Embrace the Future? Just because one can does not mean that one should. > >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.
Todd Swearingen ----- Original Message ----- From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 3:46 PM Subject: Re: [biofuels-biz] Genetic Engineering > 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/ > > > 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/
