bourgogne, and Champagne, etc.

2) Everything I said is factual. So there's nothing to disagree with other than whether you should actually "chill out" as I requested of the viewer in my last two words of the clip.

3) Had I given a full talk on this subject, or if GMOs were the subject of a sit-down interview, then I would have raised many nuanced points, regarding labeling, patenting, agribusiness, monopolies, etc. I've noticed that almost all objections to my comments center on these other issues.

4) I offer my views on these nuanced issues here, if anybody is interested:
a- Patented Food Strains: In a free market capitalist society, which we have all "bought" into here in America, if somebody invents something that has market value, they ought to be able to make as much money as they can selling it, provided they do not infringe the rights of others. I see no reason why food should not be included in this concept.
b- Labeling: Since practically all food has been genetically altered from nature, if you wanted labeling I suppose you could demand it, but then it should be for all such foods. Perhaps there could be two different designations: GMO-Agriculture GMO-Laboratory.
c- Non-perennial Seed Strains: It's surely legal to sell someone seeds that cannot reproduce themselves, requiring that the farmer buy seed stocks every year from the supplier. But when sold to developing country -- one struggling to become self-sufficient -- the practice is surely immoral. Corporations, even when they work within the law, should not be held immune from moral judgement on these matters.
d- Monopolies are generally bad things in a free market. To the extent that the production of GMOs are a monopoly, the government should do all it can to spread the baseline of this industry. (My favorite monopoly joke ever, told by Stephen Wright: "I think it's wrong that the game Monopoly is sold by only one company")
e- Safety: Of course new foods should be tested for health risks, regardless of their origin. That's the job of the Food and Drug Administration (in the USA). Actually, humans have been testing food, even without the FDA ,since the dawn of agriculture. Whenever a berry or other ingested plant killed you, you knew not to serve it to you family.
f- Silk Worms: I partly mangled my comments on this. Put simply, commercial Silk Worms have been genetically modified by centuries of silk trade, such that they cannot survive in the wild. Silk Worms currently exist only to serve the textile industry. Just as Milk Cows are bred with the sole purpose of providing milk to humans. There are no herds of wild Milk Cows terrorizing the countryside.

5) If your objection to GMOs is the morality of selling non-prerennial seed stocks, then focus on that. If your objection to GMOs is the monopolistic conduct of agribusiness, then focus on that. But to paint the entire concept of GMO with these particular issues is to blind yourself to the underlying truth of what humans have been doing -- and will continue to do -- to nature so that it best serves our survival. That's what all organisms do when they can, or would do, if they could. Those that didn't, have gone extinct extinct.

In life, be cautious of how broad is the brush with which you paint the views of those you don't agree with.

Respectfully Submitted
-NDTyson

Its not mainly about the direct effects. Its about the indirect effects. What patents on those GMOs can do, how farmers are treated, how surroundings respond to those plants (mono cultures), what those plants will do that you cant use without their special treatment, how powerful corporations will get if they have patents on food. Etc, etc, etc. For tiny bits of it imagine this: A state would prohibit use of unaltered seeds. Even in your tiny garden. You wouldnt be able to use the seeds from your tomatoes to plant new ones for the next year, because they are genetically altered that their seeds dont sprout or you need some kind of chemical for them to survive. Of course this chemical is also patented.Think about it. And now get this: Exactly this has already been suggested by the EU as a serious law.

The French/German TV station Arte made a very good documentary about this topic. You should watch it. Its available on Youtube. Also theres a well known 14 year old girl (prolly 15 now) who explains it to people like you. Google her.

And yes, I didnt name her and the documentary for a reason. You should research for yourself. Its a little test. If you dont even research these easy to find things, youre not even remotely close to being objective and I wont waste my time on you.

In genetics, that is pretty much how it works. The dominant black/dark-haired gene will trump the recessive blonde-haired gene. Punnet squares for the win!

