OT: Re: [CH] question for a big brain

Inagaddadavida, Baby (raelsixfour@home.com)
Wed, 15 Aug 2001 12:56:54 -0600 

At 12:27 PM -0400 8/15/01, jocelyn berg wrote:
>>Sure! Let's inflict catastrophic damage to a significant
>>portion of our environment just for funsies! Bonus points
>>to the first person to set off a world wide extinction event!
>
>I think it's pretty weird to think that a pepper could cause our 
>death and take over the world, leaving us as slaves and weak like 
>never before. Surely we don't have the power to resist such a 
>powerfull enemy, but maby just digging the plants and burning them 
>will do the thing!!!
>
>Also, it's funny to call those things funsies. What I said is one, 
>that I know. But what about a new type of rice that produces vitamin 
>A . It would help the life of millions in small poor contries, but 
>we surely wouldn't want to take the chance to see a better rice take 
>over the world, so lets just watch the poor people die...

research the "golden rice" or whatever they're calling it now. 
Firstly, while many eastern countries do, per person, consume a large 
amount of rice, one would have to damn near stuff him/herself to 
receive "wonderous" benefit from the rice.  Two, such crops are, as 
most GM seed, surrounded by various legal-ease crap, i.e. you can't 
plant from retained seeds, you must buy new seed each year from 
Corporation X, etc; in a nutshell, kill the 3rd world farming system. 
And so on...

>BTW, this type of rice as already been created by adding two genes 
>to the plant. It's safe, it works. Because of green peace, this rice 
>cannot be
          ^^^^^^^^^
according to whom?  how many years has this product been grown in a 
controlled environment where testing and such can be done? 3? 5?? 
 From whence do these genes come?  Not much data out there for the 
public to make educated stands other than "it's safe...it's good for 
you".  Corporate propaganda more likely.

>produced ( they said WE didn't needed that type of rice since we 
>already have a good one and other ways to get vitamin A ).
>
>There are also genes modification for the benefict of environment. 
>They change a gene in pigs which makes their "crap" none toxic for 
>the rivers. Such a thing will probably be rejected again.

Of course.  It's "treating" the effects of a problem and ignoring the 
root of the problem.  It is stupid logic/thinking.  Ignore the 
source, find a cure for the effects...and preferably one that will 
make lots and lots of money.  Capitalistic science.

>We also have to know that a gene modification only adds, remove a 
>couple of genes. We don't say a thing when we cross two types of 
>plants together, like some of us talk about doing with their 
>peppers. It's funny cause this action changes thousands of genes at 
>random, but since it wasn't made under the plastic outfit, it's no 
>problem.

Two completely different things.  Apples and oranges.  Don't insult 
peoples intelligence.

>So maybe gene modification ain't just little funsies that we do 
>during the weekends! Maybe we're not investing millions of dollars 
>to have a little fun during our pass time!

It's people investing millions of dollars to reap billions.  That's 
the bottom line.  Some, I'm certain, or at least hopeful, truely 
think they may be bringing something great to the world, to humanity, 
but unfortunately, I've seen little of such....particularly when one 
considers the Whos of the GM world: Monsanto Corp, Avantis, 
ect....killers of the environment.  History and fact show this to be 
undeniably true.  Search out some quotes/statements from Shapiro, the 
CEO of Monsanto, if you want some scary reading.  The man is Satan 
Incarnate.  He wants his corporation to control the food chain, 
basically, and is, or at least was, working on owning much of the 
water rights in Africa.

Personally, I enjoyed the movie Swing Blade.  I really fell in love 
with the statement, the truth and pureness of the statement: some 
things just need killing.

Rael