The transistor is not a good analogy, there were never worrisome outsomes,
a better analogy would be atomic/nuclear power, a technology which becaue
the crude science of it was possible we had to do it, the politicians fell
all over themselves to get in line as the scientists held out to them the
wonders and benefits to mankind. There were naysayers, many with reasoned
arguments, but the bureaucratic/scientific establishment rolled over them
and the media were enthralled with the promises of the new priestly class.
I am not opposed to genetic engineering, I am opposed to taking stupid
chances, of rushing in where angels fear to tread just for the sake of
corporate profits. Dale, somehow you and other like you need to separate
the thrill of scientitic discovery from the fatal attraction of quick
monetary gain. It is far from perfect, like most things human, but the
concept of the Precautionary Principle is a good one, far better for the
health of the earth than the crude artistry of Risk Assessment, which is
prone to the falacies of statistical analysis.
You also need to realize that science, and the scientific method, produce
only one possible view of our environment, of our functional reality. If
you are incapable of understanding that there are other, equally valid,
apprehensions of reality it makes commications between us impossible. We
are not just naysayers, we see reality through different lenses than you.
I'm not asking you to change your lenses, just suggesting that you
recognize that there are others.
Vancouver Island, Canada
To Unsubscribe: Email email@example.com with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
To Subscribe to Digest: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: