Monsanto, Michael Specter and His Flawed, Misinforming Campaign of the: "Danger of Science Denial"
source: http://Globalresearch.ca
-
-
- lookatmypix
- added this
Indeed, this so called Journalist Michael Specter manages to get applauds and acceptance from the people in the audience at this TED conference (in the video above).
He manages with a skillful speech, an imaginary scenario of the human race using a time travel machine and a few jokes to persuade them that GMO is beneficial although never quite spells it out.
He also associates the denial of the importance of vaccinations with the denial of the importance of GMO in our world.
This is said by him, all in the name of SCIENCE.
He knows that most people want to believe in science and love this word because it's almost a synonym of proof and truth.
Michael Specter knows that, and he made sure to use this word in the title of his talk: "Danger of Science Denial", thus gaining preliminary approval from the people.
Who wants to deny science?
Who wants to stand in the way of proof and truth?
"Stand down, you are wrong, and science says so!"
The main distinction that he fails to make is that SCIENCE can be good or bogus.
There is no science that supports GMO as beneficial for our world except a mass experimentation.
When it comes to vaccinations although important, not very much science stands behind it either.
"There are no requirements before FDA approval and licensing that a vaccine undergoes independent studies by researchers with no vested financial interests and industry ties in order to validate a vaccine maker’s claims. Rather, the entire approval process is nothing more than a good-faith relationship between the vaccine industrial complex and the FDA and the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice (ACID), the primary entity determining vaccine policies." Globalresearch.ca
Science once stood behind the tobacco industry, and what about lead, mercury and the current 80,000 chemicals in use today of which only a few have been tested for safety?
Is this above science?
The main difference to draw is that science sponsored by an exploitative system can't be good science; Politic and money stand in the way.
What he calls a trend of denial among people I call it an awakening of the minds and the resurrection of the free thinker.
He says people are now skeptical, I say skepticism is a result of readily available information and also distrust in those agencies suppose to protect us but don't.
Another crucial aspect ignored by this journalist is that most of our SCIENCE comes from NATURE: Aspirin, morphine, need I say more?
You wouldn't want to deny NATURE either, would you?
To conclude, I am disappointed at all the people that applauded this speech. A speech that was free of technical, scientific and logical information to deserve such an acceptance.
One more time this shows me how words can convince people more than logic and what makes sense.
Did he offer a solution to our world's problems?
Did he mention we could improve our vaccinations? Did he just dismiss the whole organic agriculture, this body of science as no more, no less than a trend?
Oh well, so much for the Rodale Institute and alike, so much for precious amazonian plants that evolved after thousands of years.
"Let's pretend right here we have a machine, a time machine" and happen to look back at this talk, we would think of one word: Arrogance.
“When men are most sure and arrogant they are commonly most mistaken, giving views to passion without that proper deliberation which alone can secure them from the grossest absurdities” Quote by David Hume
Source of this article:
http://organiclegion.org/pt/Monsanto-Michael-Specter-and-His-Flawed-Misinforming...
Video By http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/824
Join The Organic Movement:
http://current.com/groups/organicgreen/
-
- groups:
- Community, Green, Earth and Science, Science, 4 more
-
- tags:
- Science, Information, Nature, Journalism, 13 more
-
-
alun
-
-
I'm perfectly ok with working against nature. If people didn't then I'd be dead and there's a good chance that you would be too. Drinkable water, sanitation, basic hygiene they're all unnatural. It doesn't mean natural is automatically bad, but it doesn't mean natural is automatically good either.
The idea that GM is bad because science didn't find a link between cancer and smoking till the 60s is no more sensible than saying apples are bad because they're as natural as smallpox.
There is evidence that it doesn't even have to be one or the other as a solution to food crises. Studies show GM crops can help protect non-GM plants. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11496710
There are reasons to be wary of GM crops, not least the economic power it puts in the hands of a few companies. There are also consequences to releasing plants and animals into the wild without controls. Australia is a good example of what happens when that's done. So there's clearly plenty of room for debate, but it needs more than "Scientists used to think phlogiston caused fire, and I don't like injections" to have a sensible argument.
