The Goose that lays the Golden Eggs is almost dead...

Remove all ads!

Very well said, Sprite. You speak a lot of plain common sense!

 

Sorry, Blackthorne, (and Nobleman too) but although Sprite DOES seem over the top, it is a perfectly valid extrapolation from what little we are allowed to know. And not just ordinary Joe's like us hold that opinion - so do very many actually WORKING in the field, from environmental scientist down. It is mainly only the ones working for the corporations who pat our heads and say 'it is all going to be ok, don't worry your silly little ignorant heads.'
I'm overreacting? Yeah. Maybe. Remind me of that when the crops fail and WE are starving, not only the 'third world' countries.
No personal attack intended, guys, you are both people I have come to like.

[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited August 30, 2001).]

 

Hi fljotsdale.

I still study at University and when I hit the "real" world, its people like You that keep my common sense in realistic proportions. Nothing wrong in that.

Sprite suggests us to make major changes. But visons in that league (drop big sinister firms, stop import export of food(cattle)) takes a Martin L. King extraordinairé to conduct on humanity. Can it at all be done? realisticly thinking? Or should we set more realistic goals. I know its unsatisfying to mend rather that change, but it's better than just standing by. I think peoples attitude towards a healthier world will indeed change in two or three generations. I have Nothing to base that assuption on except for the growing number of what I call "greenies". People who not actively but passively give support to a healthier environment. I don't think the world will end in an biologic Apocalyse but things will be better In my Honest opinion.

[This message has been edited by Nobleman (edited August 30, 2001).]

 

Nobleman! Actually, if you have read much of the stuff I post you will know that I am in favour of ACTION but not violence. We have to do relatively simple stuff - buying organinc, from small farmers, etc, and avoiding ANYTHING produced by big corporation whenever possible (I know it isn't all the time). Get your electricity supply from 'green' producers. Get a pushbike instead of using the car to go everywhere (yeah, you may need a car for some things). Use public transport if possible, rather than a car, for long distances. Stop using pesticides and herbicides in your garden and make sure your parents don't use 'em, either, if you are a teen or younger. ('Proper' gardening is healthy, anyway!) Recycle as a matter of course.
Eventually, if enough of us do those things, we will make an impact where it counts - in the pockets of the Corporations (we hates 'em forever, we do!)

 

Hi Fljotsdale

We agree. both on the human awareness in the future and on what to do about it

I am sorry if I made the impression of You beeing Violent. English is not my native language, so I am sorry that I wasn't more carefull in expressing myself in a toppic so important.

 

Nobleman, if you think I was advocating a mass movement I must have miscommunicated. My apologies. My point is that people who hold strong convictions shouldn't wait for a Martin Luther King type to lead them, they should make the small differences they can every day to live according to what they believe in. That doesn't take a leader- it just takes a little independent thinking.

I don't care to destroy big corporations- who would pay my salary so I can afford expensive organic foods? But if you don't like what a particular company does, it's as silly to keep buying their products as it is to wait for someone to shut them down. There's no inherent reason ethical companies can't become big corporations and keep their "heart"- the only obstacle is persistent consumer choice to buy the product that's cheaper because of ethical corner-cutting.

Blackthorne, I know your educational background relates to this area. I'm interested to know the basis for your conviction that the "worst case scenario" I described above is completely impossible. My bachelor's degree was not in science but in history, so I am extrapolating both my best and worst case scenarios from historical events. [I freely admit, by the way, that I am extrapolating ad absurdum- that's a fairly normal way of producing best and worst case scenarios for rhethorical purposes in philosophy although, I know, not usually in science. I'd have qualified that if I thought this was a scientific debate rather than a philosophical one.]

The best case scenario I extrapolated from the New World foods (like potatoes) that dramatically reduced hunger and vitamin deficiencies in 17th and 18th century Europe, and the worst case scenario from the small extinctions that have occurred throughout the world as a result of travel and colonialisation- like Purple Loosestrife as I mentioned above.

If you have the time or patience, I'd like you to explain it as I find this subject very interesting (so do others, it seems) and I'd like to be better informed. If you don't have the patience, can you at least say if your thoughts are in the field of:
a) we could contain such a plant successfully to minimise its impact
b) we could never produce such a plant
c) no plant could ever have such an impact on an ecosystem even if it grew unchecked?

