>So its an open and shut case, then.
GE becomes (for me) an issue when a convincing argument appears.
This position is slightly different from "open and shut case".
>For clarification, I don't believe GE is an end-all solution to
>our food production problems. I don't of anyone who does.
yes
>The problems you and others have mentioned
>are real. But it should not be summarily dismissed for the
>weaknessness you mention above.
yes
>(I also see nothing wrong whatsoever with making a profit, but I promise I
>won't go there).
Profit taken as a right/wrong dichotomy isn't what was intended. Profit
does have a place in this world. It also has limits usually referred
to as "greed" or "domination".
>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.
Today GE is controlled by a handful of corporations which keep
buying up smaller companies. Their goals appear to be domination
of this technology and food systems. I don't see it fitting with
seed savers, organic methods, and i don't see much useful for
PC in the way they view the future.
>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...
Yes, we tend to convert issues into dichotomies and miss the middle.
In this case the real world needs a middle. What we have today
is GE occurring and a whole bunch of people asking for a middle.
>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.
That is a good question which needs an answer. Might be difficult
given the current state of GE. Most of the products developed
have little to do with sustainability.
Another question might be: Do we need GE technology to sustainability
feed the world? If we have the knowledge necessary to feed
the world sustainability, then why aren't we doing it? Answering
these questions might uncover deeper issues.
Or we might ask... will GE make sustainability more difficult
at some future point? The way it is currently going has
convinced a lot of people that it will work against
sustainability.
Another big issue here is the precautionary principle which
says we should not introduce new technology without looking
at the long term consequences. Already problems have occurred
with GE technology which indicates we need to be careful.
So... where is the issue with GE. For me there are lots of
issues. One is information. Monsanto and Norvatus are
actively promoting this technology and trying to sway public
opinion. This forces those opposed to raise money so another
side of the issue can be reported. This isn't an objective
way to approach a new technology, already we are in good/bad
struggle. This battle often goes to those who raise the
most money and promote their ideas with the best spin. So,
we have moved out of rational debate and into marketing.
Another issue is control. Groups that want GE products
labeled are being fought by corporate interests. They
contend labeling would hurt their profits. Ah... now
we get to the real issue. Is GE being controlled by the
profit motive or other factors? What do we want?
For me GE isn't an issue. We don't have a good choice at
this point and that is the issue.
----------
Jeff Owens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Zone 7, http://www.teleport.com/~kowens
Underground house, solar energy, reduced consumption, no TV
