Just in sort-of defense of Bob against all these attacks on his
assessment of the rationality of Johnny's et al selling GM seeds from
those of you who (rightly) think it's immoral, I want to say that I
think Bob is coming from the viewpoint of traditional economics which
asks, is it *rational*, ie, does it pay, rather than is it *moral*,
ie SHOULD it pay. Let me just say that even for someone steeped in
moral responsibilities and spiritual and ecologically-sound values
(like me) a traditional economic education (like I got in grad
school) can put a powerful spin on things. Having been out of grad
school now for several years, I feel like I can see from both
perspectives now.
Besides perhaps serving as the lists "devil's advocate," Bob is also
expressing a viewpoint from a totally different frame of reference
(at least that's my assessment, Bob himself may disagree). My point
is, GMOs may be evil, Johnny's may be wrong, the whole economics
approach to things may be stupid sometimes, but Bob's opinion is not
immoral. It is ammoral. It is looking at the question of selling
from a stand point of economic rationality (which, according to
economic theory -- which leaves much to be critized --, is what
actually drives us all). We might all agree that for Johnny's to
sell GM seeds IS perfectly rational AND we might agree that it is
morally wrong. I think what Bob might be trying to hint at is what
can we do to make this decision also irrational for Johnny's and
others? I.e., what economic disencentives might be out there?
Anita
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail