-----Original Message-----
From: Bryan Hyden <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Saturday, March 13, 1999 10:57 PM
Subject: Re: Britain Pushes the Panic Button on Biotech Foods
>>Again, the idea is that genetic sequences are objectively real, that is
you
>>can literally put your microscopic hands on them. Ecosystems are arbitrary
>>in that they only exist through our definition of them. Genetic sequences
>>would be there even if there were no geneticists to describe them,
>>ecosystems require an ecologist's insight.
>
>I'm sorry sb, but I couldn't disagree with you more on this. Again I say
>that genetic sequences are no more 'real' than ecosystems. Ecosystems as
we
>know them are made up of various parts and infinite subtleties, and yet we
>can still define them. Same with genetic sequences. They aren't really
>there either. They are made up of various parts and infinite subleties
>(i.e. there are always [to our present knowledge] more basic parts). I
>think once one gets a broad perspective that this becomes evident. We're
>not only making up some of it, we're making up all of it.
>
>Bryan H.
>
>
But Bryan, where does that leave you ethically? If you are saying that gene
sequences and ecosystems are ethically equivalent, aren't your really saying
that all ethics are situational? Or do you recourse to anthropocentric
survivalism, i.e. those gene sequences and ecosystems that are of
"importance" to humans are deserving of ethical consideration, otherwise,
into the trash bin. (that last is obviously a bit of an overstatement, I'm
in kind of a grumby mood this morning ;-) )
Bissell
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|