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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (100198)	4/2/2005 2:59:47 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Ish is right. The Chinese are totally gung ho (no pun intended) about planting GMO trees. In theory, this could reduce the wear and tear on the rain forests, but... If you imagine GMO as something like styrofoam beads, we'll see a GMO litter start to plague the planet just like the stryofoam beads currently wash up on shore around the world. There will no doubt be a permanent change to the ecosystem - that is a fait accompli. and is certainly already underway. Without international accords, there will be no progress and the best we can hope for is a slowing down of the process. That probably won't happen under this administration. My hope is for a zen garden mentality. Yeah, we affect the environment, but we provide a system of agriculture and industry that is modeled on biological systems in which effluent and product are intimately and wastelessly intertwined. The good news is that the planet has survived larger calamities than what humans could ever do themselves, even with a global nuclear war. In the long run, it is our kind that will suffer the most from the degradation of the environment, ending the world in an unpleasant purge. Life is a persistent process extending deeply into the lithosphere. And while it is sad to lose fir trees, redwoods, bears, salmon, otters, seals and pelicans, in the grand scheme of geology, we'll all just be one "interesting sediment layer" in a million years. Hopefully that isn't too pessimistic, but that is about how I feel. My best hope is for a zen garden approach.

To: Grainne who wrote (100198)	4/2/2005 5:06:26 PM
From: Ish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

<<I believe Monsanto is the primary offender. But you are correct that it is not just Monsanto. It is definitely Monsanto that is at the forefront of trying to take the ability of farmers all over the world to save seeds away from them. >> I have mixed feelings on this. On one hand I think that any company that develops a seed should have control over how the seeds are used, ie. not retained for seed. 1. Retained seeds can lose production values over the years. They don't want a product out there that looks bad after a few years. 2. They developed it, why lose the profit in one year. 3. If a problem develops they can nip it in the bud by fixing the problem or stopping sales. OTOH Heritage seeds are not controlled by any company, or historically haven't been. If companies are getting a patent on them it's because they have found a loop hole in the law.