Yes they do. It's you who needs to read more. A CDC whistleblower called William Thompson revealed almost 2 years ago that the MMR vaccine does increase the risk of autism. To bad that people that need to know this believe everything that is said in these pseudo intellectuals talks. I know it's really hard to believe that governments like the UK and USA would do this sort of thing DELIBERATELY to reduce the intellect of our children when they only want a peaceful and happy world. Why else would they help all these suffering people in the middle east with their peace campaigns and before that they help all the lovely children in the far east with agent orange, and least we forget the Africans, aborigines, and native Americans with all their lovely children and how they took care of them. I guess you can consider yourself Lucky that our children are only poisoned in a way that reduces their metal abilities, well your children because I'm not foolish enough to let those mother fuckers inject my children with chemicals which are poisonous by themselves and cause metal retardation. You don't have be a genius to figure out that a cocktail of those poisonous chemicals are going to harm your child, but hey...better safe then sorry.
+natemcgraw you shouldn't simply believe what is said. look around you and tell me that the level of intelligent conversations has gone up. Children and teenagers can hardly talk to each other anymore, values are as simple as they can be. When you walk into a coffee shop, how many people do you see having a deep conversation about something complex. Don't believe a word they say on the news. it's controlled, worldwide... There are plenty of examples for that. Probably best is WTC 7. It's never reported on any channel in any country, except in the beginning when BBC reported it 20 min to early. Besides that event showed to what extent things really are controlled. It takes a while to conclude properly, but take a look again at how it collapses and then ask yourself if almost 100 thick steel columns can all break at the same time, caused by fire??? If you conclude right, then welcome to the real world and we can continue talking in an intelligent way. If you can't or don't won't to see the obvious because it's to scary to accept then good luck with your illusions. See how far they get you....
Do you realize that by accepting what William Thompson "revealed" YOU are "simply believing what is said"? Not being skeptical is a very, very bad thing. It leads you to be extremely gullible. However, there is an enormous difference between being skeptical and being paranoid. Cherry-picking science data just because it comes from some kind of rebel, against-any-kind-of-authority, conspiracy-fueling source that is "revealing" something that "the government doesn't want you to know" just because it's a product of that source itself is the most idiotic decision. And, by the way, unless you actually have a wide knowledge on the field of science you want to divide, please, don't even try it.
an awful lot of people want to go back to a "better simpler time"... unfortunately, such a time never existed. As stated in the video, all the diseases alone is something they forget. having to work dawn to dusk in the fields just to have enough to eat. Getting a small cut and ending up having to have a limb cut off? You really want to go back to that? Religious persecution... want a neightbor who doesn't like you decide to denounce you as a witch and say you put a spell on thier cattle... and you end up burned at the stake? Does that sound like a better time"? You can't travel unless you can ge to your destination in the daytime and stay overnight... being out on the roads (such raods as there were, paths more likely) after dark was an open invitation to be robbed and likely raped and killed (and not only rape of women) Slavery? Pograms? Lack of sanitation? No thank you... I would go forward... maybe we will have blown ourselves up... and that would (maybe) actually be a "better simpler time"... or maybe we will hae solved our problems... either way, better than going backward into something we KNOW is a horror on Earth.
that depends on how you define "better," dipshit. if you mean happier, more contented, at peace with the universe, such a time DID exist, and it WAS better than the present. uncounted studies have been done and the unanimous conclusion is that higher technology does NOT correlate to happiness, contentedness, tranquility, or peace, in fact just the opposite.
For those of you who don't understand and are wondering why the number of autism diagnoses is going up, it's rather simple: the definition of autism is a lot different than what it used to be. A few decades ago, doctors only used to diagnose the more severe cases, and usually only diagnosed boys. Everyone else was just a "bad kid." Nowadays, the term has been broadened into a spectrum, the quote-unquote "least intense" form of autism being Asperger's. 2023 EDIT: “Asperger’s” is no longer in use as a term, considering who Asperger was. It’s all just autism now.
Mephostopheles Also, a lot of severe autistic people would have been labelled as "retarded" and their parents would have been advised to put them in an assilum for the rest of their life.
I did know of this, but it reminds of how hard-core theists like to cite Sweden as the bastion of rape, in an attempt to demonstrate how a highly secular society becomes immoral, yet fail to realize that their definition of rape is FAR MORE strict and includes even stuff like indecently exposing oneself to someone else. Comparing rape statistics (or any sort of statistics for that matter) between countries is grossly unreliable as the factors that determine the crime are somewhat arbitrary. On top of that, there are 2 other points to mention: their culture encourages reporting rape and every instance of rape is counted separately, while in many other countries a repeated violation against the same person can fall under the same case and be counted as one instance of rape. I know I went on a bit of tangent but I did it to demonstrate how easy it is to misuse the data and interpret it incorrectly if you fail to account for different factors that make up the big picture and disregard the arbitrary nature of stuff such as crime-rates or health stats.
@@zeratulofaiur2589 Our standard of living has gone up. People expect to live longer, healthier, more fulfilling lives. That sometimes requires medications we didn't have a few decades back. Think about it... Would you still live in the pre-telephone era when mobile phones are available and accessible?
Awesome talk. He knew he was saying things a lot of his listeners would disagree on, but he said what needed to be said. I have never understood the abject terror some people have about GM foods. I have always thought that every single food we eat is GM, and the speaker made this exact point. Great talk.
But that's silly. It's so obviously not the same thing. Whatever the relative merits of each method, selective breeding is not the same thing as taking a gene from a completely different organism
@@stupidtreehugger So how is GM different from cross-breeding then? (other than the massively increased variety of cross-breeding that becomes possible with this method)
Because Chris, inserting a gene from one species into the genome another is not breeding. One can't "cross-breed" between species' boundaries. GM is inserting hopefully specific new functionality directly into a species. , Colin's "abject terror" comment is a low-hanging fruit fallacy, and using the term "GM" to include breeding is a blurring of boundaries fallacy. There are valid and sound reasons for various environmental concerns, one of which is GMO. With GMO one doesn't have the many generations of natural selection to remove any bad effects from new apparent functionality. "Genetically Modified (GM) Foods and Dr. Arpad Pusztai www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_geneticfood36.htmwww.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_geneticfood36.htm Microbiologist Àrpàd Pusztai found 36 significant differences between rats that had eaten genetically modified potatoes and rats that had eaten "normal" ones. Among the first group the liver was less well-developed, but when Pusztai announced this in a television interview, he was fired." Although, later, the same man said that GM peas were safe ( www.iatp.org/news/gm-peas-are-safe-sacked-scientist-says ). Once GMOs are out there it's very difficult, or impossible, to take them back. The rush to market and general human ignorance have a lot to answer for. Starving populations don't need GM cassava, they need female empowerment, especially in the areas of domestic water, sewage, basic health care, education, and contraception. That way their population stops exploding. See e.g: "DON'T PANIC - Hans Rosling showing the facts about population" th-cam.com/video/FACK2knC08E/w-d-xo.html Absence of war helps a lot too. You know it took decades to action against radiation, asbestos, smoking tobacco, lead in petrol
@@stupidtreehugger "One can't "cross-breed" between species' boundaries" - How about a Liger, or a Mule, or any of the many other times that different species have been crossbred? Not to mention the myriad examples in the world of plants and gardening where creating new hybrids has been a passion of many gardeners for generations, or the fact that most modern crops are the result of cross-breeding different wild species. You're making the same "it's just not natural!" claim as the video pointed out. Literally nothing about our modern environment is completely 'natural' any more. I do agree that there should be skepticism and research, and we have to be careful not to treat GMO as a "magic bullet" solution - I totally agree with your point about clean water, sewage, basic health care, education and contraception being very important, and possibly more of a good long term solution, but there is nothing about GMO that makes it intrinsically bad or dangerous.
@@chrisboyd3540 , still, ligers and mules are exception to the rule fallacy. Nobody said people's definition of a species is de facto perfect. Ligers are cats, and mules and donkeys are a form of horse. Species have boundaries. Modern crops and plants are not the result of breeding between species, they're the result of selecting within a species. One cannot breed a tomato with a Siberian frog, although one can GM them to produce a frost resistant tomato. Which I'm happy if you wish to eat it, and don't let it cross-contaminate my traditional tomatoes, and let me know in approximately 10 thousand generations if it didn't produce more death in your family lineage. There's nothing intrinsically worse about stepping out into outer space. But yes it is lot more dangerous. It's a whole new level of complexity.
I have friends who are scientists and I don't see them getting all the money that corporations are supposedly funneling into science. My friend Jessi is a marine biologist and could potentially be bribed into denying global warming and climate change. She hasn't and probably never will. She values science and marine life too much. I went to school to be a teacher. (I decided to become a poet instead.) In all my time researching and collecting data and learning to be very selective in my resources, (I don't put any stock in anything I wouldn't let my students use on a paper) I learned to respect academia and peer review. Academia, especially science, it is for skeptics and questioners and has gotten only more sophisticated as the years went on. It truly saddens me, the level of science denial and the fact that some of these science critics just seem to make things up. They aren't even critics as far as I'm concerned.
