Thank you, Keith, for your very ood arguments

Regards

Reinhard Henning


"Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> Hello Chuck
> 
> >Strictly from the standpoint of efficiency, growing a plant that produced an
> >acceptable yield of fuel for diesel engines without processing any further
> >than extraction and filtering is nearly ideal.
> >We do need people hanging around with a healthy dose of skepticism, but
> >running away from the future because some aspects of that future appear to
> >carry risks is worse than plunging blindly forward without heed of the
> >consequences.
> 
> That's NOT what we're doing. I am not against genetic engineering - I 
> am against genetic engineering in the hands of the current players, 
> who have a VERY bad record at such things, with virtually nothing to 
> redeem it. Genetic engineering in itself is a most promising 
> technology. My fear is not only that great damage will be caused by 
> the current highly irresponsible initiatives but that the future of 
> the technology might thus be ruined. My fears are being amply 
> realised day by day, I'm very sorry to say.
> 
> A large portion of the world sees it just the same way. These are not 
> over-emotional fears based on scare-mongering, as some try to paint 
> them, they're very often well-informed views, despite much corporate 
> spin which attempts to confuse the issue, often successfully. Many of 
> the nay-sayers are themselves scientists, many of whom have changed 
> sides from pro to con. More and more scientists are doing that.
> 
> > Genetic engineering  has been going on since that monk,
> >whats-his-name, was messing around with peas in his garden, even before
> >that.
> 
> That is not true. His name was Mendel. Plant breeding is quite 
> different to genetic engineering. The two have almost nothing in 
> common. Read the definition Ed just posted. Neither Mendel, nor the 
> hundreds of generations of careful farmer breeders before him and 
> since who have given us our range of food crops - all very different 
> from their wild originals - have not practised genetic engineering.
> 
> >We have been cross-breeding, hybridizing, and culling herds and crops
> >for desirable traits since before recorded history.  Its just that now we've
> >advanced to the stage that we can do it with tremendous efficiency at the
> >direct genetic level.
> 
> You're quite wrong, on both counts. For the first, see above. For the 
> second, there's very little efficiency involved. Check out your facts 
> first. It's not an efficient process, it's highly random. Claims that 
> the results are known and reliable have in all cases so far proven 
> wrong. The effects - the GMO crops themselves - have not performed as 
> claimed, and have behaved as it was promised they would not. Not 
> efficient, bad science, bad technology.
> 
> >Monitor the progress, give those who are concerned a
> >public forum, and let normal human progress take its course.
> 
> This is not normal human progress, this is corporate irresponsibility.
> 
> >As a student of western civilization, I can tell you that, historically,
> >cultures that turn their backs, or try to stop social, or scientific
> >progress, marginalize themselves, ceding the forefront to other cultures
> >that are willing to embrace the future.
> 
> Stopping scientific progress is one thing, giving an unrestricted 
> green light to unproven technology that is at best half-baked quite 
> another.
> 
> >I am not flaming anyone here, I respect the cynic and the critic, we need
> >you to balance the science-as-a-god crowd on the other end of the spectrum.
> >But, please, accept the possibility that your opinions are just that;
> >opinions.  It is possible for someone equally well informed to disagree with
> >you without being evil.
> 
> These are not opinions. If you want solid references I'll give them 
> to you. I wonder, though, if you can do the same. From my view of the 
> subject, I doubt it.
> 
> >I'm sorry this got so, long, I just didn't want to see another tangential
> >flame war fire up.  I hope I haven't caused one.
> 
> We can have a discussion, we can have an argument, we can even get 
> heated about it, no problem, it only becomes a flame war when it goes 
> beyond that into a personal slanging match, which I trust won't 
> happen.
> 
> >Oh, we're talking to the local economic development people about building a
> >BD plant right here, using WVO as feedstock.
> 
> Good for you!
> 
> Best wishes
> 
> Keith
> 
> >Chuck R.
> 
> 
> Biofuels at Journey to Forever
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> Biofuel at WebConX
> http://www.webconx.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm
> List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech:
> http://archive.nnytech.net/
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
>  
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
bagani GbR, Reinhard Henning, Rothkreuz 11, D-88138 Weissensberg, Germany
Tel: ++49 8389 984129, Fax: 984128, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
internet: www.bagani.de

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Kwick Pick opens locked car doors,
front doors, drawers, briefcases,
padlocks, and more. On sale now!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/ehaLqB/Fg5DAA/Ey.GAA/9bTolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Biofuels at Journey to Forever
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel at WebConX
http://www.webconx.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm
List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech:
http://archive.nnytech.net/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 


Reply via email to