
Why I’m quitting GMO research - sampo
https://massivesci.com/articles/gmo-gm-plants-safe/
======
whatshisface
What frustrates me endlessly about the GMO debate is that "GMO" tells you
about as much about safety as "chemical." You could certainly GM something
into being dangerous or more dangerous, for example transplanting allergens or
increasing the production of natural pest control toxins. You could also
modify a protein into an equivalent protein, changing nothing.

The only real answer to fears about GMOs is to point people towards
longitudinal studies that show that the specific modification in question
isn't causing any problems. Sadly, this really isn't possible in our current
system, as I have no idea which changes were made to the organisms that get
put in the consumer products I buy. In an ideal world, I could read NGK-028181
off the tin of baked beans in my pantry and realize that I needed to throw it
out because they discovered something wrong with that one specific genome (or
because I know I'm allergic).

As a consumer, if I ever get suspicious about one specific change made to one
specific breed, my only option is to buy non-GMO everything. That doesn't make
any sense!

~~~
kazinator
The GMO debate isn't just about whether the molecules of something you're
eating are safe in relation to the modifications. It includes considerations
such as what kinds of practices are enabled by GMO: like producing a plant
that is resistant to certain herbicides so that you can douse the heck out of
the crop to kill everything else. Or how some genetically modified plant is
someone's intellectual property, so you're a criminal if you happen to plant
its seeds back in the soil. (Just two issues off the top of my head in regard
to an area I don't think much about.)

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _producing a plant that is resistant to certain herbicides so that you can
> douse the heck out of the crop to kill everything else_

I think you're referring to Round-up Ready? Wasn't the point of that program
to _reduce_ pesticide use?

~~~
sebleon
Monsanto released Roundup-Ready Soybean in 1996 to INCREASE herbicide use,
without affecting crop yield [1]

Programs like Bt-corn reduce pesticide use... by making the plant produce the
herbicide in the fruit. So, instead of being able to peel or rinse fruit (with
varying results), you're eating corn kernels that have pesticide on the
inside.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_soybean](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_soybean)

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _instead of being able to peel or rinse fruit (with varying results), you
> 're eating corn kernels that have pesticide on the inside_

We eat lots of pesticides. Capsaicin (in chilis) [1] and piperine (in peppers)
[2] are two examples.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsaicin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsaicin)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piperine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piperine)

~~~
windexh8er
Those both being 100% natural, yes they are _used_ as pesticides. However,
they are not are engineered chemicals which can be a differentiator in the
comparisons and conversation.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _Those both being 100% natural_

The endotoxin used in Bt corn is also 100% natural [1].

I'm not arguing for (or against) Bt corn. I'm trying to show that the language
we used to describe GMOs is misleading. Something we think of as natural isn't
inherently healthy or unhealthy compared with something we think of as
artificial. The same applies to GMO.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_endotoxin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_endotoxin)

~~~
sampo
The Bt-toxin from Bt-bacteria is even a certified organic pesticide, because
it's produced "naturally" by the bacteria. It's used in organic farming.

[https://www.amazon.com/Bonide-
Products-803-Thuricide-16-Ounc...](https://www.amazon.com/Bonide-
Products-803-Thuricide-16-Ounce/dp/B001D1H6SE)

------
crispinb
I live in a region where very many are vehemently 'anti-GMO'. It's clear
within seconds of talking to such people here that they have only the dimmest
notion of what GMOs actually are, but they know they are Evil. They also know
that all GMOs are created by Monsanto (which is Evil). It is not dissimilar to
their opposition to much "allopathic medicine", which comes from Big Pharma
(Evil). The dividing line between good and evil is not inherently related to
corporations, because these folk don't abjure solar panels, 4WDs or mobile
'phones, the manufacturers of which are presumably Good. Even Big Pharma,
which is Evil, is at the same time Good when it flogs them supplements. It is
all a little confusing.

~~~
ripsawridge
I definitely sympathize, but I've come to recognize that we can only expect so
much of people in mass numbers. I agree with the poster further up that people
have a reason to fear the application of expensive technology to the food they
eat...they are awash in stories of problems that were identified much later.
When the people act on those fears we say they are irrational.

Of course they are, they are human beings, not computers. When have we ever
seen such delicate reasoning survive at a mass scale? We call it scientific
illiteracy, as if all those people promised to behave in a scientifically
literate fashion at some earlier point, and are now behaving defectively.

No such agreements were made.

This tendency to "spread" the Evil label (and the Good one) across categories
and into related but distinctly different domains is a biological rather than
digital approach to threat. As the elite of a culture that aspires to the
digital, we get outraged.

It's not going to make any difference, y'all know that, right?

------
TheMagicHorsey
How safe are GMO plants from a systems perspective?

When we breed plants through selection, the changes are slow and the plants do
not acquire capabilities from outside their species.

When we change fast growing species like grasses, and give them capabilities
they do not have in nature, do we really understand what those species do when
they enter a natural ecosystem? Ecosystems have a delicate balance.

I really wonder how comprehensive GMO testing really is.

Having said that, I have no problems eating GMO crops. I don’t think the risks
are to humans directly. I think the issue is environmental.

