Quote:
Wade said:
As for chemicals, hormones, cloning, genetic alteration, etcetera; if this technology improves the quality of life for humans then use it. If this technology has irrefutable evidence harming quality of life for humans then improve it.
|
Do you live in a worker's paradise where "irrefutable evidence" is funded by mega-corporations that go out of their way to throw away easy profits?
I personally find myself living in a world where more often than not any research that might threaten profits will not only not be funded but will cost scientists their careers.
Note that recent news article about a scientist being offered a job if he guaranteed he'd come out against the existence of global warming.
Anyway, I consider myself largely indifferent to the extremes of the food debate, and don't really care about being mightily smote. But the whole call for proof thing is a tired refrain, because skepticism without a level playing field of inquiry is little different from the Inquisition dismissing Galileo. Skepticism is not blindly believing in something until someone else proves you wrong.
Eat what you want... we are all going to die anyway.