However, as I remember things in the Song of Ice and Fire books, it is presented as though that understanding of genetics isn't really common knowledge in Westeros as it is for us. The books play up the "seed is strong" thing even more, which to me suggests that while people who stop to consider it the most (ie., Jon Arryn) feel that Robert's "seed"/genetics are strong and should be probably be expressed in his "kids" with Cersei, MOST people of Westeros just accept that they "must take after their mother more" and don't think anything is amiss. Ned getting wind of the "seed is strong" idea and thinking about it himself makes him suspicious too, but he doesn't have our understanding of genetics to provide the (nearly) ironclad parentage proof at a glance.

So, you're both right, kinda.

I think our understanding of genetics would make a Jon Snow born of Lyanna (likely carrying double dominant brown/black hair gene BB) and Rhaegar (I think platinum blonde, so guaranteed to be double recessive bb) either have a 100% chance of being dark-haired (BB cross with bb will result in 100% Bb children, carrying the blonde gene but expressing the black) or at most a 25% chance of being blonde IF Lyanna happens to be a carrier of the blonde gene (which seems unlikely).

The only problem with this theory, which btw I think is prob right, is that John has the wrong coloured hair. Since there is the whole The Seed is strong thing in the first season, it seems a little out of place. But yeah otherwise. Bang on.

Q: Why do governments continue with experiments if there's not much truth to them?
A: Men who stare at goats (a few ppl fooled by ideas and passion can easily consume some government resources)
A: Magicians (show the audience one thing while you do another)
A: Bias perception (Misinterpretation of the results)
A: Progression (Legitimate achievements in technological advancements)

Either pick what makes you comfortable (mentally lazy), or utilize your critical thinking (worth breeding)

A rational mind staring into darkness will begin to see shapes and movements that aren't really there. It's due to mental cheat sheets, where the mind attempts to understand that which it doesn't by using current knowledge, assumptions, imagination and internal values/preferences/emotions (gross simplification).

An irrational mind more easily sees whatever is familiar/preferred to be seen. Those who stare long enough can become very difficult to persuade with an alternative view or bring back to a more rational position. (it's why teaching young humans 'what' to think is so much more defining than 'how' to think, re stubborn beliefs)

Yes humans are capable of some seriously great feats, but if you genuinely think that weather can be "controlled" to the extent he's referring to (while disregarding the far greater impacts that would occur globally for every smaller influence) then you're not likely to listen to reason, rather then continue to perceive that which you're predetermined to think.

Also it might help to listen to how he's making his points. It's psychological warfare, he's seeding you and getting you to defeat your own rational thought, poorly i might add, but still the attempt is there.
Why? By only making statements, your 100,000's year old critical thinking system will instinctively aim to challenge every point that isn't previously accepted (like how a cat instinctively chases a running non-threat target), so he mixes in the questions, the same questions, as repetition is the best form of learning (mind-raping)

And just to fuck with yas: if you 'knew' something crazy to be true, and as you spoke about it you could hear the crazy.. how would you convince a friend, a parent and a stranger?

The spirit of Hitch lives on in videosift comments, where the toss can and will be argued against you.

I don't think i ever appreciated him when he was alive, in retrospect it was a tragic loss. He was a great mouth piece for the rational. I think he expressed in his outlook what it means to be human in many of his religious debates and gives me more comfort in my own mortality than any figment of somebody else's imagination could. In short, care for the ones you love and do what you enjoy (his purpose being to protect and love his kids and er... spread the seed).

yea beacause condoms are a 100 percent.

fuck off ya jack weiner.

the only 100 percent way not to get a vagina seeded is to not fuck a vagina.

ABSTINENCE AND GOD. That is all ALL walking baby incubators need to know. HOW CAN A WOMAN BE SO DAMN IRRESPONSIBLE AS TO SPILL SPERM INTO HER INSIDES. DAMN WOMEN, IT IS ALL THEIR FAULTS.

We mostly agree then, just differ on our level of distaste. Not being a parent, I'll even concede that my opinion is less important on this issue than most other people.

