Boy has this list been quiet. I guess that is a reflection of the times. I
think that it is interesting, however, that discussions on environmental
issues seem to be a victim of "collateral damage."

Anyway, here is an article on GM I found interesting.

http://enn.com/news/enn-stories/2001/10/10222001/fish_45316.asp

I'm still waffling about this issue. I have a hard time getting worked up
over "potential dangers" of unspecified nature(s) when there is so much
specific damage and issues on the environmental plate. One of the criticisms
of the environmental movement (and a somewhat justified one) has always been
that predictions of damage and danger have been either exaggerated, or
non-existent. Recent television shows and several books have used
predictions of environmental danger that have not come true as "examples" of
how or why the environmental movement is out of touch with science and/or
society. The "potential dangers" of GM seem to be largely based on "what if"
scenarios.

Right now we are seeing a real "what if" scenario being played out in the
media and in life. The Pandora Box of Biological warfare has been opened and
only time will tell us if it is the nightmare we have come to expect, or
another factor of modern life to be dealt with. Given that, I am having even
more than usual doubts about the "potential dangers" of GM.

Just a random thought. I've been on vacation in Australia and the Coral Sea
and getting back to "real life" is difficult. Maybe this post is just
something to help me over the jet lag and the doldrums of not wanting to go
back to work.

Steven

Even errors must be respected
when they are more than
two thousand years old.
                 Sangharakshita