snip...
>
> My view is that GE is being promoted by a few corporations
> who expect to make a profit and have little interest in
> helping humanity. Many of the changes are of questionable
> value. Such as:
>
> terminator gene
> roundup ready soybeans
> Bt potatoes
>
> The reason this isn't an issue in my mind is.... i can't
> find any good argements from the GE side. On SAGNET
> this has been discussed for months. Not one argement
> for GE side has ended up with a convincing position. This
> has also occured on several other lists.
So its an open and shut case, then. Well I guess I won't take up any more time
trying to convince anyone otherwise...
Not ! ;-)
For clarification, I don't beleive GE is an end-all solution to our food production
problems. I don't of anyone who does. The problems you and others have mentioned
are real. But it should not be summarily dismissed for the weaknessness you mention
above. (I also see nothing wrong whatsoever with making a profit, but I promise I
won't go there). I believe GE should have its place in our overall food production
strategy, just as small organic farms should, and permaculture farms should, and
backyard OP/seed-saver gardens should.
I don't see the point in a GE crops is "good" or GE crops is "evil" discussion,
which apparently has/is already happening on other forums. That immediately
polarizes it into an unwinnable argument for either "side". I've seen the exact
same type discussion occur on the forest listserver about the use of clearcutting.
What a waste of energy...
I would think a better approach to the subject is "how can we use this tool to best
achieve long term sustainability", not chuck the tool because it can't fix
everything.
Greg