~~~
tren
Like you, I have no problem eating GMO crops but as you say, there are
potential knock-on effects from a systems perspective. Similar to the
financial system, if the sole pursuit is yield, systemic problems arise.

The main issues I have with GMO is the patenting of crops, specifically those
that are introduced to third world countries which are typically sterile,
causing the farmers to have an ongoing dependence/obligation to the patent
holders. Probably an even greater problem is crop resilience - yes, many crops
will give far greater yield when given ideal conditions, but by reducing
diversity within the same species makes them more vulnerable to specific
diseases. In nature, there is always some % of a crop that's resistant to a
disease, that diversity is removed when all the crops are essentially
identical.

~~~
thaumaturgy
> _The main issues I have with GMO is the patenting of crops, specifically
> those that are introduced to third world countries which are typically
> sterile, causing the farmers to have an ongoing dependence /obligation to
> the patent holders._

Incidentally, this is also the solution to one of the major criticisms of GMO
plants: in the event of significant cross-pollination, the GMO plants won't be
viable.

> _Probably an even greater problem is crop resilience - yes, many crops will
> give far greater yield when given ideal conditions, but by reducing
> diversity within the same species makes them more vulnerable to specific
> diseases._

We already massively reduce diversity in agricultural crops. This is not a
problem specific to, or even exacerbated by, GMO crops.

> _In nature, there is always some % of a crop that 's resistant to a disease,
> that diversity is removed when all the crops are essentially identical._

Diversity is doing exactly piss-all for the hundreds of millions of conifers
in California that have been killed by bark beetles.

~~~
AstralStorm
Mostly because the natural state is that species outcompete others on long
timeframes. The problem is that alleged natural state is currently vastly
reduced diversity. If anything, adding GMO will improve on that.

------
b3lvedere
"Personally, the thought that no matter what steps I take there’s always going
to be people who think my research will harm them is profoundly distressing,
and feels really unfair."

Duh. That's the case of almost every very high professional job on this
planet. Almost nobody cares. Almost everybody stays in their own little
belief. Few try to learn. Even less will admit they were once wrong.

Tell people humanity has been modifying all kinds of life forms for thousands
of years and they are flabbergasted. When you tell them it's about selecting
plants and breeding dogs or cattle they tell you 'it's not the same', because
it was a slower process.

They're scared we are going to mess up evolution and then tell us to stop
playing god. Kinda paradoxal.

~~~
abpavel
This. Something so fundamental that has been part of our civilization since
forever is suddenly out of fashion because of a name.

If you'd try eating real pure non-gmo'd banana you'd break your teeth because
of all the seeds, but that thing hasn't existed for millenia. Apples would be
disgusting too by today's standards.

~~~
ripsawridge
It's not out of fashion because of a name. It's considered dangerous because
of the rate, and there is logic to that.

The slow change in dogs or crops over many decades or generations is
tolerable. But rapid change can kill, or at least it excites danger signals in
the affected organisms (people).

A car that creeps towards you slowly is fine. One that moves too fast might
kill you.

I think rate is the central question in this problem, but it always gets
elided in discussion with the word "just," as if rate was a minor concern.

~~~
AstralStorm
This means we should try to recover original many varieties of the tomato.
Because in less than 50 years we killed most of them.

Compared to that widespread action, GMO is safe as it is thoroughly tested.
Though diversity is not being increased with it either.

------
ivanech
This article is good, and there's literally nothing of value I could say
better than the author - which is why I really like Massive's (the site's)
commenting system. I've never seen a comment system allows so few people to
participate, and I wonder if this model ought to be tried elsewhere. By
restricting comments to approved scientists, Massive lets us observe informed
discourse without risking the mess that so many other discussion systems
devolve into.

------
theptip
I find the whole GMO debate to be depressingly asinine.

There's a very good concern, which is seldom raised clearly -- if Monsanto
patents the genomes that we need to feed the planet, then that is likely to be
very harmful for the development of the poorer half of the world.

But there's simply no credible concern at this point about "genes escaping
from one plant to another". There are mechanisms by which gene transfer can
occur between bacteria and viruses, but there is no mechanism by which a gene
could get from maize to a weed.

I hear complaints mostly about the latter, and seldom about the former -- but
note that the former concern could be ameliorated by having governments or
other public institutions do the research, and either hold the patents or just
make them available for all.

~~~
gumby
> but there is no mechanism by which a gene could get from maize to a weed.

I'm not sure why you say that; this has been unremarkable for a while and is
often seen in the wild. Insects play a role too, though this article from
Nature specifically discusses cross-pollination.

[https://www.nature.com/news/genetically-modified-crops-
pass-...](https://www.nature.com/news/genetically-modified-crops-pass-
benefits-to-weeds-1.13517)

~~~
theptip
Thanks, I think my claim was a bit sloppy and underspecified there. The
typical anti-GMO concern that I was addressing is that a gene, once
introduced, could spread into any plant in the ecosystem and into the weeds
that compete with farmed plants, i.e. beyond the species with which the
organism can pollinate. The paper you linked shows:

> that a weedy form of the common rice crop, Oryza sativa, gets a significant
> fitness boost from glyphosate resistance

which I believe is a much narrower claim. If the anti-GMO claim was that "GMO
crops can share their genes with wild/weedy/non-GMO versions of those crops",
I don't think anyone would be freaking out in the same way.

But my specific claim was about gene transfer to unrelated species, which (to
my understanding) is not likely. (There's also horizontal gene transfer to
worry about, but this is very unlikely in eukaryotes, e.g. see
[https://www.ebr-
journal.org/articles/ebr/pdf/2008/03/ebr0742...](https://www.ebr-
journal.org/articles/ebr/pdf/2008/03/ebr0742.pdf))

------
conistonwater
> _It really showed how futile researchers’ attempts at science communication
> can be._

There is the Cultural Cognition Project
([http://www.culturalcognition.net/kahan/](http://www.culturalcognition.net/kahan/)),
and if I understand the research they did correctly, you really should not
expect explanations of science to be effective at changing people's minds like
that. In the past, and in psychology experiments, this technique has been
shown to be ineffective even though it seems really intuitive that it should
work.

------
ianai
I view this less on the merits of GMO. I think this is a reflection of the
negativity pervasive on the internet. People separate into their own camps on
the internet. Then they take a mentality to meat space that they’re somehow
fighting a fight against “the other side”. People are using the internet to
collectively ferment their angers to disasterous results.

~~~
acutesoftware
Yes, this is probably the biggest issue, and mainstream media don't help by
mostly publishing 'bad GMO' stories where no one hears of the hundreds of
success stories (in fact you could apply that to most of the sciences)

------
kornish
> Nevertheless, my time in GMO research creating virus-resistant plants has
> meant dealing with the overwhelming negative responses the topic evokes in
> so many people. These range from daily conversations halting into awkward
> silence when the subject of my work crops up, to hateful Twitter trolls, and
> even the occasional fear that public protesters might destroy our research.

Do any folks working at social media or adtech firms feel the same way, out of
interest? Curious if the recent CA scandals have caused an uptick in
confrontational behavior.

~~~
sampo
I collected some mentions of "Monsanto" from this very discussion:

...Monsanto lawsuits...

...created by Monsanto (which is Evil)...

...Monsanto patents...

...those of us who are suspicious of the Monsantos of this world...

I would be funny to be a software engineer if every discussion with friends
and family about your work would involve suspicious mentions like "Facebook
lawsuits..." , "...created by Facebook (which is Evil)...", "Facebook
patents...", "...those of us who are suspicious of the Facebooks of this
world..."

Or the same for s/Facebook/Google/g.

------
tosser0004
I don’t for a moment believe GMOs are in anyway harmful. I do wonder though if
they have had the effect of fueling population growth, without necessarily
helping the hungry.

It’s often stated that GMOs are needed to feed the growing population, but I
get the sense that the most of the benefits go to just increasing population
and not lowering the raw number of people who are actually undernourished.

In a world without GMOs would there be fewer total people and would that be
better than the alternative?

