Thank you Robert. I agree with most of what you say, and have inserted some
comments.
sb

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Vint <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sunday, February 28, 1999 6:51 AM
Subject: Re: Britain Pushes the Panic Button on Biotech Foods


>Lets *assume* that all the technological issues relating to GM crops are
>solved - are there any ethical problems remaining?
>This looks like a very valuable question, but of course it depends on our
>definitions of *technological* and *ethical* - if they mean the same then
>the answer is *no*, so lets try to clarify the difference.
>
>Presumably one kind of technological solution is for these crops to do only
>the job they are designed to do - with no SIDE EFFECTS such as
>cross-pollination of traditional crops, promotion of superweeds and
>superbugs, horizontal gene transfer, increased herbicide runoff,
>accumulation of gene-produced insecticides in the natural food chain etc.
>
>There then remain a group of ethical problems associated with the INTENDED
>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);

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.

>*terminator* genes are designed to force farmers to buy new seeds every
>year, which third world farmers cannot afford.

Also a protection against spread of the GM crop.

(snip)
>
>1. Genetically modifying a crop so that it, and nothing else, can grow in a
>field is, effectively, an act of war against nature.  It is, however, only
>the logical conclusion to the history of modern agriculture and not
>specifically a *gene ethics* issue.  This issue can be seen clearly when
the
>aims of modern agriculture are contrasted with the aims of methods such as
>permaculture - where the aim is to modify natural ecosystems so that they
>can sustainably feed humans whilst maintaining maximum biodiversity and
>indigenous flora and fauna. Biotechnology seems to give us great power to
>defeat nature but minimal power to co-operate with it.

So, you are saying that the ethical issue is with modern agriculture per se,
not GM technology itself. I agree and think this is what Paul Shepard was
saying in several of his essays about the advent of agriculture.

>
>2. A species in nature occurs in thousands of varieties; likewise
cultivated
>crops, such as rice, come in thousands of varieties.  The replacement of
all
>of these with one or two commercial GM brands created and patented by vast
>multinationals is a great threat to biodiversity.  Biodiversity has
>instrumental value, and in several environmental ethics theories is of
>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.

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.

>
>3. The mixing of genes from different species is seen as an ethical issue
by
>religions that believe that God created the species - for example the
>crossing of different cereal crops or the crossing of a horse and a donkey
>to produce a mule is objected to in the Old Testament (even though this can
>happen in nature).  They would object more strongly to crosses between
>species that could never happen in nature (e.g. scorpions with maize).  The
>existence of evolution partially undermines this position because species
>are not naturally immutable over time.  But modern theologians would argue
>that the evolutionary process is purposive (although beyond our
>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?".

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?

>
>4. My own ethical position is to assume that any evolved self-organising
>system is of intrinsic value and that any part of such a system has
>instrumental value as part of that system.  For example, an elephant has
>both intrinsic value as a living organism and instrumental value as part of
>a savannah ecosystem.  This does not put an absolute ban on the use,
>alteration or destruction of evolved self-organising systems but there must
>be a substantial net benefit to the overall system (e.g. the biosphere /
>ecosystem of which we are part) before such destruction can be justified.
>Irreversibly altering a species, by altering its genes, must be shown be
>greatly benefit the overall system of which that species is a part.

I agree. Basically a land ethic approach.

>
>Finally, I think a key component of environmental ethics is the recognition
>that we have to make decisions about the use and treatment of systems and
>organisms that we can never fully understand.  Despite all that scientists
>may say, this is the human condition.  Thus the hypothetical environmental
>ethics questions that would arise if we were technologically omniscient
must
>not take over from the real ethical questions we must ask when we live in a
>world that is beyond our understanding.  Non-omniscience requires that we
>rigorously exercise the precautionary principle.

Again, I basically agree with this Leopoldian land ethic view. Thank you
Robert.

Steven J. Bissell
http://www.du.edu/~sbissell
http://www.responsivemanagement.com
A journey to our primal world may bring answers
to our ecological dilemmas. Such a journey will lead,
not to an impulsive or thoughtless way of life,
but to a reciprocity with origins declared by history
to be out of reach.
                                           Paul Shepard



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%