Bill Nye's New Show & GMO's

[TheStachery]

The show is terrible.

check this out:  warning: creepy

https://youtu.be/Wllc5gSc-N8

tell me what this has to do with science?

[Davnasty]

There's a huge body of research on public health messaging* that has shown that hardline, black/white, scare-tactic messages are most effective in getting people to change their health behaviors. People want to think that gentle, coaxing methods are better when it comes to this kind of thing, but the research just does not support that approach, at all. Why? Because health behaviors are really hard to change, they are some of the most ingrained behaviors people have, which makes gentle messages simply not up to the task.

*I won't link to individual studies, because there are too many of them, but if google "public health messaging research" you'll find loads of research on this topic.

Ok, so that seems to be the conclusion when it comes to certain health issues like smoking or vaccines. But with the GMO question either you avoid them and have no negative consequences or you eat them... and have no negative consequences. In fact it is the scare tactic messaging on the anti-GMO side which is all too effective. Not only that, to many people it is a question of environmental safety or even religious ideology (it's unnatural).

And climate science is another level of difficult because again, not really a health issue and it's effects only matter over a very long time frame. I actually know people who laugh about "global warming" as if it is so obviously fake and I can't imagine pointing out their incorrectness and showing them real data would have any effect.

[scantee]

There's a huge body of research on public health messaging* that has shown that hardline, black/white, scare-tactic messages are most effective in getting people to change their health behaviors. People want to think that gentle, coaxing methods are better when it comes to this kind of thing, but the research just does not support that approach, at all. Why? Because health behaviors are really hard to change, they are some of the most ingrained behaviors people have, which makes gentle messages simply not up to the task.

*I won't link to individual studies, because there are too many of them, but if google "public health messaging research" you'll find loads of research on this topic.

Ok, so that seems to be the conclusion when it comes to certain health issues like smoking or vaccines. But with the GMO question either you avoid them and have no negative consequences or you eat them... and have no negative consequences. In fact it is the scare tactic messaging on the anti-GMO side which is all too effective. Not only that, to many people it is a question of environmental safety or even religious ideology (it's unnatural).

And climate science is another level of difficult because again, not really a health issue and it's effects only matter over a very long time frame. I actually know people who laugh about "global warming" as if it is so obviously fake and I can't imagine pointing out their incorrectness and showing them real data would have any effect.

Most of these issues only peripherally about personal choice. Public policy is, and should be, the main driver of what happens at a high-level, over many years. Take GMO labeling, for example.  Required GMO labeling, for foods that are genetically modified, is bad because the mere existence of it suggests that there is reason to be suspect of GMOs when really there isn't. Now, if foods that are not GMOs want to use that feature as a marketing tool to set their product apart, go right ahead. There is definitely an endless supply of anxious food consumers that will eat that (heh) marketing up just for the mental relief of feeling like they are eating only "clean" foods, even if doing so is absent any actual physical benefit. In terms of how that gets communicated to consumers, as a public health message, something along the lines of "GMOs are safe but if you want to waste your money on more expensive, but not any healthier, non-GMOs, here's a label that will help you do that" is probably one that would be in line with what we know about effective public health messaging. It's also a message and approach that doesn't interfere with high-level policy, because it supports the continued development and improvement of GMO technology.

[Gondolin]

Yelling and shaking are more fun that pretending to debate.
Although even if there is I have to imagine it depends on the situation; relationship between parties, medium of communication, implications of being wrong, etc.

The reality is that this show is not intended to make anyone change their minds about any of the topics presented. It is intended to allow educated 20-somethings to indulge in nostalgia while nodding along sagely and silently congratulating themselves on how worldly and smart they are.

It's no different than when Netflix did some data mining and found out that people love "Kevin Spacey" and "being outraged at the amorality of politicians". Boom. House of Cards was born.

In fact, the real innovation Netflix has used to disrupt traditional TV isn't streaming or show variety. It's the explicit focus on the emotion that a watcher is meant to feel while viewing. The New Bill Nye show follows precisely the Netflix model of: 
Show = something (a person, a show, a concept) that people like or liked in the past + an emotion that people like to feel.

[Inaya]

The reality is that this show is not intended to make anyone change their minds about any of the topics presented. It is intended to allow educated 20-somethings to indulge in nostalgia while nodding along sagely and silently congratulating themselves on how worldly and smart they are.

Ugh so offensive. I'm a 30-something, tyvm. So much more worldly and smart than a 20-something.


Netflix also anticipated cable-cutters before cable-cutting was really a thing.

[Gondolin]

Netflix also anticipated cable-cutters before cable-cutting was really a thing.

How so? Seems like a chicken and the egg proposition to me. People cutting cable was an effect of Netflix's move to streaming, not a pre-existing movement that Netflix leadership successfully got ahead of. That's just conjecture though - do you know different?

[Spork]

Netflix also anticipated cable-cutters before cable-cutting was really a thing.

How so? Seems like a chicken and the egg proposition to me. People cutting cable was an effect of Netflix's move to streaming, not a pre-existing movement that Netflix leadership successfully got ahead of. That's just conjecture though - do you know different?

Well, in a way they anticipated it... and badly so.  A few years back they decided that sending DVDs through the mail was a loser business and were going to spin that business off and get rid of it.  People screamed bloody murder.  They decided maybe they were wrong.

[Inaya]

Netflix also anticipated cable-cutters before cable-cutting was really a thing.

How so? Seems like a chicken and the egg proposition to me. People cutting cable was an effect of Netflix's move to streaming, not a pre-existing movement that Netflix leadership successfully got ahead of. That's just conjecture though - do you know different?

Just anecdotal. I just remember switching my account from DVD to streaming-only a long time before I even heard of people cable-cutting. Whether the leader anticipated the fact that people would abandon cable as a result, I have no idea--but it was the net effect that worked in their favor. Luckily for them.

[Gin1984]

In general the message and its delivery is guaranteed to fail to reach the people it needs to because it lashes out with a weak sense of frustration and exasperation with science deniers.

As much as i would like to cleanse the world of bad ideas by shaking people and shouting the stupid out of them, this is not an approach that will ever have the desired effect.

Except that has been shown to be the most effective.  Treating people who think idiotic ideas as if their ideas have merit and are not just idiotic actually convinces people the ideas are not idiotic.  They have started doing this with vaccines via MDs and have found MDs dismissing the parents actually increases vaccine use.  I know it is counter intuitive.

Can you point to any studies that back this up? My current opinion would have sided with RangerOne based on things I've read and my own experience but if there is evidence to the contrary that would be awesome. Yelling and shaking are more fun that pretending to debate.

Although even if there is I have to imagine it depends on the situation; relationship between parties, medium of communication, implications of being wrong, etc.

I've analogized this scenario to removing earwax, the nonbelievers being the earwax. Say you have a large group of people you want to convince of something. You can jam your finger in your ear and wiggle it around (Yell and shake people) and you'll get some of the earwax out but at the same time you will force the rest of it deeper into your ear canal (people who cling to their beliefs with increased fervor). The only effective way to remove the earwax is to gently coax it out with warm water and understanding.

Or a high pressure water jet. That works too.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2014/02/25/peds.2013-2365
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/33/10321.abstract
There is one more than directly shamed at MD offices but I can't find it.  I'll look this weekend.

[maizefolk]

Netflix started streaming in 2007. About 2010-2011 is when total cable subscriptions in the US peaked (although even before that it was growing slower than the rate of population growth). Now declining at a rate of ~1%/year and accelerating.

I knew people in 2004-7 who were cord cutting with torrents. Folks on the west coast would not infrequently be able to watch shows before they even aired because the digital broadcasts were captured on the east coast, re-encoded, and uploaded in the 2.5-3 hour window between when the show ended on one coast and when it started on the other. Finding and downloading the torrents was entirely automated using RSS scripts with regular expressions, which cut out the lag time of "hey I want to watch this, set it to download, come back in 40 minutes to actually start watching." I suspect this also provided anecdotal data on how prone people would be to binge watch whole seasons of old TV shows if they weren't constrained by how many DVDs they could rent at once, or paying $40-80 to buy a single season on DVDs.

Would not surprise me if the folks at netflix saw how popular these types of set ups were with the techie crowd and it helped give them confidence in how much demand would be there if they developed a more user friendly and *ahem* entirely legal service which provided some of that same functionality.

[zoltani]

Netflix is getting worse and worse, and I am thinking of canceling my subscription. They're terrible at recommending shows, and it seems to have more to do with what they are putting out themselves rather than what I would actually want to watch. They're shows are so bad that they went to a thumbs up or thumbs down rating system because the Netflix originals were getting hammered so badly. For me the redeeming factor has been their exclusive standup comedy specials.

Their newer shows seem to be pushing a certain viewpoint rather than trying to just entertain, such as this Bill Nye atrocity. I'm in the sciences and am pretty progressive, but I can't get behind such utter propaganda as this show. The video posted above is so bad, is that supposed to be a parody? And the way Bill Nye is dancing and bobbing his head makes me want to gouge out my eyeballs.

[MBot]

Netflix is getting worse and worse, and I am thinking of canceling my subscription. They're terrible at recommending shows, and it seems to have more to do with what they are putting out themselves rather than what I would actually want to watch. They're shows are so bad that they went to a thumbs up or thumbs down rating system because the Netflix originals were getting hammered so badly. For me the redeeming factor has been their exclusive standup comedy specials.

Their newer shows seem to be pushing a certain viewpoint rather than trying to just entertain, such as this Bill Nye atrocity. I'm in the sciences and am pretty progressive, but I can't get behind such utter propaganda as this show. The video posted above is so bad, is that supposed to be a parody? And the way Bill Nye is dancing and bobbing his head makes me want to gouge out my eyeballs.

Me, initially: "Oh cool, maybe a science-based show will help my far-right family realize science isnt a leftist liberal conspiracy."

Now: "Well, my far-right family is even MORE convinced by this show that all science has a leftist liberal conspiracy agenda"

[zoltani]

Me, initially: "Oh cool, maybe a science-based show will help my far-right family realize science isnt a leftist liberal conspiracy."

Now: "Well, my far-right family is even MORE convinced by this show that all science has a leftist liberal conspiracy agenda"

Seriously though. The thing that gets me is that trump and the right are not necessarily anti-science. No, they are just pro-profit. They will ignore science in order to push for things that will maximize profits, at the expense of the environment. That's not being anti something, it's having different priorities. Not priorities I agree with, but all this anti-X talk just fuels anger and strife between people.

[ketchup]

Netflix started streaming in 2007. About 2010-2011 is when total cable subscriptions in the US peaked (although even before that it was growing slower than the rate of population growth). Now declining at a rate of ~1%/year and accelerating.

I knew people in 2004-7 who were cord cutting with torrents. Folks on the west coast would not infrequently be able to watch shows before they even aired because the digital broadcasts were captured on the east coast, re-encoded, and uploaded in the 2.5-3 hour window between when the show ended on one coast and when it started on the other. Finding and downloading the torrents was entirely automated using RSS scripts with regular expressions, which cut out the lag time of "hey I want to watch this, set it to download, come back in 40 minutes to actually start watching." I suspect this also provided anecdotal data on how prone people would be to binge watch whole seasons of old TV shows if they weren't constrained by how many DVDs they could rent at once, or paying $40-80 to buy a single season on DVDs.

Would not surprise me if the folks at netflix saw how popular these types of set ups were with the techie crowd and it helped give them confidence in how much demand would be there if they developed a more user friendly and *ahem* entirely legal service which provided some of that same functionality.

Very much this.  I started doing exactly that in 2005 (in high school).  I had RSS feeds set up to download my shows (The Office and House, at the time I believe) off private Bittorrent trackers minutes after they aired and could watch them on my modded Xbox on my old 70s TV.  I never had cable growing up and at that point wasn't interested in any cable shows that I couldn't watch on broadcast TV (we had an antenna), but I vastly preferred the DVD-like experience of watching a show on my own schedule and having no commercials, and the better-than-DVD aspect of the show instantly starting with no loading/ads/menu/etc BS.  I would also download old seasons of a show and "binge" them as it's now called.  Basically, I wanted Netflix before it existed.  Clearly, I was not alone.  Now, I'm 26 and I have Netflix as my only real source of TV.  My demographic (the infamous "cord-nevers") is probably pushing those cable numbers down pretty hard (and pushing up Netflix's numbers).  I'm sure the crowd 10 years younger than me, growing up with streaming ad-free media commonplace, is even more cable-averse.

[Rewdoalb]

Me, initially: "Oh cool, maybe a science-based show will help my far-right family realize science isnt a leftist liberal conspiracy."

Now: "Well, my far-right family is even MORE convinced by this show that all science has a leftist liberal conspiracy agenda"

Seriously though. The thing that gets me is that trump and the right are not necessarily anti-science. No, they are just pro-profit. They will ignore science in order to push for things that will maximize profits, at the expense of the environment. That's not being anti something, it's having different priorities. Not priorities I agree with, but all this anti-X talk just fuels anger and strife between people.

Bravo. Well said. This kind of perspective is something I'd love to see more of; it leads to civil discourse. (A rarity in this culture and on the internets)

[Davnasty]

Seriously though. The thing that gets me is that trump and the right are not necessarily anti-science. No, they are just pro-profit. They will ignore science in order to push for things that will maximize profits, at the expense of the environment. That's not being anti something, it's having different priorities. Not priorities I agree with, but all this anti-X talk just fuels anger and strife between people.

Bravo. Well said. This kind of perspective is something I'd love to see more of; it leads to civil discourse. (A rarity in this culture and on the internets)

I agree with this to some extent, that no one is intentionally anti-science. However I think some of the republican party have abused science (not just Trump, this goes back to at least Reagan-second hand smoke and ozone depletion were the climate science of yesteryear) in order to justify an easier route to the ends they desire. They may very well know and understand the science but regardless, what they're doing is manipulating and casting doubt on the certainty of science.

One of the main points in the recent march for science wasn't that we were trying to influence policy, but rather asking that we trust the results of scientific experimentation. Take the results and do with them what you will, but don't alter the results to support what you've already decided to do.

So I agree Mbot that if they were ignoring the science and doing what they want, OK. Not good, but OK. But that's not the case. They are actively manipulating the public as to what the results of scientific experimentation really mean. Not sure I would call that anti-science but it is a serious danger to the scientific community.

[zoltani]

They are actively manipulating the public as to what the results of scientific experimentation really mean. Not sure I would call that anti-science but it is a serious danger to the scientific community.

That is government for you....

The government has not been pro-science for a long time. They've been actively shutting down research for a years, depending on the subject of the research. Just take a look at the lack of research on psychedelics and their use as a therapeutic tool. There were very promising results but the government shut everything down. Not because they were necessarily against it, no, they wanted to be the ones in control of it. So the CIA took over the experiments, fucked a lot of people up in the process, and the rest is history. Just recently researchers are beginning to study these chemicals, but there's already been 60+ years of lost time.

The has always controlled science, and they still do. The general populace believes that the government is only now attempting to control it, which actually makes the populace easier to control and manipulate. It's a little to convenient. That's where my mind goes when I think deeply about it and let a little conspiracy creep in.

[Malloy]

Me, initially: "Oh cool, maybe a science-based show will help my far-right family realize science isnt a leftist liberal conspiracy."

Now: "Well, my far-right family is even MORE convinced by this show that all science has a leftist liberal conspiracy agenda"

Seriously though. The thing that gets me is that trump and the right are not necessarily anti-science. No, they are just pro-profit. They will ignore science in order to push for things that will maximize profits, at the expense of the environment. That's not being anti something, it's having different priorities. Not priorities I agree with, but all this anti-X talk just fuels anger and strife between people.

Bravo. Well said. This kind of perspective is something I'd love to see more of; it leads to civil discourse. (A rarity in this culture and on the internets)

Trump thinks that climate change is a Chinese hoax and that vaccines cause autism.  How much more anti-science can you get?  And why is it somehow better to think that he doesn't believe it, but is just lying?  And, if that is indeed true, why then criticize  the people WHO HAVE THE TRUTH ON THEIR SIDE (sorry for the shouting) instead of the people who are either a) anti-science, if we are to believe the things they say/tweet or b) lying to get money, according to you?  Why blame the people who are pointing out the nonsense instead of the people peddling it?  If you propagate nonsense, regardless of your motivation, then you should be called out for it and not coddled.

This dedication to "both sides do it!" and "democrats are just as bad!" and "I can't really think of anything to blame the pro-science side for since they are right, so I'll police their tone to make it seem like I'm a reasonable centrist and above it all" is a plague and is not something to be praised as civil discourse. 

[sol]

That is government for you....

I think that the US government wants what is best for US citizens, with the caveat that it assumes that the continuation of a functional government is of benefit to American citizens.  There is certainly disagreement, though, about what is best for people.

In the case of psychedelic drugs, I think the government recognized the potential benefits and the potential hazards, and decided that on balance society would be better of without widespread unregulated access to these compounds.  I think they were probably right.  They made the same decision about marijuana, and I'm less sure about that one.

The default position of the government seems to be to do nothing until people start dying, then they try to put the genie back in the bottle.  See leaded gasoline, and drunk driving, and smoking, and the Cuyahoga river.  In the rarer cases that they try to prohibit something before it becomes a national crisis, they usually have pretty good reason (aka science) to do so.

But I don't believe the government actively tries to suppress scientific findings in the same way that the oil industry tried to discredit climate science, or the tobacco industry tried to discredit cancer research, or the auto industry tried to discredit safety features and fuel efficiencies.  The government doesn't have an industry specific profit motive to deny scientific facts.  If anything, it has a motive to push back against the misinformation of these industries, on behalf of the people they represent. 

Sometimes it gets complicated, like when individual representatives from Detroit try to defend the auto industry, or from West Virginia defend tobacco, or from Texas defend carbon extraction.  In those cases, politicians try to discredit sound science to protect the pocketbooks of their local constituents, at the expense of all other Americans.  That's not government fighting against science, though, that's just capitalist industries buying politicians to fight against science. 

Trump is one such politician.  He defends the profits of capitalism at the expense of American citizens, presumably because he believes that poor people don't matter as long as rich people succeed.  He doesn't care if your lose healthcare, as long as hospitals and insurance companies make money.  He doesn't care if your environment is polluted, as long as polluting industries are profitable for the owners.  He doesn't care how deep into poverty you fall, as long as billionaires get tax breaks.  It's all the same story, told different ways.

[scottnews]

I found this interesting, about billionaires that genuinely seem to think its about being moral and incentivising initiative.
http://www.npr.org/2016/10/25/499213698/whats-it-like-to-be-rich-ask-the-people-who-manage-billionaires-money

[Davnasty]

In the case of psychedelic drugs, I think the government recognized the potential benefits and the potential hazards, and decided that on balance society would be better off without widespread unregulated access to these compounds.  I think they were probably right.  They made the same decision about marijuana, and I'm less sure about that one.

I would agree with the idea that banning psychedelics was done with mostly good intentions however unregulated access isn't the only other option. There could be regulations to allow for medical uses just like many other drugs. I think the most base reason for banning psychedelics is fear of the unknown.

My other issue with prohibition of these drugs, or any contraband really, is that I don't think people with power are willing to fully consider the implications of making something that people want illegal. If people want it, someone will sell it. That someone will be a person who is willing to disregard the law for profits. Many will break other more important laws as well. Essentially we are diverting money away from medicine and research into the hands of criminals, in many cases, organized crime.

[zoltani]

Sol, I pretty much agree with what you've said.

Wexler, tone policing is a nice phrase to throw out and shut someone down without a critical argument. I never saw anyone claiming that prioritizing profits over the environment is somehow better or OK than being anti-science. Being "pro-science" is a completely made up cause for the sheep to get behind, boost their collective egos, and feel good about themselves for "making a difference" that has no impact whatsoever. It's a manipulation tactic, IMO. Last stat I saw put private industry science funding at 71% of total funding, and universities making up 14%, leaving government funding at about 15% of total science funding. Corporations are the main contributor to scientific research. There is no doubt in my mind that the results of that research can and is influenced by the corporation funding it. Blindly accepting all science is just as dangerous as being "against" science. Many scientific experiments and studies are never repeated since you don't gain notoriety from repeating experiments. There is major bias going on, and it is important to recognize the amount of junk out there. Add to that media parsing and misrepresenting results that people eat up and repeat without reading the papers themselves. Placing yourself in a for or against box makes it difficult to actually think about a subject or topic critically. I'm in the sciences myself, but I am also a very skeptical person, which I think helps in the world of science.

I realize that the thread is drifting, sorry. Bill Nye, his show is cringe-inducing. He's one of those guys with truth on his side, only his truth, that's for sure...He even claimed he would jail people that he deems extreme skeptics. Wow!

[Rewdoalb]

Me, initially: "Oh cool, maybe a science-based show will help my far-right family realize science isnt a leftist liberal conspiracy."

Now: "Well, my far-right family is even MORE convinced by this show that all science has a leftist liberal conspiracy agenda"

Seriously though. The thing that gets me is that trump and the right are not necessarily anti-science. No, they are just pro-profit. They will ignore science in order to push for things that will maximize profits, at the expense of the environment. That's not being anti something, it's having different priorities. Not priorities I agree with, but all this anti-X talk just fuels anger and strife between people.

Bravo. Well said. This kind of perspective is something I'd love to see more of; it leads to civil discourse. (A rarity in this culture and on the internets)

Trump thinks that climate change is a Chinese hoax and that vaccines cause autism.  How much more anti-science can you get?  And why is it somehow better to think that he doesn't believe it, but is just lying?  And, if that is indeed true, why then criticize  the people WHO HAVE THE TRUTH ON THEIR SIDE (sorry for the shouting) instead of the people who are either a) anti-science, if we are to believe the things they say/tweet or b) lying to get money, according to you?  Why blame the people who are pointing out the nonsense instead of the people peddling it?  If you propagate nonsense, regardless of your motivation, then you should be called out for it and not coddled.

This dedication to "both sides do it!" and "democrats are just as bad!" and "I can't really think of anything to blame the pro-science side for since they are right, so I'll police their tone to make it seem like I'm a reasonable centrist and above it all" is a plague and is not something to be praised as civil discourse.

Where to even start?  Your post precisely summarized why I praised zoltani for his/her steps toward civil discourse.  Meanwhile, in a short post, you manage to use "anti-science" and "lying" twice, accuse us of tone-policing, and shout that you have "the truth on your side", which truly caused me to laugh.

You don't have a monopoly on "the truth", and we can agree on the overall scientific consensus/data without accepting some of the absurd political changes that the left is pushing for.  Being against specific climate-change-based political regulations is not anti-science until it actually is.  But like the boy who cried wolf, I probably won't believe you by the time it actually is anti-science... Alarmism in the name of science has been happening for decades and it doesn't make you anti-science to filter through the noise before making massive policy changes.

This podcast by Shapiro is extremely relevant and worth a quick watch:  When The Left Says Science, They Mean ‘Shut Up’
He is responding to a video by Neil Degrasse Tyson.  Obviously some of you on the left will feel attacked and thus ignore the plea for reasonable science and multiple solutions to the same problem.  Others, hopefully, will recognize the importance of this message. 

[Malloy]

Me, initially: "Oh cool, maybe a science-based show will help my far-right family realize science isnt a leftist liberal conspiracy."

Now: "Well, my far-right family is even MORE convinced by this show that all science has a leftist liberal conspiracy agenda"

Seriously though. The thing that gets me is that trump and the right are not necessarily anti-science. No, they are just pro-profit. They will ignore science in order to push for things that will maximize profits, at the expense of the environment. That's not being anti something, it's having different priorities. Not priorities I agree with, but all this anti-X talk just fuels anger and strife between people.

Bravo. Well said. This kind of perspective is something I'd love to see more of; it leads to civil discourse. (A rarity in this culture and on the internets)

Trump thinks that climate change is a Chinese hoax and that vaccines cause autism.  How much more anti-science can you get?  And why is it somehow better to think that he doesn't believe it, but is just lying?  And, if that is indeed true, why then criticize  the people WHO HAVE THE TRUTH ON THEIR SIDE (sorry for the shouting) instead of the people who are either a) anti-science, if we are to believe the things they say/tweet or b) lying to get money, according to you?  Why blame the people who are pointing out the nonsense instead of the people peddling it?  If you propagate nonsense, regardless of your motivation, then you should be called out for it and not coddled.

This dedication to "both sides do it!" and "democrats are just as bad!" and "I can't really think of anything to blame the pro-science side for since they are right, so I'll police their tone to make it seem like I'm a reasonable centrist and above it all" is a plague and is not something to be praised as civil discourse.

Where to even start?  Your post precisely summarized why I praised zoltani for his/her steps toward civil discourse.  Meanwhile, in a short post, you manage to use "anti-science" and "lying" twice, accuse us of tone-policing, and shout that you have "the truth on your side", which truly caused me to laugh.

You don't have a monopoly on "the truth", and we can agree on the overall scientific consensus/data without accepting some of the absurd political changes that the left is pushing for.  Being against specific climate-change-based political regulations is not anti-science until it actually is.  But like the boy who cried wolf, I probably won't believe you by the time it actually is anti-science... Alarmism in the name of science has been happening for decades and it doesn't make you anti-science to filter through the noise before making massive policy changes.

This podcast by Shapiro is extremely relevant and worth a quick watch:  When The Left Says Science, They Mean ‘Shut Up’
He is responding to a video by Neil Degrasse Tyson.  Obviously some of you on the left will feel attacked and thus ignore the plea for reasonable science and multiple solutions to the same problem.  Others, hopefully, will recognize the importance of this message.

You are adding a lot of nuance to Trump's position that just isn't there for him.  All of the stuff you've added about the importance of talking about government vs. corporate funding is perhaps present in the thinking of the right in general, but it's worth talking about that the president believes crackpot things.  I guess I could be more polite about it "So, do you also agree that climate change is a Chinese hoax? What makes you say that, and how do you feel about it?"  Is that the direction we should be going in?

[Rewdoalb]

Thanks for that response, Wexler.

You hit the nail on the head, especially in terms of "the thinking of the right in general".

That's the thing - Trump isn't a conservative, just a populist who was in the right place at the right time to give the right an outlet for their (justified IMO) fear that our country is losing itself by pushing a leftist narrative, suppressing free speech, allowing immigrants who don't align with Western values, etc.

Trump doesn't even know what the hell he believes in.  I don't support that, or him in general, but I think it's important that we keep him "honest".  He made a passing comment about the Chinese/global warming and got smacked.  If memory serves, he backtracked on that and committed to protecting the environment.  I don't believe him either time, because he's a lying politician, just like the rest of them on both sides.  So to round things out, I wish that the left was more willing to talk with the (reasonable) right, instead of using the anti-science label so quickly.  It's a political discussion more than a scientific one.  The left (IMO) is dishonest about this, while the right (IMO) got terrified and elected a celebrity.

Do you feel like the left being more honest about their political motivations is a good exchange for conservatives doing a better job of holding Trump honest?

[zoltani]

Trump doesn't believe crackpot things, he is an extremely good manipulator. He personally studied under Tony Robbins, arguably one of the masters of NLP.

[Geneseo1911]

The reason GMOs were developed was so the people selling them could make lots of money, make no mistake. The reason they were heavily adopted is because they greatly increase the safety and ease of crop production while reducing pesticide use.

Are GMO crops also subjected to less herbicides than non-GMO crops?

I've read some arguments by the "anti-GMO" crowd basically implying that the GMO crops are bread to be more resistant to the herbicides, so farmers can dump a lot more herbicides around -- and that was raised as a health concern.

Myself personally, I don't really base my shopping on whether any produce I buy is GMO vs. non-GMO, or Organic vs Non-Organic and such... The "herbicide" issue is the one thing that seems somewhat plausible to me from the "anti GMO" crowd.  Researching REAL FACTS on these kind of things on the internet is very difficult due to all the opinionated articles by those who have no scientific credentials...

No... that was the  point of roundup ready crops. We could control weeds with one of the most effective, cheapest, and safest herbicides available. Herbicide cost and volume were about a third of a non-gmo program. Unfortunately, it was so good that it was overused and abused and mother nature caught up.... the weed species evolved resistance naturally.

Even though weed species had developed resistance to other chemicals prior to this, it was thought that roundups mode of action and non selective nature would prevent it from happening. Now a second generation of herbicide resistant crops is coming out and we know we have to be better stewards of the technology.

The amount of herbicide I spray on my non-GMO acres is roughly equivalent to my GMO acres, as I use multiple modes of action to delay the development of resistance, but the non-GMO chemicals are much more  hazardous to my health. I would be willing to jump into a bathtub of roundup, but the non-GMO chemicals will cause burns to exposed tissue.   In either case however,  we're talking about ounces per acre. Most chemicals I spray are in the range of a quart of chemical, which is diluted into 15 gallons of water,  spread over an acre.

[Geneseo1911]

The reason GMOs were developed was so the people selling them could make lots of money, make no mistake. The reason they were heavily adopted is because they greatly increase the safety and ease of crop production while reducing pesticide use.

Are GMO crops also subjected to less herbicides than non-GMO crops?

I've read some arguments by the "anti-GMO" crowd basically implying that the GMO crops are bread to be more resistant to the herbicides, so farmers can dump a lot more herbicides around -- and that was raised as a health concern.

