"R. Harrill" wrote:
> Sorry, I thought he was saying that *I* was anti-GMO and then he started in on
> the strong language so I assumed he was calling me yet more names. I really
> didn't see that line as a break in the whole outburst.
Try to read more clearly.
> For the record, I don't think for a minute that the GMO juggernaut can be
> stopped. It's just that I want each new GMO properly and scientifically
> studied before it is let loose in the environment. Is that too much to ask?
No its not, however part of 'properly and scientifically studying' each
organism is actually planting them in a real field, under controlled
conditions, for controlled studies. Unfortunately, the luddites seem
intent on ripping up by the roots every instance of a GMO study getting
that far, so its rather obvious that the luddites don't really care
about 'proper and scientific study', they are out for another purpose.
> I've been fortunate enough to see the beautiful interplay of nature, really
> close---much more than most people, and perhaps a bit more than the few. The
> books are full of disasters where something gets loose without good thought
> (sometimes after good thought). Rabbits in Australia might serve for a simple
> illustration. They have been no end of trouble and they spelled the end for
> some species.
But the rabbits are now at an end in Australia, are they not? So now
those species can be reintroduced. Funny how nature is. Once the problem
is gone, it grows back.
> Life forms reproduce. If we are going to turn them loose, we need to test,
> experiment, study, and *really* think before we toss them out there to see what
> What is so Luddite about that? Now, again for the record, I understand
> Luddites were people in early industrial age England who did things like
> tossing monkey wrenches into expensive machinery to f*ck things up. How can I
> possibly fit that category? What I'm against is people tossing scary things
> into the machinery of *my* world that can f*ck me up. So, I ain't no
> Luddite---but some of you GMO-tosser people may be.
Except that luddites have shown ZERO credible scientific evidence that
any GMO has any potential to do as you say, but they are still ripping
up test crops left and right. The one instance where they had something
plausible to say, about the corn that produces its own pesticide, it
turned out after studies that it was an unwarranted concern, but they
are still ripping up that corn in night time raids. They don't seem to
beleive in due process or in conceding the possibility they may be
> The burden for testing has to be on whoever wants to first pitch the lifeform
> out there. It won't be too long until high school kids can gene splice in the
> basement. If you think the 48,000 known computer viruses weirdos dreamed up
> are a pain in the rear, can you imagine the trouble when the type of kid who
> can gun down a dozen of his schoolmates finally figures out how to remap a few
> common bacteria so they are immune to anything in the docs' arsenals? You
> people might want to worry about the ethics of GMO release instead of trying to
> figure how to get around one simple dirt farmer.
Using a wild hair up the ass scenario like that to try to prove your
point is ludicrous. What 'ethics' are there to GMO release? There are
none, its a figment of your paranoid conspiracy addled mind.
> BTW, this really is my last comment on this thread. You can't reason with a
> howling mob. I want to discuss Kurt Vonnegut's "Cat's Cradle" and see if
> anyone would help me figure if ice-nine is possible---now or in the future.
Ice nine was a plot tool, pure fabrication, sorry.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:34:57 MDT