+Jimmy Locksmith Science Denial There was a young fellow named Science Who used truth to garner compliance, With a method so open, He'd make friends, He was hopin' But instead seemed to conjure defiance.
Thank you for joining the fight against this crazy movement! I almost shed a tear, my aunt died from a curable cancer while pursuing alternative treatments. These people have blood on their hands. And the people who choose to believe in stories of science are the once to blame.
One thing I wish he would have addressed was when you are skeptical, yes, check out the data, but be sure it's reliable data, not just something that makes you feel good or that agrees with what you have presupposed.
Underrated comment. What we need to be teaching in schools more and more is scientific data literacy. The amount of opinons that people have held on to so strongly over the last few years without reading any of the actual studies themselves is unbelievable!
+DouglasB Bohl If you have a vitamin deficiency, it can be very bad for your health. If you do not have a deficiency, taking more will not improve your health. That is the point, I believe. You have a balanced and sufficient diet, vitamin supplements are a waste of money. If you don't, it can be life threatening. Not to get into the health issues surrounding overdoses of said vitamins. That is another, longer conversation.
+DouglasB Bohl Multi-vitamin pills don't get absorbed efficiently. That's why they're useless. Single vitamin/mineral pills however, can be useful. But who bothers with them? No one. People like taking one-single dose of magical substances rather than you know... taking them seperately.
Rohan Zener Let's not kid ourselves, though. Most of these "health" infos are by "experts" who are either working as doctors in hospitals or are simply put, from non-genetics disciplines. Being healthy is directly connected to your genetic diversity and your parent's genetic diversity and so on. People can't handle this truth, this is why we have things like "Smoking causes cancer", "Meat increases chance of heart attack" etc., they are all based on statistics and correlations, which have been never proven in lab or animal experiments.
He never said vitamins are useless. He said vitamins from food supplements were useless, as you should already have the vitamins you need in your regular diet.
NebulaBlackF you can't engineer rice to have vitamin A you moron, it's a hormone, an animal product, it'd have to be added to the rice during refinement, artificially like in the pills that he thinks are useless.
The problem is already here. A worldwide birth-stop is needed. Birth-stop for 5 years, and then a 1 year birth-allow with a limit on births (2 per woman), or something like that.
People are living longer? How so? On their own... Or on pharmaceutical life support? my grandmother and some of her peers lived till their late 90s very intact both physically and mentally..... mostly because they lived off of the sea and land on islands. Americans? Not so much.....
Probably because we've specialized our workforce so much, and you hand off all of your problems that need a science answer to some expert if need be. If people had to build their own hydroelectric turbines they'd probably appreciate physics more. I'm an accounting major myself, but my undergrad is in a STEM field.
That ad appears to be part of the actual video, not an overlay ad like you normally see here. At the very least, it is packaged as a single video, so the person who uploaded it knew what was going to show. I guess that just leaves the question of whether that person works for TED,
What makes science work is people with a sufficient level of expertise questioning it, not random laymen on the internet who don't have a clue what they are talking about.
He raises some good points but in the same breath he promotes GMO's without any information what GMO's actually are: crops that are genetically modified in order to become resistant to pesticides/herbicides like Round Up. The result is predicable: increased use of herbicides. One of the consequences is the birth of the so called "super weeds". I wonder who is financing Michael Specter.
+mojiotroci1 Not really, he praises the technology of genetic manipulation, but he does address several key issues. In doing so, he quite notably remarks that we should change the way we utilize GMO's. GMO's a great, but are Roundup GMO's the best approach? He left the door open to come in and question how we should more sustainably apply an amazing technological development.
+Ian Graber-Stiehl I still wonder who is financing him. If he is to make a case for science he should choose examples that he can defend and I am sure he is well aware of that. I do not believe that any part of his presentation was done without a careful deliberation and therefore I find it unlikely that his statements about GMO's were just innocent listing of great achievements in science. It seems that his only explanation for the 'greatness' of GMO's is their supposed ability to feed the world. If they indeed have that ability, why should that be so great when we have a huge surplus of food in the developed world, as evidenced by the problem of obesity in the US.
mojiotroci1 Well, even with a surplus, addressing world hunger from the angle of distribution is nigh impossible, particularly if you are aiming to surpass merely feeling the populace, and instead are seeking to properly nourish them. However, GMO's that improve nutrition and, as some new organisms are doing, reactivating natural defenses, such as a corn crop that summons nematodes to fight root pests, are a safer bet. Granted this means constantly wrangling, relying on, and regulating biotech giants, but the way to do that is not to crusade against an entire technology; it is by properly utilizing it. That is where we fail thus far, and I believe that the misdiagnosis of the issue is for him, an issue worth being overzealous about...hence how his vehemence comes from passion, rather than backdoor money.
+mojiotroci1 Pointing out a misuse of something does not discredit that thing. The solution to your objection is not eliminating genetically modified foods, it is modifying them in a reasonable way. There are lots of potential misuses of surgery: unnecessary surgery performed due to the financial interest of the party performing it, surgery whose risks far outweigh any potential benefit, amputating a limb in an attempt to reduce blood pressure et cetera. The fact that there are misuses of surgery does not mean we need to stop performing surgeries. You could use your logic to determine that anything is bad. Also, I'm curious to know if you "wonder" about who is "financing" people who are saying things you agree with.
+Ian Graber-Stiehl I don't think the way we use GMOs will change as long as we have capitalism, because GMO research is mainly financed by big corporations and many researchers at universities have a second job for these corporations and the corporations have no interest of changing anything.
Seems appropriate that this video was followed by a commercial for IBM and an oil company. I like Specter and appreciate what he's doing. Would love to hear a dialogue between him and one of his adversaries. Anyone got a link?
I'm not saying that we have the requisite education to make judgements. I'm saying that depending on the type of genetic modification, there needs to be more rigorous testing than for non modified foods, for example. The reason should be obvious. Depending on the type of modification, the results will be different. I am NOT saying that GMOs are inherently unhealthy or bad or wrong, but certainly have the potential to be in a way natural foods do not.
So this speech is about rationality and empiricism, yet he keeps throwing around words like "shameful" and "disgraceful"? This talk isn't about science at all. It's about consensus. It's about intimidating people into throwing away their own critical thinking and accepting popular opinion. This guy paints with an extraordinarily broad brush on many subjects on purpose, yet doesn't really take time to back up his insinuations with any depth, take note of that.
This person has argued for science, for the continuous scrutinizing and questioning of everything, yet goes on to say that the arguments people make against all of his favorite things are unscientific, and a detriment to us growing as a society, because we simply want to live in our magical cocoons we've created for ourselves. Michael, if you actually looked into what you were talking about, like a journalist is supposed to, hopefully from multiple sources of information, that do not have the same vested interests, (seeing as journalistic integrity should be about eliminating or clearly communicating established bias) you'd see that for a lot of the examples you listed, people make their judgements based off of good science. This was easily the most irritating TED talk I've ever watched.
Well I'm terribly sorry you're a hypocritical, science-denying, cherry-picking moron. "people make their judgements based off of good science." Judgements about being antivax or anti-gmo? Bullshit they do. They make judgements based off of blogs, anecdotes and gut-feelings.
I'm sure he's aware that he needs multiple sources of information, in the same way he's aware that not every source is to be trusted. Why put the same value in sources that are peer review, that provide unbiased studies, data and evidence than in sources that check non of those boxes?
Josh Teasdale So the alternative to listening to multifaceted research, we should rely on baseless & untested rhetoric. It's unfortunate that you do not have the intellectual aptitude to comprehend & distinguish statistical probability from antidotal analysis. The next time you or a family members is intractably ill, go to a church masjid or synagogue & pray to Yahweh Allah or Jesus, instead of going to a hospital. Or just stop off at the health food store & pick up some herbs, the ones that say "these statements have not been evaluated by the FDA..."
yes, it makes fantastic brainwashing material! repetition and nonsensical ravings! For the others that want to think for themselves, read through some scientific literature and do not skip through the methodology of any study, because this will reveal a lot!
The problem I have with GMO's is that we are changing the food we eat rapidly and in ways that are simply for the profit of big corporations. They make the crops so they can't reproduce and force farmers to purchase seed constantly. They bypass or push through foods before they are properly tested to make sure they don't develop a harmful product. They make the food more addictive so they can sell more - never mind how fat people get in the process. As long as corporate profits are above the public good it is impossible to trust these big companies. And when they say the food is tested and safe, I have a hard time believing them. They don't care about me and they have the money to lobby congress, harass the government protection agencies, mangle the studies and information in the public and put out propaganda to fool the average consumer. I just don't trust the big money driven corporations. Until we get money and self interest out of the equation, it will be hard for much of the population to accept these advances.
Yes. For example, people with "high blood pressure" or "high cholesterol" don't know they have it, until they are tested. A MD will tell them you have high blood pressure, you need to be on medication to lower it or you will have a heart attack. The medication has side effects, the blood pressure is lowered, and the person later dies of a heart attack. "high blood pressure" isn't a disease. It is a symptom of a disease, to lower it without fixing the cause of it doesn't help the patient.
Agrochemicals are the reason why large portions of our society is not starving. Agrochemicals were not invented by corporate scientists by no means. Spreading manure is an ancient process. Universities are most accomplished in developing "agrochemicals". The same people found out that they are hazardous. The same people found out about ecology. The same people allowed us to communicate here. Mr. Spector represents these people, and their benefit for the society is self-evident.
best time??? by happyness it is not ... by any climatic mesure... it is not.... by levels of pollution... it is not.... there is so many measures for which the current time is by far not the best.
Most people would rather go back in time because they, more or less, know what to expect. Jumping forward in time, you've barely a clue because, depending how far you go, any number of things could happen in the gap you just skipped and no guarantee that it'll end up better.
For example, the recent “EPIC” study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine studied 23000 people’s adherence to 4 simple behaviors (not smoking, exercising 3.5 hours a week, eating a healthy diet [fruits, vegetables, beans, whole grains, nuts, seeds, and limited amounts of meat], and maintaining a healthy weight [BMI
The concept of feeding grain etc to animals so that we can then eat meat is very important. This allows us to produce enough protein to remain healthy. I agree with the "food miles" concept. Try always to source food from as close to home as possible, but not at the expense of quality and food safety.
This video was posted on a group page on Facebook, "Agnotoligists, Unite", and it is all about this topic. Agnotology is "the study of culturally-induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data." Like minded individuals should go there with more videos and posts. We need to loudly proclaim the value of intelligence and shine a light on willful ignorance.
The problem is that population increases geometrically/exponentially while food production increases algebraically, eventually the population will become too large to support itself and the population will "crash". This is a fundamental and insurmountable problem that we just have to accept.
Yes, and then there are "lobbyists." I used to have a client who was one. He went all over the world on behalf of corporations like Monsanto, basically rigging the system through political donations, sweetheart deals, and good-old-boy glad-handing. He had millions of dollars at his disposal to influence the way smaller countries did their business and enacted laws. In the face of such manipulation, I think "governments" are pretty helpless. It's the "people" who will stop it, if at all.
Good thing that's not a thing. Holding the scientific method and skepticism in high regard as useful tools for progress is not the equivalent of worshipping incorporeal entities or nebulous concepts of nature or woo.
+justin bartelen Human beings are not 100% reason. You have to bear that in mind. We are beings of emotions who have desires, goals, biases and mistakes. Also, making science your god will only lead you to frustration. Science isn't perfect because human beings are not and will never be.
Ian Anthony Davatos Most of what you're saying is rather meaningless. Putting the words science and worship/god in the same sentence doesn't automatically make that a thing. Science as a god/deity could only be metaphorical, at best, as it doesn't purport to be a central authority on all of existence. It has no dogma except to provide replicably verifiable evidence for it's own claims. It's nothing more than a method, a conscious practice of determining increasingly accurate answers to questions. There's no danger in putting the scientific method on a pedestal, because it's an ever-improving system of inquiry. It questions itself and is always subject to coherent criticism. If practiced correctly, it eventually compensates for those human fallibilities you mentioned, whereas religion and woo seem to nurture them. I feel like we're talking about different things, though. You seem to be almost suggesting a worship of current scientific theories rather than the method itself. So yes, irrational adherence to a previous or existing framework of scientific understanding in spite of valid evidence to the contrary can sometimes approach the precipice of religious idiocracy. Unless you're in the camp of the likes of Rupert Sheldrake and Deepak Chopra, who claim that the scientific method has fundamental mistakes in it (e.g. the universal assumption that the material world is all there is, because everything that can be measured is, by definition, material) while providing no constructive alternative. They argue semantics with circular reasoning while claiming that there is more than the material world, because feels. Charlatans like Deepak and Sheldrake are prime examples of why the scientific method works so well to weed out bad, inconsistent ideas. It prevents inevitable biases from infiltrating the community, leaving it to the fringe of self-help seekers. Bottom line. Science and skepticism are the best methods we've ever developed to compensate for our evolutionary shortcomings. I fail to see how anyone could possibly hold these standards of thought in too high of regard and reverence. To do so only makes them that much more effective.
I agree with most of this points made in the talk but take issue with the notion that the motivation behind development of GMOs, pesticides and other food production technologies is to feed the masses. Often, but not always, the motivation is profit. If the food industry's raison d'etre was feeding the masses many of the starving masses would already be fed. No question, climate change, declines in water and soil quality and availability, and other issues make development of improved food production technologies more important than ever. GMOs are an important part of that. But the fruits of that labor won't necessarily reach the starving masses.
I have two problems with the points made in the speech which is heavily pro-science and essentially classes almost all forms of skepticism on several subjects as science denial. (1) The speaker seems to place an inordinate amount of faith in the integrity and ethics of scientists in spite of substantial evidence that large portions of scientific research are either misrepresented in the findings or are outright faked. The causes range from from criminality or sociopathy to greed (both individual and corporate) to natural unconscious, unintended bias on the part of the researcher. But it does exist and there are plenty of examples showing that the results kill or damage the health and well being of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people. (2) He provides no qualification to his statement at the 14:00 mark about the world having to produce 70% more food within the next 50 years. From everything I read, there is ample production in the world to feed the current population and more. The problem is not production (at least for the foreseeable future). The problem is distribution and diverted use to non-food purposes or for inefficient methods of food production. That is largely the result of large scale, concentrated, mono-crop industrial agriculture. The problem of food not getting to the people who need it because corporations control a concentrated food growing & distribution network that works to extract maximum profits before providing food is not a problem that can be corrected by science. However, it is a problem than can be solved without relying exclusively on science as our savior. Further complicating and worsening the issue of potential food shortages is the huge amount of food wasted in countries that have ample food supplies, in particular the USA, but also most all other westernized, developed countries. According to a 2012 study by the Natural Resources Defense Council, as much as 40% of the food grown for the food supply chain ends up in landfills. By all accounts I've seen, that percentage may well have increased in the last 7 years. This is also not a problem caused by science and the solution is not dependent on science to save us.
just Pubmed search for Dr. Dean Ornish, he also has a TED talk on youtube highlighting all of this. He has multiple papers/studies on the topic. He is the first medicare reimbursable program (medicare paying for diet/exercise consulting) for "lifestyle change" because of his research/results. Your editorial cites “caution should be taken in prescribing statins for primary prevention among people at low cardiovascular risk.” So I absolutely agree statins should not be used for prevention.
Fantastic talk He spoke the truth without trying to pander to the idiots He crammed a lot in whilst still remaining understandable I have never heard of him before but he has a new convert :-)
Thinking of people like Jenny McCarthy and Oprah I can not help but recall my very most favorite line from the "Blackadder" series: "To you, Baldrick, the renaissance was just something that happened to other people."
" About 12 years ago, there was a story published, a horrible story, that linked the epidemic of autism to the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine shot. Very scary. Tons of studies were done to see if this was true. Tons of studies should have been done; it's a serious issue. The data came back. The data came back from the United States, from England, from Sweden, from Canada, and it was all the same: no correlation, no connection, none at all. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter because we believe anecdotes, we believe what we see, what we think we see, what makes us feel real. We don't believe a bunch of documents from a government official giving us data, and I do understand that, I think we all do. But you know what? The result of that has been disastrous. Disastrous because here's a fact: The United States is one of the only countries in the world where the vaccine rate for measles is going down. That is disgraceful, and we should be ashamed of ourselves. It's horrible. What kind of a thing happened that we could do that? " This is apparently a dismissal of Andrew Wakefield's paper that suggested an MMR-autism link in 1998. Does anyone know what data ("from the United States, from England, from Sweden, from Canada") he's referring to?
What is the source of the study you are citing. Because, now that you have provided the relevant information, I would love to know more about it. If it is true then that is awesome! Also, it may be the fault of some, but I think blanketing a whole group of people without taking into consideration environmental or physical factors that may contribute to their weight gain is worrisome. on the JAMA website check out Making the Case for Selective Use of Statins in the Primary Prevention Setting.
