THis response is a bit late, but here goes...
Fair enough - but generally I can't help reacting badly to being compared to Stalin.
You took my comment too seriously. I still stand by my reasoning that just letting a population die when you can help them is irresponsible and lame.
Nevertheless you argue that we should develop GM despite widespread concerns and opposition. Not all opponents of it are stupid or scientifically ignorant.
There are widespread concerns and opposition. I fully acknowledge that. That's why development incorporates all of that criticism to improve the process and deliver something better. People who deny this
are stupid/scientifically ignorant exactly because of the
fact that ethics is an essential to science. We can't stop idiots from doing irresponsible things, but I'd much rather live in a world full of crime and talking corn than one where new technology is looked down upon.
I quite agree that there are problems in the world. However I disagree that GM represents a solution to them rather than just the dawn of a bigger problem. I also find the 'saving the third world' stuff rather patronising. Especially since it's exploitation or interference by the 'first' world that has caused many of those problems. I note that when third world countries try to refuse GM products they are forced under threat to accept them, as has happened in Africa (and soon the EU). Now why would that be? I'm all for solving problems, but some solutions are better than others. Every new technology is a solution to some problem or other - that does not mean all new technologies are ultimately beneficial.
You bring up some good points. I've heard some terrible stories of how these African countries have turned down GM foods under the cloack of environmentalism. Now I wonder, -why would the UN try to force them? The reality is that governments don't necessarily care about the people. I'll bring up the words of a ficticious character, Dr Brodsky: "We are not concerned with motive, with the higher ethics. We are concerned only with cutting down crime (or in this case stimulating the economy)". Right now, it's alot more profitable to have people die so that you can rake in more tax dollars and industrialize. They don't care about the suffering that their people would have to endure. And with the suffering that people across Europe and North America had to go through to get through industrialization, there's no need to let it happen that badly again. Give 'em an education, teaching them to grow crops and stuff, - and feed them what they don't have, and eventually these African nations can become self-sustaining. As always, these African governments care more about the 'now'.
And on your last statement
"Every new technology is a solution to some problem or other - that does not mean all new technologies are ultimately beneficial. "
So you would rather be an animal with no technology at all? Without the ability to have control over your surroundings and one day become as strong as God? Yes, I agree that many technologies bring negative implications. That's a fact of life. But it
will ultimately be for the better. In the end.
I think you're wrong. GM is in its infancy. As we get better at doing it the potential problems will dwarf those of bombs or disease. And GM will not get rid of bombs or disease. It is very doubtful if it will do much to reduce hunger in the long run, since the number of people will always increase to just beyond sustainable levels. It always does.
NOTE: Recombinant DNA has been around since the 60's. Even though we didn't discover a single gene until the 70's.
Now before we go any futher,
There are many. We will become dependent on it, and on the technological and legislative paraphaenalia that goes with it. We will develop socially so that society becomes unable to operate without it. (This is true for most significant new technologies - try taking away the internal combustion engine, the TV, the telephone, refridgeration of food, factory farming, aeroplanes, you name it.) Thus GM will become indispensible (and any intelligent GN entrepreneur knows that). With more food will come more people (yippee) and soon guess what, more starvation unless we take the next technological step.
As technology grows, we become less dependant on things like weather and environment. This is essential to becoming a higher civilization.
We run the risk of creating a situation in which 'nature' will no longer be able to feed us, and perhaps one in which it actually ceases to function properly. (This latter already happens regularly on a limited scale - and, ironically, we usually we employ scientists (conservationists, biologists, etc) to try to repair the damage (if we bother to try). Just at what point the whole thing starts to fail we don't know, although it seems we're hell-bent on finding out. We already need thousands of experts to deal on a daily basis with over-fishing, de-forestation, soil depletion, pollution, starvation, species extinction, failure of local ecosystems etc ...
Always, under absolutely any circumstances, every single population from every species will always have a slightly higher (proportionately) population than is sustainable. This is a fact of ecology. And right minded scientists will tell you that this is no excuse since we can always create new technologies to solve problems, and we have done much of this already. It's all just part of *controlling are surroundings through superhuman technology.
You seem to be saying that although we've buggered up the world with our previous advances this one will be different. You may be right - but history is on my side. I note that all the supposed benefits of GM will accrue to the human species alone, the main one being that we can keep our population at a higher level without starving.
When the universe was created, it wasn't intended for virtue. It was intended for the strong. For that reason there will always be some level of starvation and povety beyond our control. GM doesn't wish to solve the problem of starvation because it CAN"T. It intends to make our crops more sustainable and less dependant on droughts or weather. No matter, the environment always has away of balancing things out, so control of our surroundings will still be out of reach.
I maintain, we are headed in the right direction.
(I'm not trying to harsh or anything, but this is what I've learnt)
You're right that I was suggesting doing something to control our mindless habit of over breeding now that we have got rid of most of the natural checks and balances. However I was not suggesting eugenics or gulags or letting people starve.
We can't control our overbreeding. We will
always have a population slightly higher than we can sustain. It's called - evolution. Throwing out GM can't and wont control our habit of over breeding more than the middle ages was beneficial for mankind.
And would you please care to explain how we've removed all of these checks and balances? I've always been under the impression that nature reigns supreme and will always have checks and balances. The Gaia hypothesis illustrates this perfectly. The earth is an organism that is far more powerful than us.
"However I was not suggesting eugenics or gulags or letting people starve. "
Once more, I'm not trying to illustrate you as a crook. But what you're suggesting is a throwback to older technology when the world was localized. It's no longer the same place as it was 200 years ago.With food we need to bring them an equal amount of education. I always stand by that. Because without it, I agree, will be causing bigger problems in the long run.
We obviously disgree big time about this. However there is no way my argument can be won. In fact it's been lost already. All new technologies will be adopted as fast as we can develop them, and regardless of any opposition. That's just the way the economy works. There is always too great a commercial interest in their adoption. Please just excuse my despair.
I'm under the impression that you're only seeing the cons to GM. But this statement was a very healthy one because at least you realize there's no point in trying to stop the human train. Technology will always be moving. So it's way more beneficial to work with the system to improve itself than to work against. The commercial interest only respond to and provide for the winter strawberries and seedless grapes you demand in your home. Which by themselves aren't much of threat anyways.
To be fair you should give your reasons for thinking that GM is such a good thing. Is there a point to it? Or is all new technology a good thing? And when was the last time we did not introduce a technolgy that made money - whatever the opposition or the possible damage? Isn't there always someone who complains that people are just ill-informed or afraid of change? It's such an easy argument to make.
Yes there is a point. The driving force behind any civilization is technology because the whole aim is to control our environment and become self-sufficient. Money is just how we allocate demand for the things we need most. And honestly, I think you are a bit ill-informed because it's not technology that's causing the problems; it's the social system.
