> Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As a doctor, the notion of just allowing people to
> > starve to death is repulsive -- that's why groups
> > like The Heifer Project, who promote
> > environmentally sustainable economic growth
> ><sniplet> are so worthy.
> > Lumping all environmentalists into the radical
> > fringe is incorrect and misleading.
> True, if it were true that attacking the Green
> Revolution was the radical fringe. It wasn't, at
> all. Paul Ehrlich, MacArthur "Genius" grant winner,
> best-selling author, one of the fathers of the
> modern
> environmental movement. If he's the fringe, then
> the whole _movement_ is the fringe.
<wry> I've never heard of him -- I should say that I
have been an 'environmentalist' before I heard of the
word, in that as a kindergartener I thought animals
ought to have their own homes (gophers, in that
particular instance); "Born Free" merely confirmed my
young conviction that wild animals deserved to live in
wilderness - even my childish fantasy of 'taming a
wild horse' involved _my_ living in _their_ range, not
bringing them into a barn.
> Stopping yellow rice
> - that's not a few loonies, that's a mass movement.
If it field-tests not to be more susceptible to the
various rice-rots/smuts/other diseases than the
unaltered variety, it is worth pursuing. But playing
devil's advocate: how is govt-supplied yellow rice
seed different from 'state nannyism' which you implied
that I support? (and indeed I confirmed that in frex
the case of folate enrichment of various cereal/grain
products; but my stance on illicit drugs is much more
hands-off - with an admittedly harsh twist WRT
contraception) Since 'saving lives' didn't seem to be
an acceptable reason for such regulation, as I
understood your position, what is the difference?
> Banning DDT in Third World countries - that's not
the
> fringe, that's _everyone_. <snip>
If the GM of malarial parasites/symbiotes tests out to
be feasible and safe, the 'footprint' of its use ought
to be far less than DDT, which is indiscriminent
(sp?)in its toxic effects (although there will be some
unintended consequences anyway).
> You want to compare and contrast? I'm not thrilled
> with the Administration's policies on contraception
> in
> the Third World, but they don't do much harm because
> they're totally unenforceable and fairly marginal in
> their impact even if they were.
I'm going to address this separately - prob not this
week as I've been busy -- and have over 400 posts to
read! `:}
Debbi
Snow Last Friday, T-shirt Wearing By Sunday Maru :)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
