Anything developed under capitalist auspices, by that very fact, will have all kinds of negative outcomes and risks because the aim will be profit and any externalities not relevant to profits will be ignored. No doubt the automobile industry under capitalist auspices has involved all sorts of risks, although crusaders for safety and for pollution control have had some salutary effects on the industry's development. For profit private auto production won out over more efficient modes of travel such as public transit, polluted the environment etc. but to stop production of the auto because of the context of its devleopmenrt was hardly a realistic option (The caveat "relevant to profits" is signicant too. Capitalists arent interested in GM products that blow up in their face or cannot be expected to recoup many time their investment.)
Cheers, Ken Hanly
Carl Remick wrote:
> > Do you recommend taking GM companies into the public sector or not
> >developing
> >the technology at all? My complaint about many anti-GM groups apart from
> >the fact
> >that they often do not have their facts right, is that they do not
> >appropriate
> >capitalist corporations and technology and place it under social ownership.
>
> When this subject was debated on this list last year, I maintained the
> following basic positions that I still affirm:
>
> First, GM does present significant risks in terms of its potential for
> corrupting the germ line of genetically related species if heritable traits
> escaped into the wild;
>
> Second, these risks will not be properly managed if entrusted to
> profit-seeking -- and, in the case of Monsanto, heavily debt-laden --
> entities;
>
> Third, there is no urgent need to develop GM technology now -- world markets
> are glutted with food; and
>
> Fourth, in light of all this, GM technology should not be developed at all
> under capitalist auspices.
>
> Carl
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com