Hello,
Finally some ethical discussion here! :-) I should like to add a comment,
if I may.
Robert V. said in part:
>purposes of GM crops -for example herbicide-resistant crops are designed to
>enable a form of agriculture in which other plant species (*weeds*) are
>completely removed instead of just being controlled; they are also designed
>to create continual demand for matching herbicides (such as RoundUp);
Steven B.:
Well, I guess I think that once the initial damage is done through
monoculture agriculture, this is just further insult. I can't get to excited
about it.
Ray here:
I believe that monoculture agriculture is reversable and has been, so the
issue may be much different with GM. No?
Robert V.:
>intrinsic value. But biodiversity was already threatened by the production
>of F1 hybrid crops by these companies, which did not involve GM
technology -
>so this is not specifically a *gene ethics* issue, but one that is
>exacerbated by GM technologies.
Steven B.:
I get what you are saying, but this seems like a bit of a Luddite arguement.
It seems to say that any "progress" in agriculture is automatically
ethically suspect. I'm not sure why, but the the whole "biodiversity"
arguement has never captured my imagination. It seems to rest on the a
concept of "more is better," and ecologists have not accepted that for many
years.
Ray:
Might not "progress" consist, partly, of some win and others lose? I cannot
think of any change (progress) in the last 70 years that has not resulted in
some winners and some losers. Is that not an ethical issue?
Robert V.:
>understanding). Furthermore evolution is always divergent (like the
>branching of a tree) and does not involve the interbreeding of unrelated
>species. So the ethical question here is "is there an integrity to the
>evolving genetic makeup of a species that should not be violated by a gene
>input from an external source?".
Steven B.:
Wow! A fundamentalist ecotheological view! Even if it doesn't hold water,
this is worth publishing. However, it gets as close to my original question
as possible. I agree that *if* you accept the theological premise then there
is serious ethical issues with GM. Is this possible without recourse to a
godhead?
Ray:
Perhaps I don't understand properly, but it seems to me that one does not
need to specify a "godhead" to see the need to construct an ethical
framework in society and thus to identify ethical issues. But I am not an
ethicist. Do you mind expanding here?
Thanks for your interesting posts.
Sincerely,
Ray ([log in to unmask])
P.O. Box 698, Micanopy, FL USA 32667
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|