Fear of Science Will Kill Us

[rodsky]

---

Fear of science will kill us - CNN.com

Editor's note: Michael Specter is a staff writer at The New Yorker and the author of "Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet and Threatens our Lives." TED, a nonprofit organization devoted to "Ideas Worth Spreading," hosts talks on many subjects and makes them available through its Web site, TED: Ideas worth spreading

(CNN) -- American denialism threatens many areas of scientific progress, including the widespread fear of vaccines and the useless trust placed in the vast majority of dietary supplements quickly come to mind.

It doesn't seem to matter how often vaccines are proved safe or supplements are shown to offer nothing of value. When people don't like facts, they ignore them.

Nowhere is that unwillingness to accept the truth more evident than in the mindlessly destructive war that has been raging between the proponents of organic food and those who believe that genetically engineered products must play a role in feeding the growing population of the Earth. This is a divide that shouldn't exist.

All the food we eat -- every grain of rice and kernel of corn -- has been genetically modified. None of it was here before mankind learned to cultivate crops. The question isn't whether our food has been modified, but how.

Read more about Michael Specter at TED: Ideas worth spreading

I wrote "Denialism" because it has become increasingly clear that this struggle threatens progress for us all.

Denialists replace the open-minded skepticism of science with the inflexible certainty of ideological commitment. It isn't hard to find evidence: the ruinous attempts to wish away the human impact on climate change, for example. The signature denialists of our time, of course, are those who refuse to acknowledge the indisputable facts of evolution.

Nowhere has the screaming been louder, however, than in the fight over how we grow our food. If you are brave enough to set a Google Alert for the phrases "genetically modified food" and "organic food," you will quickly see what I mean.

The anxiety is certainly understandable. When it comes to food -- the way we produce it and particularly the way we consume it -- we have a lot to worry about.

One third of American children are overweight or obese; for adults, the numbers are higher. Our addiction to mindless consumption has made millions sick and costs this country billions of dollars. The financial toll comes in terms of time lost at work and money spent treating and supporting people with diabetes, heart disease and many cancers, who, had they followed a better diet, would never have fallen ill.

Nonetheless, better eating habits have nothing specific to do with organic food, which provides no nutritional advantage over more conventionally raised products. Opponents of genetically modified food constantly argue that it is unsafe. There has, however, never been a single documented case of a human killed by eating genetically modified food.

If every American swallowed two aspirin right now, hundreds of us would die today. Does that mean we ought to ban aspirin? Of course not. It simply means that there are risks and benefits associated with everything we do and with every decision we make.

When people say they prefer organic food, what they often seem to mean is they don't want their food tainted with pesticides and their meat shot full of hormones or antibiotics. Many object to the way a few companies -- Monsanto is the most famous of them -- control so many of the seeds we grow.

Those are all legitimate complaints, but none of them have anything to do with science or the way we move genes around in plants to make them grow taller or withstand drought or too much sun. They are issues of politics and law. When we confuse them with issues of science, we threaten the lives of the world's poorest people.

We are doing that now. By 2050, we are going to have 9 billion people to feed, a huge increase over today's 6.8 billion. It's not a figure about which there is much dispute. To feed that many will require nearly 50 percent more food than we produce now.

It's not enough to simply say we waste food and consume too many calories, so that if we distributed it more intelligently everyone could eat just fine. Not in sub-Saharan Africa, where drought is nearly permanent.

Many of those people subsist on cassava, the basic potato-like staple in the region. It lacks most protein, nutrients and vitamins.

You cannot survive for long without them, so a team of international scientists funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, is engineering vitamins and micronutrients into cassava.

They are engineering success into a failed crop. It will save and prolong many lives; that is farming and genetic modification at their best. Who could be opposed to that?

TED Video here:

YouTube - Michael Specter: The danger of science denial

-RODION

[Existanz]

Science will not kill us...corporate greed for profit will. For instance they will give us modified crops that will produce more harvest and more nutrients but it comes with a price- more money spent on fertilizer and pesticides...it's been always like this.

When will they give us modified crops with yield harvest twice and contains nutrients/vitamins more but "amazingly" with less usage of fertilizer or pesticides?

For the other side of the issue:

Say No To GMOs! - Getting Started

[grovestreet]

anything that money touches it corrupts. Scientists are no exception, they can claim all they want about being as objective as possible to any situation, but in a competitive system such as capitalism, money can literally buy your ethics and conscience. Scientists today are used for corporate profit, remember the movie "idiocracy"? where they show scientists focusing their research on how to make erections last longer rather than focusing on more relevant and pressing issues that concerns society. It seems to me like we're heading in that direction.

"The food industry aims at making products look and taste appealing without thought to the products' nutritional value. Loaded with chemical additives and designed to be addictive, processed food is manufactured first for profit."

FREEDOMYOU- Nutrition- The dangers of preservatives and additives.

[bcasabee]

Why would anyone fear science in the first place?

The title of the article say so, but the content is not saying anything about resistance against science. Maybe people are just afraid of being used as guinea pigs and lab rats by those pharmaceutical and chemical companies, but thats a valid concern and has nothing to do with fear of science.

[Peenut]

Science is evolving throughout the years and the years to come.
I think it's better to embrace science rather to fear.


Denialists replace the open-minded skepticism of science with the inflexible certainty of ideological commitment. It isn't hard to find evidence: the ruinous attempts to wish away the human impact on climate change, for example. The signature denialists of our time, of course, are those who refuse to acknowledge the indisputable facts of evolution.

nice one sir rodz.

[rodsky]

I think one of the reasons why people fear science, is because this fear has something to do with their fear of death without afterlife. In science, when you die, you die--there is no heaven or hell (or even purgatory). It's as simple as that. People need religion because it gives them a sense of peace (somewhat, if you consider yourself as "good" ergo you'll go to heaven) to know that they won't be "non-existent" when they die, and that whatever hardships or ills or bad things they've experienced in "this world" will be replaced by something better in the afterlife.

The only life we have is the one we have right now--cherish it, and live a full life.

Disclaimer: This is merely an opinion.

-RODION

[Peenut]

I think one of the reasons why people fear science, is because this fear has something to do with their fear of death without afterlife. In science, when you die, you die--there is no heaven or hell (or even purgatory). It's as simple as that. People need religion because it gives them a sense of peace (somewhat, if you consider yourself as "good" ergo you'll go to heaven) to know that they won't be "non-existent" when they die, and that whatever hardships or ills or bad things they've experienced in "this world" will be replaced by something better in the afterlife.

The only life we have is the one we have right now--cherish it, and live a full life.

-RODION

Eureka!
Very well said.

In science after death is dust or ashes of our past.

[kit_cebu]

People need religion because it gives them a sense of peace (somewhat, if you consider yourself as "good" ergo you'll go to heaven) to know that they won't be "non-existent" when they die, and that whatever hardships or ills or bad things they've experienced in "this world" will be replaced by something better in the afterlife.

-RODION

OT: security blanket.... LOLs...

[superman-yak]

I think one of the reasons why people fear science, is because this fear has something to do with their fear of death without afterlife. In science, when you die, you die--there is no heaven or hell (or even purgatory). It's as simple as that. People need religion because it gives them a sense of peace (somewhat, if you consider yourself as "good" ergo you'll go to heaven) to know that they won't be "non-existent" when they die, and that whatever hardships or ills or bad things they've experienced in "this world" will be replaced by something better in the afterlife.

The only life we have is the one we have right now--cherish it, and live a full life.

-RODION

better listen to "Imagine" of John Lennon

[technowar]

^ Lol Fredo.