Modern environmentalism is more about promoting distrust and fear than it is protecting the environment. Even when it comes to something basic like Golden Rice, activist groups take the demonize and ban approach. They hate science more than they love children.
In the apolitical segment of science media - yes, it exists, albeit smaller than its corporate face leads people to believe - the running joke is that the only science environmentalists accept is climate change, and only then because it feeds into their Doomsday narrative and says that humanity stinks.
Mark Lynas is a famous environmentalist who had to walk away from a lot of his friends because of that double standard - scientists must be dismissed as "tinkerers" or corporate shills or stupid, except about global warming. It happened because he set out to actually learn the science behind GMOs and not just demonize it.
He notes that it wasn't wrong to be concerned in the early days - and he's right, so was I. Genetic modification prior to precise methods in use today were things like mutagenesis, which are far riskier than GMOs. Yet, strangely, a lot of countries in Europe, where GMOs are banned (except in food for animals, which makes as little sense as most environmentalists about biology), have gone backwards to more dangerous mutagenesis because it does not fit the legal definition of a banned GMO. If GMOs were just more mutagenesis, the slippery slope said it was a bad idea.
Hundreds of studies over decades have found no problems, so there is the precautionary principle and then there just being loony because paying donors need to be terrified into giving and that is where environmentalism sits now, always searching for the next way to raise money.
Writing in Cosmos, Lynas sums up both the anti-science mentality and the political demographic that is common, though corporate media tends to focus on positions where the American Republican party is against evidence: "Anti-GMO environmentalists are thus betraying not only progressive values, but the same environmental cause they are pledged to defend."
Environmentalists’ double standards By Mark Lynas, Cosmos
- PHYSICAL SCIENCES
- EARTH SCIENCES
- LIFE SCIENCES
- SOCIAL SCIENCES
Subscribe to the newsletter
Stay in touch with the scientific world!
Know Science And Want To Write?
- Quantum mechanics in 1834?
- Why This New "Planet X" Is No Threat To Earth :).
- Would New Planet X Clear Its Orbit? - And Any Better Name Than "Planet Nine"?
- The Greenhouse Effect Fallacy
- Top Secret: On Confidentiality On Scientific Issues, Across The Ring And Across The Bedroom
- Native Americans Aren't More Prone To Alcoholism
- Double Dose Of Bad Earthquake News
- "There are over a hundred cancers and since the primary cause is mutation, managing it is the best..."
- "I'm not sure whether we have less cancer than ever, but yes, it is much more manageable these days..."
- "My sloppiness. That’s a good point; it should read net energy retention in the system. Thanks...."
- "Agree with most of what you say, except for the phraseIt’s things like that which cause the confusion..."
- "The percentage of CO2 in the atm is irrelevant; it is the total mass of a given gas in the atm..."
- It’s Fat Tuesday! Have a paczki!
- Giving C-Section Babies Mom’s Germs to Improve Immunity
- California to Follow UK Lead on Embryonic Gene Editing
- (Most) Docs Listening To Task Force Recs Against PSAs: Not Urologists Though
- Spice of Life Can, Literally, Lead to Longer Life
- Keeping Babies Safe from ‘Tourniquet’ Hair
- Scientists discover how breast cancer cells spread from blood vessels
- Alleviating malnutrition in children in resource-limited and conflict areas
- In autism, the social benefits of being a girl
- New guideline for treatment of prolonged seizures in children and adults
- Eye abnormalities in infants with microcephaly associated with Zika virus