We are told that when ‘witches’ believed mouldy cheese could treat certain ailments they were mocked by the scientific community, but that it eventually became accepted that these witches were in fact correct; mouldy cheese contains what are now considered medicinally-useful antibiotics. But what is to be learned from the apparent conceit of the scientific mind that it could mock such a correct idea?
By mainstream evolutionary theory, developments generally aid survival within prevailing conditions, and there is no reason to imagine human cognition should be any different in this respect. Logically, we should have improved our survival chances by better understanding the world in which we live. But this is too simple: survival does not necessitate our human abstract form of understanding, and such understanding does not guarantee survival.
Without examining either the societal or biological realities of GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms), the technology appears intellectually arrogant from the position of NOR (Non-Objective Reality). A basic honest understanding of evolutionary theory makes the case.
Non-Objective Reality (NOR), as its name suggests, is a critique of the objective view of the world. However, it is not one of the increasing challenges to objectivity that reflexively dismisses whatever risks offending people’s feelings. There is no attempt in NOR to for example, silence science, or to argue feelings inherently carry more weight – albeit, science is heavily criticized and feelings are given more credence than conventional objectivity generally allows.