> Probably the major reason I don't
> trust GM foods is because the science that's been done on genetic
> modification is so obviously performed in the interests of capital
> and capital alone.
Which is irrational, because all food is produced under capitalist conditions and there is no special reason to distrust GM food as any more or less capitalistic. But of course, Joanna's nod to leftism is not her substantial disagreement with GM food which is mostly quasi- religious hostility to tampering with God's plan.
>Beyond that, it makes sense to be suspicious of
> genetic tampering because there is no guarantee GM foods will not
> have a negative impact on the ecology (whose health we all depend
> on for survival) by affecting animal and plant life all over the
> world in ways we can't yet anticipate.
Which is just bizarre. There is no guarantee that you will not be run over by a bus tomorrow, or indeed that failing to develop new food production will not lead to worldwide famine.
One of the conditions of living in historical time is that there are no absolute guarantees. The desire to know the future in a literal sense belongs to magical thinking.
One can be sure, though, that without scientific investigation of natural processes, that these natural processes will continue to destabilise human existence.
In message <OF2D1C68B6.10322F34-ON8525697E.0068E828 at unica-usa.com>,
brettk at unicacorp.com writes
>This doesn't necessarily follow. If a new technology increases
>productivity, but requires tedious rote labor in isolation, it would make
>perfect sense to stick with methods that are less productive, but more
>personally gratifying and performed socially.
I think it is utopian to imagine that work could be satisfying under capitalism, whatever the technical conditions. The dissatisfaction in work arises from the alienation of the work process from the worker, in the strict sense of being paid a wage to do the work whose product is not your own.
>
>Secondly, more doesn't always mean better, at least for society at large.
>If a society becomes more productive, but the same technology that enhances
>productivity also aggravates distributive inequality, such that a few have
>a lot more and most have less, this is also regressive.
No more in itself does not mean better, but less, as in less time spent on that task does. The question of distribution is quite distinct. Your point here amounts to a demand that the level of the productive forces be held down to ensure that inequality does not become to onerous. But that is a strategy to retain social inequality. Increased productivity certainly makes social inequality more difficult to justify - but that is another reason to support increased productivity.
>
>It is perfectly reasonable to assess new methods/ideas/technologies from a
>variety of angles before making a final judgement.
I'm not sure what this means. Should the whole of society decide what the balance of goods is before Caxton starts up his printing press? We would still be living in the dark ages.
I prefer the rule that people should be at liberty to do what they want, and that scientific enquiry, especially, should be free. If new technologies prove to be worthless baubles (as indeed so many of them are) then that will be obviously the case. But to try and decide before hand is like trying to use a crystal ball.
In message <OF2C734BB2.DD35F6DE-ON8525697E.00699FE2 at unica-usa.com>,
brettk at unicacorp.com writes
>Given the choice between being a hunter gatherer, or working in the English
>coal mines in the 1800's, which would you choose between?
In 1813 Coal miners were better paid in Britain than carpenters (Cole and Postgate, 141), having been released from bondage by acts of 1755 and 1799 (ibid.175). In 1809 Durham miners brought the coalfields to a standstill (178). In 1820 Scottish colliers rose up in a revolt actually inspired by agents provocateurs and were savagely put down.
Coal miners were generally the most advanced section of the British working class. The South Wales Miners Federation produced some of the finest socialist thinkers and activists in the history of the British Labour movement, such as Arthur Cook and Noah Ablett.
Of course one could always pick berries instead. -- James Heartfield