The Rational Optimist

On your conscience, Greenpeace…

The best single paragraph I’ve read on the stupidity and arrogance of opposition against Golden Rice.

“The greens are frantic to stop golden rice because it undermines all their criticisms of GM crops. It is non-profit, free, nutrition-enhancing, and of more value to the poor than the rich: only farmers earning less than dollars 10,000 a year will be allowed to sell the seed on. …Meanwhile at least half a million, perhaps two million, children die each year from preventable vitamin A deficiency. On your conscience, Greenpeace.” ~ Matt Ridley

3 thoughts on “On your conscience, Greenpeace…”

  1. If those with different opinions about GMO are “stupid,” then they don’t see Golden Rice is good, so why would they be “frantic” to hide the truth about it? Wouldn’t that actually be deviously clever and insidiously evil? Hmm, I wonder what their motivations are, why are they such bad, “arrogant” people? Or could it be that conversion to pro GMO is a blessing that would redeem their sins? Perhaps mandatory reprogramming is going to be necessary for these stupid arrogant people.

    1. The quality of your argument has been pretty consistent as of late: bordering on nonsensical and full of non-sequitors. What does conversion have to do with anything? There is evidence, you rationally accept it until given new (more reliable) evidence otherwise, and there is…well, nothing else. One might go with David Hume’s argument about the Is/Ought dilemma, but Dan Dennett said it best when he put it that “if you can’t get an ought from is, what can you get an ought from?”

      You can’t even get the argument right: “stupidity and arrogance of opposition against Golden Rice.” Opposition to “Golden Rice,” not “GMO.” Yes, I think those who are against GMOs are wrong, but this speaks nothing of their stupidity. Smart people can hold dumb positions. This is specifically about Golden Rice and making the world a better place for millions of people in an efficient way. This isn’t about ideology, politics, science, or anything other than that.

      Greenpeace have no evidence to support their position, scientific or otherwise, and instead they rely on logical fallacies and outmoded–or made up–reasons. If your reasons for opposing a nutritional aid that kills millions per year, and has killed 8-20 million kids since the start of the 21st century is anything other than worse than the problem it is solving, then you would be “stupid,” “arrogant,” and worse, inhumane for railing against it. If you wish to defend them, then you are, at the very least, as “stupid” as they are.

      Looking forward to more of your bad arguments Producto.

Hit me where it hurts...

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s