Carl wrote
>>Brian Small wrote:
>>"When, if, the world market is socialized GM might make more sense - I
>>have my doubts. In the mean time is trying to slow things down a bit all
>>that bad?"
>Nope, it's clearly the most prudent thing to do. There are many
>potentially life-saving and live-enhancing innovative technologies
>clamoring for scarce developmental capital. Why focus so much on THIS
>particular technology -- GM crops, which inherently pose the risk of
>uncontainable environmental damage through germ-line corruption -- at
>THIS particular time, since world markets are so glutted with food?
>Since GM technology clearly lends itself to abuse in the hands of
>profit-seeking organizations, why not simply focus right now, in the
>hypercapitalistic world of the 1990s, on developing other technologies
>that can benefit humankind?
THank You
I've found your posts to be very supportive, and Rakesh's posts are going to effect my next trip back to the States and a big book store. (The Orwell references are interesting too, but I can only read and haul so many books)
That quote about marxism not being so critical of science and technology itself as it's application in "profit-seeking organization" of a "hypercapitalist world" is helpful while trying to accomodate Jim Heartfield's informed aversion to environmentalism.
I can see problems in the environmental movement from posted quotes from that genocidal-sounding Sierra Club guy, and the wacko with the boat that runs over the poor whales while threatening Indian hunters. I'm not particularly averse to accepting what may be a lower standard of living by some measurements for a more egalitarian and sustainable (socialized?) society. I'm probably sounding like a broken record with these Noam Chomsky interviews but they're what led me to Z, FAIR, Preamble, and eventually the LBO list. NC talks about accepting a lower standard of living in a more socialized world. Like giving up a car (not having to drive the thing) if there was decent public transportation. All the sprawl things can tie in here - that brings up the real estate agent's scorned "social planning" ( I saw a news clip about traffic and the marketing of new homes. The real estate interviewee rejecting anything other than market-driven home building as "social planning") But with this GM debate I don't see any potential negative impact on the living standard of "the masses" by "prudently" holding off a while. Personal attitudes toward what tradeoffs might be acceptable don't seem to matter here. The potential risk to the environment, on the other hand may effect living standards.
I still have this gut feeling that a lot of environmental concerns have "rabble-rousing" potential. Knwoledge about being poisoned (toxins - they're everywhere, they're everywhere) in and around the workplace and by the consumer goods we have to work for have a potential to raise doubts about and opposition toward the "hypercapitalist world." It may be kind of basic "aberrational" and not "structural" criticism at first, but it may also be a nice introduction - Like Seth Ackerman's daily critique of NYT.
Brian
Sorry for ranging off topic