Myself personally, I don't really base my shopping on whether any produce I buy is GMO vs. non-GMO, or Organic vs Non-Organic and such... The "herbicide" issue is the one thing that seems somewhat plausible to me from the "anti GMO" crowd.  Researching REAL FACTS on these kind of things on the internet is very difficult due to all the opinionated articles by those who have no scientific credentials...

http://i2.wp.com/sitn.hms.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/fig31.png?resize=720%2C574

This graph from Harvard sure seems to demonstrate that GMO crops are being associated with higher and higher use of synthetic herbicides every year. I prefer organic but conventional non GMO vs GMO isn't a big deal to me and I eat all three types. Blanket statements by any side of any argument are normally biased/foolish/agenda driven. Mustachians may prefer GMO on average due to lower cost.

This is a case of correlation not equaling causation. Herbicide rates are increasing because weeds evolving their own resistance to the chemicals meaning it takes a mixture of multiple modes of action to do the job one chemical used to do. The first instances of resistance occurred in the 80'same, long before any GMO crops existed. I would grow non- GMO soybeans exclusively if I could due to the premiums offered, but about half of my farms have weeds which can't be killed by conventional herbicides...ONLY a GMO crop can be grown on that land.

Alternatively I could go the other way... organic.... but it would require at least 4x the fuel and labor to produce less than 1/2 the yield,  and the premiums just don't justify it.

[Geneseo1911]

The great irony is that I grow a lot of non-GMO corn and soybeans because the idiots who don't understand science demand them and will pay premium to get them. I'm a small farmer by modern standards, so I'm able to invest the increased time and risk in order to earn the premium.

How do you ensure that you never get GMO genes in your crops by simple pollination?

There is a buffer requirement, and the grain is checked on a load by load basis at delivery. There is a small threshold allowed.... I'd have to look it up but I think it's 1/2%.  I've never had a load rejected. This is where the premium is earned... planter, combine, trucks, bins... all have to be cleaned out. There is also am increased herbicide cost, but it is mostly offset by the lower seed cost.

[Geneseo1911]

The snarky answer is: you try really hard not to because if you do, Monsanto will sue you.

this has some basis in fact.... Monsanto has been VERY aggressive about going after people saving seed.  Some of these cases are legitimate, some aren't. 

But... some of the GMO plants actually have an "activator".  In other words, the seed won't grow without an activating chemical.

not sure where this idea comes from, but I can assure you this is not the case for any of the 10 crops approved for commercial use.

The downside I have heard for Roundup ready crops is actually that the glycophosphates in the food kill some beneficial gut bacteria.  Now, nutritional science is not always the most scientific field out there... so whether this is provable is left as an exercise to the reader.

now we're getting into some serious Chemtrails level stuff...

We have anecdotally run across similar issues -- where engineered crops had unintended consequences.   We used to buy hay from one of the local farm stores and use it as mulch around all the plants.  There was a trend several years back (maybe still around) where farmers sprayed their fields with an herbicide (not Roundup... I forget which one) that killed surrounding plants but allowed the hay to thrive.  The resulting hay killed everything it was around.  DW spent about a week putting the hay-mulch out over a huge area and plants began to wither and die.  With a little research, we suspected the hay and pulled it all up.  Plants that were still alive mostly recovered.  We dumped the hay out in the back of our land... and about 4 years later that area is still a dead zone.  From what we read, manure from horses/cows fed with this hay also was a good unintentional herbicide and killed lots of plants as well.

[Bucksandreds]

The reason GMOs were developed was so the people selling them could make lots of money, make no mistake. The reason they were heavily adopted is because they greatly increase the safety and ease of crop production while reducing pesticide use.

Are GMO crops also subjected to less herbicides than non-GMO crops?

I've read some arguments by the "anti-GMO" crowd basically implying that the GMO crops are bread to be more resistant to the herbicides, so farmers can dump a lot more herbicides around -- and that was raised as a health concern.

Myself personally, I don't really base my shopping on whether any produce I buy is GMO vs. non-GMO, or Organic vs Non-Organic and such... The "herbicide" issue is the one thing that seems somewhat plausible to me from the "anti GMO" crowd.  Researching REAL FACTS on these kind of things on the internet is very difficult due to all the opinionated articles by those who have no scientific credentials...

http://i2.wp.com/sitn.hms.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/fig31.png?resize=720%2C574

This graph from Harvard sure seems to demonstrate that GMO crops are being associated with higher and higher use of synthetic herbicides every year. I prefer organic but conventional non GMO vs GMO isn't a big deal to me and I eat all three types. Blanket statements by any side of any argument are normally biased/foolish/agenda driven. Mustachians may prefer GMO on average due to lower cost.

This is a case of correlation not equaling causation. Herbicide rates are increasing because weeds evolving their own resistance to the chemicals meaning it takes a mixture of multiple modes of action to do the job one chemical used to do. The first instances of resistance occurred in the 80'same, long before any GMO crops existed. I would grow non- GMO soybeans exclusively if I could due to the premiums offered, but about half of my farms have weeds which can't be killed by conventional herbicides...ONLY a GMO crop can be grown on that land.

Alternatively I could go the other way... organic.... but it would require at least 4x the fuel and labor to produce less than 1/2 the yield,  and the premiums just don't justify it.

So then that graph is a condemnation of all non organic crops? It's either a GMO condemnation or a condemnation of all conventional crops including gmo. Basically, non organic food production is resulting in higher and higher levels of chemicals being sprayed and theoretically ending up in our food.  What do you think about those "idiots?"

[maizefolk]

http://i2.wp.com/sitn.hms.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/fig31.png?resize=720%2C574

This graph from Harvard sure seems to demonstrate that GMO crops are being associated with higher and higher use of synthetic herbicides every year. I prefer organic but conventional non GMO vs GMO isn't a big deal to me and I eat all three types. Blanket statements by any side of any argument are normally biased/foolish/agenda driven. Mustachians may prefer GMO on average due to lower cost.

Now wait a minute here. That's a graph of exactly one herbicide, and as far as I can tell, it's estimating total herbicide application for the crop over total acres, so all that chart is really showing is the growing proportion of total acres planted in roundup ready crops since 1996.

The amount of herbicide I spray on my non-GMO acres is roughly equivalent to my GMO acres, as I use multiple modes of action to delay the development of resistance, but the non-GMO chemicals are much more  hazardous to my health. I would be willing to jump into a bathtub of roundup, but the non-GMO chemicals will cause burns to exposed tissue.   In either case however,  we're talking about ounces per acre. Most chemicals I spray are in the range of a quart of chemical, which is diluted into 15 gallons of water,  spread over an acre.

+1. Anyone who has worked with chemicals like atrazine (a common broad leaf herbicide widely used to control weeds when growing grains like corn) and  glyphosate (roundup) will tell you that switching over to glyphosate is already a big win for health and safety even if total herbicide application stayed about the same or even when up. As synthetic chemicals designed to kill living things go, glyphosate is relatively biodegradable, and surprisingly low toxicity to animal life (since its mode of action is a biochemical pathway essential for both plants and bacteria but not present in humans at all).

[Spork]

Inline colors make replies difficult, but I'll try.

The snarky answer is: you try really hard not to because if you do, Monsanto will sue you.

this has some basis in fact.... Monsanto has been VERY aggressive about going after people saving seed.  Some of these cases are legitimate, some aren't. 

But... some of the GMO plants actually have an "activator".  In other words, the seed won't grow without an activating chemical.

not sure where this idea comes from, but I can assure you this is not the case for any of the 10 crops approved for commercial use.
It is called Genetic use restriction technology.  It is a real thing.

The downside I have heard for Roundup ready crops is actually that the glycophosphates in the food kill some beneficial gut bacteria.  Now, nutritional science is not always the most scientific field out there... so whether this is provable is left as an exercise to the reader.

now we're getting into some serious Chemtrails level stuff...

There are actually quite a few studies out there on glycophosphates and gut flora.  Now, whether they're good science or not... it's hard for me to tell as an average normal guy. 

Nutritional science really is awful.  Doing controlled, double blind studies on food with people is hard and expensive.  Most studies are food diaries and are highly uncontrolled.  They rely on bad memory and hopes that people don't lie.  It's very possible glycophosphate/gut linkage is bogus.  But I don't think it's quite the chemtrails snark.  The concept has become fairly "common" in the low carb/paleo arena.  I know, that's a pretty small, often crazy seeming sub culture.  But the world really has begun to accept their theories on fat demonization.  And there are really bizarre gut flora experiments  that have really strange results.  Whether glycophosphates damage gut flora or not... I'm convinced we don't fully understand the physiology of the gut.  (I mean: dear lord, fecal transplants are really a thing and really have meaningful outcomes.)

[The Guru]

+1 What maizeman said. My job is in ornamental horticulture; as such it might be different from food production, but I suspect not. Where a grower once used what's now referred to as the "spray and pray" approach- ie. spray every week and pray it actually works- we now use Integrated Pest Management practices, which involve monitoring pest populations to decide whether to apply or not.  I use WAY less pesticide today in the 4 acres of greenhouses under my supervision than I did in a single acre in the 70's and 80's. What's more, the products used to control pests today are far more targeted to noxious pests and less toxic to non-target organisms- including humans- than those in the past- many of which BTW originated as chemical companies sought to discover peacetime applications for WWII-era nerve gas technology .

[Geneseo1911]

I'll admit to not looking at your link when I replied. I was going on your description that it referred to all synthetic herbicides; I see now that it is only looking at glyphosate specifically. I'm even less surprised by that finding. As glyphosate resistance began to appear, the first solution was to use higher rates to kill the weed. In my neighborhood even the maximum labeled rate won't do the job anymore in some cases.

One thing to remember is that the roundup ready crops displaced conventional crops which required more herbicides that were worse for the environment, and people, than gly., even at its highest rates.

I would say that we are using more herbicides than in the past.  We're probably 3/4 of the way back to the levels we were using before roundup ready became available, at least around here.  The technology is still working better in some places. 

The resistance problem is a serious one. GMOs are a solution to that problem.  Now that roundup is not effective on certain species, a couple of new technologies have been approved.  These will reduce herbicide use once again. What I hear is that eventually we may be genetically modifying the weeds themselves to make them easier to control. As someone mentioned earlier crispr has accelerated all this dramatically.

Anyway... back to the graph.... its kind of like saying that gasoline usage increased after the internal combustion engine was invented.