bedlam wrote:Its not a zero sum game. Being concerned about Monsanto's seriously questionable behaviour does not make one silly or oblivious to the science or benefits of GMO.
Regulation is not the problem. You have to regulate where corporate bastardry has required it - and it has. The communities food safety is not something that can be left in the hands of the board at Monsanto.
I believe we've been down this road before wherein our basic disagreement is whether the push to regulate, which I am not saying is ill-advised but might have been ill-implemented at times, didn't prepare a fertile breeding ground for Monsanto by virtue of shutting out the smaller firms. It's pretty much an unprovable concept from either side.
I acknowledge that you're one of those rare birds that can and does separate the benefits of GMO from the excesses of Monsanto. We differ only on whether the occasionally hysterical lobbying of the late 20th century did or didn't make Monsanto inevitable by virtue of erecting barriers a startup GMO house could not hope to overcome.
I have leveled the charge that many that espouse the science of AGW act like the worst of creationist senate Republicans when it comes to denying the science behind GMOs but it is not a charge I level at the user known as Bedlam or, by the Conjurer nickname, Carl the Commie. While we disagree on a number of topics I have never found your position to be adopted from some platform as opposed to well thought out. I would concede that I don't see Monsanto as especially dangerous - they're a corporation which, as a sort of organism, behaves in predicable ways. Some of these should not be permitted to run rampant but I'm of the school that thinks a robust competitive environment can accomplish much of these measures better than a government being lobbied by Greenpeace which does not differ much from a government being lobbied by the insurance industry. Battling NGOs have become a part of life.
Perhaps the OP is another one that recognizes science is science and ethics are ethics but that's uncertain at this point. Dr J Craig Venter was also involved in the human genome project and longevity research. And though he and Monsanto share some goals it isn't clear that he's a Monsanto booster so much as simply a genetic scientist with strong views. Given that the PTSD is reported to be in remission or at least at low ebb it seems as good a time as any to explore the matter.
For good or ill, perhaps aided by a lazy media, "Monsanto" has become synonymous with "GMO crops". Of course they're not the same thing though a Venn diagram would show a lot of overlap.
Science suggests humans contribute to climate change and suggests that GMO crops have saved the lives of millions and that nuclear is a tool which might be deployed to lesson reliance on fossil fuels. Much like not all conservatives deny AGW science not all environmentalists deny GMO findings - but the odds tend to push climate deniers into the conservative camps and GMO deniers into the liberal camp. They're both denying science - sometimes vociferously so, but neither form of denialism is monolithic in those groups.
And the fact I'm still living rent free in his head makes me grin and giggle.