I don't think that "democratically controlled" regulation is sufficient without some type of social ownership of the means of production and production based on needs not on profit. What amazes me about the anti_GM crowd is that they rail against corporations but do not usually suggest public ownership. Of course public ownership alone is not sufficient but nothing is sufficient without public ownership since private ownership will involve the pursuit of profit as a priority aim. Within a capitalist context democratic control will almost inevitably be constrained by the imperative of profit.
Cheers, Ken Hanly --- Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think the key is that at present, at least in the > US, GM is > introduced following the principle that > "Corporations know best" or > "if it's profitable, it's good." My feeling is that > it requires > democratically-controlled regulation, to deal with > possible external > costs and the like. > > On 8/12/06, Perelman, Michael > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Insulin can be made in a laboratory in a way that > could be relatively > > easy to contain. The oil-cleaning bacteria might > have other properties > > released into the wild. I would need to know more > before coming to a > > conclusion. > > > > > > Ken asked: > > > > >So do people also object to the use of GM > technology > > to produce insulin and also to create bacteria > that > > consume oil and can cleanup oil spills? > > > > > > Michael Perelman > > Economics Department > > California State University > > michael at ecst.csuchico.edu > > Chico, CA 95929 > > 530-898-5321 > > fax 530-898-5901 > > > > > -- > Jim Devine / "It is however always important to > remember that the > ability to see things in their correct perspective > may be, and often > is, divorced from the ability to reason correctly > and vice versa. That > is why an economist may be a very good theorist and > yet talk absolute > nonsense...." -- Joseph Schumpeter [edited] >
