[Marxism] Frankenpolitics: The Left defence of GMOs,
dwaltersmia at gmail.com
Wed Jan 8 09:15:12 MST 2014
First, I think Leigh's article is excellent and like him the general
anti-science and anti-development wing of the left, which is quite
dominant, is correctly targeted IMO by Leigh. I'm somewhat, to be honest,
betwix and between on this on the issue. (I'll repost this on Leigh's blog
as there is more discussion there it seems.)
If we start with the assumption (and I certainly do) that the corporate
progenitors of GM organism are the Evil Spawn and Forces of Darkness we
know them to be, then anything they do is subject, or should be subject to
severe criticisms and opposition. What's clear is that the result of
corporate dominance over GMOs has resulted in many bad things. My
"opposition" to GMOs under corporate control is entirely political, because
of the results of this control, the development of suicide seeds, and,
after push back on that, the going after farmers who use their GMO crops as
feedstock for the next planting season. To me this is a more important
issue than a lot of what passes currently for opposition to GMOs.
Louis pointed this out in his rush to search for counter arguments to
Leigh's endorsement of GMOs stayed away from the nonsense that eating GMOs
is somehow bad for humans and went to real concerns about bug resistance as
it developed in one particular strain.Of course this is *one* strain and
there are hundreds, literally, of GMOs that have not developed resistance
bacteria or insects. But I am cautious anyway. But that is a serious issue
and shouldn't be dismissed lightly by those who have less opposition to
GMOs like Leigh.
Most of those opposed to GMO has focused on the, so far, non-existent
health threat, and bug resistance. Nevertheless, despite the paper Louis
posted, the development of bug resistance, and therefore, *not needing
pesticides*, seems to be an advance over crap like RoundUp which makes
plants pesticide resistance so that they can use more of it. This sort of
crap is bad and despite some obvious increased yield gains, the methodology
underlying RoundUP should be, IMHO, opposed.
If you actually *read* Leighs blog
will find very cogent arguments why this is the case. It's well
and points to real issues that Louis' counter argument (at least here, I
await his blog essay on the subject) ignores.
But for those GMOs that do things like, allow wheat to fix it's own
nitrogen, or cereals that can use less water, I think we should support
this development at least at the level of R&D and under conditions of free
replanting of yields to end monopoly patents on this stuff.
The bigger issue of course is over how agriculture is developing and that's
certainly a good topic for others to dig into.
More information about the Marxism