----- Original Message ----- From: Doug Henwood To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 6:37 AM Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] GM something...
Chuck Grimes wrote, quoting me:
>I don't want Monsanto running it,
>but what, in principle, is wrong with biotech? You guys probably
>would have opposed traditional animal and plant breeding too. Doug
>
>---------
>
>As I tried to explain to my kid on Sunday, the issue is not the
>science or the `safety'. The issue is the political economic of GM. It
>is a means (a new, more pervasive, deeper and more thorough means) of
>corporate control over the production of food.
That's why I said I don't want Monsanto running it. People have a hard time separating science from capital. ===
Bwahahahhhhaa choke cough gasp weeeeeeze!
The issue most certainly *is* safety... AND political economics. (Political economics? Isn't that a redundant phrase?)
Salmon genes in our tomatoes... Just because we like our tomatos red!
I think we'll have hard time separating"science" from our bodies.
The Bay Area is big on genetic engineering because the payments on the Lamborgini are running a little behind and besides there's this "blue sky" up there we need to finance.
Just look at the efforts by corporate pharma to fast track all those wonderful "cures" like vioxx, zoloft, prozac... and the end results: Billions spent on Government subsidized research, just to find out *after minimal testing* and release to the public that most of it is...
TOXIC
What leads anyone on this list to believe the GE industry is any different?
I could go on. (I will...)
These people will end up caring as much about safety as the average S/W developer cares about the quality of their code.
Early on in the digital revolution that wasn't the case... Now, fast forward to the '90s when every single soul in San Francisco had their MCSE or Cisco certification. A different crowd... Very different.
The creative ones leave, because they are *creative*... and the $$$s and commercial pressures stifle them at some intellectual or spiritual level.
They are also the ones that tend to have some social conciousness in regard to the world around them that isn't driven by $$$.
But the hacks... the people that are mostly in it for the paycheck? They stick like ticks, and the quality/safety issues become an impediment to their short/midterm profits, bonuses, stock values ad nauseum.
And long term? A quote in the SF Chron during the peak of the dotcoms sums it up. The reporter was interviewing a number of dotcommers in the Bay Area regarding their jobs, their lives, and what they visualised for their careers. One shining example of modern corporate america said:
"I don't care if this company is around in five years... as long as my stock options pay off." (a paraphrase, but not by much)
Now, visualize that "ethic" in relation to your food. It's not legal to sell GMO corn on the cob, but it's ok to make Doritos with GMO corn. Adbusters magazine suggests that we are using our children as test animals.
I concur.
Also, junk computers just end up in some toxic dump in malaysia (!), but genes released into the ecosphere are forever, quite literally.
I recommend a thorough vetting of every *concept* (asking "why is important.) that is *ever* presented in regard to GMO products. Look at what happens to a goodly percentage of the popular fast tracked pharmaceuticals and you are looking at exactly what will happen if Bioengineering is allowed to proceed based on profit motives uber alles.
Tell me profit isn't the first priority of GE... I need a good laugh!
[value/opinion = $0.02]
Leigh Meyers leigh_m at sbcglobal.net