I do want to clarify that I am in no way against science as a tool for understanding how physical and biological systems operate. I do appreciate the wonderful advances made in medicine. I do want to point out the distinction between science as a set of tools and the use of science to create substances materials and activities which are used for profit without understanding or failing to address the implications to the earth and its communities as a whole. This is an enormous problem. It has cr
1. Science as a tool for discovery has proven to be very successful. No dispute there. 2. What needs to be differentiated here is "science as a tool" on the one hand and "use of scientific discoveries" on the other. 3. The measure of the messages in this video should then be weighed not in terms of "is science beneficial" but rather "are scientific discoveries beneficial" to us and by us I mean the entire connected community of life on Earth. One can safely say that scientific discoveries used
Thank you sir, for your fight for a fairer world. I'd humbly like to add that this current nonsensical science-denial fad, is caused by some societal biases and misconceptions: _ Science is not a body, regulator or any set of controllable entities, it is even far from being monolithic in their postulates. It is composed by countless, silent, underpaid, heroes, from all disciplines and geographies, who present their findings (in the best protocol available) for peers and public, to review, correct, and help further researches. This science, the good old term, is just the best method our pathetic species have, and it will always be uncompleted and not error free. _ It is notable how profit-driven commercial ventures, of all sizes, may have more credibility, just by pasting science sounding terms, on whatever product, service or click-bait they like to push. The science errors do not validate postulates by people purposely auto-devoid of impartial peer review. _ One basic protocol that true science encourages, is to apply critical thinking to everything, especially on itself.
Definitely shed some light on genetically modified organisms for me... So true - we've been doing the same process (genetically modifying & selecting foods) for over hundreds of years, scientists just found a way to do it much quicker. Some countries do need them disparately.. . But countries that are able to produce enough food for their nations may not require them and I can understand where some bands on GMO came from.
I like science. I love science. That being said, things like "Frankenfood" are profit driven models. Profit driven science frequently takes shortcuts. And frequently ignores safety in the name of profits. You can't talk about the safety of GM food without ignoring that aspect of it. Monsanto for example, has a record of lobbying for lower standards for their products. That's not a good thing when it comes to human lives.
GE animals and AGH aren't too far behind, and the effects of that is, essentially, animal abuse. It's horrific what the USFDA has let through. What's worse is that, whenever the FDA refuses to give the safety seal, companies will go to poorer countries, where there aren't any food/ marketing regulations and sell there.
If we are trying to be conscientious about how much land we use to produce food, we might consider a plant-based diet. Organic agriculture MAY mean a larger piece of land to grow a similar amount of food, but if we eat the plants directly (rather than feed them to animals and then eat the animals), we can grow much less food and still meet our nutritional needs. If we continue putting poisons on the landscape and if we continue to kill bees and deplete soil with our methods, we will be doomed.
I agree that we need to follow the science - the GOOD science. The problem is often who to trust. The pharmaceutical companies that care more about profit than helping people and so hide or massage studies? The giant chemical and food companies that care more about money and put chemicals and genetically modified foods out there that have not been properly tested to know the effects on humans and the environment? The doctors and politicians who get truckloads of cash to push the agenda of the big corporations and wealthy elite at the expense of the people they serve? The problem is conflict of interest, the lack of morals (putting cash before people) and the decay of trust. Another problem is the mountain of bad information out there amongst the good. It is often hard and takes a lot of time to sift through it all to determine what is good and what is not.
Depressing to say, 11 years ago, nothing improved. This had to be shared again and hopefully widespread. Social media would rather choose a cute cat meme or something over something sobering, realistic and reality.
Until recently, basic biochemistry dogma stated that one gene->one protein. Upon elucidating the genome, we discovered a 1:4 ratio of genes to proteins. You insert one gene, you're going to effect changes you have no way of predicting. Inserting a jellyfish gene into a tomato is not the same as crossing pea plants. We have a gaping hole in our basic biochemistry knowledge and we should remedy that before irreversibly altering the botanical landscape that has been evolving for millions of years.
Yeah, Monsanto is pretty evil. no arguments there, but why must you condemn an entire field of engineering with undeniable potential, because Monsanto is a bond villain? It's childish.
I worry that ingredients from automotive antifreeze are allowed in food, what will they engineer? Lead was put in everything, pipes for drinking water, paint, fuel. It was a major battle to undo. We need science to be trustworthy, however, it's clear that scientists are just people. So, vigilance is warranted. And I think we need to do both, progress and heirloom/organics. We should do both and appreciate them.
Again, the burden of proof is on the drug manufacturers, not the public. The drug manufacturers have to prove all of your points, we don't have to disprove them. You should be DEMANDING this data from them.
What provides you with a better lifestyle? Healthier foods? Cleaner surfaces? Vaccines to cause many of those "any number of reasons" to not happen? The improved buildings that are warmer and dryer. The improved fabrics in clothing to again, keep you warmer and dryer. Everything that makes your life nicer is thanks to science.
I don't have a problem with genetically engineering food to be more nutritious. The problem is that most GM crops are not modified for human health, but for their ability to withstand very high levels of pesticides and herbicides. This toxins can have horrible effects on the ecosystem, not only in and of itself but because it encourages reliance on old methods of monoculture. Allowing traces of these chemicals in our diet isn't great either.
I've been wondering that too. I think the "general rule" is to look to universalize, which is a balance between those two extremes ("lone nut in garage" = social recluse, "big bad corporate liars" = spread their social havoc all over society like an STD") The part where he says "these stories bothered me and I couldn't figure out why, and eventually I did..." that is pretty universal, it's something everyone would be doing, ideally; something we all tend to avoid leading to mass paranoia, IRL.
People (adults) would choose to go back in time to be with and to meet their long ago passed away family members: who wouldn't want to be with their parents and grandparents just one more time, to meet their great and great great grand parents, to once again play with their childhood pets, to see and feel the love & safety of long ago times. That's why. Nobody gives two straws about the food choices --- it's the people we loved and we miss. I think I would never leave .... not even for HBO.
If there was evidence for 'alternative medicine' it would scarcely be alternative. Alternative medicine has had decades to centuries to accumulate such evidence, but the vast majority of it cannot get past the anecdotal stage. (Reiki, cupping, crystals, iridology, homeopathy, reflexology, magnet therapy, etc, etc).
DDT is CURRENTLY BEING USED to eliminate malaria vectors (google "DDT vector control"). Which means had DDT been really banned to do vector control, the claim would be completely legitimate. That's a fact and go on with it.
Life expectancy for 5-year-olds has hardly changed in the last hundred years. Early childhood was the most dangerous period in the past. If you got past that, then at age 5 (say) your life-expectancy a hundred years ago was pretty much the same as now.
too bad the people who really need to hear this probably do not watch ted talks to begin with
+Tiggerp00 that measles thing is almost prophetic.
Yes they do. It's you who needs to read more. A CDC whistleblower called William Thompson revealed almost 2 years ago that the MMR vaccine does increase the risk of autism. To bad that people that need to know this believe everything that is said in these pseudo intellectuals talks. I know it's really hard to believe that governments like the UK and USA would do this sort of thing DELIBERATELY to reduce the intellect of our children when they only want a peaceful and happy world. Why else would they help all these suffering people in the middle east with their peace campaigns and before that they help all the lovely children in the far east with agent orange, and least we forget the Africans, aborigines, and native Americans with all their lovely children and how they took care of them. I guess you can consider yourself Lucky that our children are only poisoned in a way that reduces their metal abilities, well your children because I'm not foolish enough to let those mother fuckers inject my children with chemicals which are poisonous by themselves and cause metal retardation. You don't have be a genius to figure out that a cocktail of those poisonous chemicals are going to harm your child, but hey...better safe then sorry.
they've been reducing intellect and yet iq has been steadily going up?
+natemcgraw you shouldn't simply believe what is said. look around you and tell me that the level of intelligent conversations has gone up. Children and teenagers can hardly talk to each other anymore, values are as simple as they can be. When you walk into a coffee shop, how many people do you see having a deep conversation about something complex.
Don't believe a word they say on the news. it's controlled, worldwide...
There are plenty of examples for that. Probably best is WTC 7. It's never reported on any channel in any country, except in the beginning when BBC reported it 20 min to early. Besides that event showed to what extent things really are controlled. It takes a while to conclude properly, but take a look again at how it collapses and then ask yourself if almost 100 thick steel columns can all break at the same time, caused by fire??? If you conclude right, then welcome to the real world and we can continue talking in an intelligent way. If you can't or don't won't to see the obvious because it's to scary to accept then good luck with your illusions. See how far they get you....
Do you realize that by accepting what William Thompson "revealed" YOU are "simply believing what is said"? Not being skeptical is a very, very bad thing. It leads you to be extremely gullible. However, there is an enormous difference between being skeptical and being paranoid. Cherry-picking science data just because it comes from some kind of rebel, against-any-kind-of-authority, conspiracy-fueling source that is "revealing" something that "the government doesn't want you to know" just because it's a product of that source itself is the most idiotic decision. And, by the way, unless you actually have a wide knowledge on the field of science you want to divide, please, don't even try it.
an awful lot of people want to go back to a "better simpler time"... unfortunately, such a time never existed.
As stated in the video, all the diseases alone is something they forget. having to work dawn to dusk in the fields just to have enough to eat. Getting a small cut and ending up having to have a limb cut off? You really want to go back to that?
Religious persecution... want a neightbor who doesn't like you decide to denounce you as a witch and say you put a spell on thier cattle... and you end up burned at the stake? Does that sound like a better time"?
