Keith indirectly addressed(?) my critique:
> 4. Technological optimism. Here, a little biography is in order. In my
> younger years (two professions ago), as an industrial chemist, I was in
> charge of production conditions for two factories [Courtaulds, at Coventry
> and Preston] making rayon and tyrecord and, later, quality control of all
> types of production within a tractor factory [Massey-Ferguson, at Coventry]
> which, at that time, made more tractors per day than any other factory in
> the world [approx 2,500]). As far as technology is concerned, I am as
> practical person as you could find. Believe me, I am very far from being
> the sort of goggle-eyed reader of popular discovery-type magazines with
> utopian visions of the future.
Experience in technical quality control of tractors does not qualify you
to assess the environmental impact of decades of tractor use on soil.
But the latter kind of technological optimism/assessment is what my comment
referred to ("is it safe/sustainable?" rather than "is it feasible?").
Also note that the term "genetic _engineering_" is an overstatement --
rather than engineering, it's more like "shooting in the dark" or
tinkering, especially concerning the long-term outcomes.
So it's invalid to extrapolate your experience & confidence in engineering
onto genetic "engineering" and its sustainability.
Chris
