To be fair, genetic modification and selective breeding are not the same thing. It is funny how one is totally normal and the other is considered negative when they’re quite similar
I think some reservations can come out of the idea that the natural environment isn’t producing these genetic changes. Just to play devil’s advocate.
Edit: does nobody fucking know what devil’s advocate means? This isn’t my opinion christ. Also there’s a bit more depth to the argument though that you guys seem to be really obtuse about.
The natural world tries to kill you all the time. Why are you trusting that!?! Seriously though, both of these arguements are somewhat fallacious. Saying that GMOs are safe because, “It happens all the time in nature.” Is the same fallacy that it isn’t safe because, “It isn’t natural to accelerate the process with genetic modification.” Both are just mental shortcuts for people so they don’t have to think about the insanely complex topic of GMOs, the effects, and what the right path forward is for all of us.
I think this is somewhat strawmanning what the point of the argument in this specific case is. They’re not appealing to nature being good, that’s not the argument.
The point is that if you are genetically selecting for specific genes through modification then you are circumventing the typical process for genetic change. There are lots of unintended effects of genetic changes and there are lots of corrective mechanisms built into DNA when genetically modified through selective processes rather than direct gene splicing. Science is always slow to catch up with analysis of an entourage effect where many other small factors may influence results long term.
I’m not anti GMO and this isn’t my opinion as I think GMO products have amazing potential. I’m just sick of people on my side totally misrepresenting this argument as “hurr durr nature good.” It’s such a smooth brained take.
To be fair, genetic modification and selective breeding are not the same thing. It is funny how one is totally normal and the other is considered negative when they’re quite similar
I think some reservations can come out of the idea that the natural environment isn’t producing these genetic changes. Just to play devil’s advocate.
Edit: does nobody fucking know what devil’s advocate means? This isn’t my opinion christ. Also there’s a bit more depth to the argument though that you guys seem to be really obtuse about.
The natural world tries to kill you all the time. Why are you trusting that!?! Seriously though, both of these arguements are somewhat fallacious. Saying that GMOs are safe because, “It happens all the time in nature.” Is the same fallacy that it isn’t safe because, “It isn’t natural to accelerate the process with genetic modification.” Both are just mental shortcuts for people so they don’t have to think about the insanely complex topic of GMOs, the effects, and what the right path forward is for all of us.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
I think this is somewhat strawmanning what the point of the argument in this specific case is. They’re not appealing to nature being good, that’s not the argument.
The point is that if you are genetically selecting for specific genes through modification then you are circumventing the typical process for genetic change. There are lots of unintended effects of genetic changes and there are lots of corrective mechanisms built into DNA when genetically modified through selective processes rather than direct gene splicing. Science is always slow to catch up with analysis of an entourage effect where many other small factors may influence results long term.
I’m not anti GMO and this isn’t my opinion as I think GMO products have amazing potential. I’m just sick of people on my side totally misrepresenting this argument as “hurr durr nature good.” It’s such a smooth brained take.