Consolidating a bit-

Steven wrote
> Nope, but I hope the discussion of GMO continues. I think this is
> topic which has gotten away from  environmental philosophers and been
> co-opt by groups with little or no regard for facts.
> Steven

and Paul wrote:
>
> 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, regarding Steve's point:
I think the environmental comunity has a real problem with some groups
exaggerating claims to help raise money.  A real good series - I'd say
maybe 85% on target - appeared in the Sacramento Bee some years ago:
http://www.sacbee.com/news/projects/environment/20010422.html

I recommend it highly, despite some exaggerations.

BUT this problem is not unique to the environmental movement.  It is a
problem afflicting any movement that depends on mass marketing to raise
money.    The environmental movement does not seem to me uniquely
guilty, and given that it needs to raise money from lots of smaller
donors whereas its opposition depends on a relatively few corporate
donors (who couldn't care much about truth either) I figure it's
something we should teach our students about - but keep it in
perspective.

Regarding Paul's points.

Number 1: I think the "I was there first" argument has weight.  To make
the case we need to go beyond purely individualistic values perhaps,
and on to what I term public or community values.  We can appreciate
these values by contemplating Mark Sagoff's to me devastating critique
of relying on consumer choice as evidence of people's values.
Basically, choice is context driven.  If one option is eliminated and
people never have a reasonably opportunity to choose it, the fact that
they choose options which depend on the first not being available says
very little.  (Economy of the Earth discussion of the Mineral King ski
resort issue).  Sagoff's argument is a powerful case for the reality of
what are termed "existence values" as well as the reality and relevance
of public or community values.

Most of us would, I think, say that if someone or some group is first
in an area, and is living there peacefully, they have a prima facie
case for living undisturbed.  Not enough to settle all issues
certainly, but enough to make their claims to wanting to live
undisturbed worth taking very seriously.  (For example, I may complain
I can hear my new neighbor's car and get little sympathy, but if I
complain I hear my new neighbor's dynamite blasts as he or she quarries
rock from a nearby hillside, well, would carry weight with most
people.)  Most of us when considering the issue in the abstract, would
feel it appropriate to take the wishes of current inhabitants
seriously.  We would also likely want the same considerations for
ourselves were we in that situation.

Number 2: I think regarding number 2, yes, pollution can be contextual
- and pure water does pollute a dry grain store.  But the examples are
crucially different.  A grain store is not usually simply left out in
the open air.  If it is, and rain falls, well, it's pollution I guess,
but it's mostly testimony to someone being pretty stupid.  Applying the
water polluting grain (in a silo) analogy to pollen  is a bit like
Anderson and Leal's bizarre argument that free roaming buffalo
"pollute" the Montana rancher's cattle when they leave Yellowstone.

In both cases the so-called polluter is doing what it has done since
time immemorial, long before the complaining party existed, let alone
arrived.  Doing what has proven necessary for its very existence,
historically.  (Buffalo confined to high elevations in winter time is
not what they naturally did.)  Then someone moves in, does not erect
barriers, and complains of "pollution" when the cause does what it has
always done, what it did before the newcomers arrived, and what, by any
reasonable standard but the newcomers, is harmless or even beneficial
activity.

Whether erecting barriers is legitimate can be an interesting question
in itself, but in Paul's GM example there are no barriers.  Like
buffalo and Yellowstone and ranchers on National Forest land.

Number 3:  We agree.

Number 4: Not sure I follow why you object.

A great many consumers don't want GM food (that is one reason the GM
industry opposes labeling).  Their reason is really irrelevant, I
think.  It may be good, it may be mistaken, it may be whimsical.  No
matter.  The fact that the discharge cannot be controlled, and that
some other people, even some other consumers,  want the products that
create the discharge is not an argument in favor of allowing it when as
a result existing people (let's stay anthropocentric for this
discussion, though I am actually ecocentric in my views.) are thereby
polluted in their own judgment and there is physical evidence of the
pollution.

One could argue this is too strong a standard.  That is, say I dislike
internal combustion engines and so do not want to breathe any pollution
at all.  Am I polluted by breathing any air with chemical evidence of
internal combustion?  A reasonable approach, I think, would require me
to  show some reasonable criteria for harm.  What counts as reasonable?
  Organic standards, for example, are reasonable enough to have been
written into law.  Further, it is a law that could be easily enforced,
at least until GM pollution arrived.  Given this, the standard seems to
me to be reasonable, even if someone else regards it as based on faulty
or at least unproved evidence.

So, if they cannot also create GM crops with heavy, REAL heavy,
pollen, or some other trait that renders them incapable of transmitting
GM qualities, maybe they should spend more time in research till they
do.  Especially given Suzuki's concerns, concerns that the British
report on rape seed in Canada seems to support, not with respect to its
effects on human health, but its effects on the environment and on
farming methods.

best,

Gus