05.11.2014-23:21:34 :: Something smarter than us is going to emerge


node:	05.11.2014-23:21:34
template:	4
parent:	Skeptikov paplon
owner:	Thunder Perfect Mind
viewed by:
created:	05.11.2014 - 23:21:34

cwbe coordinatez:
101
63539
63556
63998
7751069

ABSOLUT
KYBERIA

permissions
you:	r,
system:	public
net:	yes

Nassim Nicholas Taleb Genetically Modified Organisms Risk Global Ruin

000001010006353900063556000639980775106907753994

GM technology causes smaller, more precise and more well-known changes than traditional plant breeding, and they are much more stringently regulated. Thus, GM crops are safer than conventionally bred crops. If you accept conventional crops, then you must also accept GM crops. Thus, the Russian roulette argument does not work.
http://debunkingdenialism.com/2014/05/04/choking-the-black-swan-gm-crops-and-flawed-safety-concerns/

00000101000635390006355600063998077510690775399407754121

to je fakt velmi zly clanok :)

GM technology causes smaller, more precise and more well-known changes than traditional plant breeding, and they are much more stringently regulated. Thus, GM crops are safer than conventionally bred crops.
'traditional plant breeding' netransplantuje geny medzi (casto radikalne) rozdielnymi rastlinnymi/zivocisnymi druhmi; a teda porovnava dve znacne rozdielne veci (treba naozaj vysvetlovat preco?), a teda to nevyplyva.

First of all, both traditional plant breeding and genetic modification uses the same general approach: they introduce genetic variation and then pick the variants that suits human needs.
ano. dramaticky rozdiel medzi pristupmi je v cene pozadovanej variacie: s pouzitim 'traditional plant breeding' by nebolo ekonomicke vyrobit 'roundup ready' kukuricu. takze by neexistovala. takze vseobecny pristup je podobny, ale nastroj a vysledky su podstatne rozdielne.

Second, genetic engineering of plants is not based on “arbitrarily taking a gene from an organism and putting it into another”. The usage of the word “arbitrary” here is not only false, it is also an emotionally manipulative weasel word. The choice of genes and species are chosen with great scientific care. There is nothing “arbitrary” with it.
pozadovane vlastnosti rastlin nevyberaju vedci ale ich zamestnavatelia.

The bottom line is this: if you accept conventional crops despite the risks, then you must also accept GM crops because they are safer.
neukazal v com su bezpecnejsie; kedze zvysok clanku vychadza z tejto hypotezy je irelevantny.

This same risk can happen by conventional plant breeding.
tzv. volny zajeb. preco by to tak malo byt?

The authors claim that they do not want to pay for the “errors by executives of Monsanto”. What about the errors caused by the executives of multi-national corporations that deal in seeds from traditional plant breeding?
snaha odviest pozornost.

0000010100063539000635560006399807751069077539940775412107754242

"'traditional plant breeding' netransplantuje geny medzi (casto radikalne) rozdielnymi rastlinnymi/zivocisnymi druhmi; "

Toto má zaujíma. Je vôbec dôležitý ten pôvod génov? Nech to pochádza skadiaľkoľvek, je to sekvencia rovnakých nukleotidov.

Vytvára to samozrejme proteíny, ktoré v danej rastline neboli, a teda nie sú "prirodzene", ale naturalistické teórie snáď nebudeme považovať za argument, že?

Takže aky je vlastne problém, že gény sú transplantované medzi rozdielnymi druhmi?
Máme nejaký skutočný dôkaz, že tento "princíp" je vo svojej podstate nebezpečný, resp. nebezpečnejší než divoké miešanie príbuzných druhov?

000001010006353900063556000639980775106907753994077541210775424207754292

ale oplati sa to precitat cele

C. GMOs in detail
The systemic global impacts of GMOs arise from a
combination of (1) engineered genetic modifications, (2)
monoculture—the use of single crops over large areas. Global
monoculture itself is of concern for potential global harm, but
the evolutionary context of traditional crops provides important
assurances (see Figure 8). Invasive species are frequently a
problem but one might at least argue that the long term evolu-
tionary testing of harmful impacts of organisms on local eco-
logical systems mitigates if not eliminates the largest potential
risks. Monoculture in combination with genetic engineering
dramatically increases the risks being taken. Instead of a long
history of evolutionary selection, these modifications rely not
just on naive engineering strategies that do not appropriately
consider risk in complex environments, but also explicitly
reductionist approaches that ignore unintended consequences
and employ very limited empirical testing.
Ironically, at a time when engineering is adopting evolu-
tionary approaches due to the failure of top-down strategies,
biologists and agronomists are adopting top-down engineering
strategies and taking global systemic risks in introducing
organisms into the wild.
One argument in favor of GMOs is that they are no more
"unnatural" than the selective farming our ancestors have been
doing for generations. In fact, the ideas developed in this
paper show that this is not the case. Selective breeding over
human history is a process in which change still happens in a
bottom-up way, and can be expected to result in a thin-tailed
distribution. If there is a mistake, some harmful variation,
it will not spread throughout the whole system but end up
dying out due to local experience over time. Human experience
over generations has chosen the biological organisms that are
relatively safe for consumption. There are many that are not,
including parts of and varieties of the crops we do cultivate
[12]. Introducing rapid changes in organisms is inconsistent
with this process. There is a limited rate at which variations
can be introduced and selection will be effective [13].
There is no comparison between tinkering with the selec-
tive breeding of genetic components of organisms that have
previously undergone extensive histories of selection and the
top-down engineering of taking a gene from a fish and putting
it into a tomato. Saying that such a product is natural misses
the process of natural selection by which things become
“natural." While there are claims that all organisms include
transgenic materials, those genetic transfers that are currently
present were subject to selection over long times and survived.
The success rate is tiny. Unlike GMOs, in nature there is
no immediate replication of mutated organisms to become
a large fraction of the organisms of a species. Indeed, any
one genetic variation is unlikely to become part of the long
term genetic pool of the population. Instead, just like any
other genetic variation or mutation, transgenic transfers are
subject to competition and selection over many generations
before becoming a significant part of the population. A new
genetic transfer engineered today is not the same as one that
has survived this process of selection.
An example of the effect of transfer of biologically evolved
systems to a different context is that of zoonotic diseases.
Even though pathogens consume their hosts, they evolve to
be less harmful than they would otherwise be. Pathogens that
cause highly lethal diseases are selected against because their
hosts die before they are able to transmit to others. This is
the underlying reason for the greater dangers associated with
zoonotic diseases—caused by pathogens that shift from the
host that they evolved in to human beings, including HIV,
Avian and Swine flu that transferred from monkeys (through
chimpanzees), birds and hogs, respectively.
More generally, engineered modifications to ecological sys-
tems (through GMOs) are categorically and statistically dif-
ferent from bottom up ones. Bottom-up modifications do not
remove the crops from their long term evolutionary context,
enabling the push and pull of the ecosystem to locally extin-
guish harmful mutations. Top-down modifications that bypass
this evolutionary pathway unintentionally manipulate large sets
of interdependent factors at the same time, with dramatic risks
of unintended consequences. They thus result in fat-tailed
distributions and place a huge risk on the food system as a
whole.
For the impact of GMOs on health, the evaluation of
whether the genetic engineering of a particular chemical
(protein) into a plant is OK by the FDA is based upon consid-
ering limited existing knowledge of risks associated with that
protein. The number of ways such an evaluation can be in error
is large. The genetic modifications are biologically significant
as the purpose is to strongly impact the chemical functions of
the plant, modifying its resistance to other chemicals such as
herbicides or pesticides, or affecting its own lethality to other
organisms—i.e. its antibiotic qualities. The limited existing
knowledge generally does not include long term testing of the
exposure of people to the added chemical, even in isolation.
The evaluation is independent of the ways the protein affects
the biochemistry of the plant, including interactions among
the various metabolic pathways and regulatory systems—
and the impact of the resulting changes in biochemistry on
health of consumers. The evaluation is independent of its
farm-ecosystem combination (i.e. pesticide resistant crops are
subject to increased use of pesticides, which are subsequently
present in the plant in larger concentrations and cannot be
washed away). Rather than recognizing the limitations of
current understanding, poorly grounded perspectives about the
potential damage with unjustified assumptions are being made.
Limited empirical validation of both essential aspects of the
conceptual framework as well as specific conclusions are being
used because testing is recognized to be difficult.
We should exert the precautionary principle here – our non-
naive version – because we do not want to discover errors
after considerable and irreversible environmental and health
damage.

00000101000635390006355600063998077510690775399407754121077542420775429207754310

ok, ak to chápem správne, autor žongluje s predstavami: a) to, čo neprešlo dlhým evolučným vývojom, je nebezpečné + b) o všetkom vieme príliš málo.

a mne práve chyba v týchto úvahách jedna podstatná vec - experimentálny dôkaz, že manipulácia malého počtu génov je nebezpečnejšia, než "prirodzené" kultivovanie (napr. opelovanim kmeňov, ktore sa nikdy nedostali do kontaktov, manuálna selekcia, "evolúcia" v rámci max desaťročí atd).

ok, ale asi odpoveď neexistuje v tomto momente.

0000010100063539000635560006399807751069077539940775412107754131

pre mna je uz dlhsie pri tejto teme najzasadnejsie toto:

"The risks of releasing genetically modified foods such as golden rice has to be weighed against the risks of not releasing them. Golden rice can provide children in developing countries with beta-carotene (a precursor to vitamin A) and thus prevent the serious consequences of vitamin A deficiency (VAD). According to the WHO:

—> Between 1/4 and 1/2 million children become blind every year because of VAD.
—> Half of them die within one year after going blind.

Preventing half a million children per year from going blind is the same as urging poor people to play Russian roulette to get out of poverty?"

000001010006353900063556000639980775106907753994077541210775413107754145

zase ten isty problem - 'has to be weighed'. preco by muselo?

00000101000635390006355600063998077510690775399407754121077541310775414507754160

pretoze to dava zmysel?

0000010100063539000635560006399807751069077539940775412107754131077541450775416007754196

No to prave nedava, pretoze ten paper nie je cost-benefit analyza. To je proste uplna ina tema.

e: ochutnavka:

III. WHY RUIN IS SERIOUS BUSINESS
The risk of ruin is not sustainable. By the ruin theorems, if
you incur a tiny probability of ruin as a "one-off" risk, survive
it, then do it again (another "one-off" deal), you will eventually
go bust with probability 1. ... For this reason a strategy
of risk taking is not sustainable and we must consider any
genuine risk of total ruin as if it were inevitable.

The good news is that some classes of risk can be deemed
to be practically of probability zero: the earth survived trillions
of natural variations daily over 3 billion years, otherwise we
would not be here. By recognizing that normal risks are not
in the category of ruin problems, we recognize also that it
is not necessary or even normal to take risks that involve a
possibility of ruin.

pripadne:
Because the “cost” of ruin is effectively infinite, cost-benefit
analysis (in which the potential harm and potential gain are
multiplied by their probabilities and weighed against each
other) is no longer a useful paradigm. Even if probabilities
are expected to be zero but have a non-zero uncertainty,
then a sensitivity analysis that considers the impact of that
uncertainty results in infinities as well. The potential harm is
so substantial that everything else in the equation ceases to
matter. In this case, we must do everything we can to avoid
the catastrophe.

0000010100063539000635560006399807751069077539940775412107754131077541450775416007754191

Dava to zmysel pri porovnani s tym, ako by to vyzeralo v 3rd world countries bez golden rice.
ale
dava to zmysel aj pri porovnani s tym, ako geneticky modifikovane potraviny ovplyvnuju vyvoj pestovania potravin alebo stravovanie priemerneho europana?

000001010006353900063556000639980775106907753994077541210775413107754145077541600775419107754223

samozrejme, ze zlata ryza pre priemerneho europana nepredstavuje ziadnu nevyhnutnost, zatial co pre miliony ludi z krajin tretieho sveta to moze byt faktor rozhodujuci medzi zivotom/smrtou.

000001010006353900063556000639980775106907751313

inac, s Talebom budu mat tazku debatu, asi nekonecnu:)