You can't travel unless you can ge to your destination in the daytime and stay overnight... being out on the roads (such raods as there were, paths more likely) after dark was an open invitation to be robbed and likely raped and killed (and not only rape of women)
Slavery? Pograms? Lack of sanitation?
No thank you... I would go forward... maybe we will have blown ourselves up... and that would (maybe) actually be a "better simpler time"... or maybe we will hae solved our problems... either way, better than going backward into something we KNOW is a horror on Earth.
i just hope our religious freaks here on this planet haven't destroy our future.
I dunno, the 50's-70's US and 60-80's Europe were nice...
real question is are you really healthy and happy ??
that depends on how you define "better," dipshit. if you mean happier, more contented, at peace with the universe, such a time DID exist, and it WAS better than the present. uncounted studies have been done and the unanimous conclusion is that higher technology does NOT correlate to happiness, contentedness, tranquility, or peace, in fact just the opposite.
dziooooo Pretty sure middle class white men made up more than 5% of the population in 50s-70s USA and 60s-80s Europe.
“People wrap themsleves in their beliefs, and they do it so tightly that you can’t set them free, not even the truth can set them free” 😭💯
Take them to a children's hospital and they will soon be educated in Science
For those of you who don't understand and are wondering why the number of autism diagnoses is going up, it's rather simple:
the definition of autism is a lot different than what it used to be. A few decades ago, doctors only used to diagnose the more severe cases, and usually only diagnosed boys. Everyone else was just a "bad kid." Nowadays, the term has been broadened into a spectrum, the quote-unquote "least intense" form of autism being Asperger's.
2023 EDIT: “Asperger’s” is no longer in use as a term, considering who Asperger was. It’s all just autism now.
Mephostopheles Also, a lot of severe autistic people would have been labelled as "retarded" and their parents would have been advised to put them in an assilum for the rest of their life.
They just want to sell you more drugs and therapy sessions. Everybody is special one way or another.
I did know of this, but it reminds of how hard-core theists like to cite Sweden as the bastion of rape, in an attempt to demonstrate how a highly secular society becomes immoral, yet fail to realize that their definition of rape is FAR MORE strict and includes even stuff like indecently exposing oneself to someone else.
Comparing rape statistics (or any sort of statistics for that matter) between countries is grossly unreliable as the factors that determine the crime are somewhat arbitrary.
On top of that, there are 2 other points to mention: their culture encourages reporting rape and every instance of rape is counted separately, while in many other countries a repeated violation against the same person can fall under the same case and be counted as one instance of rape.
I know I went on a bit of tangent but I did it to demonstrate how easy it is to misuse the data and interpret it incorrectly if you fail to account for different factors that make up the big picture and disregard the arbitrary nature of stuff such as crime-rates or health stats.
@@zeratulofaiur2589 Our standard of living has gone up. People expect to live longer, healthier, more fulfilling lives. That sometimes requires medications we didn't have a few decades back. Think about it... Would you still live in the pre-telephone era when mobile phones are available and accessible?
@@acj-06 Yes, standard of living has gone up indeed. It doesn't mean it is better in every aspect. The western medical "science" is distorted.
Awesome talk. He knew he was saying things a lot of his listeners would disagree on, but he said what needed to be said. I have never understood the abject terror some people have about GM foods. I have always thought that every single food we eat is GM, and the speaker made this exact point. Great talk.
But that's silly. It's so obviously not the same thing. Whatever the relative merits of each method, selective breeding is not the same thing as taking a gene from a completely different organism
@@stupidtreehugger So how is GM different from cross-breeding then? (other than the massively increased variety of cross-breeding that becomes possible with this method)
Because Chris, inserting a gene from one species into the genome another is not breeding. One can't "cross-breed" between species' boundaries. GM is inserting hopefully specific new functionality directly into a species.
,
Colin's "abject terror" comment is a low-hanging fruit fallacy, and using the term "GM" to include breeding is a blurring of boundaries fallacy. There are valid and sound reasons for various environmental concerns, one of which is GMO.
With GMO one doesn't have the many generations of natural selection to remove any bad effects from new apparent functionality.
"Genetically Modified (GM) Foods and Dr. Arpad Pusztai
www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_geneticfood36.htmwww.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_geneticfood36.htm
Microbiologist Àrpàd Pusztai found 36 significant differences between rats that had eaten genetically modified potatoes and rats that had eaten "normal" ones. Among the first group the liver was less well-developed, but when Pusztai announced this in a television interview, he was fired."
Although, later, the same man said that GM peas were safe ( www.iatp.org/news/gm-peas-are-safe-sacked-scientist-says ).
Once GMOs are out there it's very difficult, or impossible, to take them back. The rush to market and general human ignorance have a lot to answer for.
Starving populations don't need GM cassava, they need female empowerment, especially in the areas of domestic water, sewage, basic health care, education, and contraception. That way their population stops exploding. See e.g:
"DON'T PANIC - Hans Rosling showing the facts about population"
th-cam.com/video/FACK2knC08E/w-d-xo.html
Absence of war helps a lot too.
You know it took decades to action against radiation, asbestos, smoking tobacco, lead in petrol
@@stupidtreehugger "One can't "cross-breed" between species' boundaries" - How about a Liger, or a Mule, or any of the many other times that different species have been crossbred? Not to mention the myriad examples in the world of plants and gardening where creating new hybrids has been a passion of many gardeners for generations, or the fact that most modern crops are the result of cross-breeding different wild species. You're making the same "it's just not natural!" claim as the video pointed out. Literally nothing about our modern environment is completely 'natural' any more.
I do agree that there should be skepticism and research, and we have to be careful not to treat GMO as a "magic bullet" solution - I totally agree with your point about clean water, sewage, basic health care, education and contraception being very important, and possibly more of a good long term solution, but there is nothing about GMO that makes it intrinsically bad or dangerous.
@@chrisboyd3540 , still, ligers and mules are exception to the rule fallacy. Nobody said people's definition of a species is de facto perfect. Ligers are cats, and mules and donkeys are a form of horse. Species have boundaries. Modern crops and plants are not the result of breeding between species, they're the result of selecting within a species.
One cannot breed a tomato with a Siberian frog, although one can GM them to produce a frost resistant tomato. Which I'm happy if you wish to eat it, and don't let it cross-contaminate my traditional tomatoes, and let me know in approximately 10 thousand generations if it didn't produce more death in your family lineage.
There's nothing intrinsically worse about stepping out into outer space. But yes it is lot more dangerous. It's a whole new level of complexity.
nevermind... reading comments here made me realize if you believe in something already, nothing else can sway you.
+Tiggerp00 But some wars cannot be truly won or lost until someone stops fighting. : )
That's true if you can't think objectively.
@@iangraber-stiehl461Or one side runs out of people!
Dunning-Kruger is strong
...Black Swan Fallacy...
I have friends who are scientists and I don't see them getting all the money that corporations are supposedly funneling into science. My friend Jessi is a marine biologist and could potentially be bribed into denying global warming and climate change. She hasn't and probably never will. She values science and marine life too much.
I went to school to be a teacher. (I decided to become a poet instead.) In all my time researching and collecting data and learning to be very selective in my resources, (I don't put any stock in anything I wouldn't let my students use on a paper) I learned to respect academia and peer review. Academia, especially science, it is for skeptics and questioners and has gotten only more sophisticated as the years went on. It truly saddens me, the level of science denial and the fact that some of these science critics just seem to make things up. They aren't even critics as far as I'm concerned.
Yeah, but unfortunately there is strength in numbers.
Aaron Richards I actually started writing one called "Science Denial." It's on the back burner right now because I'm currently writing a one-man show.
+Jimmy Locksmith
Science Denial
There was a young fellow named Science
Who used truth to garner compliance,
With a method so open,
He'd make friends, He was hopin'
But instead seemed to conjure defiance.
Frighteningly, for a while I've been working on a poem off and on called "Science Denial."
@@MrJimmyLocksmith how did the show go?
11 years now and his words ring more true than ever.
What is the mortality rate of CV-19 after accounting for comorbidities?
But skepticism is not the same as pseudoscientific paranoia
This. This needs more views.
Taylor McFayden at least 3 BILLION more.
Thank you for joining the fight against this crazy movement! I almost shed a tear, my aunt died from a curable cancer while pursuing alternative treatments. These people have blood on their hands. And the people who choose to believe in stories of science are the once to blame.
This man has done and continues to do wonders for communicating science, as a scientist, i very much appreciate what you do!
Skepticism is an integral part of the science process.
And?
wow, the ending was really the most telling thing for me, now watching this in jan 2020
One thing I wish he would have addressed was when you are skeptical, yes, check out the data, but be sure it's reliable data, not just something that makes you feel good or that agrees with what you have presupposed.
Underrated comment. What we need to be teaching in schools more and more is scientific data literacy. The amount of opinons that people have held on to so strongly over the last few years without reading any of the actual studies themselves is unbelievable!
This is a brilliant and badly needed talk. Amazing talk, couldn't agree with him more.
The popularity of the anti-vax movement and current state of the world is downright depressing.
Boo hoo. Put your mask back on.
oh youtube comments you disappoint me once again so much fear mongering.
Don't you mean "never disappoint"? I don't recall ever seeing it otherwise..
"Big Placebo" industry, love it, I'll use that!
We dont have a food production problem, we have a food distribution problem!
What a phantastic speech, I couldn´t agree more with him! Love it.
He says vitamins are useless then espouses the benefits of genetically modifying rice to contain vitamin A. WTF?
+DouglasB Bohl If you have a vitamin deficiency, it can be very bad for your health. If you do not have a deficiency, taking more will not improve your health. That is the point, I believe. You have a balanced and sufficient diet, vitamin supplements are a waste of money. If you don't, it can be life threatening. Not to get into the health issues surrounding overdoses of said vitamins. That is another, longer conversation.
+DouglasB Bohl Multi-vitamin pills don't get absorbed efficiently. That's why they're useless. Single vitamin/mineral pills however, can be useful. But who bothers with them? No one. People like taking one-single dose of magical substances rather than you know... taking them seperately.
Rohan Zener Let's not kid ourselves, though. Most of these "health" infos are by "experts" who are either working as doctors in hospitals or are simply put, from non-genetics disciplines.
Being healthy is directly connected to your genetic diversity and your parent's genetic diversity and so on.
People can't handle this truth, this is why we have things like "Smoking causes cancer", "Meat increases chance of heart attack" etc., they are all based on statistics and correlations, which have been never proven in lab or animal experiments.
He never said vitamins are useless.
He said vitamins from food supplements were useless, as you should already have the vitamins you need in your regular diet.
NebulaBlackF you can't engineer rice to have vitamin A you moron, it's a hormone, an animal product, it'd have to be added to the rice during refinement, artificially like in the pills that he thinks are useless.
Is there seriously an advert pro big oil at the end of this video?? whaaaaaaat?
NO, it's an ad for IBM system that can map under the ocean floor.
Tells you exactly what type of corporation paid for this TED talk. TED just dropped a notch in my view. Disgusting.
TH-cam decides who advertises where.
This is probably the greatest TED talk ever.
You are the biggest moron ever
The problem is already here. A worldwide birth-stop is needed. Birth-stop for 5 years, and then a 1 year birth-allow with a limit on births (2 per woman), or something like that.
Açaí is just a little fruit. Nothing "special".
People are living longer? How so? On their own... Or on pharmaceutical life support? my grandmother and some of her peers lived till their late 90s very intact both physically and mentally..... mostly because they lived off of the sea and land on islands. Americans? Not so much.....
Soul R3b3l So essentially they're just dying slower.
The plague of science denial in America allowed the pandemic to flourish here, too.
Ironic post
Probably because we've specialized our workforce so much, and you hand off all of your problems that need a science answer to some expert if need be. If people had to build their own hydroelectric turbines they'd probably appreciate physics more. I'm an accounting major myself, but my undergrad is in a STEM field.
Only faith holds us back 🦉
That ad appears to be part of the actual video, not an overlay ad like you normally see here. At the very least, it is packaged as a single video, so the person who uploaded it knew what was going to show. I guess that just leaves the question of whether that person works for TED,
What makes science work is people with a sufficient level of expertise questioning it, not random laymen on the internet who don't have a clue what they are talking about.
A journalist talks about science? God help us...
There's no Supernatural in nature and science 👆🤡
Just as important after the 2021 insurrection
You mean the selfie parade.
He raises some good points but in the same breath he promotes GMO's without any information what GMO's actually are: crops that are genetically modified in order to become resistant to pesticides/herbicides like Round Up. The result is predicable: increased use of herbicides. One of the consequences is the birth of the so called "super weeds". I wonder who is financing Michael Specter.
+mojiotroci1 Not really, he praises the technology of genetic manipulation, but he does address several key issues. In doing so, he quite notably remarks that we should change the way we utilize GMO's. GMO's a great, but are Roundup GMO's the best approach? He left the door open to come in and question how we should more sustainably apply an amazing technological development.
+Ian Graber-Stiehl I still wonder who is financing him. If he is to make a case for science he should choose examples that he can defend and I am sure he is well aware of that. I do not believe that any part of his presentation was done without a careful deliberation and therefore I find it unlikely that his statements about GMO's were just innocent listing of great achievements in science. It seems that his only explanation for the 'greatness' of GMO's is their supposed ability to feed the world. If they indeed have that ability, why should that be so great when we have a huge surplus of food in the developed world, as evidenced by the problem of obesity in the US.
mojiotroci1 Well, even with a surplus, addressing world hunger from the angle of distribution is nigh impossible, particularly if you are aiming to surpass merely feeling the populace, and instead are seeking to properly nourish them. However, GMO's that improve nutrition and, as some new organisms are doing, reactivating natural defenses, such as a corn crop that summons nematodes to fight root pests, are a safer bet. Granted this means constantly wrangling, relying on, and regulating biotech giants, but the way to do that is not to crusade against an entire technology; it is by properly utilizing it. That is where we fail thus far, and I believe that the misdiagnosis of the issue is for him, an issue worth being overzealous about...hence how his vehemence comes from passion, rather than backdoor money.
+mojiotroci1 Pointing out a misuse of something does not discredit that thing. The solution to your objection is not eliminating genetically modified foods, it is modifying them in a reasonable way. There are lots of potential misuses of surgery: unnecessary surgery performed due to the financial interest of the party performing it, surgery whose risks far outweigh any potential benefit, amputating a limb in an attempt to reduce blood pressure et cetera. The fact that there are misuses of surgery does not mean we need to stop performing surgeries.
You could use your logic to determine that anything is bad.
Also, I'm curious to know if you "wonder" about who is "financing" people who are saying things you agree with.
+Ian Graber-Stiehl I don't think the way we use GMOs will change as long as we have capitalism, because GMO research is mainly financed by big corporations and many researchers at universities have a second job for these corporations and the corporations have no interest of changing anything.
Seems appropriate that this video was followed by a commercial for IBM and an oil company. I like Specter and appreciate what he's doing. Would love to hear a dialogue between him and one of his adversaries. Anyone got a link?
I'm not saying that we have the requisite education to make judgements. I'm saying that depending on the type of genetic modification, there needs to be more rigorous testing than for non modified foods, for example.
The reason should be obvious. Depending on the type of modification, the results will be different. I am NOT saying that GMOs are inherently unhealthy or bad or wrong, but certainly have the potential to be in a way natural foods do not.
So this speech is about rationality and empiricism, yet he keeps throwing around words like "shameful" and "disgraceful"? This talk isn't about science at all. It's about consensus. It's about intimidating people into throwing away their own critical thinking and accepting popular opinion. This guy paints with an extraordinarily broad brush on many subjects on purpose, yet doesn't really take time to back up his insinuations with any depth, take note of that.
Pseudoscientific or anti-scientific ideas aren't supported by critical thinking, and that's the problem. That's why it's so shameful.
This person has argued for science, for the continuous scrutinizing and questioning of everything, yet goes on to say that the arguments people make against all of his favorite things are unscientific, and a detriment to us growing as a society, because we simply want to live in our magical cocoons we've created for ourselves. Michael, if you actually looked into what you were talking about, like a journalist is supposed to, hopefully from multiple sources of information, that do not have the same vested interests, (seeing as journalistic integrity should be about eliminating or clearly communicating established bias) you'd see that for a lot of the examples you listed, people make their judgements based off of good science.
This was easily the most irritating TED talk I've ever watched.
Well I'm terribly sorry you're a hypocritical, science-denying, cherry-picking moron. "people make their judgements based off of good science." Judgements about being antivax or anti-gmo? Bullshit they do. They make judgements based off of blogs, anecdotes and gut-feelings.
"yet goes on to say that the arguments people make against all of his favourite things are unscientific"......mmmm... Because they are????
I'm sure he's aware that he needs multiple sources of information, in the same way he's aware that not every source is to be trusted. Why put the same value in sources that are peer review, that provide unbiased studies, data and evidence than in sources that check non of those boxes?
+legion999 Exactly
Josh Teasdale So the alternative to listening to multifaceted research, we should rely on baseless & untested rhetoric. It's unfortunate that you do not have the intellectual aptitude to comprehend & distinguish statistical probability from antidotal analysis.
The next time you or a family members is intractably ill, go to a church masjid or synagogue & pray to Yahweh Allah or Jesus, instead of going to a hospital.
Or just stop off at the health food store & pick up some herbs, the ones that say "these statements have not been evaluated by the FDA..."
This video is just the best. This should be aired in every school in the country.
yes, it makes fantastic brainwashing material! repetition and nonsensical ravings! For the others that want to think for themselves, read through some scientific literature and do not skip through the methodology of any study, because this will reveal a lot!
