Hello Chuck >Strictly from the standpoint of efficiency, growing a plant that produced an >acceptable yield of fuel for diesel engines without processing any further >than extraction and filtering is nearly ideal. >We do need people hanging around with a healthy dose of skepticism, but >running away from the future because some aspects of that future appear to >carry risks is worse than plunging blindly forward without heed of the >consequences.
That's NOT what we're doing. I am not against genetic engineering - I am against genetic engineering in the hands of the current players, who have a VERY bad record at such things, with virtually nothing to redeem it. Genetic engineering in itself is a most promising technology. My fear is not only that great damage will be caused by the current highly irresponsible initiatives but that the future of the technology might thus be ruined. My fears are being amply realised day by day, I'm very sorry to say. A large portion of the world sees it just the same way. These are not over-emotional fears based on scare-mongering, as some try to paint them, they're very often well-informed views, despite much corporate spin which attempts to confuse the issue, often successfully. Many of the nay-sayers are themselves scientists, many of whom have changed sides from pro to con. More and more scientists are doing that. > Genetic engineering has been going on since that monk, >whats-his-name, was messing around with peas in his garden, even before >that. That is not true. His name was Mendel. Plant breeding is quite different to genetic engineering. The two have almost nothing in common. Read the definition Ed just posted. Neither Mendel, nor the hundreds of generations of careful farmer breeders before him and since who have given us our range of food crops - all very different from their wild originals - have not practised genetic engineering. >We have been cross-breeding, hybridizing, and culling herds and crops >for desirable traits since before recorded history. Its just that now we've >advanced to the stage that we can do it with tremendous efficiency at the >direct genetic level. You're quite wrong, on both counts. For the first, see above. For the second, there's very little efficiency involved. Check out your facts first. It's not an efficient process, it's highly random. Claims that the results are known and reliable have in all cases so far proven wrong. The effects - the GMO crops themselves - have not performed as claimed, and have behaved as it was promised they would not. Not efficient, bad science, bad technology. >Monitor the progress, give those who are concerned a >public forum, and let normal human progress take its course. This is not normal human progress, this is corporate irresponsibility. >As a student of western civilization, I can tell you that, historically, >cultures that turn their backs, or try to stop social, or scientific >progress, marginalize themselves, ceding the forefront to other cultures >that are willing to embrace the future. Stopping scientific progress is one thing, giving an unrestricted green light to unproven technology that is at best half-baked quite another. >I am not flaming anyone here, I respect the cynic and the critic, we need >you to balance the science-as-a-god crowd on the other end of the spectrum. >But, please, accept the possibility that your opinions are just that; >opinions. It is possible for someone equally well informed to disagree with >you without being evil. These are not opinions. If you want solid references I'll give them to you. I wonder, though, if you can do the same. From my view of the subject, I doubt it. >I'm sorry this got so, long, I just didn't want to see another tangential >flame war fire up. I hope I haven't caused one. We can have a discussion, we can have an argument, we can even get heated about it, no problem, it only becomes a flame war when it goes beyond that into a personal slanging match, which I trust won't happen. >Oh, we're talking to the local economic development people about building a >BD plant right here, using WVO as feedstock. Good for you! Best wishes Keith >Chuck R. Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://www.webconx.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
