> Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 11:58:43 -0400
> From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Subject: Re: SOC/BIO: Rifkin's "worldwide moratorium" on genetically
> Steve wrote:
> > > Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 12:47:01 -0400
> > > From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <email@example.com>
> > > Subject: Re: SOC/BIO: Rifkin's "worldwide moratorium" on genetically
> > > modified organisms
> > You made the initial comparison with H-bombs ...... I only point out that
> > the dangers are more subtle and we should tread carefully.
> No, I compared YOUR fears and level of alarmism to similar levels of
> about nuclear power and nuclear war. I did NOT compare GM to H-bombs. Please
> re-read what I posted.
> Sellafield, three mile island, chernobyl .... need i go on? surely the
> "alarmist" fears about nuclear power have been born out?
Sellafield? Nothing. TMI? Not one fatality. Chernobyl? A system purposely
overloaded with all safety systems turned off, as some sort of stupid 'test' by
your socialist buddies. The lesson of Chernobyl is that socialists can't be
trusted with nuclear power. THe lesson of TMI is that US nuclear plants are safe
systems even under the worst failure conditions.
> > > It is more like a forest fire, which it is possible to fight
> > >and contain and eliminate (much as we have eliminated smallpox and other
> > >diseases).
> > Yes, but even forest fires are harmful .... and aren't some diseases (TB?)
> > that were once thought to have been eliminated fighting back?
> >They fight back where people don't actually give them a good fight.
> Resistant TB
> >strains evolved specifically because people with TB, in their
> >lack of attention to detail, stopped taking the antibiotics when they
> >feeling better, rather than completing the entire regimen of antibiotics as
> >instructed by their doctors.
> But unlike forest fires & disesases .... we are deliberately introducing GM
> strains into the environment.
Which has shown tons of evidence that it is perfectly safe there. Humans have
been introducing genetically modified agricultural species into the environment
for millenia. The only difference between then and now is then we were rolling
the dice with the genes in our breeding programs, while now we have a very exact
idea of what we are getting. Its quite clear that GE programs are far safer than
the hybridization programs humans have been running for thousands of years.
Anyone who knows ANYTHING about agriculture knows that.
> > There are no remote mountains or whatever in the UK that can be freed of
> > bees, even if there might be in the States. But surely other insects move
> > pollen about as well as bees?
> >None do to the same extent, though butterflies are pretty good, and
> >are also, but these do not deal with corn. Corn's overwhelmingly primary
> >of pollination is by wind.
> So the safety of tests *can't* be guaranteed then?
Nothing in life is guarranteed. Get out of your cradle and give up the safety
blankee. Mommy ain't nursing you no more.
> > OK, so you question the motives of "greenies" who may have left-wing
> > politics. But for sure the motives of Monsanto and the big agri-businesses
> > pushing this GM thru as fast they can *ARE* motivated solely by
> > self-interest and financial gain.
> What is your reply to this point?
How do you know what their interests are? Their stockholders are interested in
making money, surely, or else they would not be investing in those companies. I
fail to see why such an obviously obsolete socialist argument needs any reply,
at least on this list.
> >What is permaculture?
> Unfortunately there aren't big agri bucks to be made out permaculture ....
> although apparently NY city could be self-sufficient in food if it was
> introduced in the city limits! Its real benefits would be if introduced in
> developing countries, but isn't an instant fix, takes a while to establish
> ... but after that, easy street.
What is your answer to the question, though??? What is permaculture?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:35:34 MDT