- 1 year ago
-
alun
-
-
lookatmypix
-
alun:
Unfortunately these particular conventional crops are benefiting from the GM ones only temporarily until cross-contamination happens. That is just a drop in the ocean and it certainly cannot redeem the destruction taking place.
As for the article: "Organic farmers use a lot of cultural techniques to combat insects, such as crop rotation, and that's very beneficial..."
"But in most of these mid-western farms there is hardly any crop rotation - the most you might get is corn-soy-corn - so these cultural methods are being forgotten, and I think that's a shame."To simplify such a dangerous and destructive technology with words like: "moving genes" is preposterous and it does not set an intelligent premise for a sensible argument.
- 1 year ago
-
lookatmypix
-
-
Ricky84
-
This is definitely one of my favorite featured presentations from the TED conference.
Despite the poor straw man attempt to corrupt Michael Specter’s speech the points he made still stand. For instance,
“The main distinction that he fails to make is that SCIENCE can be good or bogus.”
“He knows that most people want to believe in science and love this word because it's almost a synonym of proof and truth. ” from Lookatmypix
“To my mind the scientific method, trying stuff out, seeing if it works, dropping it when it doesn’t is one of the greatest accomplishments of human history….Despite all our accomplishments a billion people go hungry around the world every day. We’ve used our imagination to thoroughly trash this globe.” Michael Specter.
Oh look at that he does acknowledge the fact that science is not perfect.
“He manages with a skillful speech, an imaginary scenario of the human race using a time travel machine and a few jokes to persuade them that GMO is beneficial although never quite spells it out.
There is no science that supports GMO as beneficial for our world except a mass experimentation.” lookatmypix
“Potable water, arable land, rainforests, oil, gas, they’re going away and they’re going away soon, and unless we innovate our way out of this mess were going away too. So the question is can we do that? I think we can. I think we can make food that will feed billions of people without raping the land that we live on. I think we can power this world with energy that won’t also destroy it.” Michael Specter
Ok so he is advocating the use of GMO’s to improve the planet, but only in the open ended means of using science. Is that really so insane? Furthermore are you really going to claim that using science to develop vaccines and GMO’s hasn’t improved things at all? Oh come on man. Forcing feeding you free and easily accessible info is no one’s responsibility but your own.
- 1 year ago
-
Ricky84
-
-
lookatmypix
-
Ricky84:
May be you can clarify it for me because Mr. Michael Specter offered no substance for his argument.
How do you propose to improve the world "in the open ended means of science" and GMO? - 1 year ago
-
lookatmypix
-
-
Ricky84
-
Ricky84:
"May be you can clarify it for me because Mr. Michael Specter offered no substance for his argument."
Yes he did. You just, for whatever reason, failed to pick up on some of the things he was talking about. Hell I have't watched the video in ages and I can tell you he talks about golden rice and that weird spanish potatoe thing. So there is two examples.
"How do you propose to improve the world "in the open ended means of science" and GMO?"
By using science in the exact same way as we use it with literally every other issue or problem on the planet. Because when you get down to it that's all GMO's fundementally represent and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
- 1 year ago
-
Ricky84
-
-
lookatmypix
-
Ricky84:
I have nothing left to say to you then. Just like it happened before, no matter how much proof or reality I present you with, you keep on denying it. As usual your comments are: "That is nothing wrong" and "GMO is good". I will not dignify this vagueness and I can't argue with it. "The golden rice and the spanish potatoe thing" do not argue the safety of GMO and neither its long term efficiency, contamination and cost. His point is still unsubstantial.
Thank you for your input. - 1 year ago
-
lookatmypix
-
-
toyotabedzrock
-
It's not about vitamin A jackass, it's about making the plant produce it's own pesticide. Because the plant makes it doesn't mean it's safe.
Plenty of plants make many deadly chemicals we don't eat.
- 1 year ago
-
toyotabedzrock
