GM and the Greens

[Tetenterre]

Latest post of the previous page:

[offtopic]

The yuppie mobile-phone (brick) of the 1980's has turned out to be a major economic benefit to Sub-Saharan Africa. Who'd 'a thought it?

I certainly didn't! There was a "rural alternative technology" exhibition at the Trade Fair in Bulawayo in 1981 or 82, displaying all manner of hi-tech gizmos. I, and the native-Zimbabwean friend I went with, were very dismissive of technologies that could not be either made or maintained by the users. We set about designing stuff that could be locally made from free or cheap local materials. We were wrong; a lot of the stuff we dissed has been greatly beneficial.[/offtopic]

[ASHAero]

If any established farmer wishes to grow organic crops - not using nasty chemicals
We have been spoilt into expecting all veg and fruit all the year, regardless of season and that is not doing the people or land of Africa etc. much good as a whole and demands lots of chemicals.

Organic crops do not mean 'no nasty chemicals'. Organic is a label with which certain pesticides can be used. I agree with Alan H: 'lots of chemicals' seems pejorative. Everything technically demands 'lots of chemicals' it is what everything is made of ;) Do not mind me, I'm being facetious. I agree it would not be good for the ground, continous growing - I'm thinking of the once fertile crescent, here. I know very little about what they use and do not know the effects they have on people over certain periods of time.

What if we could grow nice exotic (as we may classify them) fruits and veg in our own temperature through biotech?
I've often thought is there a way to make the vegan diet viable to more persons through fruit and vegetables being able to make up for the convenience that meat and dairy products bring.

I have 2 problems with GM, as others have mentioned: the likes of Monsanto and a possibly irrational feeling that humans mucking about with mixing genetics is a different kettle of fish to how the flora and fauna of our planet do. There’s no natural way a jellyfish gene could enter a seed so it doesn’t freeze. This makes me feel very uncomfortable.

The thing is whilst this is not exactly the same, we have been tweaking crops in ways other parts of the natural world may have never done. We pick and choose the traits anyway. UVB exposure from the sun on crops causes changes as well but of course that is natural. The thing is none of these are guaranteed safe or good for us, not the natural or the human made/tweaked.

I'm not sure how we call something safe when much of it is to do with concentration and dosage. I'm sure you know all of this though. What do we talk abotu in terms of degrees of safety?

[animist]

I am trusting that everyone else will agree to move our current discussion of the Greens to this older thread. We moved to the topic while supposedly discussing Scotland, and then moved to the 2015 General Election, but I think this thread is more appropriate than either

[Dave B]

Is this going to be a general Greens thread?

Did I hear correctly the they intended not making the joining of ISIS and similar organisations an offence but that such members might face legal action on return to the UK?

Erm, what about those who join ISIS or similar and stay in the UK for their action - I am sure that there is a certain about of covert training going on without the need to go to Syria or Iraq.

Personally I would be very much in favour that mere membership should be a serious offence considering the stated global intentions of those organisations.

Ah, found it

In an extraordinary claim, Natalie Bennett said people should not be punished for what they think and stressed it should 'not be a crime simply to belong to an organisation'.

Sounds like another person who has very little (if any) insight into the Islamist mind-set. To be a member is to be a warrior for the cause in some way or other, chances are in some violent way. Perhaps she will be happy with us tolerating members of Neo-Nazi organisations that have, elsewhere, a record of violent action?

Sorry, civil rights need a limit somewhere, these ideas exceed my concepts of those limits. The worse kind of anarchy is just over that edge.

[animist]

Is this going to be a general Greens thread?

I am surprised you even ask, but as you do, yes

Did I hear correctly the they intended not making the joining of ISIS and similar organisations an offence but that such members might face legal action on return to the UK? Erm, what about those who join ISIS or similar and stay in the UK for their action - I am sure that there is a certain about of covert training going on without the need to go to Syria or Iraq. Personally I would be very much in favour that mere membership should be a serious offence considering the stated global intentions of those organisations....
In an extraordinary claim, Natalie Bennett said people should not be punished for what they think and stressed it should 'not be a crime simply to belong to an organisation'.Sounds like another person who has very little (if any) insight into the Islamist mind-set. To be a member is to be a warrior for the cause in some way or other, chances are in some violent way. Perhaps she will be happy with us tolerating members of Neo-Nazi organisations that have, elsewhere, a record of violent action? Sorry, civil rights need a limit somewhere, these ideas exceed my concepts of those limits. The worse kind of anarchy is just over that edge.

actually I agree with her on this. Prohibiting mere membership of any group is illiberal and ineffective

[animist]

If we all accepted AGW as true that would be the important initial achievement, and then technology might come into play (or not - we might just reduce consumption), and I agree that then value judgements would be relevant over how we solve the problem.

