>> 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.
Some liberties being taken here, Jim! Joanna is merely, and quite specifically, pointing out that scientists tend to discover and develop the sorts of things they're paid to discover and develop. That the objectives of a couple of large agribusinesses might not sit well with the interests of the species at large is hardly an outrageous proposition is it? And that a lot of food is produced within capitalist relations is largely to do with the enclosures of commons and the appropriation of labour power; not necessarily to do with genetic transformations deliberately performed within capitalist relations at all. So I don't reckon you're recognising an important distinction here.
>>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.
Nevertheless, we are conscious planning beings, and as such, we'd be well advised to contemplate the range of consequences that might ensue if we turn out to be wrong about something it is in our capacity to do. Whilst 'guarantees' are ever a bit much to ask for, Joanna is justified in discerning a BIG downside (pardon the WallStreetism) if we're wrong about the potentials of GM seeds (inevitably) entering the adjacent enviroment and getting up to mischief. As it turns out governments and companies have been combining, for years, very quietly to plant GM test crops in open fields before the range of appropriate controlled lab tests had been exhausted, it does indeed 'make sense to be suspicious'.
Terminator genes make sense in this respect, sure, but, in theory, there's also nothing more dangerous than a terminator gene (we can not know much about the practically infinite relations between all genes, for a start, and we need to be pretty damned sure the termination occurs in the first generation, eh?). And to the degree we're talking about commodity production, we are talking about a continuous need to create scarcity; a prime directive for which the terminator gene offers excellent facility. Even if GM foods are physically as safe and vigorous as all might hope, the overarching exchange relation that is capitalism, has the capacity actually to create famines (for those who can't afford the seed stock their crops no longer produce).
And there is an unresolved issue on the matter of effects on mammalian immune systems already, isn't there?
>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.
Aye, but the implicit claim that our conscious decisions in the present have no bearing on our future (and comparing dangers to do with GM diffusion with falling under a bus is one such) is overdoing the rhetoric a tad, no?
>One can be sure, though, that without scientific investigation of
>natural processes, that these natural processes will continue to
>destabilise human existence.
There we agree - we've another two billion humans due over the next twenty years, so, whilst the possible downside is enormous, it is arguable that the possible upside is so necessary to a human world that we must make haste. But that doesn't get us past the fact we've the capacity to feed everybody currently on the planet already, leading some of us to suspect that GM, like all technology, is not the answer to the question that really counts. After all,we've had telephones for a century, yet two thirds of the world has never made a phonecall. So 'scientific investigation of natural processes' doesn't even make likely an end to the famines of which you speak, James, no matter how necessary a component of that solution GM might be.
As ever, the politics is the priority ...
Cheers, Rob.