Quote:
On 2002-12-05 02:56, The Goldstandard wrote:
The primitives didn't live in harmony with their environment, they lived at the mercy of the environment. Life in a cave chewing on a half cooked piece of meat isn't better for human beings, living in a house with central air conditioning and a well made beef stew is.
None of the cultures I used as examples lived in caves or at uncooked meat. You don't even have to do real research to know this. Look, just go down to your local movie rental facility, and pick up <i>Dances with Wolves</i>. Kevin Kosner worked very closely with the Lakota/Sioux when he made this movie to ensure its accuracy. Despite the fact that is is a movie, it portrays Lakota life very well. They got along quite well without air conditioning or canned beef stew.
Quote:
Humans have, over time, learned more and more about nature and how to control it to benefit us. As our technology improves over time, managing our environment to get the desired effects will only become easier. Becides, humans aren't in a real position to adapt themselves to their environment. We have no natural defences like other animals, so we HAVE to make tools, and the better the tools and shelters we make, the better we survive. Even the primitives knew that. We have to adapt our environment to ourselves, our survival depends on it. It is no coincidence that as our standard of living and technology has gone up, so has our lifespan and general health.
HAHAHAHA!!!!
Hold on...did you just say that we have learned to control nature? We can't even reliably predict the weather. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here.
There is a huge difference between using natural resources to provide comfort for oneself and their family unit and modifying the very structure of life to do the same thing. And the difference between us and the 'primitives' is that they only used what they needed. No more. THAT is living in harmony with nature. We live in a society based on consumerism, our economies rely on the steady acqisition of material possesions. Consequently, we must take more than we need from nature to fuel our lust for stuff.
Quote:
Are you implying that you want genetic perfection for free? I hate freeloaders who want something for nothing, and this is all your second post was about, wanting the benefits of genetics for NOTHING!
You misunderstand. I don't want genetic engineering <b>at all.</b> I think it's a potentially good idea that is being used in an immature and irresponsible manner. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. The implications of a company having a license on living things is tremendous. Corporations (with a few exceptions, and not bio-tech ones) don't care about us, they only serve their stockholders and the bottom line. Perhaps you have read <i>Brave New World</i>. If you haven't, your lack of concern can be pardoned. If you have not, then I suggest that you pick up a copy sometime. It illustrates quite well what can happen when life becomes a <b>product</b>.
Quote:
When someone, or a company, invents or discovers a new gene that will be of benefit, what is his likely purpose? Will he do it "for the benefit of mankind?" Hell no! Altruism doesn't put food on the table, and doesn't buy the Mercedies Benzes either. If a guy discovers a new gene that saves peoples lives, and wants to make money off it, I say good for him! He earned it. That is why genes discovered by individuals or companies should be allowed to patent their discoveries, because that allows them to make money from their investment. (Genetic research ain't cheap!)
Genetic research is certainly not cheap, and that is precisely why corporations (and not individuals) are making the big discoveries. And this is the very problem, having massive genetic power in the hands of half a dozen corporations.
Quote:
As for your alleged examples, all I have to say is that if I were a geneticist, letting my work get into everything willy nilly would be bad business. Becides, how would I be able to locate all the crossbread plants? By going on farmers property and taking samples? Thats trespassing. Nah, its cheaper and easier to just keep the genes to myself and only exchange them for money on the spot. Becides, according to law the Bio corporations can't charge farmers for accidentally crossbred plants, since the farmers didn't agree to it in the first place. If somebody benefits from something you did accidentally, you cannot make him pay for it because he never agreed to it in the first place. For a legal trade to occur, where both parties would have obligations on them, both sides have to agree to the trade. You cannot just give me your shoes and demand payment, if I didn't agree to it. Same goes for genes.
Unless you specifically buy non-GM food, most of what you eat is genetically modified. C'mon, all the cool companies are doing it. Tell me what you had to eat today, I'll bet you at least 75% of it was GM.
You don't have to go to the plants to find out which plants have a certain gene. You can test a pop tart for genetic modification(and they are modded). Anything down the line will test positive for a gene if that gene was in any one of the product's ingredients.
As for farmers not agreeing to use GM food, that's too bad for them. We export thousands of tons of GM grain as hunger aid every year. Our GM food is already in Europe, Africa, Mexico, and Asia. Farmers don't get a choice, especially poor ones. And the hardier GM crops will naturally drive out the less hardy indigenous species.
Quote:
As for Monsanto getting the terminator gene, all I have to say is that that is a good idea. That would help eliminate the risk of crossbreeding and help protect their investment. Becides, if the new corn wasn't more profitable than the old corn and too expencive farmers wouldn't buy it. So Monsantos corn has to be more cost effective than the old fashioned natural corn. If farmers don't buy, Monsanto doesn't get money, and loses market share to those who sell cheaper corn.
Not all their products are getting the Terminator, just their Starlink corn. And the Monsanto corn is resistant to all sorts of crap and grows higher yields than normal corn. And natural corn is more expensive than GM corn. You ever go to a grocery store that sells organic food? It's really expensive. That's because it's cheaper to use pesticides and hormones to boost production. Commercial farmers are already hooked on GM crops.