[ExI] 107 Nobel laureates tell Greenpeace to stop opposing GMOs
William Flynn Wallace
foozler83 at gmail.com
Sat Jul 2 16:58:32 UTC 2016
On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 11:39 AM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 4:10 PM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>> I hope you mean extreme environmentalists. Surely you are not in favor
>> of pollution, etc.
>> I am an environmentalists and the link below is good news to me.
> At one time I
> called myself an
> but no longer, the very word has become polluted and no longer means what
> it once did. Every large mainstream environmental organization opposes
> insecticides herbicides and artificial fertilizer but they also oppose
> genetically modified plants even though they don't need those chemicals.
> Today every large
> environmental organization opposes the use of Golden Rice even though it
> could prevent 2 million people dying every year and a half a million
> children going blind because it is a GMO and even though 108 Nobel Prize
> winners (up from yesterday's 107) say GMOs are beneficial. To
> environmentalists the shooting of one gorilla at a zoo is a great tragedy
> but 8 million people starving to death each year (which GMO's could help
> prevent) is just a statistic.
> And of course every large mainstream
> environmental organization opposes
> greenhouse gasses, but they also oppose nuclear power plants even though
> they produce no greenhouse gasses and have the best safety record of any
> power source.
> John K Clark
I agree with everything you say. The organizations are just too extreme.
But that should not poison the well. If we stop all antipollution laws we
will over pollute our planet. But in some cases we are not extreme
enough. Case in point: fertilizers. They are way overused and run off in
to creeks and eventually the ocean. Why not limit the amount each farmer
can use based on his farm size? (That might also stop some bombing!) We
need clean air and nuclear power plants can replace the coal ones. Why
can't we have a real debate on anything nowadays without extremists from
both sides dominating the issue?
Everything seems so polarized and I am not the only one saying so.
Further: we libertarians have to concede that the feds have a place in the
world. We need more regulation like inspection of foreign foods we
import. That's a wide open door for terrorists to get through.
The supplements we take are unregulated: Consumer Reports says that many
supplements don't have what the label says they have, or not in the amounts
they say they do. Where is the FDA?
I will always be an environmentalist, but maybe without a capital E. I do
not contribute to those organizations you are referring to. I knew that
they were too extreme long ago. But you know? No one's perfect.
Moderation in all things - Socrates
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat