asdkasd wrote:Oh, and how do you propose socialism coincide with the ideals of little or no government?
Yes, it's called "Anarchism" 
Excuse me, did you notice that you didn't answer the question? It appears to me that not only wasn't it a yes or no question, but answering "anarchy" makes no sense when considering how socialism and anarchy can coexist.
Environmental? GM is completly organic(obviously) and is all-around better for the environment than the more prevelent mechanical technology.
Commercial GM food production involves in practice actually increased chemical usage than normal farming and is "mechanical" to the same extent. In Canada it has been shown that cross-fertilisation occurs (often where it shouldn't), thus transfering modified genetic material and the growth of plants that have not adapted to the environment...what does this mean?
Then we must ask ourselves why farmers are paying more for seeds that require more pesticides(more costs)? My assumption is that there's some sort of interference, but I may be wrong. Please, explain how this is the fault of capitalism.
As for the transfer of genes from GM crops to regular crops, your wording was slightly confusing. "...thus transfering modified genetic material and the growth of plants that have not adapted to the environement..." If you clarified your wording, I'm sure I could comment more properly to it.
"growing GM oil seed rape and sugar beet is damaging to UK
plant and insect life, the Guardian reports."
1) What insect life does it damage? Why should this insect life be protected?
2) What plant life does it damage? Who's plant life(private property of the GM user, private property of somebody else, or public property)? Why should this plant-life be protected?
A better form of farming for environment is called, confusingly for you, "organic" and uses little or no chemical fertilisers, pesticides etc.
1) How is it better for the environment?
2) Who's property is the negativly effected environment on compared to the GM crops, verses the Organic crops?
3) How productive and economical is organic vs. current GM crops?
I am for personal property and the "ownership" of that which one uses -if it doesn't conflict with other people. I am against private and public property...
I agree with you on one stance, I am against public property(with the exception of government buildings, but that's another story); however, I am for private property
over personal property(despite being similar) for reason's I'll explain to you soon.
"When a person's property intersects with another person's use pattern (which it usually does) it gives the property owner power over the other person. This is a form of domination. For example, if a person lives on a tract of land which is the property of another person then the owner has power over the person using it. The owner can decide to disallow the person from using that land and use the coercive powers of the state to prevent him/her from using it. The owner thus has control over the user; s/he can impose whatever conditions s/he likes and the user must either accept those conditions or the violence of the state will be used to prevent him/her from using the object. Property is thus opposed to liberty because it allows one (or more) people to control other people. Personal property is the only form of property which, theoretically, is not opposed to liberty because, by definition, it never includes objects in the use pattern of another individual."
This quote doesn't comment on how the person came to live on land which is possessed by another person. If the person who lived in that house resided there before the person who claims the land did so, without selling his house to the land-owner, than the house is rightfully the residents
private property. However, if the land was already owned by the second person when the house was built, or was sold to the second person by the resident, then the land is privatly owned by the second person. Why should the resident be given property rights over someone who already invested in that land? The man paid for that land, unless it was unclaimed, in which case I can make an exception, and would not have done unless he planned to mix his efforts with or improve in someway. He would not have bought that land unless he was planning to use it to regain the money he invested, and then some.
However, if that land was unowned before the owner laid claim, it is not trully his unless he A) had mixed his efforts with it, or B) was planning to mix his efforts with it. In both these cases, the
resident is interfering with the owner in use patterns, not the other way around. If the owner laid claim, yet neither mixed his efforts with the land nor could provide proof that he was going to, then the claim is unsustainable.
"The power inherent in public and private property frequently creates an exploitative relationship. The owner uses his/her power to demand that the user do something the owner wants, usually of an economic nature. Rent is a common example of this. The landlord, the owner, requires his/her tenants to pay a certain amount on a regular basis to the landlord. If they do not the landlord uses the coercive powers of the state to forcibly evict the tenant from his or her home. This is simple theft. It is no different from putting a gun to a person's head and demanding money. The landlord demands money every month or s/he will use the violence of the state to force you out of your home. There are many other forms of exploitation which are the offspring of property, rent is merely one form. Wealth gained from simply owning something is generally the result of exploitation since it enables the owner to consume things, which require labor to produce, without himself having to labor to produce something."
The only problem is that they can find someplace else to live; also, instead of having to take care of the place themselves, that is typically the land-owners job. Because of this, in order to keep their business(i.e., residence), the owner must provide for them. Even in the lower-quality housing, reserved for poorer people, the place which provides the most for the lowest cost will recieve the most business. While understanding this, how many people, besides the charitable, would build
apartments? People usually have to benefit directly in order to take action. Personal property
benefits from being owned as private property. In fact, the homelessness situation is complicated by two factors, being unemployement and government regulation of low-cost housing.
Also, this neglects the idea of personal charities who house those who cannot afford housing. The unemployed can rely on charities until they can find a job, afterwards they could afford to rent or possibly own a house.
As for capitalism and GM? GM technology is pushed by large-scale corporate biotechnology companies for profit and the creation of a need for a technology many people do not need or want.
1) What is wrong with profit? The corporation invested money and labor into something, they own something, why should they not seek to gain from their investments?
2) How could they create a "need" for something that is neither necessary nor desirable? The corporation would avoid investing in the first place if that was the case. I understand there's the possibility you'll bring up Thomas Edison and electricity; however, I doubt that you can consider that undesirable. If you did, I would have to question your mentality.
"The question of whether we should be concerned about the distribution of the potential benefits of genetically modified (GM) crops arises on two counts. The first count is that commercial considerations will lead agrochemical and seed businesses to concentrate research and development (R&D) predominantly on markets in developed rather than developing countries. This is unlikely to encourage the prospect of using genetic modification for a significant improvement in food security for the world's poor . . . The second count is the fear that the commercial exploitation of GM crop R&D will only promote the profitability of a small group of large companies rather than the wider public interests of consumers, farmers and researchers"
The quote starts off by making an assumption. It
asserts that GM will focus research on developed nations, which isn't determined logically nor is it common sense. In fact, there will be undoubtably a third-world sector in low-cost GM crops. By specifying high-yeild and low-maintance/intake alterations, certain farmers will cut costs of producing produce to the point where they could easily make profits by selling to the poorest people.
What are the possible Health risks of your wonderful technology?
1)"toxicity of transgenic foods"
2)"adverse effects of transgenic foods themselves"
i. Antibiotic Resistance
ii. Transfer of DNA from GMOs to animals or bacteria
iii. Allergies
3)"adverse affects to the environment leading to humans"
1) Who wants to buy toxic food? Possibly some toxons may leak early on; however, people will either begin by refusing to by food they know is thouroughly tested and safe, or will after a few leak throughs. Either way, saying that people don't know what food's in their best interest to buy appears to go against the founding philosophy of Anarchy.
2i) I assume you're talking about bacterial resistance to antibiotics; this is already happening. Antibodies naturally kill all but those bacteria resistant to them, they in turn reproduce to a higher percentage of the population and then more bacteria not resistant to the anti-bodies die and more antibody resistant bacteria reproduce. Eventually virtually all of the stand are resistant, this is called evolution. The only solution is to let our bodies build an immunity to these strands. I'm also assuming you believe the immunity to stem from (2ii).
2ii) More diversity, evolution. Your point? Besides, I see no reason to believe the GMo's are more genetically unstable than normal crops; and even if they are, naturally it'll be the genes which we thought were beneficial in the first place. What's wrong with animals or bacteria which produce vital vitamins and proteins? Or, supposing that it's DNA which allows for the crops to grow faster or in worse soil, where's the problem? If it doesn't make the bacteria more dangerous, why bother about how fast it reproduces? or, supposing it's genes that allow it to grow in worse soil, what effect will it have at all? This is all not to mention that new strands of DNA aren't effective in Bacteria or Animals unless inserted directly into the Chromosomes(yeah, different term for Bacteria, same thing), so trans-RNA would be the only possible way to cross genes indirectly. in this last case, why would transpecies t-RNA be more likely to cross into new species than regular t-RNA? Oh, and sorry for the run-on sentences and bad structure.
2iii) Allergies? It would be fraud for the new crops not to label that those allergic to, say, peanuts might have an allergic reaction to their broccolli. Also, GM producers would want to thouroughly check their products for this. Do you want to buy from the corporation that killed 100,000 by having the bee-histamine in their product?
3) Could you please explain what adverse effects GM crops or animals would have?
One example of Biotechnology companies attempt to encourage farmers and the world was the increasing of vitamin A within rice in a project called "Golden Rice"...lovely, isn't it? Now all the poor farmers will have plenty of vitamins. But there is a problem -"GE rice does not address the underlying causes of vitamin A deficiency (VAD), which is mainly poverty and lack of access to a more diverse diet. For the short-term, measures such as supplementation (such as pills) and food fortification are cheap and effective.
"poverty and lack of access to a more diverse diet"
So, despite the fact that supplements cost extra, and Golden Rice is "food fortification", GM is still bad? This doesn't prove how Golden Rice is not reducing vitiman A deficency in impoverished third-world residents, but merley asserts it's not. It actually contridicts itself, since Golden Rice is fortified.
The only long-term solution is to work on the root causes of poverty and to ensure access to a diverse and healthy diet."
GM crops do allow for more nutrients in their diets, and unionization/capitalism are the only cures to the level of poverty they have. Have you noticed that the richer nations tend to have more free economies? Granted, they are merchantilist and that messes with third-world economies, but that doesn't aid their wealth as much as the capitalism. I do believe it's Botswana that is capitalist and has become wealthier and more successful in the last forty years.
The production of nutritionally altered foods using genetic modification involves changing basic biochemical pathways. Researchers are finding that achieving the desired effect is more complex than anticipated and unintended consequences may arise from the genetic modifications. Desired characteristics may also come at the expense of other factors of nutritional or agronomic significance and such genetic alterations could produce unexpected toxins.
Ok, I'll give you that GM is complicated and will have side-effects for most attempts in the near future. However, there have always been side-effects when a new technology has been introduced; overtime, they improve. While they need more testing, GM will be much better than alternatives very shortly. We've already succeeding in the Human Genome Project, and within ten years our computers will be able to hold uncomprehendable amounts of information. We will be much more effective at altering genes to be more productive and profitable in the near future.
Animal Rights? Here we where we differ completly. I don't believe animals need rights
I dont believe immature adolescent capitalists should have the right to live either...
Well, then it'd down to me and you... I hope you know don't know how to fight, or if worst comes to worst, dodge bullets.
1) Wild animals in the environment are adversely affected by high amounts of chemical usage and plant contamination.
How so? Please explain.
2) GM technology isn't just being done on plants but carried out animals too. One example is the increasing of milk yield, where in one experiment a cow couldn't walk due to the size of its udders and a brain impairment both caused by Genetic Engineering. Another, pigs were bred that produced better meat but witht he side-affect that they had chronic arthritis.
And? Why is this a concern of mine, the pig's gonna be killed anyways and the cow can be given double-ineffective myostatin alleles. In fact, if the experiement is reconfigured to bluebells(I believe is the breed), then it's most likely the cow will be more able to withstand the weight of the utters.
3) Livestock are fed GM maize etc. and just as I dont want to eat the stuff neither do I feel it "benefits" them...its also used because its cheaper and *nobody wants it*.
Ok, your point is here... what? Livestock are feed cheap food. Explain to me how it hurts them?
What ethical reasons could you use to stop GM?
1) The patenting of Life
2) The fact that people dont want GM food (here anyway)
3) Perhaps I also dont want to accept the Enviro. Helath etc. risks
1) how can people "patent life"? While new modefications can be patented, a human's DNA sequence is their possession and species DNA is unclaimable as either a patent or property. That'd be like laying claim to the world's air.
2) Ok, then you and your friends don't have to buy it.
3) I've yet to see solid evidence that it interferes with someone elses property. As for "Environmental Health risks", that's pretty much your way of saying to force other to keep the evolutionary status quo, isn't it?
We already can feed the world -we produce several times the amount needed and waste a great deal, but capitalist economics gets in the way of equal distribution.
Oh, How is that? If anything, it's state intervention and the anti-GM crusaders who are. If the poor can't afford enough food, why interfere in somehting which will lower the cost of food?
We already can eat nutritionally enhanced foods through our own plant breeding, and simply live on a diverse, healthy diet -which is possible for all. But junk food is pushed on us and we all live increasingly fast, uhealthy lifestyles out of our control.
Take responsibility, if you eat fast food it's your fault. God damn, you belong in the Platonist forum, not this one! How can an anarchist deny that people are responsible for their actions?
As for your comment, possibly. However, GM can advance the plants further than merely breeding. Besides, since GM is a personal decision, why should you be disposed to it on a whole-sale scale?
We dont need to make the earth any more under our control, use more land for production etc. As mentioned we can and do produce enough and can do more in a more small-scale diverse agriculture.
Ok, but then why force your vision on everybody else? Besides the fact yuor language is wholy sensational and subjective, there are very many of use who
want to put the world "more under our control". That's the glory of libertarianism and anarchy, if you're half as right as you should be then people will naturally agree with you and follow you.
- By wat0n
- By Negotiator
- By litwin