>In message <firstname.lastname@example.org>, shmage at pipeline.com
>>Alteration of genes by deliberate manipulation of DNA is, as far as we can
>>know, a completely new event in the evolutionary history of this planet,
>>with absolutely unforeseeable consequences if allowed to proceed with no
>>control except that by monopoly capitalists and their agents in the
>>councils of government. An absolute moratorium on genetic modification of
>>plants and (nonhuman) animals outside the laboratory, until political and
>>economic institutions have been revolutionized to permit rational social
>>deliberation and control over the process, should be an essential minimal
>>demand for any radical movement worthy of the name.
>Well, God forbid that anything should happen that hasn't been exactly
>the same as everything that happened before. Shane's environmentalism is
>a version of equilibrium theory, where nature's balance must never be
>upset. Like all equilibrium theory it is intrinsically conservative.
No, Jim, Shane doesn't say never. He is focusing on the reason for modifications. He is saying there should be a moratorium on genetic modification, with its profound and unforseeable consequences, until the *reason* for such modifications is something other than the expansion of capital. Until, in fact, there can be rational, social control of the process. And you think that's a conservative position, rather than, I assume you mean, radical? Could you please rethink that, Jim. Unless you see a happy confluence between the imperatives of capital, and those of the human race, this point is obvious, isn't it?