Opponents of genetically modified foods and bioengineering are often - in the abstract - motivated by a concern over the loss of 'authenticity'. Authenticity, in this context, generally contrasts with the artifical and denotes proximity to the 'natural'. It is conceived as a close relationship between the human and the natural cycles and processes of the world - the idea being that attempts to modify or unravel the activities, processes, and events of the natural world are the ultimate vanity, a condition which disrupts one's natural proper relation of deep humility to the world. But the entire notion of authenticity is hopelessly incoherent and has a slightly theological air about it. The quest for authenticity is primarily an aesthetic affair, and seldom do such quests find relevance in the world of policy. Those hoping for something more foundational on which to attach their grand visions often look to bolster their spiritual intuitions with the rigorous methodologies of science. But such aesthetic claims rarely find support in careful analysis and attempts at fear-mongering usually birth more examples of junk science (as is the case here).
Thankfully, it's exactly advances like this that belie the claims of the Malthusian prophets of doom and which offer hope to those convinced that our collective hand basket is careening ever faster towards hell. Most importantly, however, is the salvation such advances offer to those most adversely affected by the 'authenticity' of the natural world, by the natural phenomena of hurricanes, droughts, typhoons, pestilence, etc... It will be these breakthroughs that produce heartier varieties, higher yields, and increasing nutritional content and will hopefully someday prevent tragedies like this.
Comments