Fascinating forum topic
Hi folks,
I can't spend too much time on this forum topic right now, but I've read a few pages and I want to read more and be a part of this discussion. I just wanted to make a couple points.
Those who are saying that GE crops cause X health or environmental or butterfly-killing problem (or CCD) really need to spend some time looking up the facts on transgenic crops. There's a lot of misinformation out there, and I'll admit, it's really hard to find out reliable information without going directly to the scientific literature.
That being said, it brings up many many good things to talk about, such as who controls what, how do you ensure people's rights while providing an economic incentive for useful traits to be developed in bees? What about swarms and supercedures? These are good questions.
The strongest argument, put forward by HVH, is that if you're really concerned about someone 'controlling' the bees and having lawsuits over backyard swarms, then what you really want is publicly-funded research programs instead of private companies. I find it fascinating that the opposition to transgenic organisms in universities is pushing it more into the hands of private enterprise - exactly the folks that activists are afraid of.
More fascinating, though, is that whenever a discussion of genetic engineering comes up, people start talking about evolution as if it was a benevolent deity. I've noticed this elsewhere, but this sentiment has certainly been echoed here.
Dinor said:
"I don't know why man thinks he can do better than nature."
Honeybees are a partly domesticated species - the combination of nature and human intervention. So there's a dichotomy being drawn where there isn't one. The same thing goes for crops - nature didn't hand down apples and bananas, humans bred them from wild, seedy, and sometimes poisonous species.
buckbee said:
"In the context of evolution and the life of this planet, we are still infants playing with dangerous toys. The sooner we recognize this and put our faith in the processes and cycles of nature, rather than the pet theories of scientists, the sooner we will be able to get on with the real work of creating a new relationship with the natural world, based on respect and appreciation rather than casual disregard and exploitation."
and:
"What do you trust - millions of years of evolution, or a profit-driven agrichemical company?"
Evolution is not benevolent. It happens by tooth and claw and toxin - evolution actually makes far nastier toxins than humans have ever been able to come up with. I would rather be guided by scientific evidence than what is essentially a religious statement.
Genetic Engineering is no more a casual disregard than is breeding - both modify the genetics of an organism, albeit by different methods. It raises philosophical issues, but I would like to caution those who make blanket statements about its usefulness based on a philosophical predisposition rather than the state of the science.
I'm going to keep reading this discussion when I have more time. See y'all in a few days.