Posts by Joe Wylie
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Monsanto started the commercialization of GM.
Not strictly true. The first genetically engineered commercial crop variety approved by the US FDA was Calgene's Flavr Savr tomato. While Monsanto eventually acquired Calgene, they had no involvement with the tomato venture.
-
As I understand it, one of the objections to GE/GM of crops is that we are potentially limiting the full spectrum of variety that nature, uh...naturally provides. And that could be dangerous for things like immunity, etc.
This was expressed very eloquently by the late Barry Barclay a full 25 years ago. Nothing has essentially changed. Despite Bart's assurances, I'm unconvinced that we're any smarter now. Potentially better informed certainly, but the generally supine acceptance of Monsanto's business model doesn't give the impression that those who have the practical expertise are looking beyond their immediate interests.
-
The law doesn't say that downloading music or movies is theft, no matter how often opponents of the practice may use the word, but it does say that plant cuttings are real property and can be stolen in the same way that a car or book can be stolen.
In Henry Fielding's 1742 satirical novel Joseph Andrews, the hero picks a hazel twig which he presents to his lover, and is vexatiously charged with theft:
'Jesu!' said the squire. 'would you commit two persons to Bridewell for a twig?'
'Yes,' said the lawyer, 'and with great lenity too; for if we had called it a young tree, they would have been both hanged.' -
This is-it-or-isn't theft thang is getting to sound like Brash's emails.
-
In fact native forests over-run gorse :)
They certainly do, but only if that other noxious interloper, the brush-tailed possum, is kept in check.
-
'I Am Woman' too! In all its earnest, cheesy glory.
At about 2:38, never been done cheesier.
-
We'll have GM'ed insects, bacteria, and even humans soon enough, and you won't be able to undo those things.
True enough, though there may be some legal recourse. I remember hearing Colin Tudge being interviewed a few years back, where he looked forward to the day when a young man whose temperament led to his choosing to study philosophy might sue his parents for subjecting him to the kind of genetic manipulation that gave him the physique to be a champion basketball player.
The message was that we may well presume to manipulate something that we don't fully understand the consequences of. While the term junk DNA doesn't seem to be used much of late, it seems an expression born of a dangerous arrogance.
-
Thanks for the link Grace. Might I also add a plug for Colin Tudge's So Shall We Reap (How everyone who is liable to be born in the next ten thousand years could eat very well indeed; and why, in practice, our immediate descendants are likely to be in serious trouble).
Like the National Geographic piece it's a rather better researched and visionary overview of the issues than the usual tediously ill-informed luddite vs. tech-worship pseudo-debate. -
Now, where have I heard that before, and how did that turn out?
While it might be relevant here, the story that Margaret Thatcher's main achievement during her brief career as a research chemist was to discover a way to get more air into ice cream appears to be an urban myth.
-
The development of crop varieties that fix their own nitrogen from the air and effectively provide their own fertiliser is being pursued in various places. That would be an amazing innovation.
You reckon? All legumes - beans, peas, lentils, etc. - already do this to some degree without benefit of genetic assistance. Lupins are renowned for the high levels of nitrogen they produce, and are being increasingly grown as substitutes for soy beans. You probably already knew this, but to describe potential genetically engineered developments of such crops as amazing seems a bit like the flip side of the irrational caution that you criticise.