~~~
sampo
They actually had this same discussion in the 1960s when the original "green
revolution" used plant breeding and fertilization to increased crop yields
dramatically.

If they had done then as you propose, half of the people today in Third World,
or having Third World grandparents, would not exist today. How many of your
friends and family would not exist?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution#Malthusian_cr...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution#Malthusian_criticism)

~~~
AstralStorm
We are paying for this now though. Soil depletion is a thing, as is the
increase in pesticide use.

GMO are currently being deployed to fix the pesticide problem without breaking
the economics...

------
ggm
I think part of the problem is that fundamental decisions around IPR collided
in time with the decision to explore this space outside of nationally funded
research. Had bodies which have charitable status and seek government funds
done the majority work rather than monsanto, I suspect GMO would have been
understood more widely for its benefits. Having it go rapidly from government
funded labs to commercial exploitatio of IPR tied knots into the model: who
owns infected wheat next door to a field which was sown with GMO wheat, is a
very wierd story. How can you expect farmers to relate well to this? Likewise,
the decision of the organic farming movement to de-rate GMO meant the
consequential loss to farms around a GMO crop was high. This is pitting farmer
against farmer, and farmer against seed merchant. Seed hoarding has been a
part of farming practice since Noah. Now, it incurs a long-tail lease payment?
Bizarre!

None of this is about the FUD on GMO and health. Its the economics of IPR, and
the effect on emotional feelings about GMO. I think the science is fantastic.
The commercialization is awful.

------
The_Echo_Dies
As a person trained in scientific thought and practice, I am against GMO
research for the simple reason that it is one of the main factors enabling
runaway population growth. The community involved in GMO research often cite
the need to feed growing numbers of people (the author of this article, for
one) as one of the motivators of their work, but they never seem to openly
acknowledge the fact that they themselves are contributing to the problem they
claim to help solve. Based on this alone I wish the entire field could be
massively curtailed, if not entirely shut down. The earth needs far less
people, not more, and this type of research seems to be making the odds of a
future population crisis higher, not lower. Please note that I'm not at all
questioning the actual science or the validity of the topic as a research area
- merely the impact that said activities have upon the real world, impacts
that I don't believe we can ignore.

------
dsacco
It looks like a lot of commenters here are talking about the public opinion of
GMOs and whether or not it's justified. As a graduate student, I'd like to
comment on the author of this article instead of GMOs, since I find his story
more profoundly disquieting.

The author is leaving his primary research specialization after spending
literally years studying it. It's not uncommon for people to change their
research focus, but he is moving to a different subfield and specialization
altogether. More importantly, his decision is precipitated by unceasing
vitriol for something he was passionate enough about to spend the best years
of his life working on.

I'm not sure what else to say. I can't imagine what it's like to give
something like that up just to avoid having research decisions litigated by
other people. It must have been so exhausting and disheartening for him.

~~~
_devang
thanks for empathizing! I am very happy with my future research direction
though :)

~~~
ripsawridge
Thanks for writing your article, it was good, and I sympathize with your
experience!

I think we are brought up to believe we can pursue whatever we want to pursue,
and of course this is true, but there is a cost. If that pursuit falls out of
alignment with the community of which you are a part, life can lose it's joy.
This isn't fair, it just is. We need to feel in a relationship of give and
take with our community.

My own thought here is that the research itself is a good thing, and the act
of pursuit deepens your character and experience in a way that makes you more
valuable to your community. But people don't like the stories they hear about
"patented" crops, about DRM in farmers fields. It's not the research that's a
problem, it's the use to which it's put (at least in the eye of the public).
GMOs seem to become a lever corporations use to monetize activities that we
aren't sure should be monetized.

[I recognize that my "story" above is likely tainted with outrageous
misconceptions. I don't disagree! I'm just playing back the image in my head
around GMOs, mostly built by passive listening to the conversation in our
culture over some years. You can argue with that story, but it's exhausting.]

I think you are caught in the gears of the working out of this vast cultural
argument.

------
kome
> “is your research going to be patented?”

well, those are good questions. As frustrating as it is, scientists should be
well aware that science doesn't happen in a political, juridical or economical
vacuum.

This social sensibility should be part of the soft skills of the modern
scientist. Same goes for engineers (let’s think about the Facebook crisis), or
any profession, really.

Ideas have consequences.

Edit: Also that's is quite infuriating: "How am I supposed to explain the
consequences of abandoning a technology that can help feed millions to Swiss
students who enjoy the world's highest standard of living?" \- if you think
that the problem of malnutrition is mainly a technological/agrological
problem, that's very disingenuous.

