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.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (98870)	5/23/2003 12:17:38 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Steven den Beste has a nice commentary on the UN resolution passed today. Excerpt: The French ambassador today boasted about the fact that the UNSC passed this resolution unanimously. What he was glossing over was the fact that it was unanimous because the French capitulated, as did the Russians. They got virtually none of what they had asked for in the way of large changes. Both sides compromised, but they did most of the compromising. The process of forming a new Iraqi government will not be under UN control. The UN will not progressively take over. The oil-for-food program will not go on indefinitely, and the Russians and the French are going to bite it financially as a result. Their contracts and deals made with Saddam are not protected. (In fact, their sweetheart oil deals are explicitly illegitimate under the terms of the resolution.) Lifting of the sanctions will not be linked to new inspections. The UN will reconsider the issue in a year, but if it doesn't act the authorization continues in force. ...So... what the US got today was full authority to carry out reconstruction in Iraq, and to work on creating a new government there without being hassled by UN meddling or idiotic lawsuits, and France and Germany and Russia got to pretend that the UN still mattered and to avoid finding out just how badly they could be hurt financially if the US really got pissed off. The UN acted "unanimously" because it gave us what we wanted, and as a result the UN gets to pretend that it's part of the process... Those who are ungenerous might say that the French have yet again demonstrated their understanding that the best way to end conflict is to surrender. denbeste.nu

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (98870)	5/23/2003 6:29:32 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

One lady even called in and tried to claim that we should never modify "god's plants" since we could never improve upon them... I guess she never heard of hybridization, grafting, and cross-pollenization. Or indeed selective breeding... perhaps she believes wheat grew naturally like that. I do have qualms about incorporating new genes into products other than by breeding. I'm not sure how stable the resultant genes will be; will they be more prone to migrate to other creatures (because they've been artificially attached)? Then, if (for example) all US soya is immune to Round-Up, what happens if an established pest gets this immunity? This is particularly worrying when crops are developed incorporating new defence mechanisms taken from other plants; predator species (virii especially) evolve so fast, if they develop an immunity or resistance to this new alien defence then both the new and old plants are in danger. The saga of antibiotic resistance developing as a result of such overuse (particularly in animals) is one reason I have these misgivings.