In my previous post, I wrote about the risks of considering norms inviolable, even good norms that have generally served us well (that’s generally how things become norms after all).
When GM crops were first introduced, naysayers had elaborated a long list of risks which have all been disproven over time. Here the most vocal critics were those who stood to benefit the least from the advantages they offered : like vitamin enriched rice or higher yields to feed the hungry. Are we seeing a parallel here?
So I think the key question is just "who is right" and the problem is, we don't know. I don't think norms cut it here.
When GM crops were first introduced, naysayers had elaborated a long list of risks which have all been disproven over time. Here the most vocal critics were those who stood to benefit the least from the advantages they offered : like vitamin enriched rice or higher yields to feed the hungry. Are we seeing a parallel here?