The value judgement starts with the judgement of which is better: a warmer world or a colder one. Given the historical (and pre-historical) precedents, I favour a warmer one.

I am not sure that this is true, ie that proposing the AGW case automatically involves the value judgment that warming should be countered. From a purely selfish POV I too would prefer warmth, but I doubt that increasing temperatures are good for most of the world's population - is this your thesis?

[Dave B]

Is this going to be a general Greens thread?

I am surprised you even ask, but as you do, yes

Influenced by the "GM" in the title - will ignore it on future.

actually I agree with her on this. Prohibiting mere membership of any group is illiberal and ineffective

I'll agree that prohibition of the membership of proscribed (assuming ISIS and Neo-Nazis are proscribed) will drive it into the dark corners, where some do their "best" work anyway.

Effectively in allowing free, overt, membership of such organisations you give them the edge of legality, credibility and authority. Since some are global in their influence then you do the same for the parent organisation. This is as much as, if not more than, Altfish's fears that pandering to Islam is the thin end of a wedge into our society.

Altfish (or anyone else), your thoughts please: should we ban all things Sharia and Islamic that might affect how our society works yet allow people the free right to join a proven violent organisation with a self-declared global ambition of dominance and almost total intolerance?

[Tetenterre]

And the "Lazarus Award" for resurrection of ancient discussions goes to :

If we all accepted AGW as true that would be the important initial achievement, and then technology might come into play (or not - we might just reduce consumption), and I agree that then value judgements would be relevant over how we solve the problem.

The value judgement starts with the judgement of which is better: a warmer world or a colder one. Given the historical (and pre-historical) precedents, I favour a warmer one.

I am not sure that this is true, ie that proposing the AGW case automatically involves the value judgment that warming should be countered. From a purely selfish POV I too would prefer warmth, but I doubt that increasing temperatures are good for most of the world's population - is this your thesis?

No. Read it again, please. I conend that history suggests that increasing temperatures are a heck of a lot less harmful than decreasing ones.

[Altfish]

No we shouldn't ban all things Sharia and Islamic.

On balance I think the Green's comments about allowing people to be members of ISIS is probably correct, ditto with neo-nazi groups. Why you ask? If people are minded to join such groups, let them join and you can then keep an eye on them. Ban the groups, you feed the myth about them and twice as many spring up, the groups go underground, the members are lost and that's when they are most dangerous.

There should only be one law in the UK, one law for all our citizens which gives equal rights to all under it (in theory!!). There should not be a separate law for Islamic people, so I suppose I am 'banning' Sharia law in that it is not recognised where it is at variance with UK laws.

[animist]

I am not sure that this is true, ie that proposing the AGW case automatically involves the value judgment that warming should be countered. From a purely selfish POV I too would prefer warmth, but I doubt that increasing temperatures are good for most of the world's population - is this your thesis?

No. Read it again, please. I conend that history suggests that increasing temperatures are a heck of a lot less harmful than decreasing ones.

understood, but of course that is not the issue - what is the issue is whether we try to maintain the current climate patterns, which determine important living conditions like sea levels, or let them change substantially. Whether warm climates historically benefited the development of civilisation is emphatically NOT the issue

[Alan H]

If we all accepted AGW as true that would be the important initial achievement, and then technology might come into play (or not - we might just reduce consumption), and I agree that then value judgements would be relevant over how we solve the problem.

The value judgement starts with the judgement of which is better: a warmer world or a colder one. Given the historical (and pre-historical) precedents, I favour a warmer one.

I am not sure that this is true, ie that proposing the AGW case automatically involves the value judgment that warming should be countered. From a purely selfish POV I too would prefer warmth, but I doubt that increasing temperatures are good for most of the world's population - is this your thesis?

I don't think it's warmth per se that's the problem. It's the changes that will bring, perhaps ultimately the re-routing of ocean currents and the jet streams. The effects could be to completely change the habitable regions of the earth.

[animist]

I don't think it's warmth per se that's the problem. It's the changes that will bring, perhaps ultimately the re-routing of ocean currents and the jet streams. The effects could be to completely change the habitable regions of the earth.

agreed, and of course sea levels, a rise in which, especially given the large number of coastal cities and low-lying inhabited regions, will reduce substantially the amount of habitable land and displace millions of people

[Dave B]

I think we might need another thread here!

Altfish, my question was not that we should ban all things Sharia and Islamic it was as below:

...should we ban all things Sharia and Islamic that might affect how our society works?

I am going to have to admit that I remembered a post where you complained of allowing for some of my ideas as being the thin end of a wedge. I cannot find those words in yours posts, but you seemed to imply them.

So, we should not have respect for those Muslims who may be devout but perfectly benign, even useful members of our society, because that is not a balanced thing - yet we should condone and respect the wishes of those Muslims who chose to join an organisation whose declared ambition is a global caliphate? An organisation that has demonstrated its utter contempt for almost any form of the rights of humanity that are not in their personal interpretation of their holy book?

[Tetenterre]

understood, but of course that is not the issue

Whilst you may not consider it to be the issue, it is however an issue, and one we ignore at our peril.

- what is the issue is whether we try to maintain the current climate patterns,

Impossible task! And, IMO, it is downright bloody arrogant for anyone to suggest that we are able to do so. Climate has always changed and always will. We are currently in an "icehouse Earth" phase, which Earth has experienced for a total of about 15% of its existence (the other 85% has been "greenhouse Earth") and out of which we have been gradually "fluctuating" for the last few million years; we are also at what is probably the arse end of a glaciation (i.e. a cooling fluctuation overlaying a longer-term warming trend). Anyone who pretends that we can hold Earth in an icehouse state for the rest of eternity is getting close to Upminster.

which determine important living conditions like sea levels, or let them change substantially.

My point is that climate has always changed and will always change, independently of human activity. We cannot stop it happening, so we have no choice but to mitigate the deleterious effects. Whichever way climate changes, those who will be worst affected will always be those least equipped to deal with it, i.e. the poor. I suggest that we need to address that as a matter of enormous urgency.

The overwhelming probability is that AGW is exacerbating the current warming phase, making mitigation-planning even more urgent, but the need to mitigate will not go away, even if we could magically halt the AGW effect overnight.

Whether warm climates historically benefited the development of civilisation is emphatically NOT the issue

You are completely missing the point. What history (ignore it at our peril, etc., etc.) tells us is that if a global cooling fluctuation occurs, the effect will be very much worse than global warming.

[Altfish]

Altfish, my question was not that we should ban all things Sharia and Islamic it was as below:

...should we ban all things Sharia and Islamic that might affect how our society works?

I am going to have to admit that I remembered a post where you complained of allowing for some of my ideas as being the thin end of a wedge. I cannot find those words in yours posts, but you seemed to imply them.

So, we should not have respect for those Muslims who may be devout but perfectly benign, even useful members of our society, because that is not a balanced thing - yet we should condone and respect the wishes of those Muslims who chose to join an organisation whose declared ambition is a global caliphate? An organisation that has demonstrated its utter contempt for almost any form of the rights of humanity that are not in their personal interpretation of their holy book?

I'm being called Sorry, misunderstood the nuances of the question.

Yes, I did say that I worry that there is a 'thin edge of the wedge' thing going on here. I'm not sure I 'respect' any religion, I am tolerant of their right to believe what they like, but respect..!!??
It depends what you mean by devout and benign. Forced marriages, FGM, Sharia courts, Women inherit half of what men do; I assume they are not benign.
If benign means that they pray when they do in their own mosques, don't bother non-believers, accept the UK rule of law, accept that in the UK blasphemy is not a crime, then fine.

I think you are slightly misunderstanding my comments about joining jihadi organisations. I would rather they didn't join any such group BUT...
I also believe that if they are of the mind to join such a group then we should (if possible) know what they are doing. Banning membership of such groups will send them deeper underground, it also (in the minds of those who want to join) glorifies the group and reinforces the argument that the government is against Islam.
I remember in Manchester when we had a Chief Policeman called 'Anderson', IIRC, he became known as God's Policeman. He, because of the perceived drug problems, decided to shut down The Hacienda night club. Did it work, no, because the dealers went all over Manchester, they regrouped and the problem got worse. When The Hacienda was open they were concentrated in that one place that could be monitored. It also alienated the youth (me included - although not a drug taker) against the police. I see a similar thing happening with jihadi groups.

[Dave B]

Be back on this, got medical probs at the moment that make moving about and sitting on office type chairs very uncomfortable!

[thundril]

Be back on this, got medical probs at the moment that make moving about and sitting on office type chairs very uncomfortable!

Take care of yourself, mate. Good people are scarce!

[Altfish]

Be back on this, got medical probs at the moment that make moving about and sitting on office type chairs very uncomfortable!

Yeah, take care

[Tetenterre]

Be back on this, got medical probs at the moment that make moving about and sitting on office type chairs very uncomfortable!

Take care of yourself, mate. Good people are scarce!

+1 to that!

[animist]

You have a problem with science?

certainly not. I might have a problem with people who treat science a bit as other people treat (their own) religion - ie as something sacrosanct, some ideal with which nothing else can compete. What irks me here is that you specified a "scientific" reason for my proposed distinction between the serious problem of climate change and the controversial technology of genetic manipulation. Such a reason would never appear, not because I could not provide a valid reason for the distinction but because you specified the limiter "scientific". Let's regard science as a subdivision of human intellectual activity: scientific truth/reasoning is an important branch of reasoning but it does not constitute it

What is unscientific about logic? "Common knowledge" is often plain wrong (e.g, in this context, it is "common knowledge" that Monsanto has actually implemented terminator genetic tech, and that a mouse grew a transgenic human ear on its back).

Logic is "unscientific" because is not science, simple as that. By definition, "common knowledge" CANNOT be wrong, since it would not be knowledge if it were. What you mean here is "commonly held beliefs", and for all I know your examples of this may well be genuine examples of such beliefs which are not in fact true. I don't have a strong interest in, or opinion about, GMO, BTW

On GM, ISTM that they are quite justified, even if the science has not identified a specific threat, to be concerned that the application of science, ie technology, may not always be the benefit it seems. Do the gains really justify the risks of such a wildly new technology? What if there are effects which have not been identified?

How long must we wait for a specific threat to be identified?

well, specific threats have indeed been identified. I don't necessarily take these seriously, but the Precautionary Principle is that one does not lightly adopt radically new techniques

What if there are "effects that have not been identified" of (e.g.) the Greens "solutions" to climate change?

my thesis is the Greens appear to be advocating political and economic rather than technological solutions. Of course, there could be adverse effects of these, such as reduction in GNP, but I think that these are worth it if they reduce the risk of runaway climate change; for one thing, such policies are likely to be more flexible and reversible than reliance on new technology

And are there not alternative ways to ensure that poor people get fed - such as protection of the environment, a new attitude towards international borders, and massively greater foreign aid? All Green policies.

False dichotomy alert! (And what if there are "effects which have not been identified", to "massively greater foreign aid"?)

"False dichotomy alert!" sounds a bit of a mantra to me - can you explain? And massively greater foreign aid does not sound to me to be something to fear, but of course such aid does need to be coordinated; the agencies have improved in this respect over the years

[animist]

- what is the issue is whether we try to maintain the current climate patterns,

Impossible task! And, IMO, it is downright bloody arrogant for anyone to suggest that we are able to do so. Climate has always changed and always will. We are currently in an "icehouse Earth" phase, which Earth has experienced for a total of about 15% of its existence (the other 85% has been "greenhouse Earth") and out of which we have been gradually "fluctuating" for the last few million years; we are also at what is probably the arse end of a glaciation (i.e. a cooling fluctuation overlaying a longer-term warming trend). Anyone who pretends that we can hold Earth in an icehouse state for the rest of eternity is getting close to Upminster.

which determine important living conditions like sea levels, or let them change substantially.

My point is that climate has always changed and will always change, independently of human activity. We cannot stop it happening, so we have no choice but to mitigate the deleterious effects. Whichever way climate changes, those who will be worst affected will always be those least equipped to deal with it, i.e. the poor. I suggest that we need to address that as a matter of enormous urgency.
The overwhelming probability is that AGW is exacerbating the current warming phase, making mitigation-planning even more urgent, but the need to mitigate will not go away, even if we could magically halt the AGW effect overnight.

Whether warm climates historically benefited the development of civilisation is emphatically NOT the issue

You are completely missing the point. What history (ignore it at our peril, etc., etc.) tells us is that if a global cooling fluctuation occurs, the effect will be very much worse than global warming.

you are making lots of claims here. What is the evidence that most observed warming is due to natural factors, and what are they? Or that global cooling is worse than warming? And your arguments, such as they are, seem to be at odds with each other. If there is no way that we can avoid warming in the coming century (and whoever mentioned eternity before you just now?) then why even bother to bring in arguments that cooling is worse than warming?!