We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Unclear on the concept

This happy combination of headline and subheading on the Green Party home page will probably be gone by tomorrow, but if you click here and look under the heading “National news”, it says,

Global GM experiment must stop

More research into genetically-modified food and herbicides must be done, in the light of more evidence…

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on LinkedInShare on TumblrShare on RedditShare on Google+Share on VK

7 comments to Unclear on the concept

  • We must stop all scientific advances that improve agricultural production. Increasing agricultural yields would be bad. People would starve, or something.

  • PersonFromPorlock

    I dunno. On the one hand, there’s a Luddite vibe about the anti-GM movement: on the other, there’s the way reckless use of antibiotics in agriculture has bred resistant bacteria strains.

    Still, the genie is very definitely out of the bottle. Maybe what we need to do is rely less on the responsibility of those who stand to profit from GM crops and more on the threat of serious prison time for those who let the technology get away from them….

  • Bruce

    Norman Borlaug had it right when he observed:

    There is no evidence to indicate that biotechnology is dangerous. After all, mother nature has been doing this kind of thing for God knows how long.

    As for environmental lobbyists:

    They’ve never experienced the physical sensation of hunger. They do their lobbying from comfortable office suites in Washington or Brussels.

    Starvation of people in third-world countries whose misguided governments denied them food aid from the U.S., because it was genetically modified, is just the tip of the iceberg.

    A strong argument can be made that radical environmentalism is responsible for more deaths than all the Fascist and Marxist dictators of the 20th century combined.

  • Shockwave kills Michael Bay

    Its the patenting aspect of it that’s truly absurd. Patenting corn, is ridiculous.

    GM does not improve agricultural production, its purpose is to destroy independent farmers.

    What is this patenting of corn, who are the retards who agreed to that?

    Witness the persecution and suing of farmers on laughable legal grounds of “breaching patents”, a load of bullshit invented by Big Farma.

    De-regulate farming and strip all patenting rights. Farmers own the “rights” to the food they produce, end of story.

    The statist commies at Monsanto should compete in the free market, not impose their Communist “patents” on independent farmers.

    Patenting food is Fascist and Statist. It should be open source.

  • Laird

    I don’t agree that patenting genetic modifications to (say) corn is wrong. However, prosecuting neighboring farmers whose crops are naturally crosspollintated by the GM corn IS wrong. If anything, is the the GM fields whose pollen contaminated the “natural” corn who are guilty of anything (namely, trespass).

  • Tedd

    Shockwave:

    Can you make an argument against patenting food that is not also an argument against patents, generally? For example, if I can patent a steel alloy, why shouldn’t I be able to patent a genetically modified corn plant? (To be clear, I’m not making a case for either, just asking why one but not the other.)

  • Paul Marks

    Laird makes a good point.

    As for the concept of patents…..

    I am not going to “go there” – other than to say…….

    Companes that rely on patents and copyrights are (in the long term) unwise.

    Production will naturally go to the producers that produce the best quality stuff at the cheapest price.

    If patents and copyrights prevent that production taking place in (for example) the United States, the production will take place in China (or elsewhere).

    There indeed international patent and copyright agreements – but it might well need something very close to a world government to really enforce them.

    I repeat that I am not (repeat not) taking a moral position on the IP issue – I am simply pointing out that (on an international scale) enforcement is not really practical.

    There may be technical means to protect intellectual property – but relying on legal means (patents and copyrights) appears to me to be unwise.