"It is necessary to weigh costs and benefits to all involved to the greatest extent possible"
You set for yourself an impossible task. Are you counting in the future generations, as well as the fauna and flora today and tomorrow?
"It also might lead to farmers with limited amounts of land - a very Asian situation"
True enough, but the alternative is equally un-American, namely control of the food supply by few huge corporations.
Suppose that agriculture is controlled by 3 major companies, (This is not a far fetched idea, because most of the beef production is today is controlled by 4). Such total control is totalitarianism. Never mind that it did not arise from a totalitarian system, the end effect is the same. Do you know how many corporations control the trade in grain? Are any of them public companies? The last I read, one was, but it was minor player. As private companies they do not have the reporting requirements and are not subject to same kind of scrutiny a public company is.
"I have a suspicion that in 50 years we will be looking at genetically modified foods the way we look now at antibiotics, which have annihilated countless gazillions of living organisms and totally altered the balance between humans and their environment. Certainly antibiotics are widely abused, and their abuse is a serious public health problem. But would we be better off without them?"
This paragraph of yours brings out the Huxlean word vision. I tend to side with it, even if people on this thread are naturally more interested in the Orwellian view as it relates to the situation in China today. But then in the last two sentences you pull back and still say that the price is worth paying.
Your post shows how difficult it is to take a firm stand on these issues. A good exercise is to pose questions to oneself on which a firm stand is possible. Here is one.
Should we put an absolute ban on all logging of the California Redwoods? It seems that if one wants to save the Redwoods one cannot compromise on this issue as the time scale is such that cutting a 300 year old tree is irreversible for all intents and purposes.
What do you think?
best, Seppo |
