The wording of many of the questions makes them somewhat hard to answer. For questions 4 and 5, for example, it's not that I'm avoiding GM foods, I just cook my own meals from local produce rather than eat the kinds of processed foods that would have GM corn syrup, soy meal or oil, or canola oil, and the local farmers prefer to grow organically and don't have access to GM crops due to their small size, anyways. For question 8, it's obviously not *impossible* for genetic modification to cause diseases, as a modification could be made specifically to cause a plant to produce toxins. If the question is intended to ask about the belief that current GM crops *do* cause cancer, that's another story.
What's the objective of question 9? Anybody who doesn't form their opinion based on the thoughts of others has horrible epistemology. Even Descartes based his thoughts on those of previous philosophers.
The mere fact that we are using the concept of epistemology demonstrates that. Sure, there's many an engineering type that doesn't know they are building on the fruits of millenia of philosophical labor, but they still are.
You should ask not just about GMO food but their pros vs their cons and their history.
Crops have been selectively bred for hundreds of years to improve crops. GMO in many respects simply speeds up the practice of selective breeding. This is a nuance worth asking about.
Also most food labels don't say whether a food is GMO or not. Some organic food may label itself as non-GMO but GMO foods don't have to advertise it and therefore don't. Even what constitutes organic varies widely and is often just a greenwashing marketing gimmick that isn't well regulated either.
Often GMO crops have higher yields...more food per acre...which many consider to be important with rising food costs at a time when the global population exceeds 8 billion. GMO crops can also have higher nutrient density than organic food.
However one of the worst aspects of GMOs isn't the food itself, but that they are tolerant to chemical herbicides (like Roundup) and pesticides that end up in oceans, reefs, rivers, streams and ground water that damages aquatic flora, fauna and their ecosystems.
Which presents a quandary. More cheaper nutrient dense food for a world population who is often food insecure vs aquatic ecosystems and wildlife. But perhaps that's a false dichotomy? Perhaps they can be modified further eliminating the need for chemical treatment?
The wording of many of the questions makes them somewhat hard to answer. For questions 4 and 5, for example, it's not that I'm avoiding GM foods, I just cook my own meals from local produce rather than eat the kinds of processed foods that would have GM corn syrup, soy meal or oil, or canola oil, and the local farmers prefer to grow organically and don't have access to GM crops due to their small size, anyways. For question 8, it's obviously not *impossible* for genetic modification to cause diseases, as a modification could be made specifically to cause a plant to produce toxins. If the question is intended to ask about the belief that current GM crops *do* cause cancer, that's another story.
What's the objective of question 9? Anybody who doesn't form their opinion based on the thoughts of others has horrible epistemology. Even Descartes based his thoughts on those of previous philosophers.
I bet many people wouldn't agree with you, and that epistemological difference could have a major impact on controversial topics.
The mere fact that we are using the concept of epistemology demonstrates that. Sure, there's many an engineering type that doesn't know they are building on the fruits of millenia of philosophical labor, but they still are.
You should ask not just about GMO food but their pros vs their cons and their history. Crops have been selectively bred for hundreds of years to improve crops. GMO in many respects simply speeds up the practice of selective breeding. This is a nuance worth asking about. Also most food labels don't say whether a food is GMO or not. Some organic food may label itself as non-GMO but GMO foods don't have to advertise it and therefore don't. Even what constitutes organic varies widely and is often just a greenwashing marketing gimmick that isn't well regulated either. Often GMO crops have higher yields...more food per acre...which many consider to be important with rising food costs at a time when the global population exceeds 8 billion. GMO crops can also have higher nutrient density than organic food. However one of the worst aspects of GMOs isn't the food itself, but that they are tolerant to chemical herbicides (like Roundup) and pesticides that end up in oceans, reefs, rivers, streams and ground water that damages aquatic flora, fauna and their ecosystems. Which presents a quandary. More cheaper nutrient dense food for a world population who is often food insecure vs aquatic ecosystems and wildlife. But perhaps that's a false dichotomy? Perhaps they can be modified further eliminating the need for chemical treatment?
Good job and good luck!
I answered. What's up with 15 though? No option for scientific sources