Nice reply Gus although I hope that I am not included in the group who
'probably needs psychiatric help'.
It seems to me that your (4)  responses are exactly about defining the
inequality of the two cases.  They boil down to:

1)Precedent and Unfair competition.  Fair competition might be legitimate
but destructive sabotage (even if non-deliberate) is not.  (strong argument
IMO).  I am not sure that the 'I was here first' argumant stands up on its
own though.)
2) Precedent.  Established practices are intrinsically non-polluting
(Pollution is relative.  Pure water will pollute a dry grain store. natural
pollen could be thought of as 'polluting' GM.  It is not a position that
feels comfortable but I think it is a logical one.)
3) Unfair competition same as '1'
4) Not really part of this argument: if definable harm is being done to
consumers then existing legal remedies should be fine

So what remains, is what is 'unfair'  competition?  Now that's is a good,
ethically loaded word.  (and yes Gus I would agree that your examples and
anxieties about possible future examples would be unfair and unethical)

I think the heavy pollen is good idea but bees might complain.

regards

Paul K

>
>First, one was there first.  That would, in most market ideologies,
>establish a property right.  Even in the absence of market ideologies,
>there seems to be a prima facie case that those who come later respect
>those who were there first, especially with regard to basic issues like
>making a living.  I can hear someone object, well, what of new
>technologies putting old technologies out of business, etc.  Still not
>the same.  there was no decline in demand for the organic crops - in
>fact, quite the contrary.  The new methods could more justly be accused
>of seeing the elimination of even the possibility of competition as a
>side benefit, and therefore actively promoting contamination.
>
>Relative to Steve's response on this issue, both legally and in terms
>of consumer preference as well as the desires of organic farmers, GM
>cannot be labeled organic.
>
>Second, organic farming is simply a more sophisticated version of
>farming as it has existed for thousands of years.  There is no such
>thing as pollution and trespass in the sense you use it - unless
>perhaps someone has set up SM agriculture on an island somewhere and an
>organic farmer then sets up shop there.  Reminds me of the arguments of
>Washington salmon fishermen that Indians were ruining their fishing by
>exercising their treaty rights.
>
>Third, some GM crops will destroy - not replace, destroy - existing
>methods of organic pest control by breeding bugs resistant to BT.  That
>has for the corporations the happy result of reducing alternatives to
>their product.  Methods that were once flexible and with many suppliers
>are replaced by a single supplier with monopoly control.  Anyone blind
>to the ethical dimension of this probably needs psychiatric help more
>than philosophical discourse.
>
>Fourth, that a discharge cannot be controlled is a powerfully weak case
>for the right of making the discharge.  Perhaps GM should be postponed
>until they perfect heavier pollen, or perhaps till they can so modify
>an organism that it cannot cross pollinate others (a new species) which
>would have the additional benefit of silencing the Genesis is right
>types.
>
>For example, if we use crops to produce medical drugs, does the fact
>that the drugs can spread into food crops through pollination make any
>difference as to the ethics of planting such crops next to food crops ?
>  Most people would have no problem saying "yes."
>
>Quick response to Steve -
>An issue can be legal as well as moral.  Think slavery, civil rights,
>gay marriage, etc.  I am focusing only on the moral.  Corporate money
>pretty much dominates the legal these days anyway.
>
>Gus diZerega
>
>
>On Thursday, March 11, 2004, at 03:25 AM, Paul Kirby wrote:
>
>> Dear  all
>>
>> Is there an ethical issue in a 'right' not to have your farm
>> 'contaminated'
>> by genes you do not approve of?  I am thinking of the organic farmers
>> and I
>> have sympathy with that point of view but I am not sure it is
>> defensible.
>> Nature itself is perfectly capable of flinging pollen around without
>> regard
>> to fences.
>>
>> The only parallel I can think of is that of breeders of thouroughbred
>> dogs
>> who might have rights that prevent passing strangers letting  their
>> rampant
>> mutts loose to go splashing about in the  purified gene pool.
>>
>> In those cases they might be lucky and get a restraining order placed
>> on
>> the offender but would that be legitimate if, in the case of GM, the
>> vector
>> of 'contamination' is effectively uncontrollable (pollen).  If it is
>> ligitimate and it were possible to sue a neighbour for genetic
>> contamination might it not backfire on the organic farmers (in my
>> example)
>> who themselves might be sued if their strains cross pollinate the GM
>> crops
>> next door.  (That the the coss pollination of the GM crops does not
>> overly
>> concern the GM seed suppliers does not I think undermine the principle
>> here).  Do ethics not require this equallity of justice as between
>> Organic
>> and GM farmers?
>>
>> I am sure that readers of this list will be able to tell us if there
>> are
>> precedents in the industrial/environmental world were two adjacent
>> manufacturers were in conflict over each other's pollutants.  Does this
>> tells us anything?  It might be easier to resolve such a dispute by
>> prohibiting both (equally) from offensive discharges.  It would not
>> however
>> be feasible to institute a general prohibition on the discharge of
>> pollen.
>>
>>  Should we wish to escape this bind we would need to establish that the
>> equlity principle does not apply  because GM  farmers and Organic
>> farmers
>> can be viewed differently both ethically and under the law.
>>
>> Does growing something intrinsically unontrollable remove the
>> responsibility for controlling it?  If I raised tigers in my back
>> garden I
>> suspect that I might be required to take ' all reasonable measures' to
>> protect my neighbours' sheep.  What might reasonable measures against
>> pollen be?
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Paul K