Yeah. Nassim has some great if somewhat obvious points but his take on GMOs is weak. Any technology, from fire to GMOs, can be beneficial or abused. His insistence that we should not be playing around with genes at all because we are completely over our head is silly.

We have always been over our head. And you don't have to be a "Monsanto shill" to realize that.

He's very trigger happy with the block button, which ironically limits his exposure to contrarian views and likely makes his ideas less anti-fragile in the long run.

I think im confused, what exactly is wrong with this take on GMOs: https://geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/nassim-taleb-fi...

From everything I have read about Monsanto (none of it from Taleb), they are a pretty shitty, unethical company. They have ruined the lives of farmer in many places inside and out outside the US. I mean, round up is illegal in the EU.

His issue with GMOs, as I understand it, is mother nature "developed" and evolved these crops over a long period of time, and we should not trust a few IYI scientists at Monsanto, etc to play with that evolution via genetic manipulation.

Monsanto uses GMOs. GMOs are not equivalent to Monsanto.

There are many many examples of GMO foods that we all eat every day that are not related to the genetic modification done to make plants able to handle having roundup sprayed on them. I had some papayas over the weekend - something like 4/5ths of all papayas in the US are GMO because the ringspot virus nearly wiped them out prior to scientists genetically modifying them.

Taleb basically sticks his head in the sand and acts like Monsanto is the only game in town when it comes to GMOs and thinks that it is too dangerous for us to do at all.

Yes, exactly. There is plenty of room to criticize Monsanto without demonizing the idea of gene editing.

The linked article is a damning indictment of Taleb's statements on GMOs. Just read some of the specific criticisms at the bottom.

> mother nature "developed" and evolved these crops over a long period of time, and we should not trust a few IYI scientists at Monsanto, etc to play with that evolution via genetic manipulation

We evolved sleeping on the earth, but very few treat that as an argument against beds.

Also almost all crops have undergone a breeding program which is alters genes far more and less precisely than gene editing.

According to the book "Poison Spring: Secret History of Pollution and EPA," GMOs are primarily developed in order to genetically engineer crops that are able to withstand chemical herbicides and pesticides: "Glyphosate is a powerful driver of genetic engineering. Its creator, Monsanto, has bioengineered 'Roundup Ready' soybeans, corn and other crops to resist Roundup's killing power" (p. 205)... "All genetically modified crops harm the natural world and human health, in large part because they (by definition) invite and encourage the spraying of toxic pesticides" (p. 212). Quoted from E.G. Vallianatos (2014) Poison Spring: Secret History of Pollution and EPA https://www.amazon.com/Poison-Spring-Secret-History-Pollutio...

> A 2014 meta-analysis concluded that GM technology adoption had reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_crops

> All genetically modified crops harm the natural world and human health, in large part because they (by definition) invite and encourage the spraying of toxic pesticides

That is a flagrant abuse of the phrase "by definition"! Who is Vallianatos and on what basis does he make these claims? I looked him up and found that he has a BA in zoology and a doctorate in history, so I'd be keen to look at original sources rather than treat him as an expert.

Is being original the key criteria for being important?

For being "one of the most important thinkers in our time", I would argue it needs to be relatively original thought.

He's obviously important in general - I just think there's probably a better label thank thinker. Evangelist, maybe?