[WS:] I do not think these two are mutually exclusive. Risks of modern technologies are often substantial and systematically downplayed by corporate interests who profit from them - no doubt about that. This is not limited to capitalism - socialist economies fared even worse on that. But that does not mean that certain form of populist criticism of modern technologies - shared by the left and the right alike - is not hysterical and reactionary or "catonist" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catonism as Barrington Moore would say. The essence of catonism is the rejection of modern technologies and organization of production in favor of mythologized "quaint" bucolic images of agrarian or artisan economy. You cannot deny that many lefties subscribe to this nonsense.
Wojtek
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:03 AM, <123hop at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Somebody Somebody" <philos_case at yahoo.com>
>
> " Essentially you're endorsing the precautionary principle when it comes to transgenic animals (and plants)."
>
> Precaution would seem the appropriate bias in dealing with biological and ecological effects that might prove to be extremely long lasting.
>
> " The problem with that is that it prioritizes the potential of downsides while minimizing the negative effects of the status quo.
>
> No, it's recognizing a risk level that's outsized compared to the problem it claims to solve, which can be solved in other ways: by redistribution of wealth, by family planning, by the avoidance of monocultures, and so on.
>
> "This isn't an issue with this salmon per se; although, it has to be said, the detrimental effect of GM crops so far has been negligible, after everything's been said and done."
>
> On the contrary what we know is that GM crops deplete the soil, increase the need for pesticide, are not as productive as conventional methods, and prevent the farmer from cultivating his own seeds outside of corporate control. I'd call this all around detrimental.
>
> "Rather, the issue is whether the left should adopt a default position of not just being skeptical, but resistant to biotechnology simply because it is being utilized by the private sector in our still capitalist society."
>
> Why suggest that this is some reflex action on the part of the left? Why not suppose that it might be a conclusion reached after looking at the evidence? Biotech is not simply used by the private sector in our capitalist society, it is being developed primarily to provide additional sources of profit and this motivation affects the type of products it creates.
>
> "Personally, I think the status quo is pretty lousy. More people die from causes that are primitive in nature (that precede modern industrial and post-industrial society, and at best are simply sustained by capitalism) instead of being products of human activity. Yet if you read the environmentalist literature, you might suppose that the great bulk of the ills of the world are products of modern man."
>
> In the undeveloped world most people die from hunger and preventable diseases. In the industrial world most people die from stress, environmental toxins, and broken hearts. Capitalism has a hand in both these realities, and genetically modifies crops and animals will not save us from any of these fates.
>
> Joanna
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>