|
|
#801624 - 21/12/06 09:41 AM
Negative interference for a cause? PETA, Greenpeace,...
|
the henna lady
Registered: 15/12/00
Loc: WNY, USA
|
So I was reading an article this morning about how Pink (the singer) is going to Oz for PETA to take on the wool industry for Mulesing sheep against flystrike. Now, what gets me is how these people don't do their parts to really understand what they are fighting against. Mulesing would have to happen regardless of whether or not the sheep were being used for wool. I've seen an animal with flystrike...ugh. Bad..bad..bad.
They would rather these animals die a tormented death than undergo this procedure.
Not to mention the VP of PETA is a diabetic whose insulin was tested on animals. But I digress...
This reminded me of when genetically engineered corn (via selective breeding) was introduced to Africa a few years ago. This corn strand can thrive in arid, hot zones without rich soil and so offer more food options. Greenpeace stepped in and convinced the gov't that it would be bad to use. One of the documents released even claimed the corn would cause mutations in babies.
I understand wanting to help but at which point does lack of wanting to reason justify actually causing harm to others?
Where is the line that shouldn't be crossed, if you feel there is one?
_________________________
Pele
Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir
"Oooh look! A pub!" -exclaimed after recovering from a stupid fall
"And for the decadence of art, nothing beats a roaring fire." -TMK
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#801625 - 21/12/06 11:49 PM
Re: Negative interference for a cause? PETA, Greenpeace,...
[Re: Pele]
|
Sweet talented nutter
Registered: 03/08/02
Loc: Brisbane Oz
|
Pele i think some people have to beleive in somethings wrong type attitude .
They don't think about everyside to the situation.
In Australia our wool industrie is big so for a change how about people think about the sheep/ workers ?.
What annoys me is that a lot of people try to argue without all the fact's or even ever lived that life style.
_________________________
that shrewd and knavish sprite
Called Robin Good Fellow ; are you not he that is frighten of the maidens of the villagery - fairy
I am the merry wander of the night -puk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#801626 - 22/12/06 01:49 AM
Re: Negative interference for a cause? PETA, Greenpeace,...
[Re: Puk]
|
remembers when it was all fields round here
Registered: 27/02/03
Loc: in the works... somewhere...
|
Written by: Pele
I understand wanting to help but at which point does lack of wanting to reason justify actually causing harm to others?
With respect, I think you need to look at how you've represented this issue before you comment on how others do, because this obviously isn't an accurate description of what mulesing is about, or why PETA are campaigning against it.
It's illegal in the UK so many here don't know what mulesing is but I'm not going to describe it because it's easy enough to look up.
We can all agree on what the definition is and that sometimes anaesthetics are administered, but such pain relief isn't used in the majority of cases and even if their use was compulsory, it would be near impossible to enforce and simple to contravene.
The prevention of flystrike would have to happen regardless of whether or not the sheep were being used for wool, but there are alternative, more humane and more effective methods of preventing flystrike than mulesing.
I'm not convinced that this is such an uninformed fad with Pink as you seem to imply.
Compassion in World Farming, who my cousin works for, is an organisation not as well known as some such as PETA despite being long founded and international organisation, but they were invited to hold information stalls at Pink's UK concerts, so she's been able to use her prominence to raise awareness of their work rather than vice versa as some celebrities sadly tend to do.
On the subject on genetic engineering: some African countries have themselves refused this corn, so certain organisations such as Greenpeace are merely supporting their voice.
This doesn't necessarily represent the starving individual, particularly those under the more corrupt of governments, but certain Western governments are only prioritising their own commercial interests under this guise, which is a huge debate I'm not about to start on this thread.
In summary, I don't think anyone can reason very far without much information 
_________________________
"I thought you are man, but
you are nice woman.
yay,
:R"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#801627 - 22/12/06 02:37 AM
Re: Negative interference for a cause? PETA, Greenpeace,...
[Re: Spanner]
|
Scientist of Fortune
Registered: 15/04/05
Loc: Edinburgh
|
I can't really comment on the specifics of this case, but I would agree that in general PETA and Greenpeace are asshats.
By radicalizing their respective movements they have hurt their causes considerably and driven moderate supporters aways. Greenpeace in particular have taken up a number of positions which are contrary to the scientific evidence, such as their stance on the corn Pele mentions above.
_________________________
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#801628 - 22/12/06 03:49 AM
Re: Negative interference for a cause? PETA, Greenpeace,...
[Re: jeff(fake)]
|
enthusiast
Registered: 14/07/04
Loc: manchester uk
|
i agree with you totaly pele group mulesing may be unplesent in the short term but its done to benifit the animal in the long term and i'm not a fan of PETA at all there such a hypocritical group.
they give money to people to firebomb medical recearch labs while there VP is only alive becuase the recearch done my them
they hold protests out side animal shelters that euthenise animals they cant rehome. while peta kills 75% of the animals they "rescue" many killed in the van after been picked up without even attempting to rehome them. in conditions that landed them in court for animal cluety
PETA should be disanded and at the very least have there status as a charity revoked. my personal prefrence would be to hire some animal rights people fire bomb them for killing animals. i feel that would have a sence of justace about it.
and i totaly agree with you about greenpeace pele they were founded for a good reason but the totaly lost there way one of the founders even left the orginasation and is firmly against them now. The incident in africa you mentioned is a very telling example around a million people died of starvation who could have been saved if there goverment handnt rejected the vast amounts of perfectly safe GM food been offered by the international comunity.
greenpeace was responsiable for there deaths.
both groups are a total bunch of F^£KING C2$TS 
just checked my figures the peta killing 75% of animals was from 1998 the lateist figures 2005 they killed 90% of the animals they took in
Edited by robnunchucks (22/12/06 04:15 AM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#801629 - 22/12/06 05:15 AM
Re: Negative interference for a cause? PETA, Greenpeace,...
[Re: robnunchucks]
|
remembers when it was all fields round here
Registered: 27/02/03
Loc: in the works... somewhere...
|
Unfortunately there will alway be people who claim to be - and believe themselves to be - comitting acts on behalf of an organisation which in fact does not condone such behaviour.
I also can't understand why one "government" keeps being referred to regarding Africa in this thread. Last time I looked it up, Africa was a continent of 54 countries, some of which have refused certain or all GM foods.
I'm reluctant to delve too deep into these issues anyway, but "lack of wanting to reason justify(ing) actually causing harm to others" could as easily be directed to those condoning mulesing or feeding starving people GM crops: who's harming in the first place?
_________________________
"I thought you are man, but
you are nice woman.
yay,
:R"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#801630 - 22/12/06 06:05 AM
Re: Negative interference for a cause? PETA, Greenpeace,...
[Re: Spanner]
|
member
Registered: 21/12/06
Loc: On top of a Nipple
|
everything is corporational.
in my opinion, freenpeace, peta, and all those organization's are all good and nice, but its all public relations.
i think they really are looking for what everyone else is looking for: money.
and greenpeace, instead of helpin they try to preserve, in all possible way.
of course it would be better if everything was natural and good and beautiful, but sometimes we gotta compromise.
they spend tons and tons of money trying to preserve botanical gardens and stuff, while there are millions of people without any kind of food in africa, south america, middle east, and so on.
=\
Edited by Pinkadelic (22/12/06 06:07 AM)
_________________________
Love is Life
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#801631 - 22/12/06 06:18 AM
Re: Negative interference for a cause? PETA, Greenpeace,...
[Re: Spanner]
|
the henna lady
Registered: 15/12/00
Loc: WNY, USA
|
Spanner, I do actually know quite alot about mulesing and the alternatives, and I support it. I have seen animals die from flystrike from the supposed "very effective alternatives".
Being from an agro community I also know the state of many farmERS and agree heartily with Puk.
I am sorry I did not clarify. One country in Africa was being offered and thinking of trying this corn to see how well it would thrive and support their people before it went continent wide. I believe it was one of the middle countries, but I can not remember.
"feeding starving people GM crops: who's harming in the first place?"
You're serious in writing this? It is scientifically known that there is absolutely no harm in feeding anyone Genetically Engineered crops. It is a form of selective breading and is not involved in chemicals, etc. I eat hibred (grafted) crops, those which have been bred to be hydroponic and genetically altered for heartiness (such as this corn) food all the time. I am fine. My son was born fine. A vast amount of people who eat organic eat GE crops...it's how they are so hearty as to avoid blights. GE is not chemically contrived in a test tube. I have friends who work at Cornell University in their Agricultural Engineering dept. on these food strands.
Feeding hungry people, not harmful at all.
My favorite PETA story is the one about the protesters in Tennesee who painted a girl up like a tiger and locked her in a cage outside of a circus (one which has one of the MOST succesful breeding programs for Asian elephants..it is awesome!). She had to be carried away by an ambulance for hypthermia because they didn't think it through very well.
"of the founders even left the orginasation and is firmly against them now"
He has a book out about his experiences and why he left. I'll have to look it up but it is WONDERFUL and so insightful. Any would-be ecofanatic should read it. He was on Penn and Tellers Bullsh!t show which effectively debunked the "good" that PETA and Greenepeace think they do. It was an amazing interview.
_________________________
Pele
Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir
"Oooh look! A pub!" -exclaimed after recovering from a stupid fall
"And for the decadence of art, nothing beats a roaring fire." -TMK
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#801632 - 22/12/06 07:24 AM
Re: Negative interference for a cause? PETA, Greenpeace,...
[Re: Pele]
|
remembers when it was all fields round here
Registered: 27/02/03
Loc: in the works... somewhere...
|
Written by: Pele
Spanner, I do actually know quite alot about mulesing and the alternatives, and I support it.
I'm sure you do  but you haven't imparted any of that information here, despite this being an introduction to mulesing for many. I know you support it because you've also stated that because PETA are against it, they don't understand it, which I disagree with and which I don't think is fair on them or your audience.
Written by:
It is scientifically known that there is absolutely no harm in feeding anyone Genetically Engineered crops.
Again, you've provided that information as fact when it is actually disputed (so I am being serious and this is partly because, as you're interested, one of the organisations against GM is the Soil Association, a charity which is also the UK's largest organic certification body: hardly a militant group  )
Written by:
Feeding hungry people, not harmful at all.
I wouldn't argue with that either
Written by:
My favorite PETA story is the one about the protesters in Tennesee who painted a girl up like a tiger and locked her in a cage outside of a circus (one which has one of the MOST succesful breeding programs for Asian elephants..it is awesome!). She had to be carried away by an ambulance for hypthermia because they didn't think it through very well.
That is disorganised. Thankfully my cousin is free to roam the whole of the UK, albeit in a large chicken suit
Written by:
"of the founders even left the orginasation and is firmly against them now"
He was on Penn and Tellers Bullsh!t show which effectively debunked the "good" that PETA and Greenepeace think they do. It was an amazing interview.
I'm sure either side of a lot of debates could debunk the other's claims but all this tends to do is move things back and forth with neither side shifting.
There's a lot of extreme claims in this thread which aren't accompanied by sources but I'm not about to ask anyone to run around the Internet for them because I know that would be the result.
It's also because I thought this thread was about debate and not the actual issues. These examples were the basis of this thread so I thought they should be presented fairly. I'm just answering with your original question in mind:
Written by:
I understand wanting to help but at which point does lack of wanting to reason justify actually causing harm to others?
Where is the line that shouldn't be crossed, if you feel there is one?
and not just to confirm or reinforce that is justified, or where the line is, which I'm sure wasn't why you started the thread
_________________________
"I thought you are man, but
you are nice woman.
yay,
:R"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#801633 - 22/12/06 08:40 AM
Re: Negative interference for a cause? PETA, Greenpeace,...
[Re: Spanner]
|
NYC
Registered: 26/08/01
Loc: NYC, NY, USA
|
The problem that I see with many of these groups is one single groups is acting as Judge, Jury and Executioner.
I'm all for 'watchdogs' for letting the public know when something is awry, but when they start watching, judging, and then sabotaging or attacking companies or individuals it worries me.
_________________________
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#801634 - 22/12/06 09:19 AM
Re: Negative interference for a cause? PETA, Greenpeace,...
[Re: Pele]
|
Good Ol' Yarn For Hair
Registered: 24/01/06
Loc: Atlanta, GA, USA
|
Written by: Pele
My favorite PETA story is the one about the protesters in Tennesee who painted a girl up like a tiger and locked her in a cage outside of a circus (one which has one of the MOST succesful breeding programs for Asian elephants..it is awesome!). She had to be carried away by an ambulance for hypthermia because they didn't think it through very well.
Hilarious!
Man, and I thought it was funny when the Georgian offshoot of PETA protested the pet store I worked at. Supposedly, our store was buying puppies from a puppymill that closed one year before the shop even opened. We brought them out a printout from CNN.com and from their own website regarding the "victory" of closing that puppymill. They also didn't seem to find it too funny when we also brought a printout of the report linking PETA to the funding of an animal shelter in Virginia that had recently put down an estimated 500 animals, despite PETA's firm "no-kill" stance on shelters.
Now, while I agree with the idea behind PETA, and the intentions to the organization, I just never end up seeing the potential for such organizations being used for good. At least, that has always been my experience with PETA and Greenpeace, and it makes me sad. 
_________________________
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#801635 - 22/12/06 02:48 PM
Re: Negative interference for a cause? PETA, Greenpeace,...
[Re: Kathain_Bowen]
|
ZORT!
Registered: 09/04/03
Loc: Brisbane
|
i thought the industry in australia was phasing mulesing out anyway over the next couple of years? smeh - methinks sometimes activist types get too emotionally involved which can cloud the logic circuits. E 
_________________________
"Here kitty kitty...." - Schroedinger.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#801636 - 22/12/06 08:07 PM
Re: Negative interference for a cause? PETA, Greenpeace,...
[Re: Dentrassi]
|
enthusiast
Registered: 21/02/06
Loc: Melbourne - home of pirates
|
I thought so too, Dentrassi, goes to show what we Aussies know...
Ideology should never override facts.. Unfortunately, for many people, (regardless of what brand of ideology) this gets ignored.
_________________________
"You've gone from Loey the Wonder Lesbian to everyone wondering if you are a lesbian." - Shadowman
Yesterday is yesterday. If we try to recapture it, we will only lose tomorrow.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#801637 - 23/12/06 01:02 AM
Re: Negative interference for a cause? PETA, Greenpeace,...
[Re: wonderloey]
|
enthusiast
Registered: 14/07/04
Loc: manchester uk
|
Again, you've provided that information as fact when it is actually disputed (so I am being serious and this is partly because, as you're interested, one of the organisations against GM is the Soil Association, a charity which is also the UK's largest organic certification body: hardly a militant group
i would like to point out several things firstly orginisations such as this can't be trusted because they misslead people or often out right lie to promote there clames for example on there website it says.
Unlike new drugs, there is no requirement for GM food to be routinely tested on animals or humans so scientists don’t know what the effects are on health. GM food has been available in America since 1996, but no studies have been carried out to assess whether this has led to health problems.
The only known trial on humans of GM food was carried out by the University of Newcastle in 2002 and commissioned by the Government’s Food Standards Agency. Seven people were given a meal containing GM soya and it was found that in at least three people the GM material entered their gut bacteria. The accidental contamination of many US food products with GM maize in 2000 is believed to have caused allergic reactions in over 50 Americans, some serious.
you get that NO studys at all are performed ufortunatlys this is an out right lie GM food undergo's extensive testing in the US and UK it must pass the testing of several goverment departments such as the EPA and FDA in the US or the ministry of agraculture/food in the UK millions is spent doing these tests. the next part is missleading 50 people out of 300,000,000 have a reaction to GM wow sounds awfull. of course no mention that 0.5% of people are allergic to normal non-GM wheat and we would expect to be 60,000 people in the US alone to be allergic to wheat anyways so 50 people is hardly a unusaly high amount.
this is the entire case against eating GM food acording to there website and its baised on lie's and missleading information. and you'll find those same reasons cited on pritty much any anti GM site. Any orginsation that basis its message on lies and deception shouldn't be looked upon in a good light.
and of course you'll note that there main source of income is from selling orgainic food a product that simply couln't be sold for anyware near the price they charge without the GM hysteria.
this is the problem organizastions such this never check any of there facts and can't be trusted many of the people meen well but have become so obsessed with fighting the causes they've lost there perspective on the facts.
If you want to learn more i recomend watching this as among other things it contains an interview with one of the founders of greenpeace who now apposes them.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4480559399263937213&q=penn+teller
its the penn and teller serise following in the great tradition of Houdini by debunking bulls$"t
as for information about Mulesing
While the lamb is under restraint, the wrinkled skin in the animal's breech (rump area) is cut away from the perianal region down to the top of the hindlimbs. The procedure is typically performed with modified wool-trimming shears. In addition, a portion of the tail is removed and the remaining stump is skinned. The cuts are executed to avoid affecting underlying muscle tissue. Antiseptics are often applied, but anaesthesia and painkillers are rarely used during or after the procedure [1]. The non-wooled skin which is around the anus (and vulva in ewes) is pulled tight as the cut heals and results in a smooth area that does not get fouled by excreta or urine.
this prevents flystrike a condition where magots are layed inside animals by flys, after which the animal is then eaten from the inside out by magots while still alive. flystrikes occure in hot weather. as you can see this is why in england it is not needed unlike ausstraila where it is neccicary. to prevent an agonizeing death for the sheep involved.
Edited by robnunchucks (23/12/06 01:45 AM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#801638 - 23/12/06 02:01 AM
Re: Negative interference for a cause? PETA, Greenpeace,...
[Re: robnunchucks]
|
110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
Registered: 11/10/02
Loc: London
|
While it's true that there's a fair amount of misinformed hysteria about GM crops out there, there's also a number of highly legitimate concerns. I find it disturbing that corporations can now own intellectual property rights to genetic traits.
an account of Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser
Not an entirely unbiased source I admit, but the judgement of the court can be easily checked independently if you fancy
While it's true that genetic engineering doesn't produce changes of a different order than selective breeding, there is a major difference in the speed at which that change occurs, and selective breeding is already an extremely powerful force for change of our environment. Is the biotech industry expected to self-police?
Anyhoo, this is all getting a bit offtopic.
Yeah, negative interference sucks. So does lack of positive interference. There is always a line. But where that line is? Well thats the crux of each individual debate innit, as this thread is plainly showing.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#801639 - 23/12/06 05:58 AM
Re: Negative interference for a cause? PETA, Greenpeace,...
[Re: simian]
|
enthusiast
Registered: 14/07/04
Loc: manchester uk
|
i do agree about copyrighting gentics however this is a problem steming from the problems with copyright in general rather than genetic enginearing its self.
Is the biotech industry expected to self-police
well no as i've said before there are several goverment bodys that have to assess the impact a GM product is going to have on both people who eat it as well as the effect its going to have on the enviroment as well. most GM products will go through the same testing drugs must pass as well as additional testing to ensure they wont damage the enviroment. no one expects the companys to self police the goverment polices them and very strigently i might add most GM products will be tested for about 7-10 years before been released to the general population.
as for the line i would say the line as been crossed when:
-a group ether resorts to out right lie's such as greenpeices clame that GM foods arn't tested or relys very very heavly on missleading statments.
-a group takes a hypocritical stance such as PETA protesting animal shelters puting down animals that are to old or sick to be rehomed while exterminateing 90% of the animals they them selfs take in most of which are perfectly healthy and rehomable.
-a group resorts to violence such as PETA paying people to fire bomb medical testing facilitys.
in my opionon these are the points where the line has been crossed
i'ed also like to point out that if we this very second we eliminated all GM crops 1/3 of the worlds population would die of starvation mostly those in very poor countrys. GM foods wern't first developed by companys to improve there profit margin. They were first developed to help those in very harsh conditions produce enough food to survive. Something that won there creater a nobel prize. where they said his work had probly saved the lives of a billion people yes a BILLION people. its very easy for people like us to question GM foods because we have a choice about what we eat we are a privilaged few. alot of people dont have that choice, the choice is eat GM foods or watch your children starve to death. and i think anyone trying to take that option away from them is ether ignorant of the situation or a dispicable person.
anyways that why im not a fan of greenpeace or anyone else apposed to GM food
Edited by robnunchucks (23/12/06 06:16 AM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#801640 - 23/12/06 01:27 PM
Re: Negative interference for a cause? PETA, Greenpeace,...
[Re: robnunchucks]
|
official hop cutie
Registered: 22/11/05
Loc: Uk, Essex, Clacton
|
I stand that we protest against these groups and see how they like it
_________________________
The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it. ~ Terry pratchett
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#801641 - 23/12/06 02:35 PM
Re: Negative interference for a cause? PETA, Greenpeace,...
[Re: crowley2]
|
Good Ol' Yarn For Hair
Registered: 24/01/06
Loc: Atlanta, GA, USA
|
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#801642 - 23/12/06 03:19 PM
Re: Negative interference for a cause? PETA, Greenpeace,...
[Re: Kathain_Bowen]
|
Pooh-Bah
Registered: 12/05/04
Loc: Canada
|
An interesting news item I found concerning PETA..
In 2005, a representitive form PETA squared off with a representitive from the NRA, at King's College, London. in what looked like a sort of cage match debate and shown on pay per view. I couldn't find it on youtube, but I'd sure like to see what happened.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#801643 - 24/12/06 04:04 AM
Re: Negative interference for a cause? PETA, Greenpeace,...
[Re: robnunchucks]
|
currently mending
Registered: 15/07/03
Loc: Bristol
|
Written by: robnunchuks
GM foods wern't first developed by companys to improve there profit margin. They were first developed to help those in very harsh conditions produce enough food to survive
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timel...terminatorSeeds
Written by: Centre for Cooperative research
September 26, 2000-September 28, 2000: UN Food and Agriculture Organization’s Ethics Panel Voices Strong Concerns About the Development of GM Crops
The UN Food and Agriculture Organization’s Ethics Panel meets in Rome to consider the ethical implications of recent advances in biotechnology. The panel is made up of world-renowned agronomists and ethicists. The focus of their discussion is on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food and agriculture, forestry, and fisheries. Following the meeting, the panel prepares a report that includes a summary of its views and lists a number of recommendations. The overriding concern of the report, completed some time in 2001, is that there is an inherent conflict between the interests of the corporations developing the technology and the social issues that GMO defenders say the technology will address. The biotech industry’s primary concern is “to maximize profits,” not to address the needs of the world’s rural poor, the report says
Could you also explain how terminator technology is designed to feed the world's poor?
And perhaps add how patenting LIFE as private corporate property (eg the now largely revoked patent on basmati rice bt RiceTech) is geared towards helping the impoverished indigenous people whose crops became patented by these allegedly benevolent biotech companies?
Corporations like Astrazeneca and Monsanto do not do anything out of concern for people. They are corporate entities required by law to act in a way that will financially benefit their shareholders. Being nice to poor people doesn't tend to make much capital. On the other hand, screwing indigenous groups through bio-piracy does make money. As does selling products such as rBGH which are detrimental to the health of both the animals which are injected with the genetically engineered growth hormone, and the humans who subsequently consume dairy products from the cow.
Now this is not something which is inherent in GM technology - but which is currently determined by the people who possess the technology and its patents, biotech corporations. What concerns me is not what they were first developed for - but who owns them and the ways these for profit entities have attempted to use the technologies to gain wealth at the expense of the people these technologies were allegedly designed to benefit.
My favourite comedy PETA story...
In response to Palestinian terrorists/freedom fighters strapping a load of explosives to a donkey and sending into a bus station full of Israeli civilians before detonating the devices remotely using cell phones, Ingrid Newkirk, president PETA wrote to Palestinian Authority chairman Yasser Arafat:
"Your Excellency, We have received many calls and letters from people shocked at the bombing. If you have the opportunity, will you please add to your burdens my request that you appeal to all those who listen to you to leave the animals out of the conflict?"
Its a curious twist that many of those who seem so concerned with the welfare of animals seem so unconcerned with the welfare of the human animal...
_________________________
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#801644 - 24/12/06 04:16 AM
Re: Negative interference for a cause? PETA, Greenpeace,...
[Re: Kathain_Bowen]
|
wandering thru the woods of WI
Registered: 27/01/06
Loc: Wisconsin
|
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#801645 - 24/12/06 09:08 AM
Re: Negative interference for a cause? PETA, Greenpeace,...
[Re: faith enfire]
|
Good Ol' Yarn For Hair
Registered: 24/01/06
Loc: Atlanta, GA, USA
|
My former boss was among the Catholics. There's nothing like having an exceptionally well-spoken and intelligent (albeit hotheaded) person to set upon silly protestors. I just got to enjoy the outcome! Again, pure hilarity.
_________________________
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#801646 - 24/12/06 09:28 AM
Re: Negative interference for a cause? PETA, Greenpeace,...
[Re: dream]
|
Scientist of Fortune
Registered: 15/04/05
Loc: Edinburgh
|
Written by: dream
Written by: robnunchuks
GM foods wern't first developed by companys to improve there profit margin. They were first developed to help those in very harsh conditions produce enough food to survive
Could you also explain how terminator technology is designed to feed the world's poor?
And perhaps add how patenting LIFE as private corporate property (eg the now largely revoked patent on basmati rice bt RiceTech) is geared towards helping the impoverished indigenous people whose crops became patented by these allegedly benevolent biotech companies?
Corporations like Astrazeneca and Monsanto do not do anything out of concern for people. They are corporate entities required by law to act in a way that will financially benefit their shareholders. Being nice to poor people doesn't tend to make much capital. On the other hand, screwing indigenous groups through bio-piracy does make money. As does selling products such as rBGH which are detrimental to the health of both the animals which are injected with the genetically engineered growth hormone, and the humans who subsequently consume dairy products from the cow.
Now this is not something which is inherent in GM technology - but which is currently determined by the people who possess the technology and its patents, biotech corporations. What concerns me is not what they were first developed for - but who owns them and the ways these for profit entities have attempted to use the technologies to gain wealth at the expense of the people these technologies were allegedly designed to benefit.
That's rather what Rob's saying. GM technologies weren't first developed for financial gain, but naturally people have used it to make money, just like any technology.
Whilst deplorable, terminator crops aren't much different from the effects of inbreeding breeding depression on current modern crops.
Many modern seeds are hybrids between two lines and utilise a phenomenon known as hybrid vigour, which means many of their beneficial traits gradually breed out. So farmers are required to buy new seeds. All using good old fashioned natural Mendelian genetics.[/science]
What I would recommend is that there should be plenty of money put towards humanitarian applications of any new agricultural technology by national or international associations such as governments or the UN.
_________________________
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#801647 - 24/12/06 09:42 AM
Re: Negative interference for a cause? PETA, Greenpeace,...
[Re: jeff(fake)]
|
wandering thru the woods of WI
Registered: 27/01/06
Loc: Wisconsin
|
cool i guess all catholics are intelligent and well spoken-wohoo-i can live with the hotheadedness-it's true
so there is planned obsolesence in technologies and now in seeds...wow, that is rather disturbing
but the changing of seeds might not be a bad thing, think about all the diseases and such that affect crops-if you are changing your plants, maybe crops won't get wiped out, and maybe it can remain localised...i don't know it just popped in my head
_________________________
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#801648 - 26/12/06 02:49 PM
Re: Negative interference for a cause? PETA, Greenpeace,...
[Re: faith enfire]
|
enthusiast
Registered: 14/07/04
Loc: manchester uk
|
thankfully alot of 3rd world countrys do have GM crops to use as i said before without GM crops 1/3 of the world would starve.
at the moment though large companys tend to be the main entitys plowing large amounts of recearch money into developing new strains. As a result most of the cuting edge crops are not free. But as patents expire the improvements will filter down into the strains aimed at feeding the hungry.
_________________________
My nunchucks vital statictics 
weight: 500g
handle lenght: 16 inches
chain length: 2 inches
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#801651 - 28/12/06 05:48 AM
Re: Negative interference for a cause? PETA, Greenpeace,...
[Re: jeff(fake)]
|
enthusiast
Registered: 14/07/04
Loc: manchester uk
|
i think your right about patents been a necessary evil its far from an idea situation but in a free market a neccicary one. personaly i think they should be around 7 years not 20 but thats something you can argue back and forth.
In some cases companies can be convinced to free up licenses for humanitarian uses as in the golden rice
this is the way they should go with perhaps goverments could offer tax brakes for companys who do this like with charitable donations
Genetic modification (of the modern agro-bacteria mediated sort) isn't currently all that useful for boosting crop output, and isn't widely used in the third world at the present time.
well yes but i said GM crops and as i understand the definition that includes crops created with selective breading which are used alot.
_________________________
My nunchucks vital statictics
weight: 500g
handle lenght: 16 inches
chain length: 2 inches
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#801652 - 28/12/06 01:45 PM
Re: Negative interference for a cause? PETA, Greenpeace,...
[Re: robnunchucks]
|
member
Registered: 30/09/03
|
I think the only beings we have the right to control is ourselves and the solution to both problems lie in population control in humans not in GM food or skinning sheep alive. These are short-term solutions to a much larger problem. It is the attitude that we can control our environment indefinately that has led to this problem. I would also like to point out that mulesing is not the only solution to flystrike (from the wiki-god) - Non-surgical alternatives currently researched: topical protein-based treatments selective breeding safe insecticides biological control of blowflies plastic clips on the sheep's skin folds Traditional alternatives : frequent cropping of wool in the breech area (crutching) frequent inspection and medical attention rearing non-merino breeds in areas particularly prone to flystrike Ram the whaling ships, and protest, and write letters, and chain yourselves to trees, and only have one child each. Yeh! What was the question? 
_________________________
... simplify ...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index