>For example, it is pointless, even seriously misleading, to discuss GM
>except on the premise that GM decisions are going to be made by
>companies that are totally indifferent to human needs. So an argument
>that GM _could_ be a useful technology is a false argument. Will GM as
>used in current agribusiness be a useful technology? That is the
>question, and really, the only question. If the answer is no, then for
>the time being we need to oppose _any_ use of GM technology.
Man, your politics can be weird. So until capitalism is destroyed or transcended, we should make no political demands, or not imagine how existing social relations prevent existing technologies from improving people's lives? I'd always thought that "we can do a lot better than this with what we have" was an argument with some political potency. Instead we just sit back and what? Wait for the mysterious intervention of History?
Doug