Monsanto Roundup deadly to humans - Glyphosate

[Ahmed]

@ [b] Perseus [/ b
- On the first point, I am not saying anything, but I note that your message is ambiguous (it is sometimes difficult not to be when you have to settle for a few lines): you say first that it is difficult to oppose certain techniques and then that if everyone can have it it reduces it, or can reduce its harmfulness, which seems to me questionable.
- On the second, you "only partially agree", but you do not seem ready to discuss it ... it could however be interesting. I understand that your reservation finds its justification when you write:

... but focusing only on that is sometimes a way of looking at yourself outside the system, showing your finger and thus being on the right side of the finger.

I hear that remark and it is true that the leaders do not take all the responsibility and that each of us, to varying degrees, like it or not, contributes as an agent of the system to run the machine. Because there is no outside to this system, at most we can hope to "drag our feet a little" and above all try to understand how it works.

[perseus]

Hello,

- On the first point, I am not saying anything, but I note that your message is ambiguous (it is sometimes difficult not to be when you have to settle for a few lines): you say first that it is difficult to oppose certain techniques and then that if everyone can have it it reduces it, or can reduce its harmfulness, which seems to me questionable.

So frankly, I don't think I'm ambiguous, but actually I'm trying to keep it short.
My point is as follows: to oppose a technique is - at best - an error concerning the choice of the fight (and I am very very measured in formulating it thus). A technique / technology / process will tend to democratize, simplify, repeat itself, cost less, spread. We cannot guarantee to keep central control. We may not agree, but what I say does not constitute a judgment, nor did I say that it reduces the harmfulness (tell me where I would have said otherwise).

My comparison is on purpose, because like Glypho, phyto, GMOs; nuclear power is a totem which most often obscures all measure with neoconservative reactions from the 90s-2000s: "if you are not with us, then you are in the axis of evil". I'm not saying that for you, eh, but I've already experienced it and seen it.

So, in my eyes I specify, the will to ban GMOs (the result of a technology otherwise used since the 70s) is an error concerning the very subject of combat and which I think will lead in any case to their acceptance close to the terms desired by manufacturers. Just as those who believed that the USSR and the US could reserve and confine the exclusivity of military nuclear were wrong.

My opinion therefore goes more in the direction of breaking the logic of privatization of the living (more precisely of genetic information), which very strongly limits the potentialities of profit and also modifies part of the economic determinism of which we spoke.

- On the second, you "only partly agree", but you do not seem disposed to discuss it ...

Sorry, let's say that I was suspicious since I had the impression that they made me say what I did not say.

however, it could be interesting. I understand that your reservation finds its justification when you write:

... but focusing only on that is sometimes a way of looking at yourself outside the system, showing your finger and thus being on the right side of the finger.

I hear that remark and it is true that the leaders do not take all the responsibility and that each of us, to varying degrees, like it or not, contributes as an agent of the system to run the machine. Because there is no outside to this system, at most we can hope to "drag our feet a little" and above all try to understand how it works.

Indeed, you understood me (or I expressed myself better :-D)

I understand what you are saying about economic determinisms, I don't know if I underestimate them. I know they exist, I cannot quantify them. I am aware that I cannot totally escape them. I agree that they adversely affect the behavior of the players in the Company and that some could be changed favorably and perhaps even quite easily. On the other hand, I rather have the intuition that this is not the cornerstone of the problem, that it remains a consequence of what we are rather than a cause. But there it is intuitive. I have no arguments, no conviction and even less evidence.

@+

[izentrop]

So, in my eyes I specify, the will to ban GMOs (the result of a technology otherwise used since the 70s) is an error concerning the very subject of combat and which I think will lead in any case to their acceptance close to the terms desired by manufacturers. Just as those who believed that the USSR and the US could reserve and confine the exclusivity of military nuclear were wrong.

The problem is that the authorities first take into account the opinion of their electorate before that of scientists.
Electorate, whose motivation often disconnected from reality, reacts on the emotional, the fears, the rumors, the ethics or the morals, which makes lose a damn time to the evolution of the techniques.

Our president chose Nicolas Hulot for these reasons, hoping to make him hear reason. Partly it worked with glyphosate or he decided to override the European decision.
Fortunately, almost on the sly, he reassured conservation agriculture.

My opinion therefore goes more in the direction of breaking the logic of privatization of the living (more precisely of genetic information), which very strongly limits the potentialities of profit and also modifies part of the economic determinism of which we spoke.

There are "butter and butter money" problems in this area.
The patents are limited in time and most of the time are used to remunerate the research which sometimes lasts ten years before leading to a commercialization ... I feel that one will again accuse me of defending big. . I do not know what.

[Ahmed]

Izentrop, you write:

Electorate, whose motivation often disconnected from reality, reacts on the emotional, the fears, the rumors, the ethics or the morals, which makes lose an insane time with the evolution of the techniques.

Political power serves as an interface between the economic powers, from which it draws its support, and the electorate which acts as its surety. A government of scientists (direct or indirect) disconnected from public opinion, whatever the validity of its opinions, would be the worst thing. I also note that among the negative elements that make you react, there is morality and ethics (although this does not seem to me, unfortunately, not very observable).
It must be considered that, rightly or wrongly, the choices concern the voters and that it would be in good taste not to reduce them to this derisory role of occasional ballot introducers.

[izentrop]

among the negative elements that make you react, there is morality and ethics (although this does not seem to me, unfortunately, not very observable).
It must be considered that, rightly or wrongly, the choices concern the voters and that it would be in good taste not to reduce them to this derisory role of occasional ballot introducers.

Not well observable ?? it shows every day, there are even some laws that go against the advice of specialists.
"morals and ethics" are the basis of populism, of religious regimes. If technical developments stagnated from antiquity to rebirth, it is because of the power of the religious and the imposed morality.

[Ahmed]

I do not find that morals or ethics hold a large place in public opinion, except in the form of superficial prejudices: it is true that all these considerations no longer make sense, because of domination of a positivist slut ...
I understand what you mean by this "morality" which was only a pretext for the confiscation of power under the guise of religion or other abstract considerations (nationalism, cult of personality, Revolution, proletariat ...). Scientism, although based on factual bases, is also based on a religious conception of the world, even if, unlike its predecessors in manipulation, however, it does not claim it (quite the contrary!).
Religion claimed to explain everything (at least in a simplified version and because of its proximity to political power), today it is science which has the same pretensions (for similar reasons), since it is not legitimate than in his areas of competence. Thus, its social role is (among other things) to explain the possible choices and the consequences of each of them, not to judge what is good for all. On this last point, everyone is equally concerned and has the legitimacy to discuss it together; this from a moral point of view which is intangible, although unfortunately not effective.
Scientists are often called upon to express their convictions or beliefs, but in doing so they go out of their function, like those actors or singers who take advantage of complacent microphones to talk about subjects foreign to their art.
The technical choice tends to replace the moral choice as more objective, but it is an illusion which results from the mixture of the kinds, mixture carefully maintained by those which profit from it (it is the TINA * of Mr. Thatcher, eg.).

* TINA: There Is No Alternative (there is no choice).
Science strives to measure material quantities, the moral of qualities, by definition immaterial.

[izentrop]

Religion claimed to explain everything (at least in a simplified version and because of its proximity to political power), today it is science which has the same pretensions (for similar reasons), since it is not legitimate than in his areas of competence. Thus, its social role is (among other things) to explain the possible choices and the consequences of each of them, not to judge what is good for all. On this last point, everyone is equally concerned and has the legitimacy to discuss it together; this from a moral point of view which is intangible, although unfortunately not effective.

Science and technology should not be confused.
science has no pretensions or morals, it is contemplative, it is of the order of theory, that is to say etymologically of the gaze, technique is of the order of action, of production, transformation, the will to control.

[sen-no-sen]

On GMOs, I am convinced that the heart of the problem is not the technique (transgenesis) nor the result of the technique (GMO) but the question of information (genetic code) and its property.

On a more philosophical note, I would say that the central question around GMOs is the following: Why GMOs? and What drives us to develop them?

[Gébé]

On a more philosophical note, I would say that the central question around GMOs is the following: Why GMOs? and What drives us to develop them?

I'm not sure what the philosophical question is?
Humanity has been selecting "living things" for a few millennia to meet its needs and genetic engineering is apparently the most effective current technique.

[sen-no-sen]

I'm not sure what the philosophical question is?

And yet!

Humanity has been selecting "living things" for a few millennia to meet its needs and genetic engineering is apparently the most effective current technique.

And effective to do what?