Sep 18, 2006 5:46:29 PM cite

hi all, i asked this question months ago. I guess i was just curious about exploring whether it makes sense for us to resist GM foods for instance or whether we can see benefits in such technology. I personally try to eat only bio foods and currently am totally against GM foods and what they stand for. But sometimes, when i try to hypothesize that perhaps one day we will know for sure that GM foods are safe, won't this provide benefits to certain people, and possibly people who did not have access to food before? We will loose something in the process, but we will gain something as well. Just trying to look at the issue with an open mind, even though i am myself very much against GM foods at the moment. eric

by emahleb

Sep 17, 2006 12:39:47 AM cite

Having declared a bias [?genetically modified foods, for instance?] I shall address the question in that context. The issue is, I suggest not whether genetically modified foods are a risk, but whether the promoters of the technology can be trusted. There is a justified [My bias] aversion to the ownership of genetic technology. True the creators of that disease free Maize or Sugar Cane resistant to Blight, should be able to reap rewards for their work, the worry lies in the fear that reap will become rape and control will pass from the people who plant the seeds and benefit directly from the crop to the suppliers of it. A solution to this would be the establishment of a World Seed Bank which would take ownership of all development, compensating the creators and holding the outcome in trust for all. It, at last comes down to whether the motivation for research and development is for the benefit of all, or for how much money can be had at the end of the day. Many would argue the latter. [Bias Declared]

by RedSevenOne

Sep 14, 2006 10:53:24 PM cite

Maybe it would be better to look at the problems that GM food researchers claim to be trying to solve. For starters, 'There are millions of hungry people in Africa that we can help by producing high yield crops...' etc. That there are people starving does not mean they need better crops, Actually world wide we produce (aprox.) 2 and a half times more food than there is need. And just to get you thinking, a north American Baby uses the same energy as 50 Indian ones. So it's not a problem of lack it's a problem of logistics. If everyone on the planet were to live in such an unsustainable way as everyone of us westerners, of course we'd be silly to shrug off new technologies aimed to improve the standard of life for all. However, I'm not sure the Earth is coping very well with the strain we are already exerting on it so maybe we should look at our impact on an individual and national level before searching for some wonder cure which would allow us to carry on trashing the planet regardless.... A good example of a GM seed trial in the 'poor needy countries' would be the seeds sold to farmers some years ago with claims of superior yield ended up in many farmers having less than the usual harvest and no seeds to sow the following year, as the seeds sold were genetically impotent, that is the plants produced could not produce seeds. So yes I think resisting new technology that can not be proved to be useful or safe either in the long term or the short term, should indeed be resisted.

by luckyluc

Sep 14, 2006 2:24:51 PM cite

really not

by Xenefungus

Sep 10, 2006 3:04:46 PM cite

I agree with a previous posting, this is a trick question. That is, it is loaded with questionable assumptions. GMOs, for example, have the potential to wreak absolute havoc on ecosystems in the long term. There is no short-term harm when species are rendered extinct by technology - it is forever. On the other hand, there is no proof that such a technology will save millions of lives in the future. Risking environmental health for the potential of saving human lives is a bad risk in the long term. Biodiversity on this planet has been drastically eroded by the introduction of new technologies and the eradication of ancient species. This reduction of biodiversity makes us all vulnerable in many ways that technology is not going to be able to address. But there is another question: What is the value of saving millions of human lives when the planet's ability to renew itself and recover from human abuses is being attacked? There are already too many humans on the planet, sorry to say. We have already passed 'carrying capacity.' So, from the point of view of overpopulation and the potential of ecological collapse (it's already happening in the oceans!), yes, I think there is great value in resisting new technologies, and making sure they adhere to the precautionary principle. It's time for us to stop thinking that human wellbeing is separate from the wellbeing of the biosphere. "It may seem impossible to imagine that a technologically advanced society could choose, in essence, to destroy itself, but that is what we are now in the process of doing." -- Elizabeth Kolbert 2005

by mtnlion

Sep 10, 2006 12:12:03 AM cite

Any technology should study the positive and negative effects of our children's children's children. Unfortunately we live in an era of the economic now. Currently one of the worst (best) examples of run-amok technology is in North American Pharmasuedicals. One pill can take care of a problem while causing several side-affects that could potential harm or kill a person and there are a lot of these medicatios out there. All technology should have guidelines that supercede it's economic gain potential.

by notcriswell

Sep 9, 2006 4:41:04 PM cite

While asking to weigh short-term harmful consequences and long term human benefits, your question is biased. How about long term harmful consequences, do you know them? And what aboyt short-term gains? The issue is not the answer to your question, but who should proof that new tnew echnology has short- and long term impacts and effects (positive and negative). And how about effects we can not yet determine in a complex ecological system? That could cost millions of lifes. The precautionary principle puts the burden of analysis and proof on the ones who want to introduce new technologies and rightly so since most of them are motivated by short term economic gains.

by hendrik@druknet.bt

Sep 9, 2006 4:24:30 PM cite

The value is that new technologys, that are potentially harmfull in the short term are often even more harmfull in the future. Genetically modified creatures are a good example, because if put they into the world you can never undo that. New technologies often diplace old technoligies that were in fact more effective. Example: Replace old types of wheat with new genetically modified wheat that gives more crop if you fertilize it with the fertilizer (coincidentally ;-) from the same company that sold you the genetically modified seeds ;-) But what if we run out of fosil resources, and so out of artificial fertilizer??? Probably someone could say now: lets create genetically modified plants that dont need fertilizer! Suprise: We have (and had) already such plants, but they are/were supersedes(d) by species, that are currently more profitable, ...

by shybyte

Sep 9, 2006 4:20:00 PM cite

Antoschka - Ekaterina Moshaeva: A new technology is a potential danger. It cannot be useful. One idea could be not right. People carry out experiments on other people. How is it? Maybe, in ten years new things made in genetic engineering could be a catastrophe for people. But you are not allowed to experiment with people. It is a danger now and in the future. Of course, the idea is to have more development. The idea must be well thought out. It must be matured. There are a lot of catastrophes in the world just because we don’t think that an idea could be not only useful but also harmful. For instance, nuclear power has destroyed millions of lives. It doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t use it but we must be careful with each information type and with each manipulation and especially with genetic engineering. Because each experiment even being progressive today must be tested by time. As you know medicines have been tested for a long time before people can buy and get them. And it’s right. It’s absolutely right. Because there were some medicines which seemed to be useful but finally turned out to be harmful, for example a sedative and anti-inflammatory medicament Contergan.

by Antoschka - Ekaterina Moshaeva

Sep 9, 2006 4:20:00 PM cite

Abbas Beydoun: This question reminds me of what Marx was saying in the 19th century when he was afraid that capitalism blocks the scientific development. He was expressing it as a fight between production power and relations power. I think many of questions here belong almost to the European left ideas. Of course the scientific inventions and the new technology belong somehow to capitalism, but I believe that the fear from the new technology which saves thousands of people is not justified now. For example the medicines which help so many people around the world.

by Abbas Beydoun

Sep 9, 2006 4:20:00 PM cite

Alvaro Restrepo:

by Alvaro Restrepo

Sep 9, 2006 4:20:00 PM cite

Ana Lucy Bengochea:

by Ana Lucy Bengochea

Sep 9, 2006 4:20:00 PM cite

Andries Botha: Thanks for the question, Eric. You know, I don’t think there is any point in trying to resist a new technology. It’s irresistible, in that sense. However, I really do believe we have to develop a greater criticality to the simple, conspicuous consumption of new technologies. I do believe that there’re all sorts of issues that we need to address, whether they’re - not even the issues about the random distribution of knowledge, the fact that computer technology kind of invades the kind of existing spaces of sanctity, and cellular phone technology, computer technology, creates less and less space for contemplation So, I think there needs to be a grater criticality. I think new technology is moving in and assuaging our own sense of aloneness by creating this virtual sense of companionship. People have the inability now, these days, to be alone any more. That’s – so we’ve got to develop greater criticality. On the other hand, we’ve got to also accept that new technology is the future. There is no way of resisting it. Just a matter of developing a greater idea of how to optimally use it, and how does it really benefit our lives, because I just see new technologies not really increasing people’s – quality of people’s lives but just taking up all of their time.

by Andries Botha

Sep 9, 2006 4:20:00 PM cite

Angaangaq Lyberth: Answertext will be available soon.

by Angaangaq Lyberth

Sep 9, 2006 4:20:00 PM cite

Anthony Arnove: I think I am going to pass on this question.

by Anthony Arnove

Sep 9, 2006 4:20:00 PM cite

Anuradha Koirala: You should not resist new technologies that save lives of [inaudible]. New technologies are [inaudible] that save lives. We should not resist it.

by Anuradha Koirala

Sep 9, 2006 4:20:00 PM cite

Anuradha Mittal: Definitely. I cannot understand what kind of technology we have been talking about that which can just be harmful in the short-term and then become beneficial in the long-term. I do believe in the principle of or the precautionary principle, which is to err on the side of safety, if we do not have all the proof and we have to go by the evidence. If a technology is not working in the short-term, if it is working against the interest of the people, against the environment, against the health of people, it needs to be stopped. So, I think given that when we are concerned with technology, given our experiences with nuclear technology, given our experience with genetic engineering, we have to follow the precautionary principle, that if we do not know what the end result will be, we have to take precautions before adopting any technology, releasing it into our environment and our lives.

by Anuradha Mittal