Re: [pf] Greenpeace wins key GM case

David (MacClement), really, I couldn't care less if you read my posts. Of 
course my 
question was intended to inflame -- that's the whole point: it does. Because 
burning 
Greenpeace's offices would be an inflaming act, no pun intended. Just as was 
their 
destruction of a farmer's field.

Do we want to live in a world where some violence is justifiable, just because 
the 
inflictor says it is?

I hardly believe we live in the best of all possible worlds. I know to be a 
member of 
this list I'm supposed to be a super-lefty, all science is bad, technology is 
killing us, let's be hunter-gatherers again and the world will be beautiful 
place, 
kind of person. 

But I'm not. Neither is anyone else on this list, really, as evidence by the 
sheer 
fact that you're on it and the technology you've accepted that makes it 
possible. It's 
easy and cheap to complain that the world is being destroyed or that you're the 
only 
sane person in an insane country (what hubris!), but we're all responsible for 
the 
problems because we all drive cars and have destroyed wilderness to live on the 
plot 
that we live and create sprawl just by our very existence and are completely 
willing 
to accept computer technology and medical technology (and the physical 
technologies 
that make these things possible) when we need them. Without them most of us 
would 
probably already be dead in a hunter-gatherer world. When you go live in a hut 
like 
you think people did 300 generations ago then you have a right to complain. We, 
in the 
first world, we're exactly the problem we're all complaining about. Sure, we 
recycle 
and advocate actions that address the edges of the problem, but we're still the 
fundamental problem. 

Greenpeace's actions were based on the Criminal Damage Act of 1971, which 
states that 
in certain circumstances, a person may damage another's property property in 
order to
protect life or neighbouring property. From what were they protecting it, 
exactly? 
What threat was present? 

Personally, I'm less worried about the consequences of possible contaminants in 
the 
gene pool than I am about the consequences of acceptable violence in the meme 
pool.

David




 wrote:
> 
> At 10:49 21/9/2000 -0700, Tom Wheeler, via altpr.org, sent:
> >>> Greenpeace wins key GM case
> >>> Not guilty: Protesters who destroyed crops are cleared
> >>>http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,371076,00.html
> >>
> At 09:48 21/9/2000 -0700, David Appell wrote:
> >> I really find this puzzling, and also a little scary. Does this verdict
> >> now mean that one could set Greenpeace's offices ablaze if you don't
> >> agree with their politics or their science?
> >
> >David,
> >    It means nothing of the kind.  Greenpeace was attempting to stop
> >contamination of other crops in the area. ... If you had read the
> >portion of the article [which she quotes], it would be very clear to you
> >where the line is drawn, why this particular case is legal, and what
> >is at stake.  I am always willing to dialogue with you, but when you
> >purposely make statements made to inflame, ignoring the entire picture,
> >it wears thin.
> >                    Jill
> > ...
> 
> **  There /is/ a case to be made in defense of the status quo, the
> "conservative" case, i.e. being critical of all and any changes,
> particularly fundamental ones.
>     New ideas /need/ a baptism by fire, need to prove themselves.
> 
> **  As I see it, the new ideas here are the various uses of genetic
> engineering, and there hasn't been anything like enough attack on those
> ideas, they haven't had to thoroughly defend themselves yet. Especially in
> the USA.
> 
> **  But David Appell's constant defense of the status quo, IMO from the
> stance: "we live in (nearly) the best possible world, don't knock it", not
> only wears thin with me, it has turned me off reading anything he posts to
> this list.
> 
> **  It's worse than that. I'm generalising, but he is usually defending
> something he calls scientific, though I would regard it usually as a
> product of technology. {Here: mapping the genes, and investigating how they
> work, is scientific; creating a product or service from that knowledge, is
> technology.} And as a scientist I object to almost all of the statements he
> has made in the name of science. The one exception that comes to mind is
> when he has requested that the speaker supply some convincing evidence.
> 
> **  Lastly, and the reason I'm sticking my nose into this exchange: "when
> he purposely makes statements made to inflame, ignoring the entire picture"
> as Jill rightly said IMO, I find it my responsibility to object, with the
> aim of having that kind of statement reduced or hopefully eliminated, in
> favour of a plain statement of the writer's opinion.
> 
> **  Instead of the apocalyptic: "one could set Greenpeace's offices ablaze
> if you don't agree with their politics or their science?"; if I understand
> David Appell's view aright he could (and IMO should) have said:
> "one can rip-off someone else's crops or goods with impunity?"
>   Yes there is a question of private property rights here, the defense of
> that right being supplied by the state. But excessive statements like his
> have no place in reasonable discussion.
> 
> David.
> (David MacClement) davd@ihug.co.nz
> http://www.emucities.com.au/member/davd/index.html#top
> ******************************************************
> 
> ___________________________________________________________
> T O P I C A  The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16
> Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
> 
> >

___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A  The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics