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: kormac who wrote (9574)	4/3/2000 11:33:00 AM
From: Rolla Coasta	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9980

If we think of the genetically modified food as a kind of medicine, then it seems like to me we have to take the medicine day-in and day-out. That makes things really un-nature and artificial. As far as antibiotic, I rarely take them in my lifetime. I am not against big corporations in general. But if we take the GM food like taking medicine as a routine everyday, lots of things being done by the big corps need to be scrutinized, or the situation could be getting out of hands by wicked politicians.

To: kormac who wrote (9574)	4/3/2000 9:56:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Respond to of 9980

Some fairly complex issues there. Of course weighing costs and benefits perfectly is impossible. We do it as well as we can with available information. How else can we make decisions? I'm afraid you misunderstood me on the Asian farmers - modern agricultural technology won't cause them to farm limited plots of land, they already farm limited plots. Modern agriculture can help them to produce more on those limited plots. 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. That's really not likely if we can maintain anything resembling a free market economy. Food production is too broad a range for single companies to dominate efficiently, there will always be new entries breaking off pieces and handling them more efficiently. Even farmers who insist on doing it the old way will have the option of selling to the wealthy folks who are willing to pay the premium for the possibly greater safety and undoubtedly better taste of old-style produce. They will, of course, have to compete for that market. If people want to pay that premium, fine, but it's a bit churlish to try to force people to pay it. But then in the last two sentences you pull back and still say that the price is worth paying. If you want unqualified opinions, you've got the wrong guy. 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. It's not a situation I know enough about to have a firm opinion, but tentatively I would suggest protecting the largest and most contiguous tracts as National Forest, and allowing selective logging on private land. But if it was my decision to make, I would want to consult with people who know a lot more about forest management than I do before deciding anything.