Yup, that's what it is, Dale. An ingrained, intuitive response by biologically evolved organisms in reaction to an invasive and unconscious incursion by hostile forces into the place where we live.
>Was that manipulation "good"? Well, the folks doing
>the selection thought it was.
Once again - the question is not: To manipulate or not to manipulate. It's different strokes for different folks. It's the methodology. Do genetic (not transgenetic) crosses. Do it sexually, not via micro-surgical implants. You get credit for trying. And GMO's are still on the market - but "the sustainable ag crowd" is getting to be just about everybody. Save the GMO's for clearly justifiable (i.e. necessary) cases.
Have a nice day.
DH
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 13/05/99 at 10:24 AM Wilson, Dale wrote:
>Jane,
>
>> Dale used the industry arguments...
>
>The arguments are mine, and I am not speaking for Pioneer.
>
>> that agricultural products may be "improved" by genetic
>> manipulation so that fruits may be designed to carry certain
>> medications; grains will be designed to have particular
>> nutritional compositions; etc.
>
>That wasn't really my point. My point was that the health risk from these
>manipulations is probably small. "Improvement" is a matter of opinion. I
>am sure you would agree that plant varieties exhibit a wide range of
>characteristics within species.
>
>> Is not the bounty of nature enough to suit our needs? Have
>> we not co-evolved with the plants and animals that share
>> this planet with us?
>
>Corn was first domesticated eight or nine thousand years ago. How much
>biological change do you think occurred in humans since that time?
>Negligible. How much change occurred in corn? To quote Walt Galinat "A
>contemplation of the creative power necessary for ancient man to transform
>the tiny spike of teosinte into the magnificent ear of corn in a relatively
>short period of time, perhaps 100 yrs, leaves the beholder with a sense of
>awe if not disbelief." Was that manipulation "good"? Well, the folks doing
>the selection thought it was.
>
>The relevant co-evolution here is the co-evolution of plants with human
>culture.
>
>> we have a *universe* of alternatives if only we would allow
>> ourselves to see them. How about using an ecological approach,
>> working with the cycles of nature, the complex dynamics of soil,
>> and the miraculous natural capabilities of plants to attempt to
>
>All successful farmers do this. But, who are you to prescribe practices and
>varieties, and tell farmers what they can and can't do? On what basis? I
>can accept the basis of public or ecosystem health, but that is not what you
>are arguing here. As is so common on this list, you are setting yourself up
>as arbiter of natural law (and falling into the naturalistic fallacy). IMO
>the farmer should decide what is an "improvement" and what is not. The
>arbiter of natural law should be the farmer.
>
>> The simple answer is that the profit potential from this
>> approach is very limited as it relies not on chemical or
>> biotechnological inputs but on intensive system management,
>> therefore industry would not be very interested
>> in it.
>
>You might desire to forge your own hoe or make your own nails, but most
>farmers choose not to do that. Is that bad? Pioneer produces one kind of
>input, crop varieties (packaged in high-quality seeds BTW). You might take
>esthetic pleasure in selecting and breeding plants. I know I do. But most
>farmers choose to have someone else do it for them. We seed industry people
>make a living doing that. As it turns out, the high-tech, gee-whiz stuff
>doesn't make much more money than conventional breeding when the dust
>settles (serves them oversold gene-splicers right ;-). Finely targeted
>genetic manipulation, not always *trans*genic, is becoming conventional.
>Human culture continues to co-evolve with the crop.
>
>IMO it is appropriate to let farmers themselves decide how they will farm in
>their own unique situation. They need to decide what inputs should
>logically be purchased in there situation. I don't think it is fair or
>efficient for some centralized academic authority to decide what practices
>or varieties are *natural* enough for them to grow. I think GMO crops are
>safe and represent an environmentally responsible choice in many cases.
>Apparently, many farmers want to buy such seed. I don't understand the
>knee-jerk, across-the-board rejection by the sustainable ag crowd.
>
>Dale
>
>To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
>"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
>"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
>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
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
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