GMO VS Selective Breeding

I'm not sure if Neil deGrasse Tyson was the first to introduce this argument on behalf of Bill Gates, but his was the first argument I'm aware of. I recently saw a swarm of propagandists using the same argument on the Chinese social app RedNote.

The argument holds that selective breeding is essentially a type of GMO (genetically modified organisms). The implication is that there can't be anything wrong with GMO, since people have been practicing it for thousands of years.

This definition blatantly ignores some enormous differences. Selective breeding can be thought of as rearranging an organism's genes, while GMO may involve modifying the genes themselves. GMO requires laboratories. The GMO racket is owned and controlled by corporations and the super rich, who hire scientists to do their bioengineering. The people who practiced selective breeding thousands of years ago were more typically shepherds wearing sandals.

GMO is rife with corruption, not selective breeding.

What fallacy, if any, would you associate with Tyson's argument?

I'm seeing fallacies on both sides here.

Choosing Neil deGrasse Tyson as the person to speak on GMOs could be argument from false authority . He's an astrophysicist, which is a field of science that's almost entirely unrelated to plant biology. So, beyond the basic scientific literacy that comes with being in a STEM field, his background gives him no special expertise in this field, but he's cultivated a reputation for being in expert in science, generally.

The comparison between selective breeding and genetic engineering would be a false equivalence . They are similar in that humans are, to some degree, controlling the genetic information inside another organism. However, selective breeding limits us to genetic information that already exists within the species, whereas genetic engineering allows us to introduce genetic information from other species. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, as this can introduce qualities like enhanced nutrition or disease resistance that wouldn't be available through selective breeding, but also glosses over risks that might be involved with making such a change.

One fallacy committed by both sides is saying that selective breeding is inherently good because it's been practiced for thousands of years, which is an appeal to tradition . Selective breeding is not without its problems. Some crops have been bred into monocultures that destroyed a lot of the natural variety that existed, and puts the crop at increased risk of being wiped out by disease. Selective breeding of dogs has led to breeds like pugs that have chronic breathing issues and are genetically predisposed to a lot of health problems.

Pointing out that genetic engineering requires laboratories, presumably as a way of demonstrating its inferiority, is an appeal to nature . It hinges on the idea that the unnatural setting makes it inherently worse without demonstrating why, but also doesn't address the fact that selective breeding, done at a high level, is also done in laboratory settings for better data collection and control.

Bringing up the wealth and corruption associated with the genetic engineering, I might consider that ad hominem (guilt by association) or possibly non sequitur . While those issues certainly exist with companies like Monsanto, having corrupt business practices does not necessarily mean their products are inherently unsafe. The two could be linked, but more evidence is needed to establish that. And, corruption and greed are issues that permeate pretty mich every industry, including agriculture with selectively bred crops. It's a known issue, for instance, that big agriculture has bred and engineered crops to suit their own interests, saturating the market with produce that maximizes yield and shelf life, often at the expense of qualities the consumer may find important like taste and texture.

There's also the issue of poisoning the well . The first paragraph asserts that Tyson is making the argument on behalf of Bill Gates, which would imply that he's being disingenuous and pushing an agenda, while tying him to negative ideas about Bill Gates. The bit about RedNote also makes an attempt to discredit the argument by linking it to Chinese propaganda. While Chinese propaganda certainly exists on RedNote, I honestly can't think of a reason that China would benefit from Americans seeing this message. That, and propaganda does tend to be a mix of truth and lies, so that doesn't necessarily discredit the argument being made.