It's a mistake to romanticize peasant life. But in focusing on the labor-intensive aspect of the natural methods Monbiot favors to increase agricultural productivity, you ignore the positive aspect of the trade-off he posits, viz: "[These methods] require lots of labour, *no debt,* and *no help from predatory corporations.*" Not being in thrall to debt and predatory corporations can outweigh the burden of manual labor.
> >His column today (text follows) makes a number of interesting points
> >also, questioning whether field testing of GM crops really can be
> >conducted without contaminating other plant life:
> >
>
> He questions and speculates, but does he give a definite answer?
No, Monbiot doesn't give a definite answer. That's his very point. GM-food advocates are constantly oozing assurances about the safety of their technology when no one knows for certain what the long-range effects of this technology will be.
> Is there something in
> about genetic
> engineering technology which makes it qualitatively "more
> hostile" to nature
> than every other tool that humanity has ever developed?
Potentially yes.
> Dyson is a hugely
> respected scientist and visionary
I tried reading Dyson many years ago and thought he was a complete wacko -- a parody of a mad scientist.
Carl