Posts by Sacha
-
Hard News: Science: it's complicated, in reply to Bart Janssen,
And there is also a real lack of understanding of the language scientists use when discussing probability and risk assessment.
Oh I agree. I've encouraged some to use firmer language about their specialty in public media myself. However being more certain than the field warrants doesn't help either.
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to Che Tibby,
A green paper is ideal when you have no progress to offer and you want the topic to go away until after the election.
From Sofie's Wikipedia link:
a tentative government report of a proposal without any commitment to action
-
Hard News: Science: it's complicated, in reply to Bart Janssen,
This seems to work really well
and you'd think science might learn from antibiotic-resistant bacteria..
-
Hard News: Science: it's complicated, in reply to Bart Janssen,
no reasonable reason
That's more responsible language than the absolutes you have been using.
I'm not pushing for zero harm. However if you want to introduce a new organism that has no solid historic baseline of field evidence about risks then it makes sense to err on the side of caution rather than corporate-profit-fuelled optimism.
And there does seem to be evidence of contamination.
-
Hard News: Science: it's complicated, in reply to Bart Janssen,
No that isn't what I said
Nothing to do with copyright. You said:
So the issue becomes if you don't want to grow GM crops for some reason you have a problem. But bear in mind it is only a problem because organic farmers have decided that growing GM crops is bad.
If an existing organic farmer's crop is rendered un-organic by contamination from a GM neighbour, it's pretty clear to all but the most one-eyed defender of agriscience that there is a victim. And that you are holding them responsible rather than the polluter.
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to uroskin,
Bomber Bradbury called you a middle class fog horn
and "high priest of the aesthetic left"
spot prize: Karen Walker cloth cap
-
And Mai Chen wades idiotically into the argument, conflating free speech with a right to broadcast without consequence or constraint.
Breivik's lawyer said of his client: "He had been politically active and found out himself that he did not succeed with usual political tools and so resorted to violence."
People will always have differing views on immigration, and on race issues, but that is why debates like those between Don Brash and Hone Harawira on TV1's current affairs programme Close Up are important. It is also why Peter Ansell should be able to say in newspaper advertisements that he is "fed up with the Maorification of everything", whether this is true or not.
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to DCBCauchi,
people have the right to hold and express whatever beliefs they like
not without constraint - for instance, broadcasting regulations (as discussed previously)
-
Hard News: Science: it's complicated, in reply to Bart Janssen,
no evidence that any harm results
I think you're missing the point of the precautionary principle. Once there's evidence of harm in the wild it's way too late.
"As far as we know" is just not good enough if you want to claim perfect absence of risk of harm. And it's certainly not organic farmers who are responsible for GM gene transfer into their crops - that's victim blaming of the first order.
-
Hard News: Science: it's complicated, in reply to Roger,
when pollen from a GE crop blows across to, and pollenates a member of the same type of plant
or 'escapes' perhaps