~~~
crispinb
> if you think that the problem of malnutrition is mainly a
> technological/agrological problem, that's very disingenuous

This is true right now. But a sane world has to plan ahead. Our existing
agricultural system can easily feed the world today without GMOs. But if the
world population really does grow as anticipated this century (I have my
doubts), with a fast-changing climate, high levels of topsoil loss &
degradation, there is zero chance without every technological trick we can
muster.

------
sova
Isn't GMO old hat now that we are using Gene Editing?

"There is another reason gene editing is causing excitement in industry. The
U.S. Department of Agriculture has concluded that the new plants are not
“regulated articles.” The reason is a legal loophole: its regulations apply
only to GMOs constructed using plant pathogens like bacteria, or their DNA."

[https://www.technologyreview.com/s/609230/these-are-not-
your...](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/609230/these-are-not-your-fathers-
gmos/)

~~~
_devang
I cited the same link in my article. But there are uses of GM technology that
cannot be achieved using gene editing. The best example is Bt crops for insect
resistance. This is a hugely important trait that is only possible through
genetic engineering.

------
binarypaean
It seems like Taleb et al captured the nebulous fears many people have around
GMOs fairly rigorously with the "Precautionary Principle"[1]. I see some
people attempt to refute that paper with specific evidence of safety for some
GMOs, but have not seen a work that deals fundamentally with section "X";
which or how GMOs can be sufficiently "non-global".

[1][https://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.5787.pdf](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.5787.pdf)

~~~
sampo
Taleb is a skilled writer, I give him that. But he doesn't know anything about
biology.

From section X.B:

 _" GMOs have the propensity to spread uncontrollably, and thus their risks
cannot be localized. The crossbreeding of wild-type plants with genetically
modified ones prevents their disentangling, leading to irreversible system-
wide effects with unknown downsides."_

Now, the very reason crop plants (GMO or not) cannot spread uncontrollably is
tightly coupled to why they are crop plants. They are not poisonous, they are
easy to eat, and they produce a good yield. A dream come true for every plant-
eating animal. That's why they are crop plants. But they wouldn't stand a
snowball's chance in hell in the wild nature, animals and insects would eat
them quickly. Wild plants invest a lot of effort to not being eaten (unless
they want to, for seed spreading purposes).

There are no cases of crop plants having invaded back to wild nature. Perhaps
there is an odd canola plant that escaped a field and grows on a roadside or
by an abandoned gas station somewhere, but these are also situations where
humans first cleared the wild plants and bared the soil before the canola was
able to set roots.

Crop plants don't spread outside of the farmers' fields, and GMO breeding is
not trying to change that. (If they wanted to breed competitive wild plants,
they'd use wild plants as the starting stock.)

~~~
ripsawridge
Very interesting. I've heard stories of the GMO spreading to another _farmers_
field, causing some problems. But that field is mostly devoid of insects, so
it's easy for the GMO to live there.

I still think that a fear of "irreversible system-wide effects with unknown
downsides" will persist, despite the good sense of your argument.

Also, as a technologist, I know that we move from solving easier problems to
more complex ones. Who is to say that GMO tech isn't just beginning in
farmers' fields, and that flush with success in that space, all those
engineers, technology and know-how will happily move on to the Next Big
Problem. This might be in wild-plant space.

~~~
AstralStorm
The fun part is the current big problem. Boron depletion in soil. Modern
farming practices reducing nutritional value of the plants.

Those are the true systemic effects wee should be looking into - there is no
way back to 1700s farming now. (Organic farming is not there either.)

------
mikeytown2
Plants that are more resistant to herbicides/pesticides (weeds/bugs) due to
GMO is my main gripe. Indoor growing and hydroponics is the best solution to
this from my point of view. I have no problem with making food more nutrient-
rich via GMO. I am well aware that all foods get sprayed, I'd be nice if none
needed to be used and plants didn't get modified to make their own
herbicides/pesticides.

I'll probably anger both side of the debate because I'm not 100% on one side
or the other.

~~~
_devang
I'm probably with you on this but there is an environmental advantage to
herbicide tolerant crops (GMO or not).
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5033196/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5033196/)

Also indoor farming/hydroponics is great for crops that are mainly water
(think tomato or lettuce) but much less so for staple calorie crops like corn
or wheat.

------
headsoup
I guess the major 'problem' is that (at least the media representation) most
of the effort in GMO is not going into products being more healthy, but
towards increasing yield.

Put in that light it's immediately obvious the first argument will be 'big
industry.' People don't trust big industry, so therefore if they are the
largest supporters/drivers of GE it will wholly be placed in the 'bad' basket.

'Big Industry' players time and time again _do_ act poorly, fund outcomes,
corrupt policies etc so you concerns can't be dismissed easily and will be
conflated either way.

So the question out of this is: how do we increase the integrity of actors
involved: science, media, government, business? What would it take to be able
to identify and understand which GE is 'honest' vs not?

Until that can be done in any meaningful way, it will continually just be an
argument between those saying all GMO/GE can't be trusted and those saying it
can. Not to mention the different points being that the distrust is in those
engineering/producing GMO vs the actual products/processes themselves...

------
XR0CSWV3h3kZWg
Anyone else got that horrible pop up on the side asking to rate the article?

------
thaumaturgy
This is the major issue that prevents me from self-identifying as a
progressive. The arguments are strikingly similar to arguments over vaccines
causing autism; no matter how many times you debunk the myths and fantasies
and throw facts at the irrational fears, progressives just keep coming back to
the position that "GMOs are scary".

And, like anti-vaxxers, this has a real negative impact on human and
ecological health.

I wish there was some kind of "yay, science!" political movement that would
advocate for applying science in ways intended to improve human health and
happiness in both the short and long term (which would include funding further
GMO research).

------
akskos
This is sad to hear :(

------
jadedhacker
This is a sad result of people's rightful and fully earned suspicion of large
corporations and the food industry. How many times have new products been
introduced, people assured they're safe, and later we find they cause cancer,
or men to grow breasts, or children to lose IQ points? The number of these
stories that implicate the chemical industry are nearly countless.

Thus, when new techniques are introduced to agriculture, people become
immediately suspicious that they are going to be poisoned so that someone can
make a few extra bucks. The difference here is that most of the tweaks GMO
scientists are making have well understood results as they produce well
studied biological components. However, the protestors are not wrong that the
same techniques can be used for good or ill. Science suffers as a result of
the incentives of our economic system that prioritize profit over health and
safety. Unfortunately, this comes at the expense of the world wide poor over
the middle class of the rich world.

If a different system of research and production was instituted that focused
on non-profit incentives, I imagine the reaction would be different. The
criticism these scientists are facing is not necessarily scientifically
grounded, but it is rationally based on a long history of consumers being
exploited.

EDIT: A point was made in another comment that malnutrition is not primarily a
technological problem these days, it's one of distribution. However, I don't
see anything wrong with increasing yields from existing agriculture. Under a
non-capitalist system, it would allow us to reclaim part of the environment
for nature. Under a capitalist system, it means additional overproduction.

~~~
twoodfin
Do you want to make a case that health and safety have gone _down_ since we
adopted our current “economic system”?

If so, when was this? AFAIK, health and safety have been trending positively
in a significant way for well over a century, with nation-state conflict
causing the most significant regressions, not profit-motivated corporations.

~~~
jadedhacker
Health and safety typically increase in response to workers advocating for
additional health and safety. Those increases were won in spite of the system
not because of it.

Noam Chomsky makes the following point: Slave societies also exhibited
improvements over time. It wasn't an argument for slavery.

~~~
twoodfin
Sure, but comparing the virtual slave state of North Korea with the prosperity
of South Korea is a pretty good argument for freedom and against slavery.

Do you have some examples of societies that radically increased their overall
health and safety without adopting liberal economic policies? Cuba, maybe?

~~~
jadedhacker
This is a very reasonable question, but I think this is too off topic from
this article to comply with HN's guidelines as it verges on more general
questions. The latest issue of Jacobin does compare the Cuban health system to
the US health system and to the Dominican Republic if you're interested, but
it's print/subscriber only. SK and NK are too complex to be analyzed under
these textual constraints.

------
_rpd
Admits it is vital research but "constantly confronting people who think my
research will harm them is profoundly distressing." This is a very personal
decision, but I'm glad for those who continue on despite the misguided
activism. Imagine if vaccine researchers quit because of the unpleasantness
caused by anti-vaccine activists.

