The Precautionary Principle (with Application to the Genetic Modification of Organisms) · HackerPapers discussions

The Precautionary Principle (with Application to the Genetic Modification of Organisms) — HN submission

Wed, 18 Oct 2023 19:52:40 GMT

The Precautionary Principle (As Applied to GMOs) [Taleb et al]

1 point; 0 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

The Precautionary Principle (with Application to the Genetic Modification of Organisms) — mentioned by pella

Wed, 29 Mar 2023 14:43:35 GMT

just read a PDF .. https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.5787

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Precautionary Principle (with Application to the Genetic Modification of Organisms) — mentioned by jayalpha

Sat, 22 Dec 2018 21:38:53 GMT

"GM foods are arguably no more dangerous than any massively engineered foods " This may be your opinion. While GM foods are not per see dangerous, the long tail risk is tremendous, exactly because you can not tell what a gene is going to do in another organism. Take my word for it, I have a PhD in that shit. Taleb also advocates the precautionary principle: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.5787.pdf

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Precautionary Principle (with Application to the Genetic Modification of Organisms) — mentioned by jk2323

Sat, 28 Apr 2018 07:15:01 GMT

I consider this good news. May I recommend an article by Taleb: The Precautionary Principle https://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.5787.pdf Contrary to some of the posters here, I don't think there is STRONG evidence that neonicotinoids are causing this but there is some evidence. Bases on the Precautionary Principle it is a good idea to ban this kind of pesticides for now.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Precautionary Principle (with Application to the Genetic Modification of Organisms) — mentioned by binarypaean

Thu, 29 Mar 2018 02:02:35 GMT

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

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Precautionary Principle (with Application to the Genetic Modification of Organisms) — mentioned by grzm

Tue, 08 Nov 2016 04:38:01 GMT

Thanks for providing this. Useful info. That PDF in turn references "The Precautionary Principle (with Application to the Genetic Modification of Organisms)" from 2014. https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.5787

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Precautionary Principle (with Application to the Genetic Modification of Organisms) — mentioned by danieltillett

Thu, 24 Dec 2015 09:49:51 GMT

I think one of the major reasons for our disagreement is you perceive that there is an unlimited risk with GMO organisms - the paper you linked to explicitly states this [1]. Quoting from it: Ecologically, in addition to intentional cultivation, GMOs have the propensity to spread uncontrollably, and thus their risks cannot be localized. The cross-breeding of wild-type plants with genetically modified ones prevents their disentangling, leading to irreversible system-wide effects with unknown downsides. The ecological implications of releasing modified organisms into the wild are not tested…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Precautionary Principle (with Application to the Genetic Modification of Organisms) — mentioned by tiatia

Thu, 24 Dec 2015 08:14:02 GMT

A few points http://www.nature.com/news/caution-urged-over-editing-dna-in... http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/03/new-dna-construct-can... http://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.5787.pdf You release not only a gene but a technology into the wild. This is something that can not be undone. You may easily underestimate the scale, rapidness and evolutionary pressure of a fast replicating species. Throw a few atomic bombs on Brazil. The effects are a) temporary b) geographically limited. If something screws up with the CRISPR/Cas9 system, the effects are a) not temporary b) geographically unlimited. Proceed…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Precautionary Principle (with Application to the Genetic Modification of Organisms) — mentioned by bluecalm

Sat, 25 Jul 2015 20:45:28 GMT

That's most of his writing though: throw a lot of complicated words at the reader and hope some naive ones start seeing mystique depth in his thought. His writing is incoherent though. Even reading abstract of his paper [1]: >>We present a non-naive version of the Precautionary (PP) that allows us to avoid paranoia and paralysis by confining precaution to specific domains and problems. PP is intended to deal with uncertainty and risk in cases where the absence of evidence and the incompleteness of scientific knowledge carries profound implications and in the presence of risks of "black…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Precautionary Principle (with Application to the Genetic Modification of Organisms) — mentioned by pella

Sun, 09 Nov 2014 03:45:05 GMT

>even though the scientific consensus is that GMO crops are no more dangerous than non-GMO crops. * "The State of the Science : Most of the evidence for the safety of genetically modified food crops comes from studies that only look at short-term effects … and from information provided by the same companies who sell those seeds." http://www.nymc.edu/sanewman/PDFs/GeneWatch_State_of_the%20S... * Taleb: ''Wrong to say "the scientific method is based on evidence"; it is based on knowing how to deal with absence of evidence.'' ( https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/528646752124297216 ) * The…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.