Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Asia Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (9562)	4/2/2000 11:57:00 PM
From: Jim S	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 9980

Good post, Steven. I was agreeing with you until: A lot of the opposition to genetic modification is coming from the Luddite wing of the environmental movement, which dreams of sending us back to an agro-utopian society that never existed. I contend that the opposition comes from politically powerful farmers' groups in other countries. The best example is in France, where small truck farms seem to be like the CIO in the 30's. Here in the US, paradoxically, the farmers and ranchers who led the world in efficient food production, have the least political power of any agricultural group in the world. While ADM may have a good lobby for corn-based alcohol, virtually every other small producer segment of food production is being left in the dust relative to other potential importing countries. Apples to Japan, wheat to Europe, or rice to China, US producers face nearly insurmountable, and often frivolous, objections from importing countries whose own food producers don't want to face our competition. Irradiated food or genetically altered seed, the root of the objection is economic, not Ludditic or safety related. Which is not to say that creating irrational fear in the populace is below their sense of ethics. [<G> or ours, either, witness current social security and health care issues] Still, good post, Steven. I enjoyed it. jim

To: Dayuhan who wrote (9562)	4/3/2000 12:56:00 AM
From: Rolla Coasta	Respond to of 9980

agro-utopian society I guess a lot of farmers, either in China or Mexico, who had this agro-utopian ideology in their minds, got caught up in the high tech and population boom. For example, in China, the farmers are still the important class of people who have to feed the huge population, but in reality, they made less money when compared with the people in urban society, who have more technical knowledge. I can't imagine how the biotech boom would do to the farmers...or they are simply just doomed.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (9562)	4/3/2000 1:26:00 AM
From: kormac	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9980

Steve, I agree with you that the important difference between now and in the past is the speed (and very importantly, the effectiveness) at which genetic changes are introduced into livestock and plants. Sun's Bill Joy is also worrying about these issues today. Did you happen to see his article in Wired last week? Here it is: wired.com He also tries not to be labelled a Luddite, as the Wired magazine is read by a lot of nerds and technological dreamers and so Joy attempts to be on guard against being labelled a Luddite. He, of course, realizes how easily his argument can be dismissed by labelling him as such. I think, however, that it is too late to sound a call of alarm, as the technological imperative is at work and has been since man stood up to walk on two legs rather than four, with the side effect of acquiring in time a larger brain. Although the harm from genetics is not yet in clear view, I worry about the rapidity at which man introduces genetic changes. A rapid change, of course, often leads to a qualitatively different outcome than a slow change does, as the exhaustion of simple changes leads to compounding that is then cumulative. A stable system under small forcing may be stable, but a system in a metastable state may well find a new equilibrium position which may not be great for the human kind to contemplate. By the way, it is easier to see the harm done to humans from introduction of hormones to the feed of animals. Any thoughts on this? Your writing suggests that you might subscribe to the enlightenment idea of the greatest good for greatest number? This notion might lead to the earth being one giant feedlot. If you follow Edward Wilson's logic, we might also end up as a society akin to ants. In the last two sentences I purposely try to impose a couple of visual images and in the latter, one can see us move as robots to complete tasks and in doing so not minding a whit that we are literally walking over each other. In any case, some food for thought in Bill Joy's article. It and another one in a European magazine prompted me to start reading Oswald Spengler's The Decline of the West. Seppo

To: Dayuhan who wrote (9562)	4/4/2000 8:57:00 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 9980

Virtually everything we eat has been genetically modified for greater productivity by selective breeding: AMEN!!!! I'm glad that someone is finally stating this. It has been going on for THOUSANDS OF YEARS. I read a very interesting book recently, "Guns, Germs, and Steel", that dealt with just this very subject and why civilization was able to prosper on some continents and not others. amazon.com The ability of man to selectively breed and domesticate crops and animals has been essential to his progress from the moment he planted his first seed and commenced his transition from hunter/gatherer to that of farmer. The only two thing that do bother me is that we have grown more dependent upon hybrid that produce sterile seeds that won't germinate. I have no desire to see our agricultural industry at the mercy of a few seed monopolies. The second is when seed manufacturers start sending Private Investigators out into farmer's fields to see if they are replanting some of the seed that they are harvesting from fertile, yet patented seed varieties. When you sell me seed, you sell me the right to use the by-product of its harvest in any manner I see fit. If they can keep you from replanting a portion of it as seed, as is the tradition, then the precedent is being set that they can prohibit you from selling that seed except to authorized buyers (to prevent technological patents, of course). Thanks for letting me rant on that issue. Btw, China would LOVE TO GET OUR GM TECHNOLOGY. Regards, Ron