Jeff & Greg wrote (with my clarifications?):
Jeff:
> > 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 (to the food supply and are purely for profit). . . .
> > i can't find any good argements from the GE side (that
> > outweight the risks involved).
Greg:
> I believe GE should have its place in our overall food production
> strategy (along side many other approaches and techniques).
> 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.
My comments:
I side with Jeff on this one. I put GE in with nuclear power; the risks
aren't worth the benefits. In fact, the possible risks (unknown effects on
wild populations, altering the ability of plants to reproduce, adding gene
combinations that are untested by evolution, etc.) of both are so great
that even a moderate amount of benefits (which neither seem to have) would
still not be good enough. Certainly corporate profit is not a good enough
benefit! Greg sees GE as a possible tool. I might agree, but I see it as
a running chain saw and us as babies. We are not smart enough to use it
without causing great damage. Perhaps even if we were smart enough, we'd
_know_ we shouldn't use it.
Eric Storm
