> The Precautionary Principle (with Application to the Genetic Modification of Organisms)
That article is a prime example of pseudo intellectualism, mostly because he lumps all GMOs in one big bucket, there's no general characteristic yet he and co-authors forces one. No wonder it's "only" on arxiv and hasn't made it anywhere else (look at the endorsers: https://arxiv.org/auth/show-endorsers/1410.5787 )
FWIW, I read Antifragile, and this GMO position seems to go against the general principles he espoused there. Having read it, I expected he would think the status quo is already optimal for addressing GMOs: some regions go full forward with it, some heavily restrict it, some ban it entirely. This will then give a great dataset for long term effects while also hedging against it being a catastrophe.
But Taleb's current position is way more conservative than that stance!
Edit: I think this commenter gave a more "Talebian" response to GMOs (despite not having read the book): basically, let them exist, but make it easy for people to opt out in favor of foods with a longer track record. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11506599
Part of the current problem with "opting out" (at least in America) is that companies producing GMOs have fought huge legal battles to avoid labeling requirements.
Without accurate information, you can't know if your corn flakes were made with GMOs or not.
That article is a prime example of pseudo intellectualism, mostly because he lumps all GMOs in one big bucket, there's no general characteristic yet he and co-authors forces one. No wonder it's "only" on arxiv and hasn't made it anywhere else (look at the endorsers: https://arxiv.org/auth/show-endorsers/1410.5787 )
A rebuttal did however make it into a journal: http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v33/n9/full/nbt.3333.html