>As though it's "scaremongering" to be extremely wary about the
>unexpected and unpredicatable effects of modifying the genes of food
>plants. Half the world's in a mad panic over the Y2K bug in computer
>software. For crying out loud, there are people who worry seriously
>about things like eMail spam. But when a company comes along and starts
>diddling with the genes of food plants, well, la di da, what me worry,
>who the Hell needs to eat, anyhow?
What are you talking about? Men have been modifying the genes of plants
since they started agriculture 50 000 years ago. Furthermore, all
organisms constantly modify their own genes with unpredictable and
unexpected effects. Those genetic modifications that are MOST expected
and predictable are those that are initiated either through cross-
pollination or genetic engineering. Far from being a threat to your
diet, genetic modification, old-fashioned or engineered is the
precondition of the considerable agricultural surpluses the US produces,
and America's own extensive diet.
>
>So how do you feel about Monsanto's "Terminator" technology? There's no
>controversy and no question about the effect of "Terminator." There's
>an example of "Frankenfood" with clear, openly avowed terrible effects.
>(At least I think it's pretty terrible when you can't plant next year's
>crops because the seeds are all sterile.) How would you like to see the
>"Terminator" gene spread out in the wild by cross-pollination, as the
>patented genes for Monsanto's "Roundup" breed of soybeans were?
By definition a seed that is sterile is not going to spread though out the wild by cross-pollination. But certainly the social relations that make farmer dependent upon Monsanto are to be deplored. That is not the same thing, however, as opposing GMO technology tout court.
>
>Another curious Monsanto practice is the notion of them patenting the
>entire genotype of a food plant. Take that soybean - the genotype of
>soybeans, a vastly complicated structure, evolved naturally over umpteen
>million years, then was further refined through painstaking, deliberate
>breeding by countless generations of farmers. Along come the greed
>maniacs at Monsanto, who modify a handful of genes and slap on a trade
>name - now they claim to own the entire thing. It's like I take a hex
>editor and change three bytes of IO.SYS - presto, the entirety of
>Windows 95 is now mine, all mine!
You don't mean to say that capitalists are only in it for the money. I'm flabbergasted! That might be a reason to oppose copyright, as the legal basis of the monopoly over technology, but it is no reason to join in the machine-breaking. -- Jim heartfield