Similar to how you probably wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) use Uber to transport a VIP, you wouldn't use Uber's product service to transport high-value, hard to replace goods. Instead, this service would be useful for goods which are readily replaceable, and just need to get from A to B. If something happens on the first attempt, you reroute with a 2nd attempt, deliver the good, and get reimbursed for the good that was lost. They'd essentially be treating goods as packets, and I'd think that could work pretty well for several cases, but certainly not cases that the service wasn't designed to accommodate.
It's just like those "scientific" crazies to attempt to convince good, skeptical geocentrists that the Earth actually revolves around the sun, right? I mean, there's tons of evidence to support a geocentric view, and Captain Janeway even narrated a documentary about it. Given the community of geocentrists thriving in the face of supposed evidence to the contrary, clearly, the "science" of heliocentrism is really just another religion in disguise.
Seriously, why was this marked insightful? Maybe the mods confused insight with incite?
Ok, a few points:
1) "overwhelming scientific evidence" applies to my mention of vaccines and evolution. My point, obviously lost on you, is that people who reject such knowledge despite mountains of data and cross validation will dismiss a study regarding genetic modification outright; the substance of the study will be rejected without even any examination.
2) "impossible to prove a negative" applies in any scenario, not just safety regarding genetically modified crops. For example, you can't prove with absolute certainty that there isn't a link between vaccines and autism, but you can show, through widespread observation and statistical analysis, that such a link appears to be incredibly unlikely.
The point of the article, which you seem to have ignored, is that ingestion of genetically modified crops has been studied for quite some time, across multiple generations of livestock, by multiple independent groups (24 of them) with no apparent ill effects. This situation is very similar to vaccines in that there is a significant benefit of genetically modified crops (e.g. increased yields and pest resistance), and little in the way of substantial drawbacks (besides being politically incorrect, of course). Being that you seem to fall into the category of "I don't care what's said, I'm right you're wrong" I know this point probably means nothing to you, but you're welcome to scrutinize the 24 studies mentioned.
3) I know you're just trying to troll, but I'm always up for more education. Since you know so much about what I do or do not know, could you please point me at the peer reviewed articles that fill in my knowledge gaps? I'm especially interested in those articles which dispassionately enumerate the observed and measured (not just theoretical) risks associated with genetically engineered crops, and which examine the projected costs of such risks (not just monetarily, of course) relative to benefits. Thanks.
perhaps this study will help to ease the fears of genetically engineered food and foster a more scientific discussion on the role of agricultural biotechnology
Yeah, because people who reject vaccines and evolution despite overwhelming scientific evidence are going to suddenly embrace reason concerning genetically modified crops. If anything, this study will somehow reinforce their views. Already, I see others on
So, I can assume that you'll be volunteering to be spayed/neutered and, if you already have kids, volunteering them as well, right? Can I also assume that you'll be forgoing vaccinations and any medical treatments developed in the past 100 years? Regarding population control, every little bit counts. Do your part.
I know that you were half-joking with your statement, but only half, and, like most everyone else making such statements, probably believe that you're somehow entitled to propagation and a comfortable lifestyle while the rest of us are not. They have a word (well several, actually) for people making statements like yours.
I wasn't aware that the entertainment industry was a scientific establishment.
As has been said, science doesn't presume absolute truth; if a scientific theory is questionable, one can always attempt to disprove it and offer a different explanation. Scientists understand this and, though they may initially view your competing explanation with serious skepticism, they will accept it if it does indeed agree with reality more than a prior theory.
I'd suspect that most of those in the entertainment industry are more politically motivated than scientifically motivated. On this particular subject (global warming), they may be on the more scientifically accepted side than you, but that doesn't make their stance or arguments scientific.
How dare you make an accurate assessment of the state of the government and public!
Seriously though, I don't understand why people drone on and on about Republicans/Democrats/politicians in general. As you said, we have the power to vote them out; we can replace them with people who have a genuine interest in the welfare of our nation and who don't fall into typical political patterns (and yes, people like that do exist and sometimes even get into office). We could even run for office ourselves and try to correct crap like that displayed in this article. However, that would require real effort on our part, and it's always a lot easier to whine than, you know, take any corrective action.
Ok, one question: If the quality of the papers being published isn't very good, as you seem to be suggesting, then how does China's increase in scientific output help to enrich everyone? It would seem to me that science as an enriching process is contingent upon quality contribution; the contrapositive of that statement being that a lack of quality necessitates a lack of enrichment.
Might I also observe that the statement "quantity of papers isn't the same as quality" applies just as surely to the US as it does to China. You might counter that, given the current state of affairs, the US produces papers which are obviously of higher quality relative to China, but that's really beside the point. The article isn't really making claims about the current state of affairs in China or the US, rather, it's making a prediction based on current trends. To me, making the claim that the US will maintain its superiority in terms of quality relative to China is no less bold than making the claim that China will significantly narrow that gap or close it entirely in the very near future.
Might I also note one other point of interest concerning whether or not China's overtaking the US is a bad thing: it depends on your perspective. From the Chinese perspective or that of broader worldwide community, it's probably great that China is forging ahead; after all, this will potentially lead to beneficial discoveries and applications around the world. However, from the US perspective, things are less optimistic. Will the US benefit in some ways from China's scientific prowess? Yes, absolutely. Will the benefit to the US from China's new scientific lead outweigh the benefit to the US of having the lead? I'd argue that it won't. I say this because I believe that this will act to reduce the US's credibility as a worldwide innovator and producer. Once that credibility is diminished, things like foreign investment will (continue to) shift from the US to China. The US already has an image problem with much of the rest of the world believing that it will be overtaken by China or someone else sooner than later. If China surpasses the US in scientific output, this could snowball into broader doubt that the US can actually produce something of value that China cannot (at less cost as well). Also, let us not forget that the US carries an enormous debt, and that this debt is essentially an IOU promising some repayment eventually. How do you go about repaying that debt? The way this has been done before is through the manufacture of products or supply of resources that the rest of the world wants. So if you're a nation holding that debt, and you see that the US's capabilities to manufacture, or even invent new methods of manufacture, has been diminished, would you believe that the US's ability to repay that debt has been unaffected? Or, would you demand higher interest rates as the debt begins to look riskier? At some point, these debts will need to be addressed and the magnitude of the debts depend, in my opinion, on the capability of the US to out-innovate its competitors (and they are competitors). Since the US is loosing (apparently rapidly) that edge, I'd say that China assuming the lead in scientific output is indeed a bad thing for the US.