... and then we'll coauthor a really good sci-fi story about it. :b

[EDIT: Thanks for responding Blackthorne, and for the link Nobleman- it's food for thought (pun intended). And by the way Fljotsdale - I too am a "she" not a "he". ]

[This message has been edited by Sprite (edited August 31, 2001).]

 

Just 'cos someone goes a bit over the top to press a point, Blackthorne, is no reason to trash their argument. As I said, he was talking a lot of common sense, and far more than you, imho, 'cos at least Sprite is looking at possible (if overstated) unfortunate scenarios, while you appear to shutting your eyes. No offence intended -I'm sure you are more aware than your comments indicate - but Sprite expresses the fears of many.

 

Actually, Blackthorne was ASKED to present his arguments and then did so. Very compellingly too, I might add.

Genetically altered plants can and do spread quickly. There's a corn variant called "Roundup Ready" that will withstand large exposure to the powerful herbicide Roundup; and it's spreading from farm to farm. Of course, as BTA pointed out, it wouldn't be able to spread if humans didn't keep planting corn. Yet we are, so this GM corn is spreading. I don't know if the modifications have spread to other plants yet (a friend with a biology degree thinks it quite possible).

I'm not sure what to think about Frankenfoods like tomatoes with fish genes spliced in so that they can handle the cold better. At first it sounds pretty repulsive, but unless someone can tell me exactly what problem can spring from this -- I refuse to sign on to the alarmist bandwagon. After all, isn't such a thing just injecting MORE bioversity?

 

The RoundupReady has a poor IMMUNESYSTEM due to applications with glyphosate when it's imposed to certain types of stress.

Further the applications with glyphosate can reduce the yield due to changes in it's nitrogen fixation and it's nodulation.

For those who want to know more (I guess none ) You can read the script files by Dr. Charles M. Benbrook
Northwest Science and Environmental Policy Center
Sandpoint Idaho
May 3, 2001 http://www.biotech-info.net/troubledtimes.html

Still I haven't heard of the spreading to other plants. But I'll look into it. I should have known. sorry Don't tell my institute

 

Nobleman, I can't pretend to understand what you were saying there, but I can help a bit with finding out about it spreading.

Turns out that since the seed company who markets it (DeKalb?) patented the technology they've managed to finagle some weird deal in which other farmers can't grow it unless they pay. Well, it spread into an adjacent farmer's field. He didn't care, didn't use RoundUp, and didn't report it. So now the government (FDA, I think) is coming down on him.

Sorry the details are hazy.

 

Fair enough, Blackthorne!

But, you know, the fact is that people prefer to go around with their eyes shut until disaster overtakes them. And I know there are arguments for and against using 'over the top' words to make 'em open their eyes for a few seconds.
But what to do? Keep quiet about possible consequences and hope disaster DOESN'T strike, or try to motivate people to DO something, however small, (like recycling, like not buying from indifferent multinationals) to avert possible disaster?

If saying something 'over the top' gets even one person to think, don't you think it might be worth it?

 

How did a discussion on the possibilities of GM crops turn into a debate on whether I had any common sense? Please let's keep this a debate and not a catfight.

I was using hyperbole as a rhetorical device, NOT saying that my "Scenario Two" was the inevitable result of GM crops. As far as I was concerned both my Scenario One and Scenario Two were "over the top"- that is, reductio ad absurdum arguments as I have already said- to show opposite ends of a continuum of possibilities regardless of probabilities. It seems Fljotsdale understood that even if no one else did- but I'm sorry if I should have spelled that out.

As far as not being "balanced"- I mentioned both an implausible worst case scenario and the implausible best case scenario, and elaborated on the worst case scenario since it interests me most, and since Kitiara had already more or less brought up the best case scenario above. I also encouraged Blackthorne to list his objections- which he did- to encourage further debate into this topic. I hope I wouldn't have to argue BOTH sides to be taken seriously in this debate. While I do argue with myself I don't usually do it in public forums.

Can we get back on topic please? I am looking forward to learning from those here with more scientific backgrounds.

[This message has been edited by Sprite (edited September 01, 2001).]