I continue to have problems with this issue. This was posted,
Here is an interesting and fun website. It is an explanation "for the
> >layman" of what is biotech, designed by someone who is sceptical about
the
> >technology and it's control. It is the best attempt I have ever seen as
> >such a thing . I can't really work out who is behind it, so if anybody
else
> >knows or finds out I would be interested to know.
> >
> >http://www.oneworld.org/penguin/genetics/home.html
> >
and I took a look. Some of it was good, but most of it was more of "just so"
story. This is a very well done page intended for children. My problem is
that the intent is to politicize the kids, not to educate them. The
underlying tone is that GE is wrong in all cases. Even though the author
clearly, and accurately, states that there is, as yet, no know harm from
most GE products, we should still stop them because it's different.
I think that this is the problem with environmental politics and one for
which environmental ethics should be able to supply an answer. Is there a
moral issue here? I've been asking this for the past couple of weeks and so
far all I'm getting is that there is a potential for some sort of undefined
harm from GE or GM crops. All right, if that is the case, so what? Have we
decided that all potential harm is the issue? That poses a whole set of
problems. Life is impossible without changing the environment and all change
has the potential of harm. Is some sort of biological stasis the goal of
environmental ethics?
Steven
http://www.du.edu/~sbissell
What we lost with that wild, primal existence
was a way of being for which the era of
agriculture and civilization lacks counterpoise.
Human life is the poorer for it.
Paul Shepard
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|