On Fri, 16 May 2003 09:46:16 +0200, Tim
wrote:

On Thu, 15 May 2003 16:15:49 +0100, Stephen Howard
wrote:

Well, it's not just hoping, they should be looking pretty hard.

Yes, they should be..but y'know, it's 5.30 on a Friday afternoon, and
there's a booze-up going down and who really cares if some small
beetle in some distant part of the globe suddenly finds that "fings
ain't what they used to be".
Human nature.
It gets even tougher when no-one even knows that beetle exists.

Exactly. You'll probaly find that the scientists themselves are pretty
concientious, it's the people who make the marketing decisions to sell who
are in my mind the big danger. That's why it should be controlled, and
monitored and not left to the companies themselves or public pressure to
change thier minds -because we all know how much interest major companies
take in what the public think (ubntil they stasrt going bust). The problem
remains that the technology can be good or bad, just like every other
technology mankind has developed. It's the application that is the danger.
That's what should be controlled.

Absolutely. I don't have any problem with the science per se - more
the cackhanded way in which it seems to be applied.
Certainly at this stage of the game the last thing they need to be
addressing is the manipulation of plants to enhance cosmetic
qualities.
It smacks of 'hey, look what we can do'.
I don't think that anyone can berate the public's lack of faith in the
corporate bigwigs, even if the science appears to hold water.

We haven't even finished cataloging the full diversity of life on
Earth, we haven't even cured the common cold... and there are still
people out there who think a person's beliefs or skin colour makes
them beneath consideration.
We're trying to run before we can even crawl.

You have to start somewhere.

Of course - but I think we're decades away from letting this science
out into the wild with the appropriate assurances that issue demands.

I don't think it is directly relevant to our discussion at the moment.
Generally yes. But, with teh right approach and development, maybe GM
plants could provide a way of gently easing them out of thier deadlocked
pesitcide use in the future. Which would surely be a good thing.

There are already other means of doing that. Sure, they require more
time and effort... and ( here it comes ) money!

Not all the farmers have the money. Those in the developed countries
probably do but there are millions of peasant farmers who can barely afford
to feed themselves let alone afford other more expensive methods to break
out of the viscious circle.

I understand that, but that issue points more to bad funding and
corrupt regimes rather than a need for GM technology.
Even something as unsophisticated as a reliable water supply can make
all the difference in the world.
There are still practical issues that can be addressed, we haven't run
out of options.

If you'd have said 'nemetodes' to a geezer planting his spuds half
century ago, he'd have probably wondered whether to kiss you or knee
you in the nuts.
I agree that there's room for development, I just feel GM is the wrong
path.

Certainly, but I think GMOs are *a* path - one which should be trodden
carefully and a step at a time. And a technology that shouldn't be driven
by profit. But unfortunately so many things are.

Agreed.

That's fine - in a self-contained environment. I'm not supposing that
GM will turn out plants that get up out of the pot and start eating
babies -

I know you're not, but there are some that like to use similar imagery.

It's an emotive topic - which is why I mentioned the 'hey, look what
we can do' approach....it only serves to further alienate people who
have reservations about the technology coupled with an understandable
lack of knowledge about it.

That's the nub of the matter.
You and I could argue the finer points until we're blue in the face -
but until there is absolute certainty as to the effects of GM then a
debate is all it should remain.
It's just too big and too fundamental an issue to even consider toying
with in the real world whilst words like 'might', 'chance' and
'maybe' still apply.

We don't know everything about anything. You cannot be 100% sure that it
won't rain today, so instead of taking a brolly just in case, you stay in ?
(actually, living in Britain, that was a pretty bad analogy, wasn't it?)

As with any new branch of technology there has to be, sooner or later,
a leap of faith.
The irony is that if we continue to farm as we do now then I can well
imagine that there will be a definite need for GM crops ( as bugs and
weeds develop resistance to chemicals, and resources dry up ).

Unfortunately I doubt that my deciding to maintain an organic garden
will have little impact on the world as a whole...but I have to start
somewhere!

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{whoisat}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk