I agree with most of what you wrote, and I attribute the very last statement to personal afflictions - but I’d rather not call everyone concerned about the safety of glyphosate a hippy, or any other derogatorily meant term.
I have worked for a large NGO some 12 years back, and I know how their grassroot democracy approach sometimes favoured people who are vocal, and prone to overestimating a) the world’s malevolence and b) their cognitive abilities and/or their knowledge. I know the sociotope very well and how in-grouping and out-grouping works. In short, I was one of the hippies you are referring to.
I also know that these organisations are very diverse, and not monolith. They take up fringe movements as well as mainstream groups, and they (as an NGO) do voice real concerns of real people. Your life might become more difficult with NGOs campaigning against glyphosate, but even when you don’t agree with them on specific points like health danger from glyphosate (or GMOs, which is another heavily related pet peeve of mine) I find it heavily counterproductive to just dismiss them as clueless hippies.
That said, I don’t think I could stand to work on such an environment today, after of years learning how to scientifically approach such questions. I can’t cope with the constant stress of being told that I must be bought. =/
Allow me to join @Grey_Devil in welcoming you to the BBS. Don’t be surprised to see that there is always a cadre of Outragistas who won’t read an article or won’t cross check claims. Its just some human nature at work.
Sounds like you completely understand @Wanderfound’s frustration with hippies.
Well, if the science doesn’t say it is or isn’t then it isn’t appropriate to say it is, or isn’t. ‘non-carcinogenic’ means something different from ‘can’t cause cancer’.
Now, the science might say one way or another, but what’s questionable about a company not wanting to be held liable for stating a negative when it’s still not settled? That one point actually sounds like a reasonable scientific reservation.
And before I get jumped on, I am a toxicologist. I know all about the stuff. I don’t know what era the above quote comes in from, all i know is it isn’t, on it’s face, an unreasonable thing to say unless you want to use that statement to imply something it does not say - which is a lot of the problem with non scientists scienceing.
This comment is about that one statment, please lets not drag some other part of this into my examination of one statement and the lack of context for it. I’m not trying to undermine a whole anything - just that one statement - it’s implying something by stating a lack of knowledge - which is fantastic in fiction and politics - and poison to science.
Shall I try again? I don’t like fundamentalists. And NGOs trying to prevent glyphosate being the norm rather than the exception have their fair share of vocal fundamentalists. Which doesn’t make everyone questioning this pesticide a hippie.
Polemics and name-calling is a sign of laziness and weakness. On both sides.