Norman Borlaug. Question, what are your opinions on treating HIV and AIDS?
We need more prominent people in the world spreading this kind of message before it's too late.
The problem I have with GMO's is that we are changing the food we eat rapidly and in ways that are simply for the profit of big corporations. They make the crops so they can't reproduce and force farmers to purchase seed constantly. They bypass or push through foods before they are properly tested to make sure they don't develop a harmful product. They make the food more addictive so they can sell more - never mind how fat people get in the process. As long as corporate profits are above the public good it is impossible to trust these big companies. And when they say the food is tested and safe, I have a hard time believing them. They don't care about me and they have the money to lobby congress, harass the government protection agencies, mangle the studies and information in the public and put out propaganda to fool the average consumer.
I just don't trust the big money driven corporations.
Until we get money and self interest out of the equation, it will be hard for much of the population to accept these advances.
There are a lot of people who need to listen to this talk, though I wonder how many will get it.
Yes. For example, people with "high blood pressure" or "high cholesterol" don't know they have it, until they are tested. A MD will tell them you have high blood pressure, you need to be on medication to lower it or you will have a heart attack. The medication has side effects, the blood pressure is lowered, and the person later dies of a heart attack. "high blood pressure" isn't a disease. It is a symptom of a disease, to lower it without fixing the cause of it doesn't help the patient.
Just by looking at the crowd cam you can already tell who rather feed their kids vitamin gummies than giving them vaccines.
Agrochemicals are the reason why large portions of our society is not starving. Agrochemicals were not invented by corporate scientists by no means. Spreading manure is an ancient process. Universities are most accomplished in developing "agrochemicals". The same people found out that they are hazardous. The same people found out about ecology. The same people allowed us to communicate here. Mr. Spector represents these people, and their benefit for the society is self-evident.
best time??? by happyness it is not ...
by any climatic mesure... it is not....
by levels of pollution... it is not....
there is so many measures for which the current time is by far not the best.
still applies 10 years later.
Most people would rather go back in time because they, more or less, know what to expect. Jumping forward in time, you've barely a clue because, depending how far you go, any number of things could happen in the gap you just skipped and no guarantee that it'll end up better.
For example, the recent “EPIC” study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine studied 23000 people’s adherence to 4 simple behaviors (not smoking, exercising 3.5 hours a week, eating a healthy diet [fruits, vegetables, beans, whole grains, nuts, seeds, and limited amounts of meat], and maintaining a healthy weight [BMI
The concept of feeding grain etc to animals so that we can then eat meat is very important. This allows us to produce enough protein to remain healthy. I agree with the "food miles" concept. Try always to source food from as close to home as possible, but not at the expense of quality and food safety.
Gee I wonder how he feels about how we handled Covid.
This video was posted on a group page on Facebook, "Agnotoligists, Unite", and it is all about this topic. Agnotology is "the study of culturally-induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data." Like minded individuals should go there with more videos and posts. We need to loudly proclaim the value of intelligence and shine a light on willful ignorance.
I can't help but think that TH-cam comments are the biggest QED this guy could possibly have.
The problem is that population increases geometrically/exponentially while food production increases algebraically, eventually the population will become too large to support itself and the population will "crash". This is a fundamental and insurmountable problem that we just have to accept.
Yes, and then there are "lobbyists." I used to have a client who was one. He went all over the world on behalf of corporations like Monsanto, basically rigging the system through political donations, sweetheart deals, and good-old-boy glad-handing. He had millions of dollars at his disposal to influence the way smaller countries did their business and enacted laws. In the face of such manipulation, I think "governments" are pretty helpless. It's the "people" who will stop it, if at all.
Next Ted talk should be *The Danger of Science Worship.*
Good thing that's not a thing. Holding the scientific method and skepticism in high regard as useful tools for progress is not the equivalent of worshipping incorporeal entities or nebulous concepts of nature or woo.
+RouninPanda Yeah, I agree but watch out for the slippery slope. You don't have to physically bow down to science to make science your god.
+Ian Anthony Davatos What is the risk of science as you god? What harm do you see in placing all hope on reason?
+justin bartelen Human beings are not 100% reason. You have to bear that in mind. We are beings of emotions who have desires, goals, biases and mistakes. Also, making science your god will only lead you to frustration. Science isn't perfect because human beings are not and will never be.
Ian Anthony Davatos Most of what you're saying is rather meaningless. Putting the words science and worship/god in the same sentence doesn't automatically make that a thing. Science as a god/deity could only be metaphorical, at best, as it doesn't purport to be a central authority on all of existence. It has no dogma except to provide replicably verifiable evidence for it's own claims. It's nothing more than a method, a conscious practice of determining increasingly accurate answers to questions. There's no danger in putting the scientific method on a pedestal, because it's an ever-improving system of inquiry. It questions itself and is always subject to coherent criticism. If practiced correctly, it eventually compensates for those human fallibilities you mentioned, whereas religion and woo seem to nurture them.
I feel like we're talking about different things, though. You seem to be almost suggesting a worship of current scientific theories rather than the method itself. So yes, irrational adherence to a previous or existing framework of scientific understanding in spite of valid evidence to the contrary can sometimes approach the precipice of religious idiocracy.
Unless you're in the camp of the likes of Rupert Sheldrake and Deepak Chopra, who claim that the scientific method has fundamental mistakes in it (e.g. the universal assumption that the material world is all there is, because everything that can be measured is, by definition, material) while providing no constructive alternative. They argue semantics with circular reasoning while claiming that there is more than the material world, because feels. Charlatans like Deepak and Sheldrake are prime examples of why the scientific method works so well to weed out bad, inconsistent ideas. It prevents inevitable biases from infiltrating the community, leaving it to the fringe of self-help seekers.
Bottom line. Science and skepticism are the best methods we've ever developed to compensate for our evolutionary shortcomings. I fail to see how anyone could possibly hold these standards of thought in too high of regard and reverence. To do so only makes them that much more effective.
Someone give this man a medal.
I agree with most of this points made in the talk but take issue with the notion that the motivation behind development of GMOs, pesticides and other food production technologies is to feed the masses. Often, but not always, the motivation is profit. If the food industry's raison d'etre was feeding the masses many of the starving masses would already be fed. No question, climate change, declines in water and soil quality and availability, and other issues make development of improved food production technologies more important than ever. GMOs are an important part of that. But the fruits of that labor won't necessarily reach the starving masses.
I have two problems with the points made in the speech which is heavily pro-science and essentially classes almost all forms of skepticism on several subjects as science denial.
(1) The speaker seems to place an inordinate amount of faith in the integrity and ethics of scientists in spite of substantial evidence that large portions of scientific research are either misrepresented in the findings or are outright faked. The causes range from from criminality or sociopathy to greed (both individual and corporate) to natural unconscious, unintended bias on the part of the researcher. But it does exist and there are plenty of examples showing that the results kill or damage the health and well being of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people.
(2) He provides no qualification to his statement at the 14:00 mark about the world having to produce 70% more food within the next 50 years. From everything I read, there is ample production in the world to feed the current population and more. The problem is not production (at least for the foreseeable future). The problem is distribution and diverted use to non-food purposes or for inefficient methods of food production. That is largely the result of large scale, concentrated, mono-crop industrial agriculture. The problem of food not getting to the people who need it because corporations control a concentrated food growing & distribution network that works to extract maximum profits before providing food is not a problem that can be corrected by science. However, it is a problem than can be solved without relying exclusively on science as our savior.
Further complicating and worsening the issue of potential food shortages is the huge amount of food wasted in countries that have ample food supplies, in particular the USA, but also most all other westernized, developed countries. According to a 2012 study by the Natural Resources Defense Council, as much as 40% of the food grown for the food supply chain ends up in landfills. By all accounts I've seen, that percentage may well have increased in the last 7 years. This is also not a problem caused by science and the solution is not dependent on science to save us.
This is tremendously important content.
just Pubmed search for Dr. Dean Ornish, he also has a TED talk on youtube highlighting all of this. He has multiple papers/studies on the topic. He is the first medicare reimbursable program (medicare paying for diet/exercise consulting) for "lifestyle change" because of his research/results. Your editorial cites “caution should be taken in prescribing statins for primary prevention among people at low cardiovascular risk.” So I absolutely agree statins should not be used for prevention.
Fantastic talk
He spoke the truth without trying to pander to the idiots
He crammed a lot in whilst still remaining understandable
I have never heard of him before but he has a new convert :-)
Sources please.
Thinking of people like Jenny McCarthy and Oprah I can not help but recall my very most favorite line from the "Blackadder" series:
"To you, Baldrick, the renaissance was just something that happened to other people."
" About 12 years ago, there was a story published, a horrible story, that linked the epidemic of autism to the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine shot. Very scary. Tons of studies were done to see if this was true. Tons of studies should have been done; it's a serious issue. The data came back. The data came back from the United States, from England, from Sweden, from Canada, and it was all the same: no correlation, no connection, none at all. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter because we believe anecdotes, we believe what we see, what we think we see, what makes us feel real. We don't believe a bunch of documents from a government official giving us data, and I do understand that, I think we all do. But you know what? The result of that has been disastrous. Disastrous because here's a fact: The United States is one of the only countries in the world where the vaccine rate for measles is going down. That is disgraceful, and we should be ashamed of ourselves. It's horrible. What kind of a thing happened that we could do that? "
This is apparently a dismissal of Andrew Wakefield's paper that suggested an MMR-autism link in 1998. Does anyone know what data ("from the United States, from England, from Sweden, from Canada") he's referring to?
All the data, ever, except for Wakefield's.
There is a difference between denying science and believing in something were science has failed to bring an answer.
What is the source of the study you are citing. Because, now that you have provided the relevant information, I would love to know more about it. If it is true then that is awesome! Also, it may be the fault of some, but I think blanketing a whole group of people without taking into consideration environmental or physical factors that may contribute to their weight gain is worrisome. on the JAMA website check out Making the Case for Selective Use of Statins in the Primary Prevention Setting.
I do want to clarify that I am in no way against science as a tool for understanding how physical and biological systems operate. I do appreciate the wonderful advances made in medicine. I do want to point out the distinction between science as a set of tools and the use of science to create substances materials and activities which are used for profit without understanding or failing to address the implications to the earth and its communities as a whole. This is an enormous problem. It has cr
1. Science as a tool for discovery has proven to be very successful. No dispute there.
2. What needs to be differentiated here is "science as a tool" on the one hand and "use of scientific discoveries" on the other.
3. The measure of the messages in this video should then be weighed not in terms of "is science beneficial" but rather "are scientific discoveries beneficial" to us and by us I mean the entire connected community of life on Earth.
One can safely say that scientific discoveries used
Most of these TED talks open my mind, but also make depressing thoughts creep in.
America needs to watch this video over and over.
Thank you sir, for your fight for a fairer world.
I'd humbly like to add that this current nonsensical science-denial fad, is caused by some societal biases and misconceptions:
_ Science is not a body, regulator or any set of controllable entities, it is even far from being monolithic in their postulates. It is composed by countless, silent, underpaid, heroes, from all disciplines and geographies, who present their findings (in the best protocol available) for peers and public, to review, correct, and help further researches. This science, the good old term, is just the best method our pathetic species have, and it will always be uncompleted and not error free.
_ It is notable how profit-driven commercial ventures, of all sizes, may have more credibility, just by pasting science sounding terms, on whatever product, service or click-bait they like to push.
The science errors do not validate postulates by people purposely auto-devoid of impartial peer review.
_ One basic protocol that true science encourages, is to apply critical thinking to everything, especially on itself.
Definitely shed some light on genetically modified organisms for me... So true - we've been doing the same process (genetically modifying & selecting foods) for over hundreds of years, scientists just found a way to do it much quicker. Some countries do need them disparately.. . But countries that are able to produce enough food for their nations may not require them and I can understand where some bands on GMO came from.
I like science. I love science. That being said, things like "Frankenfood" are profit driven models. Profit driven science frequently takes shortcuts. And frequently ignores safety in the name of profits. You can't talk about the safety of GM food without ignoring that aspect of it. Monsanto for example, has a record of lobbying for lower standards for their products. That's not a good thing when it comes to human lives.
One of the best Ted Talks I've ever watched and look at the views on it. Not even a million and it's been 11y.
It is 2022 and this is sad. Idiocracv is happening. :(
GE animals and AGH aren't too far behind, and the effects of that is, essentially, animal abuse. It's horrific what the USFDA has let through.
What's worse is that, whenever the FDA refuses to give the safety seal, companies will go to poorer countries, where there aren't any food/ marketing regulations and sell there.
If we are trying to be conscientious about how much land we use to produce food, we might consider a plant-based diet. Organic agriculture MAY mean a larger piece of land to grow a similar amount of food, but if we eat the plants directly (rather than feed them to animals and then eat the animals), we can grow much less food and still meet our nutritional needs. If we continue putting poisons on the landscape and if we continue to kill bees and deplete soil with our methods, we will be doomed.
I would definitely move forward. This video is even more relevant today 2021.
I agree that we need to follow the science - the GOOD science. The problem is often who to trust. The pharmaceutical companies that care more about profit than helping people and so hide or massage studies? The giant chemical and food companies that care more about money and put chemicals and genetically modified foods out there that have not been properly tested to know the effects on humans and the environment? The doctors and politicians who get truckloads of cash to push the agenda of the big corporations and wealthy elite at the expense of the people they serve? The problem is conflict of interest, the lack of morals (putting cash before people) and the decay of trust. Another problem is the mountain of bad information out there amongst the good. It is often hard and takes a lot of time to sift through it all to determine what is good and what is not.
Well said.
Depressing to say, 11 years ago, nothing improved. This had to be shared again and hopefully widespread. Social media would rather choose a cute cat meme or something over something sobering, realistic and reality.
why was there an IBM / Repsol add at end of this vid
Until recently, basic biochemistry dogma stated that one gene->one protein. Upon elucidating the genome, we discovered a 1:4 ratio of genes to proteins. You insert one gene, you're going to effect changes you have no way of predicting. Inserting a jellyfish gene into a tomato is not the same as crossing pea plants. We have a gaping hole in our basic biochemistry knowledge and we should remedy that before irreversibly altering the botanical landscape that has been evolving for millions of years.
I love how the top post on this video is the EXACT thing that the video is warning you against.
If vitamins are ineffective, why would rice with vitamin A added be so spiffy? what's the diff?
Yeah, Monsanto is pretty evil. no arguments there, but why must you condemn an entire field of engineering with undeniable potential, because Monsanto is a bond villain? It's childish.
I worry that ingredients from automotive antifreeze are allowed in food, what will they engineer? Lead was put in everything, pipes for drinking water, paint, fuel. It was a major battle to undo. We need science to be trustworthy, however, it's clear that scientists are just people. So, vigilance is warranted. And I think we need to do both, progress and heirloom/organics. We should do both and appreciate them.
Again, the burden of proof is on the drug manufacturers, not the public. The drug manufacturers have to prove all of your points, we don't have to disprove them. You should be DEMANDING this data from them.
The commercial at the end of this video is the exact reason why Michael Specter's wishes will not be realized.
What provides you with a better lifestyle? Healthier foods? Cleaner surfaces? Vaccines to cause many of those "any number of reasons" to not happen? The improved buildings that are warmer and dryer. The improved fabrics in clothing to again, keep you warmer and dryer. Everything that makes your life nicer is thanks to science.
I don't have a problem with genetically engineering food to be more nutritious.
The problem is that most GM crops are not modified for human health, but for their ability to withstand very high levels of pesticides and herbicides. This toxins can have horrible effects on the ecosystem, not only in and of itself but because it encourages reliance on old methods of monoculture. Allowing traces of these chemicals in our diet isn't great either.
Surely food production is not the problem(given the amount wasted esp by the West) rather it's the distribution of affordable food that is the enemy
+David Evans
That's true. But it's easier to grow good GMOs three miles from a city in Kenya, than to fly it in.
I've been wondering that too. I think the "general rule" is to look to universalize, which is a balance between those two extremes ("lone nut in garage" = social recluse, "big bad corporate liars" = spread their social havoc all over society like an STD") The part where he says "these stories bothered me and I couldn't figure out why, and eventually I did..."
that is pretty universal, it's something everyone would be doing, ideally; something we all tend to avoid leading to mass paranoia, IRL.
Who is here because of Psychology class??
People (adults) would choose to go back in time to be with and to meet their long ago passed away family members: who wouldn't want to be with their parents and grandparents just one more time, to meet their great and great great grand parents, to once again play with their childhood pets, to see and feel the love & safety of long ago times. That's why. Nobody gives two straws about the food choices --- it's the people we loved and we miss. I think I would never leave .... not even for HBO.
If there was evidence for 'alternative medicine' it would scarcely be alternative. Alternative medicine has had decades to centuries to accumulate such evidence, but the vast majority of it cannot get past the anecdotal stage. (Reiki, cupping, crystals, iridology, homeopathy, reflexology, magnet therapy, etc, etc).
"Put something like Vitamin A into Rice" 👌👌👌
Ideas like this can improve health rate in a large scale for billions of people in India. 🙏
But according to most people in India, "it is bad for us and against mother nature", especially by those in power still having that 1950s mindset.
He made no such leap. He listed out the specific supplements he was referring to and made no umbrella statements about all supplements whatsoever.
DDT is CURRENTLY BEING USED to eliminate malaria vectors (google "DDT vector control"). Which means had DDT been really banned to do vector control, the claim would be completely legitimate.
That's a fact and go on with it.
Life expectancy for 5-year-olds has hardly changed in the last hundred years. Early childhood was the most dangerous period in the past. If you got past that, then at age 5 (say) your life-expectancy a hundred years ago was pretty much the same as now.