---Ray Lanier <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Yes, because, if GM can jump fences, the damage is already done.  Others
may
still see issues even with hybrids, for example the reduction of family
farmers to status as serfs to the corporation via tie to particular
chemicals.
-----

What?  Serfs?  So you really think that Great Britain has a fuedal
form of government with the corporations as the Lords of the land and
that they can order people around as they see fit?  Why couldn't the
family farmer quit?  What is so magical about family farms anyways? 
Could the same argument be made about the people working for oh...I
don't know...oil companies?

Steve




>
> Good morning folks,
> 
> On 2/28/99, I said in part:
> 
> 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?
> 
> To which on 3/1/99, Steven Bissel responded:
> 
> I think Robert used the concept that if evolution was "directed" and
> "purposefull"  then to alter evolution was sinful (my words, not
his). A
> plan presupposes a planner, or director or something. I used the
lower case
> "godhead" because of my own agnosticism. Personnaly I don't think
that even
> if there is a god, she is directing anything. Which goes back to my
original
> question about any fundemental issues with GM. You may be close with
your
> "irreversable" arguement, but what can be done, can be undone. So I
suspect
> that geneticists will say that "if" GM turns out to be a problem,
they can
> fix it. Assuming that, do you see any ethical problems still?
> 
> Ray here;
> 
> Yes, because, if GM can jump fences, the damage is already done. 
Others may
> still see issues even with hybrids, for example the reduction of
family
> farmers to status as serfs to the corporation via tie to particular
> chemicals.
> --------------------------
> 
> Robert Vint, on 32/99 responded in part:
> 
> >
> >RV Comment.
> >I don't take this theological position myself, but note it for
interest.
> >What I do believe is that evolution is purposive and teleological
in the
> >sense that species and ecosystems are clearly behaving over time in
ways
> >that will maximise their chances of survival.  The evolutionary
process in
> 
> Ray (general comments):
> 
> A problem I have with ethical discussion on such issues as GM, or
any other,
> is that our positions seem very subjective.  I'm wondering if
ethicists have
> "ground rules" similar to those presumed in science?
> 
> That is, for example, how do they deal with the following questions
(from my
> ignorance):
> 
> 1.   Are there a number of "schools" (hypotheses?) among ethicists
as to the
> basis for making ethical judgements and for identifying issues that
have
> ethical conflict content?
> Can someone identify them?  Or is there some other analagous
methodical
> approach?
> 
> 2.   What types of methods are common among ethicists to test these
> hypotheses (I'll call them for want of more education :-) )?  Or are
there
> any?
> 
> 3.    What data are considered in testing hypotheses?
> 
> 4.    What criteria are established for using one vs another
hypothesis for
> application to particular issues, such as GM?
> 
> 5. Or does it matter?  Do the several schools come to essentially
the same
> conclusions about the ethical conclusions about issues?
> 
> 6.    I understand that there are ethicists who support "risk-benefit"
> approach to policy issues.  Is that right? If so, on what grounds?,
what are
> the pros and cons of such approach among ethicists? Alternatives?
> 
> 7.  Or are these questions irrelevant - the wrong questions?
> 
> I would benefit from discussion of these points and direction to other
> points/considerations that should be held in mind.
> 
> But, maybe I'm asking too much for a discussion list; maybe I need
to go
> back to school :-).  Or steal someone's reading list!
> 
> Agnostically and Sincerely,
> Ray  ([log in to unmask])
>           P.O. Box 698, Micanopy, FL  USA  32667
> 
> 
> 

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com



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