/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12541703
>>12541661
>>12541697
>>12541721
>>12541754
These criticisms make no sense and I get the impression you don't know math or game theory. By definition, that would not be a humanitarian strategy. If you choose to defect against people if and only if they have defected against you in the past, then you are not playing a humanitarian strategy. In that case you would be employing a tit-for-tat strategy, which is not humanitarian.

Tit-for-tat is arguably a kind of ethnocentrism. Nothing about ethnocentrism entails that you seek to mistreat or exploit other groups. An ethnocentric group strategy is simply to maximize the fitness of you group. That doesn't entail that you seek to minimize the fitness of other groups. Thus an ethnocentric population will employ a tit for tat strategy if and only if that strategy is optimal for the fitness of the group. If another group poses no threat to an ethnocentric group, then the ethnocentric group would have no incentive to defect against another population.

In fact, nationalism used to be considered a liberal or progressive ideology (and most leftist actually still support national sovereignty, just not for western/white nations). There's nothing about being ethnocentric that entail you hate other ethnicity or want them to make them suffer.

By definition an ethnocentric population is seeking to maximize its own fitness. They have no inherent reason to want to harm or oppress other groups. In fact, they will generally want to avoid harming other groups because (1) doing so is an unnecessary waste of resources, and (2) it can result in retaliation. On the other hand, if cooperating with other ethnicities will maximize their expected utility, then they will do so. By definition, an ethnocentric population will seek to maximize its own expected utility. A humanitarian population, on the other hand, is seeking to minimize harm done to other populations, and so they wouldn't engage in tit-for-tat.

Scientifically speaking, what reason do we have to say that Monsanto's practices and products are dangerous? More generally, what evidence do we actually have the GMO agriculture in general is dangerous?

I know SJWs and Reddit science types absolutely hate GMO agriculture and Monsanto, and yet they "fucking love" stuff like Big Pharma, Big Tech, Apple phones, and 5G. Given that there is no evidence to suggest any dangers in GMO agriculture, and that the scientific establishment has repeatedly ensured us that GMO crops are perfectly safe, I find this very puzzling. GMO skepticism seems to verge on science denial and conspiracy theorizing. Personally, I genuinely think GMO crops are a wonderful tool that make it easier for farmers to grow more nutritious food and get it to more people. I can understand some of the concerns about pesticides and herbicides, especially in the water supply, but I see no reason to worry about GMO crops themselves.

>>12378418
Go back to your containment board, chud. The problem isn't "justified institutional distrust", it's low IQ inbred rednecks who preach racism and hate anyone with a degree. Institutional distrust is not "justified". If anything the recent events with COVID demonstrate that institutional distrust and skepticism of scientific and medical experts is probably the biggest problem that we face today as a society.

Sometimes corporations, the media, etc. publish false news, but the vast majority of mainstream/reliable/non-conservative sources are acting in good faith and are willing to correct the record when it turns out they're wrong.

The real problem is that the far-right, white nationalists, etc. are reaching larger audiences than ever due to social media and podcasts like Alex Jones. Corporations and the media, on the other hand, will embrace progressive policies and racial equality, if that's what seems popular. The systemic problems we face do not stem from education, pharma, or the mainstream media, but rather from decentralized fringe sources like Alex Jones, and uneducated country hicks who smoke meth and then concoct ridiculous conspiracy theories about satanism and globalists. In other words, systemic problems are not caused by a small handful of corporations that are publicly traded on the stock-market and directly accountable to their customers and stockholders. In reality, most systemic social problems are rooted in the widespread ignorance, stupidity, and hate that you see primarily amongst the white working class. Again, I'm not trying to say that the media or pharma are completely blameless, but my point is that we can hold companies and news agencies accountable, and they are generally willing to admit that they're wrong if doing so will help their public image. The problem with some independent far-right podcast like Alex Jones or some schizos posting on /pol/ from his trailer park is that these people can't be held accountable.