Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

aiwendil wrote

I am anti-GMO and it is not because of Genetically Modifying Organism in and of itself. I haven't seen anything that suggests that the practice of modifying organisms is harmful(though it certainly could be depending on what you intend to do). What is harmful is modifying those organisms to be round-up ready. Round-up has been conclusively shown to cause cancer, birth defects and a whole slew of other human health problems, over and over again. So if you don't see a problem with GMO food you are actually denying science.

Nuclear also causes a number of problems especially for those of us who are primitivists. Nuclear waste has to be stored indefinitely in very expensive to maintain facilities. If those facilities fail to be maintained, that waste could slowly leak into our ground water and thus into crops and water supplies. That is only one such danger. In the event of a societal collapse of any kind, nuclear plants could potentially melt down without oversight from humans. Anything that needs that much maintenance is a disaster waiting to happen. Fukashima is not an outlier, it is an inevitability. Over a long enough arc of time all nuclear facilities will have just such a disaster affect the. It is total lack of foresight.

When analyzing whether a technology is good or bad, it is not simply enough to ask ourselves "can we do it," but also, "should we do it."

Technology is not inherently bad. It is also not inherently good. Right now the consequence of industrialization seems to be loss of freedom and destruction of natural resources. I don't think that has to be the case. For example we can design ways to wash clothing now that use way less water than doing it by hand and we can recycle that water with grey water systems and then send it finally through bioremediation systems before that water re-enters the water table. We CAN do that, but we are not currently doing that. So I think what most of us are seeing is that technology is actually becoming a net negative in our lives.

I don't think we should just embrace all technology because not doing so will get on your nerves. I think we need to analyze the ethical imperatives and consequences of all technology and decide if there is a place for it that is #1 safe and #2 useful.

Thats my 2 cents, feel free to be upset with me. I don't view myself as somebody that hates science or denies science. I just have a different interpretation of the data than you do.


tnstaec wrote

Well said.

"Anti-science" is becoming yet another co-opted term. There are people who are actually anti-science. Creationists, global warming deniers and flat-earthers actually deny established bodies of scientific research. Critics of GMO and nuclear tech don't deny the science behind it. We're looking at that very science and concluding that either there's not enough data yet to make a wise decision about applying these technologies, or that the science supports the conclusion that the risks outweigh the possible gains.

We're talking about specific technologies, not science as a whole. Science aspires to be value neutral, and as /u/aiwendil says, we need more than just science to tell us whether or not, and in which situations we should put a certain technology to use. We need ethics and wisdom. We need to consider precautions. At the rate at which advances in technology have done immense damage to the Earth it's not longer tolerable not to consider long-term (unintended!) consequences.

It stands to reason that anarchists are skeptical of new technologies. We can't even begin to do sensible assessments of new technologies while capital and the state are the ones who are making all of the decisions!