I agree. But then, since 1989 at least, pretty much everything on this Earth is done for profit, and only as an inconsistent by-product for human good.
People are housed for profit, medicines are developed for profit, food is grown for profit, computers are built and sold for profit, incubators are provided for premature babies for profit.
Should we then have a moratorium upon new homes, or incubators, or medicines or computers or medicines or food? Of course not.
The argument for a moratorium upon GMOs rests upon the proposition that this technology is qualitatively more dangerous than other technologies. But no plausible evidence has been provided, despite the intensive efforts of a considerable environmental lobby.
All that we are left with is a superstitious belief that somehow the boundaries of acceptable science stop at the genetic sequence. But such boundaries have been drawn before. Many Victorians thought that steam trains would suffocate their passengers as all the air was driven by momentum to the back of the carriage. More recently a considerable 'yuk' factor held that organ transplants were beyond the pale - but who now would turn down a heart transplant (despite the gruesome truth that many of the early transplants were effectively trial runs, leaving transplantee guinea pigs on death row). Only ignorance makes us elaborate disaster scenarios in the gaps in our understanding.
The argument that GMO foods will undermine less developed farming is without doubt true. European farmers, like Indian farmers, have made a protectionist case against US GMOs, which is understandable, but not supportable. But I see no reason to rally to the small and not so small agricultural capitalists of Europe and India against the big capitalists of the US. After all, conditions of exploitation of landless labourers on small European and Indian farms is quite as onerous as it would be on larger ones. I hear an echo of the old Stalinist phraseology of supporting indigenous, small capital against big monopolies.
In particular the argument for a moratorium seems nonsensical to me. As argued in the UK, it is envisaged as a 5 year moratorium. But what difference would that make? All it would mean would be that five years of higher yields had been lost. Since the moratorium precludes research in the field it would not be a breathing space in which a knowledge would be expanded, but five wasted years.
The more extreme case argued here by Shane and Roger is for a moratorium until comes the glorious day (as they say in Wales). It's hard to know who this demand is addressed to. As I understand it, the vast majority of America's Soy Bean is already GM. Now, with a ban on vegetarianism, it might just be possible to stop that GMO, but the extent of GM foods means that food production would be disrupted substantially by a moratorium.
And on what grounds are the American people to be persuaded to starve themselves? For the socialist revolution? In all seriousness, is this a demand that can be expressed in concrete terms, such as would make sense to anyone. I look forward to a day when capitalism can be overthrown, but this kind of ultimatistic demand makes socialism into a private joke.
More to the point, it seems unavoidable to me that no progressive movement could be built on holding back scientific advance, preventing research and celebrating ignorance. A left that agitated in such a way would guarantee that it's day never came. No progressive movement can be galvanised as a great refusal towards the future. Such politics leads only to romantic reaction. Appeal to people's fear of the future is playing upon their most conservative instincts. A movement that was frightened of tomatoes would be petrified in the face of a real challenge, like overthrowing capitalism.
In message <2.2.16.19990228094513.42cf545a at pop.igc.org>, Roger Odisio <rodisio at igc.org> writes
>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?
In message <v04011706b2ff186e19db@[166.84.250.86]>, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> writes
>This is one of those issues where I feel alienated from both sides. James
>has complete faith that allowing Monsanto the fuck with the gene pool is
>just fine, nothing to worry about. But opponents of genetic engineering
>want to junk it all. Isn't there a difference between science that's done
>under principles of profit maximization and science whose aim it is to
>maximize human happiness? Isn't there anyone around who understands both
>the science and the politics of the issue? Or is this one of those thing
>where each side views the other as the enemy of all that's holy?
In message <36D96E6F.283CE48E at lor.net>, Tom Lehman <TLEHMAN at lor.net> writes
>Also, Jimboy, we have had an outbreak of frog mutations and population decline
>that no one in the USA understands!
-- Jim heartfield