Re: [pf] 50 Harmful Effects of Genetically Modified Foods

by Kaleopono

25 December 2000 21:12 UTC

Another instrumental story:

Salt is not Wool

One day the Mulla was taking a donkey-load of salt to market, and drove the
ass through a stream.  The salt was dissolved.  The Mulla was angry at the
loss of his load.  The ass was frisky with relief.

Next time he passed that way he had a load of wool.  After the animal had
passed through the stream, the wool was thoroughly soaked, and very heavy.
The donkey staggered under the soggy load.

"Ha!" shouted the Mulla, "you thought you would get off lightly _every_ time
you went through water, didn't you?"

[Idries Shah, The Exploits of the Incomparable Mulla Nasrudin, p. 13.]

One interpretation is that the stream represents the "scientific"
industrialized economic system.

Kaleopono

----- Original Message -----
From: "David A" <davidnh@visto.com>
To: <PRichter1@aol.com>; <positive-futures@igc.topica.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 8:49 AM
Subject: Re: [pf] 50 Harmful Effects of Genetically Modified Foods


> Priscilla,
>
> What do I get from this list? Updates on issues I consider important.
Exposure to other ideas. Discussion and debate. To express myself
confidently and boldly, which is something I undertake much more comfortably
in writing than in person. To worry less about reactions.
>
> What's frustrating (and this ties into the Green party discussion of
yesterday+/-) is that it seems to be that someone here interested in a
positive future must line up in more or less certain ways, plus or minus:
believe that the environment is heading for a worldwide collapse, that all
corporations are evil, that they're the ones ruining the world and warming
the earth, that everyone (except environmentalists and other activists) are
bought and sold, that technology has made our lives worse and is continuing
to do so, that organic food is good and all other food bad, that scientific
paradigms are a priori suspect, that an endangered species is part of nature
but a gene is not, that credibility does not matter when discussion
scientific questions (or any question). That we would be better off as
hunter-gatherers in loin clothes. That Green is the only way.
>
> Which is all so ironic, especially the technology angles. Look at what
you're reading this on: a device made of modern materials such as plastic,
that beams electrons at a screen, powered by electricity, driven by a
machine that relies on detailed understanding of circuit theory,
semiconductor devices, and quantum mechanics. You're sitting in a warm place
brought to you by detailed understandings of electromagnetism and
thermodynamics, you're taking medications brought to you by detailed studies
in medicine and biology, eating foods that have been engineered over time to
fit our needs, communicating over networks driven by fiber optics and
microwave relays and alternating current.
> We've all invited scientific and technology deep into our lives. No, it's
not perfect, and it makes mistakes. There are setbacks everywhere--that's
life. Nothing is without risk. Anyone who wants to be a primitive is free to
do that.  Very few people are, and only then in parts. There are reasons why
we've accepted science and technology into our lives -- they vastly improve
the quality of them.
>
> What gives us the right to decide that a certain technology should not be
used in other countries? My impression is that scientists don't really care
what kind of food people eat (though corporations do). Their reasons for
backing biotechnology are (1) they understand it a whole lot better than any
of us, so their opinion has to count for something, and (2) they see the
beginnings of a genetic revolution that will potentially cure many diseases
and end some suffering, and progress in that huge potential could well be
halted because some people don't like changes that are found to be
insignificant or that are tested to be safe. Genetic therapy, drugs targeted
specifically to particular diseases on a molecular level, transplantations,
increased nutrition and health, etc.
>
> Not only that: while GM foods may not or may be useful in alleviating
hunger in parts of the world, food needs are not static. Around 1960 a very
important transition took place: up until that time, cultivated land
increased in proportion to population. Since then it has remained more or
less steady, which means each hectare must become more productive. And it
will have to increasingly become more productive as the population increases
to ~ 10B in the next 100 years. Not only that, water shortages caused by
population growth and (to a lesser extent) climate change will put an
additional 1B people in extreme water stress by 2025. Since 70% of all water
use goes to agriculture, plants may need to survive on less water, or (like
the green potato in yesterday's news) may need to be made to allow water to
be used more efficiently.
>
> This won't affect any of us in America. We're rich and will just drill
deeper wells. We have all the pharmaceuticals we need (some developed from
genetic engineering), but we don't want others to benefit from other types
of genetic engineering. We have all the food we need, all the nutrition, all
the power, so we can afford to decide what technology we'll tolerate and
what we won't.
>
> The thing is, we are already Gods. I've been writing a film treatment
about the future over the next 1000 years. The one thing that occurs to me
is that, compared to people alive in the year 1000 AD, we ARE Gods. They
would see us as Gods. We fly through the air, we cover vast distances in
short periods of time, we are not afflicted with random disease epidemics
and debilitating injuries, we ingest small pills and take shots to ward off
microbes that people then were completely unaware of. We live long lives, we
live clean lives, we control whether we are cold or hot, we read, we
communicate all around the world with a few pushes of buttons. We are like
Gods to them. I suspect people in 3000 AD will be Gods to us. And meantime
the traditional definition of "God" is narrowed with each century,
especially the last four. We now know we do not live in the center of the
universe, the center of the galaxy, the center of the solar system, in the
center of...everything. Meanwhile we control more and more of our destiny
and put less and less of it in the hands of God. I'm not denigrating
anyone's belief--I fully respect those. I admit, I don't understand them,
but I haven't seen the need and haven't tried much.
>
> The implication that somehow I'm shallow, evil, in danger, unavailable,
beyond hope, hopelessly lost is so sanctimonous that it's juvenile, IMO. The
self-proclaimed pious always find comfort in spouting their superiority, but
it seems to me it must be a strange comfort and a false comfort born of the
very insecurities they accuse.
>
> I guess (generalizing) what I see a lot of is an inconsistency -- we
willingly and desparately want all the benefits science and technology have
given us so far, but demand also that attempts at progress are bad and they
should be halted. That's inconsistent. Certainly we need skepticism and
control and verification and revelation, but when only ~20% of people know
what a gene is, it seems many in society are reacting on the basis of media
campaigns. What other conclusion can one draw?
>
> Of course, everyone is free to make up their own minds, regardless of
their level of understanding, and I certainly do it or have done it other
areas. 1.5 years ago I was very much against GM, to the point when I asked
managers in grocery stores if their food was GM, and I even wrote a letter
to Shaw's Supermarkets about it. But now I see I didn't know anything about
it and I was just reacting emotionally, that I got the impression that these
were bad and I couldn't accept that. Many of you here know a lot more than
that about the details and have sharper differences. All I've tried to do is
back up my assertions the best way we know how, with statistics and
citations and specifics and reasons for credibility. There's no other way
this debate will be solved. Nor will the debate ever go away in the
future -- in various forms GM is here to stay, just as vaccinations are,
just as electricity is, just as fire is. The world is moving, and as part of
Nature we're directing some of that movement, and being carried away by
other movements. It's really quite beautiful, in its way.
>
> David
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:    PRichter1@aol.com
> Sent:    Wed, 20 Dec 2000 10:03:09 EST
> To:      davidnh@visto.com, positive-futures@igc.topica.com
> Subject: Re: [pf] 50 Harmful Effects of Genetically Modified Foods
>
>
> In a message dated 12/20/00 7:46:40 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> davidnh@visto.com writes:
>
> > Priscilla,
> >
> >  In person we have the option of extended dialogue. But in a situation
> >  where we're trying to determine the truth of things, we don't have that
> >  option -- we have to make decisions about who we consider credible.
> >
>
> In trying to determine the "truth of things", this is precisely where I
> believe that dialogue is so crucial. Sometimes we don't have the luxury of
in
> person dialogue, especially in an age of communications such as we are in.
> Obviously YMMV. And does.
>
>
> >  Do you read the National Enquirer and ask yourself after every article,
> >  I wonder where this author is coming from? I wonder what's in me that
> >  causes me to so quickly dismiss that President Clinton actually met
with
> >  an alien from Mars while at Camp David?
>
> David, obviously we all make choices. In this information-exploded age we
> cannot read everything and make our choices as to what we spend our
precious
> time on.
>
> I have to say that I find dialogue with you so tremendously frustrating
> because you jump so readily to the ridiculous. I find your constant
barrages
> to have what I would consider a fundamentalist bent: that it's your way or
> the highway. You find ways to put us down and that is a very difficult
place
> to dialogue from.
>
> I have to ask: why, if we engage your rage so readily (as per your recent

> reply to Kaleopono), and if we are so unenlightened that we fail to fall
to
> your brand of science, why are you here? What do you find worthy in
> participating in this listserv? What purpose do we serve in your life?
>
> These are serious questions.
>
> Blessings, Priscilla
>