From: Brian D Williams (talon57@well.com)
Date: Thu Aug 29 2002 - 09:47:52 MDT
>From: Charles Hixson <charleshixsn@earthlink.net>
>The problem is... butterflies were picked as the species to worry
>about because they were photogenic, not because they were the one
>most endangered. There may or may not be good reasons to
>discourage the transgenic BT plants. We don't know. The news
>media sell what sells, they don't even seriously try to inform.
>The pop-ecologists use a popularized (read emotional) version of
>ecology. They push what it's politically effective to push.
>Ditto for the corps. Actual ecology pretty much gets neglected.
>And there may, indeed, be real dangers lurking here. We can't
>tell, and the information that we would need to use to make an
>informed decision is systematically obscured by both sides.
>They're both more interested in pushing what they want, than in
>what the facts actually say.
Trangenic or not, we need to change the way we do agribusiness,
it's not currently sustainable, and it's not just the
pop-ecologists sounding the alarm, it people like Howard Odum,
mathmatical ecologists. As Odum says we use something like 10x the
energy to produce food than its energy content. "Our food" he says
"is made wholly of oil with oil left over."
You might check out chapter 10 "Food For Life" in Natural
Capitalism, online at www.natcap.org.
Brian
Member:
Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888
SBC/Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:30 MST