Whole Earth Discipline: Green Genes
Nov. 14th, 2009 02:43 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
james_davis_nicollBrand's annotations
Actually, this chapter might annoy environmentalists even more than the previous one did.
Brand comes down on the side of genetic engineering as a valid and useful tool for humans to use, pointing out that
He gets into the historical background of public opposition to genetically modified foods (and I'm sure the people over on the anti-side will have some comments).
He also doesn't think much of the case against GM foods and when I say "doesn't think much", what I mean is he thinks the anti-GMs are deluded, wrong, irrational, misguided and in some cases actively destructive, particularly towards poor people in developing nations. He also does not think the evidence is on their side.
Really? I'd have thought there'd be at least a few beer puritans out there.
There's an interesting comment he makes in passing at one point:
How do we know this? Please do not tar me with Gene L. Coonism. I'm just curious what exactly we can tell about human variation if we're limited mostly to bones and stone tools.
Hrm.
I wonder what those varieties are? I ask because I got very sick after eating a yellow-fleshed potato a few weeks ago and if there are new varieties that could make me sick, I want to know what they are.
The really annoying thing about agriculture is that it's so painfully inefficient. If you look at the energy we require to run our biochemistry and the amount of energy that falls on the Earth in the form of sunlight, it's very clear that in theory if we had some efficient way to turn sunlight into chemical bonds, we could support our current population off a very small patch of land. Unfortunately at present we're stuck with very wasteful methods.
The annotations don't really get into it and I cannot quote from the book but he does point out that one of the effects of opposing GM foods is to make the lives of people in nations with food supply issues even harder than they need be. He also takes the Precautionary Principle to task, at least in the form it is commonly used.
Actually, there are some nicely snarky bits in this chapter I wish I could quote: I hope he expands the annotations.
Actually, this chapter might annoy environmentalists even more than the previous one did.
Brand comes down on the side of genetic engineering as a valid and useful tool for humans to use, pointing out that
All of evolution, all of agriculture, and all of selective breeding of any kind is genetic modification and always has been. GE specifies genetic engineering, a finer-grained practice. Instead of selecting for traits, which breeders do, GE identifies the genes behind the traits and works selectively and directly with those genes.…
He gets into the historical background of public opposition to genetically modified foods (and I'm sure the people over on the anti-side will have some comments).
He also doesn't think much of the case against GM foods and when I say "doesn't think much", what I mean is he thinks the anti-GMs are deluded, wrong, irrational, misguided and in some cases actively destructive, particularly towards poor people in developing nations. He also does not think the evidence is on their side.
Peter Raven sums up the outcome: “There is no science to back up the reasons for concern about foods from GM plants at all. Hundreds of millions of people have eaten GM foods, and no one has ever gotten sick. Virtually all beers and cheeses are made with the assistance of GM microorganisms, and nobody gives a damn.”
Really? I'd have thought there'd be at least a few beer puritans out there.
Here’s one more overview, from a 2007 article titled “The Real GM Food Scandal,” in Britain’s Prospect magazine:
The fact is that there is not a shred of any evidence of risk to human health from GM crops. Every academy of science, representing the views of the world’s leading experts—the Indian, Chinese, Mexican, Brazilian, French and American academies as well as the Royal Society, which has published four separate reports on the issue—has confirmed this.…
There's an interesting comment he makes in passing at one point:
Races emerged only twenty thousand years ago.
How do we know this? Please do not tar me with Gene L. Coonism. I'm just curious what exactly we can tell about human variation if we're limited mostly to bones and stone tools.
Thanks to globalization and urbanization, races everywhere are mixing more, and that gives evolution even more variability to work with. We are becoming a world of smart mutts.
Hrm.
But after one breeder found that Lenapes made him nauseous, analysis showed that they were high in a natural glycoalkaloid toxin from the wild potato. The Lenape was formally withdrawn, but it was too late. Thirteen varieties of potatoes still remain on the market with Lenape toxins bred into them.…
I wonder what those varieties are? I ask because I got very sick after eating a yellow-fleshed potato a few weeks ago and if there are new varieties that could make me sick, I want to know what they are.
Thus Jim Lovelock: “The fact that at least 40 percent of the land surface is used for food crops is hardly ever taken into account in our current approach to climate change. A self-regulating planet needs its ecosystems to stay in homeostasis. We cannot have both our crops and a steady comfortable climate.” (That 40 percent of the Earth’s land breaks down to 5.8 million square miles in permanent cropland, 13.5 million square miles in permanent pasture. The remaining 31 million square miles is ecological.…)
The really annoying thing about agriculture is that it's so painfully inefficient. If you look at the energy we require to run our biochemistry and the amount of energy that falls on the Earth in the form of sunlight, it's very clear that in theory if we had some efficient way to turn sunlight into chemical bonds, we could support our current population off a very small patch of land. Unfortunately at present we're stuck with very wasteful methods.
The annotations don't really get into it and I cannot quote from the book but he does point out that one of the effects of opposing GM foods is to make the lives of people in nations with food supply issues even harder than they need be. He also takes the Precautionary Principle to task, at least in the form it is commonly used.
Actually, there are some nicely snarky bits in this chapter I wish I could quote: I hope he expands the annotations.
