Item — HN Reader

Nassim Nicholas Taleb:

"""

I am scared of living in a society that doesn't find it obvious that things perfected by nature over millions of years are scientifically speaking, safer than things made by some "scientists" in a lab.

Statistically, the "large n" of nature makes it > scientific.

"""

https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1172495876717273088

2 comments

> I am scared of living in a society that doesn't find it obvious that things perfected by nature over millions of years are scientifically speaking, safer than things made by some "scientists" in a lab.

This is the "natural corn" you consume vs. the actual natural corn: https://www.eurekalert.org/multimedia/670657

Same goes for all "natural things" you eat.

https://necsi.edu/the-precautionary-principle

"Our analysis makes clear that the PP is essential for a limited set of contexts and can be used to justify only a limited set of actions. We discuss the implications for nuclear energy and GMOs. GMOs represent a public risk of global harm, while harm from nuclear energy is comparatively limited and better characterized. PP should be used to prescribe severe limits on GMOs."

I wonder what their answer would be to Green Revolution in the 60s...

Also, I can't get past random graphs with random numbers with zero explanation of the axes.

There are valid concerns expressed, but they are buried underneath an avalanche of demagoguery.

just read a PDF .. https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.5787

I read their PDF (well, skimmed through). That's why I wrote what I wrote

What was it with those studies about many vegetables containing less of various nutrients than they used to and how often that related to their size, look, amount of inputs needed, resistance to various ailments and removal of various inconveniences, etc Can we assume incentives are aligned properly to avoid more such effects? I'd assume the opposite.

Yes, lab corn, the greatest heritage invention of america since the great depression of the gilded age! Corn even looks like gold.

he comes to the right conclusion but his reasoning is poor