As an aside, the appendix is not actually useless or vestigial as previously thought. It's been found to be like a small pocket off your intestine where beneficial bacteria can be preserved when something happens to the rest of the intestinal floura, to 're-seed' your intestine after (if) the issue is resolved.

@Sniper007

Colonisation of other planets, if it happens, will not ease overpopulation on Earth. Assuming it's actually done with humans rather than, say bacteria which are so much easier to transport; it must involve small seed populations of colonists, not firing billions of people off into space. Where do you imagine the energy required would come from? As it stands in 2014 we can barely move a handful of people into low earth orbit, a few hundred kilometres away.

Think about the logistics of transporting and housing all these billions of colonists in a hostile environment. Making the environment itself habitable is an even greater challenge; we can't even seem to fix the one we have on Earth, the one we spent billions of years evolving to suit.

The expansion of the universe, meanwhile, is always giving us less material to work with and perpetually moving it further away.

@SDGundamX

Relying on technology to solve overpopulation is like refusing to stop smoking because by the time you get cancer science will have found a cure.

Scientific advancement is not a given. It doesn't progress at a guaranteed rate and it isn't a genie that will automatically offer a salve to every need. Or, to coin a cliche, "Where's my jetpack?"

Luckily however, in the instant case scientists have offered an easy solution to overpopulation: Stop having so many children.

@RedSky

Poverty reduction without population reduction - reduction, not stabilisation - is catastrophic. The current global population of ~7.2 billion is only survivable, never mind sustainable, because most of those billions are impoverished peasants who barely consume any resources at all. Elevating the poor to a rich, westernesque lifestyle multiplies the effects of overpopulation tremendously, even if it slightly slows population growth in absolute terms.

Rosling doesn't seem to understand the actual problem, and his predictions are at any rate, horrifyingly optimistic.

We need to be shooting for a global population in the range of 100 million - 1 billion. Any substantially higher number than that is an apocalypse waiting to happen.

Ecocidal motherfuckers, seed patenting cocksuckers. Their lawyers deserve nothing short of to be hung by the neck until death.

Please then....Don't put your seed into any woman ever, is my advice to you and the best for the world.

You're comparing apples and apple seeds.

No one would be upset by a giraffe fetus being aborted.

And the people who are not upset by abortions would be very upset about an 18-month-old human being killed, dismembered, and fed to the house cats.

Slow down a moment. I wasn't asking for hours of background research to be presented to meet my approval or anything.

The claim has been repeatedly made that Monsanto has been, on a sweeping scale, been suing farmers with no desire to use it's seed when their crops are accidentally contaminated. All I requested was to be given one single example of that actually happening. Nobody has ever presented an example to me. This leads me to not only conclude, but to declare to all who will listen that this particular charge is a lie and a fabrication.

The closest I ever get to an example is Percy, and he sprayed his own seed crop with round up before harvesting the surviving few plants along the border of his neighbor's crop. I do not count carrying on to plant only those seeds as accidental, and Percy has readily admitted that is what he did.

The description sounds like it's the story of Percy Schrieber, one man's fight with Monsanto. Forgive me, but if that is in fact accurate I'm not sitting through a 1 hour accounting. Percy Schrieber's story is nothing like those described by Shatterdose and others. He wasn't sued for his crop getting cross contaminated. He wasn't sued for continuing to replant seed from his previous crop as he had been doing for years and years.

Percy Schrieber deliberately and intentionally set out to plant Monsanto's GMO canola on his own fields, and went to MORE work to accomplish this than most any other farmer that'd been growing that variety. What is more, he has freely admitted this. I can NOT understand how he still remains a rallying point for folks claiming Monsanto is suing farmers just because their seed crop was cross contaminated by their neighbor. I have yet to be pointed to an example of Monsanto doing that to anyone in North America. Until I am pointed to one, I'm getting pretty tired of the completely baseless accusation being declared and accepted as proven fact and matter of course. Monsanto IS a massive corporation, and no doubts has all manner of dirty deeds to it's name, but this particular charge seems to be entirely fabricated to me and that drives me nuts. It renders all manner of valid complaints and concerns less valid all to quickly.