On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 CurtAdams@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 1/17/00 8:27:01, email@example.com wrote:
> >Roundup soybeans are the exact OPPOSITE of this criterion!
> >The purpose of making them resistant is so they can use more
> >Roundup, not less.
> Ah, but they use less of *other* herbicides. It takes a complex
> cocktail to defend regular soybeans against dicots; with Roundup
> soybeans you just need Roundup. Also, they don't use more
> roundup on those particular soybeans; you can't you Roundup on
> regular soybeans at all. It kills them as avidly as any weed.
> Obviously Monsanto sells more Roundup in general.
I think this commentary points out (with no negative press for
either individual), how little knowledge the average American
has about bio-agro-chemistry, actual farming practices and
what goes on behind the curtain of their grocery store. Contrast
that with say most Russians who have to grow their own food and
large numbers of city dwellers that are encouraged to go out into
the fields to help harvest the potatoes every fall.
We are back again to the problem of "should uninformed voters
be allowed to vote?". Now -- to push on this idea a little
from an Extropian standpoint, most of us would strongly agree
with the one-man-one-vote principle. But, "rationally" can
you make an argument that this will result in the best government
when the people are either educated by "sound bites" or not at
all? One might look more at something like the judicial system
where you vote for judges, but they have to demonstrate a fair
amount of competency to their peers before they get on the ballot.
We have precedents in the "pratice of law", the "practice of
medicine" -- should the realm of the environmental regulations for
food, air, water, etc. be managed by those who are educated in the
"practice of science"? And then of course, what about the "practice
of government?" (or does the current process effectively do that?)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:02:21 MDT