First of all, I wouldn't even know who deGrasse Tyson was if it wasn't for sites like 4chan, reddit and hn. But apparently, he "has the world in his hands."
Secondly, I want to comment on this:
>It’s hard to deny that we live in an era in which science — as both a worldview and as a practice — is under near-constant assault. On the left, there are those who rail against the dangers of GMOs and vaccines. On the right, there are those who deny climate change and the evolution of species."
Just because people are opposed to some applications of science, or skeptical of some scientific theories, doesn't mean science is under assault. Besides, science is defined by its method, so, the only people who could possibly pose any threat to it are the scientists themselves, should they forget this fact.
> First of all, I wouldn't even know who deGrasse Tyson was if it wasn't for sites like 4chan, reddit and hn. But apparently, he "has the world in his hands."
Same with Bill Nye. Cosmos will probably be one of the few things people might see with Neil outside the USA unless they go looking for him on the Internet. Other countries tend to have their own science communicators. As flashy and well made as Cosmos is I think things like the old "The Planets" from the BBC probably had better content.
Yeah, there are two main groups that oppose GMOs. One group is founded on fear of new technology- and this is what NdGT means.
But others oppose not the science of GMOs but the way they are used as a tool to control food and the business around food.
I think NdGT does a disservice to people by trying to lump both groups of advocates into the same camp. Some people in the social-concerns group have thoughtful, logical perspectives. Some are even scientists themselves.
I'd like to point out that a lot of intelligent people opposed to GMOs are not opposed on religious or biological concerns. The reason a lot of intelligent people are opposed to GMOs is because of the fertilizers and pesticides that are used on them. Fertilizers and pesticides are dangerous and harmful.
One benefit of many GMO crops is that they allow farmers to use much less in the way of pesticides and fertilizers than they otherwise would have.
For example, BT Cotton kills cotton bollworms on its own, so you don't have to spray it with additional pesticides that would kill lots of other bugs (such as aphids) and might potentially cause harm elsewhere in the food chain. (BT Cotton and BT Corn both reduce insecticide use by about half.)
Your point is well taken but I think it illustrates mine as well.
There are serious problems with allowing a small non-elected group of people to represent the interests of all humans regarding agriculture.
But anytime anyone tries to bring this up the discussion very quickly falls back into the realm of science- is it safe? Is it better for the environment?
There is a set of separate (and in my opinion more important) social issues that should be discussed and decisions that should be made but it isnt happening because of the diversion of the science. People who love science have an obligation not just to decision making based on evidence but also in considering the ethics of those decisions and the resulting consequences.
Secondly, I want to comment on this:
>It’s hard to deny that we live in an era in which science — as both a worldview and as a practice — is under near-constant assault. On the left, there are those who rail against the dangers of GMOs and vaccines. On the right, there are those who deny climate change and the evolution of species."
Just because people are opposed to some applications of science, or skeptical of some scientific theories, doesn't mean science is under assault. Besides, science is defined by its method, so, the only people who could possibly pose any threat to it are the scientists themselves, should they forget this fact.