On Sat, 22 Jul 2000, Spike Jones wrote:
> It occurred to me there is a minority we havent heard from: the pro-GM
> greens. This is not at all a contradiction in terms, for the line of
> reasoning is this:
> 1) Greens are not necessarily anti-humans, just pro-wilderness.
Yes, and converting a reasonable amount of agricultural land from
something like ~1% NatAg sunlight gatherers into ~30%+ nanotech
sunlight gatherers will leave a large amount available for
conversion back into wilderness.
Doesn't solve the problem of "uncontrolled 'wild' replicators" though.
> 5) Therefore, GM is green.
Spike is correct. Nanotech even more so. Of course convincing
people of that is the interesting problem. I always wonder what
the greens say when you say: "Let me get this straight -- do you want
to return the the planet to a wild state where dog-eat-dog is the
dominant condition, i.e. where carnivores are ripping out the throats
or entrails of their prey, allowing them to die relatively unpleasantly?"
Techno-man has done a majority of species a favor by eliminating
other predators and confining his predation to a limited set of
animals which, *in theory*, are sacrificed with a minimal amount
of suffering (though I'd *definately* prefer that all meat be
grown in a vat).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:35:08 MDT