[Nettime-bold] Re: <nettime> DNA bombs against DNA

["scot mcphee" <scotm@cybernetics.com.au>]

> [Not sure who wrote this:]

I wrote it.

> > >Certain grasses are the most successful plants on the planet --
> > >they selected humans such that we spread them practically
> > >everywhere we go. And of course all agricultural crops and animals
> > >are 'GM' by virtue of selective breeding anyway.
>
> This is exactly the kind of reductionism that is used to push through
> every dangerous new technology (or use of technology).  There's always
> some existing technology that the new one is "just like."  In most
> cases the existing one was either forced through using this same

It funny that you use the quote marks there David. Where did I use term
"just like"? I never said that with or without the intention you that you
slying attribute. Please stop playing rhetorics.

As to the 'major' difference being or not being the economics; the science
is incomplete as to whether GM crops pose environmental dangers of the type
or seriousness that you imply: it's economics are much more obvious, and
therefore, a more concrete target. Well I see that as a reasonable argument
to make anyway.

I have been surprised by the coherancy of most of the answers supplied by
CAE members to my questions. Yours however smack of just a bitter rejection
or at least an offhand dismissiveness of any dialogue amongst differential
views about GM, its usefulness, its dangers, and approaches to reforming or
superceding the ways it is put to use. I for one am tired of so-called
'radicals' preaching to me about issues I am capable of making my own mind
up about. Why don't we just revive the vanguardist ultra-left, tell the
unwashed masses with their false-consciousness what they really want and
why and be done with it? Ahh the 60s, it still can't be escaped can it?

Scot Mcphee.




_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold