Former anti-GMO activist says science changed his mind

[Perspicuo]

NPR: Former Anti-GMO Activist Says Science Changed His Mind
http://www.npr.org/2013/01/20/169847199/former-anti-gmo-activist-says-science-changed-his-mind

For years, British environmental activist Mark Lynas destroyed genetically modified food (GMO) crops in what he calls a successful campaign to force the business of agriculture to be more holistic and ecological in its practices.

His targets were companies like Monsanto and Syngenta — leaders in developing genetically modified crops.

Earlier this month he went in front of the world to reverse his position on GMOs.

At the Oxford Farming Conference in Britain, Lynas apologized for helping "to start the anti-GMO movement" and told his former allies to "get out of the way, and let the rest of us get on with feeding the world sustainably."

He spoke to Jacki Lyden, host of weekends on All Things Considered, about his change of heart.

 

[dystopian]

Good for him; I've never been able to understand the paranoid fears about genetically engineered food that some people seem to have.

 

[Shadowy Man]

A cynic might think he was bought off...

 

[Togo]

Are people who change their mind really that rare? I've no doubt there are plenty of activists who have changed their mind on this issue, in both directions.

 

[dystopian]

Are people who change their mind really that rare? I've no doubt there are plenty of activists who have changed their mind on this issue, in both directions.

People who change their mind aren't that rare; but people who invest themselves fully into an idealogy, becoming activists for it it in the process, and then change their mind on it are considerably more rare yes. And then the people who do all of that, and then publically admit it, are even more rare. There's a fair bit of research related to this; about how people who identify with a particular idea will become even more fanatical about it when they are exposed to information that calls that idea into question or outright disproves it.

 

[Emily Lake]

That makes sense. It's sort of why I doubt I'll ever be a fanatic about anything. That and my inherent apathy, of course.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

A cynic might think he was bought off...

Evidence he was bought off?

 

[Shadowy Man]

A cynic might think he was bought off...

Evidence he was bought off?

If there were evidence it wouldn't require a cynic to believe it.

 

[Underseer]

Good for him; I've never been able to understand the paranoid fears about genetically engineered food that some people seem to have.

It's not hard to understand at all. Genetic engineering scares people. The pesticides we use scares people. Genetically engineering produce to make its own pesticide internally is going to scare people even more.

What is unforgivable are all those information sources that prey on those fears by spreading bad information.

 

[dystopian]

Good for him; I've never been able to understand the paranoid fears about genetically engineered food that some people seem to have.

It's not hard to understand at all. Genetic engineering scares people. The pesticides we use scares people. Genetically engineering produce to make its own pesticide internally is going to scare people even more.

What is unforgivable are all those information sources that prey on those fears by spreading bad information.

Perhaps I should clarify: I understand the basic reason they fear it; but it is such an alien reason to me that I can't actually 'comprehend' it on an emotional level. Watching people react like headless chickens to anything that has the words 'genetic' or 'nuclear' in it is an utterly bizarre experience that seems to me to be identical to watching a cat fight his own reflection in the mirror; I just can't empathize with it at all.

Logically I can see how someone might get scared by it... assuming they were complete and utter morons who never bother to investigate things on even a basic level so that they won't be ruled by their gut reaction. Being ignorant of things and getting scared by them is one thing; but it's not as if they couldn't easily educated themselves to the point where they wouldn't need to be scared about it. Instead they don't, and just keep shouting and protesting, much like a cat managing to fight his own reflection until he gets too tired to continue.

 

[James Brown]

Evidence he was bought off?

If there were evidence it wouldn't require a cynic to believe it.

The lack of evidence is proof of how successful the cover-up is. What would really be damaging to the theory that he was bought off would be evidence of a buy-off.

Unless you call if a false flag for something even deeper.

 

[Togo]

Logically I can see how someone might get scared by it... assuming they were complete and utter morons who never bother to investigate things on even a basic level so that they won't be ruled by their gut reaction. Being ignorant of things and getting scared by them is one thing; but it's not as if they couldn't easily educated themselves to the point where they wouldn't need to be scared about it. Instead they don't, and just keep shouting and protesting, much like a cat managing to fight his own reflection until he gets too tired to continue.

Hm.. How do you feel about people who are broadly in favour of it, until they learn the science around it, and then become strongly opposed to it?

If you're assuming that 'everyone who understand the issue agrees with me' then naturally any informed dissent will confuse you.

 

[Emily Lake]

Logically I can see how someone might get scared by it... assuming they were complete and utter morons who never bother to investigate things on even a basic level so that they won't be ruled by their gut reaction. Being ignorant of things and getting scared by them is one thing; but it's not as if they couldn't easily educated themselves to the point where they wouldn't need to be scared about it. Instead they don't, and just keep shouting and protesting, much like a cat managing to fight his own reflection until he gets too tired to continue.

Ahh, yes. I see where you've gone wrong, my friend. You've assumed a level of intelligence comparable to your own in the world around you. Unfortunately, I doubt this is the case. I think it's safe to say that the average intelligence of the people on this discussion board is in the upper quintile of the distribution. That means that at a minimum, 4 out of every 5 people that you meet out in the world are going to be dumber than the average person on this board. Yes, Gidget - most of the people out in the world are gigantic dummies who are honestly incapable of educating themselves out of a paper bag.

To you and I and most of the people on here, it seems obvious and simple that they should read something and put two and two together. To the majority of the people in the world, however, "two" is a foreign concept that boggles the mind; adding it to another foreign concept is well beyond their meager abilities.

 

[James Brown]

Half of Americans are below average in intelligence.

 

[scombrid]

Hm.. How do you feel about people who are broadly in favour of it, until they learn the science around it, and then become strongly opposed to it?

I've yet to encounter an anti-GMO activist that fits this description. I don't see them arguing about the risk of GM organisms threatening wild counterparts through outbreeding etc...

The activists link to stories on Natural News and Russia today that talk about the Serlini rats and that Roundup = Agent Orange and that GM crops produce pesticides that must be harmful to consumers and that The Monsanto Protection Act lets Monsanto shut down farmers after those farmers seed stock is contaminated with Monsanto patented genes.

If I do anything so bold as to counter Seralini or ask for court documents in which Monsanto shuts done a little farmer just because Monsanto finds Monsanto genes in that farmers field then I get shouted down as a sheeple or shill disinfo agent or both.

I can think of reasons for "informed" opposition to GM crops. But people that perpetuate the popular anti-GM myths while they shout from the street corner next to the chemtrail activists don't fall into that category and they are what I see on the street and encounter in 99% of internet discussions.

 

[dystopian]

Hm.. How do you feel about people who are broadly in favour of it, until they learn the science around it, and then become strongly opposed to it?

If you're assuming that 'everyone who understand the issue agrees with me' then naturally any informed dissent will confuse you.

Are you assuming that that is where my confusion comes from?

Generally, you rarely see people being broadly in favor of a new/unfamiliar thing that they are largely ignorant of; that's not the natural human response to things they don't know anything about. They may be ambivalent and then expose themselves to knowledge surrounding it which then leads them to become in favor of or opposed to, neither of which confuses me even when they base their position on only a selective reading of the facts. Naturally I disagree with them and would wish them to not just stop reading after the first article that makes a conclusion, but these people tend not to get invested either way so it's not that big of a deal.

The people who confuse me are specifically the people who become highly invested in an idealogical position but who appear unwilling or incapable of informing themselves properly of the material that conflicts with their beliefs. If you're just vaguely concerned about GMO because of an article you read once, that's "fine" in that I understand it but wish you'd read more. If on the other hand you're going around destroying GMO food crops and orient your life around an anti-GMO ideology, then I'd expect you to actually exhibit knowledge beyond the level of 'I read an article once'; or for that matter 'I read a hundred articles but they're all from the same biased source'. Having never been in a religion or ideological movement, I just can't comprehend the level of certainty those people have in their beliefs unless there's a widespread scientific consensus backing them up. My brain simple can't begin to imagine itself being in the same position. It does not compute. As a wise person once said; doubt may not be a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Half of Americans are below average in intelligence.

No, half of all Americans are below median intelligence.

 

[fromderinside]

Half of Americans are below average in intelligence.

No, half of all Americans are below median intelligence.

If we presume 200 is as likely as 0 and that both are absolute bounds and there are no skwewness or kurtosis problems an that intelligence is an linear interval scale they could both be the same.

 

[Shadowy Man]

No, half of all Americans are below median intelligence.

If we presume 200 is as likely as 0 and that both are absolute bounds and there are no skwewness or kurtosis problems an that intelligence is an linear interval scale they could both be the same.

Yes, it is likely true that they are one and the same. But there may be some super-genius out there skewing the average. Maybe someone who has accessed that 90% of unused brain power.

 

[Togo]

Hm.. How do you feel about people who are broadly in favour of it, until they learn the science around it, and then become strongly opposed to it?

I've yet to encounter an anti-GMO activist that fits this description. I don't see them arguing about the risk of GM organisms threatening wild counterparts through outbreeding etc...

The activists link to stories on Natural News and Russia today that talk about the Serlini rats and that Roundup = Agent Orange and that GM crops produce pesticides that must be harmful to consumers and that The Monsanto Protection Act lets Monsanto shut down farmers after those farmers seed stock is contaminated with Monsanto patented genes.

If I do anything so bold as to counter Seralini or ask for court documents in which Monsanto shuts done a little farmer just because Monsanto finds Monsanto genes in that farmers field then I get shouted down as a sheeple or shill disinfo agent or both.

I can think of reasons for "informed" opposition to GM crops. But people that perpetuate the popular anti-GM myths while they shout from the street corner next to the chemtrail activists don't fall into that category and they are what I see on the street and encounter in 99% of internet discussions.

You're saying that a particular position must be stupid because you've met people on the internet who are stupid who support it? Come on...

I've met plenty of people who are opposed to GM foods, who know a great deal of the science involved.

Hm.. How do you feel about people who are broadly in favour of it, until they learn the science around it, and then become strongly opposed to it?

If you're assuming that 'everyone who understand the issue agrees with me' then naturally any informed dissent will confuse you.

Are you assuming that that is where my confusion comes from?

It's the only scenario you mentioned in your post.

Generally, you rarely see people being broadly in favor of a new/unfamiliar thing that they are largely ignorant of; that's not the natural human response to things they don't know anything about.

Eh? What about the dot.com bubble? Or modern art? Or management crazes? There's no shortage of people who are mad keen on the internet, or science, or particular brands of economic theory, despite knowing next to nothing about them.

The people who confuse me are specifically the people who become highly invested in an idealogical position but who appear unwilling or incapable of informing themselves properly of the material that conflicts with their beliefs. If you're just vaguely concerned about GMO because of an article you read once, that's "fine" in that I understand it but wish you'd read more. If on the other hand you're going around destroying GMO food crops and orient your life around an anti-GMO ideology, then I'd expect you to actually exhibit knowledge beyond the level of 'I read an article once'; or for that matter 'I read a hundred articles but they're all from the same biased source'. Having never been in a religion or ideological movement, I just can't comprehend the level of certainty those people have in their beliefs unless there's a widespread scientific consensus backing them up. My brain simple can't begin to imagine itself being in the same position. It does not compute. As a wise person once said; doubt may not be a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.

Meh, it's not complicated. The approach a complicated problem, they find some privledged information that they believe other people do not have, and they use it to advance a position they don't really understand. They encounter resistance from people who are no better informed, and this hardens their attitudes. You don't need to be a member of a cult to see this happening, just stick around until an evangellical starts quoting a website, or someone from this board starts posting videos on the philosophy boards, about how science/philosophy/fiat currency is evil, and truth can only come from god/science/buying gold.

It's that kind of activity that many people come to these forums for - I'm suprised you could have missed it.

But if you've not encountered anyone who is emotionally invested in an odd cause AND knows a lot about it, you need to get out more.