> I once lived in an area of Canada where
>large tracts of wilderness were completely trashed almost
>overnight by Crown Zellerbach, at the time (and maybe still)
>a big lumber and paper concern. A desire not to see broad
>stretches of their world turned into a desert caused
>traditionalists, conservatives, and reactionaries as well as
>leftists to oppose such enterprises. Most people know of
>many such stories, and of course Uncle Karl himself intoned
>"All that is solid melts away...." for us in case we hadn't
>noticed.
Marx also said that the romantic reaction against progress was generally born of a hostility to the growth of the working class that came with it. Perhaps this explains why your traditionalists and conservatives were so supportive.
>
> Science, we know, marches on
>its sanctified and inexorable way, but even so it is not
>necessary to heedlessly shower every corner of the world with
>novel genetic material, or scheme to use the genes of plants
>to kill them or subject them to patent and copyright so as to
>own the works of every farmer from Sasketchewan to Sri Lanka.
No, but you are naive if you think that nature itself does not constantly shower the world with novel genetic material, or that all agriculture does not imply artificial breeding.
>It is somewhat short of opposing miscenegation (whatever
>that is -- don't most people mate with someone other than
>themselves?) to wonder about whether it is a good thing to
>insert pig genes in tomatoes and tomato genes in insects,
>and set them all at large to wander upon the face of the
>earth.
But wondering whether it is or is not a good thing is precisely what science is doing. Only the critics seek to have that question closed before it is asked. As far as I know only scientists are involved in the process of examining the effect of cross species gene transfer, whilst, in Britain I can report, the organisation Greenpeace has dedicated itself to disrupting such studies, tearing plants from the ground.
>
>There are forms of pollution, dynamic and progressive as
>pollution is, which are actually bad for you! One may
>deride "_Blut_und_Boden_" to one's heart's content, and yet
>one actually has to live somewhere!
Well, yes, but does one have to dress up chauvinistic campaigns against foreign imports in the 'high ideals' of saving the environment?
-- Jim heartfield