I use the term "sanctified" because, in most Western societies, the ten commandments aren't obligatory; human laws must be put into place to be enforceable against the secular sinners. In any case, a mandate to respect the earth is too non-specific. For example, agriculture is a perversion of natural processes for man's benefit. It is highly destructive of ecosystems and diverts an increadible energy flow into burgeoning humanity. By your logic, wouldn't this be equally immoral? If not, where do the sins of agriculture become immorality as opposed to just survival? It is all a matter of degree. I am reluctant to advocate return to pre-agricultural, hunter-gatherer, subsistance harmony with nature. Nor am I eager to forego many of the medical advances, that help keep me an my family alive and healthy, in the interests of being more natural.
Humanity perpetrates a lot of bad things in the world, no doubt about it. I don't see why this should induce such a strong response of aversion to anything new, though. Genetic engineering will never be proven safe (heck, is a tractor, safe?); indeed, any technology can be misused, abuse or just fumbled badly (note that thalidomide is coming back into vogue now, though for different uses than in the fifties).
I'm delighted to see class action suits against tobacco companies or have the feds go after some company to clean up their toxic waste dump (for example); we need more of that to help remind corporations that there are financial implications to their production processes and marketings that go beyond immediate sales. I advocate a legal and institutional framework that keeps the corporations sensitive to the environmental and human health implications of their actions for financial reasons -- I don't see any reason to trust that corporations will exhibit a social/environmental conscience spontaneously; money talks to them, though.
Finally, a key element in this is consumer advocacy. The fact that I don't agree with the position many SANET members take with respect to GMO's (and some other issues, too), doesn't mean I think they should be silenced (as you imply). Nope, without the naysayers neither corporations nor government will have much incentive to be cautious _in advance_. I'm not eager to wait for human population epidemiological evidence of harm - that is the saddest way to find out things have gone awry (as with thalidomide and tobacco); it is the skeptics -- the luddites, to use Rebecca's term -- who pull back on the reins to keep humanity from going off half-cocked on a pell-mell technology binge (well, just think how much worse things _could_ be!).
So keep at it; express your concerns, and, especially, collect and share evidence that supports your position.
Meanwhile, I will continue to formulate and evaluate my opinions.
To Unsubscribe: Email email@example.com with the command
To Subscribe to Digest: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: