GENTECH archive



Hi all,

Rick wrote :
>There is nothing about the genetic engineering itself that makes these
>varieties require special treatment, or any more likely to reduce diversity.  

Let me intervene :
It is clear that GM increases the _theoretical_ number of possibilities, because
all this is like a game of construction : fill in pieces of genes from one
specie to another.


But this does not prove that BIOdiversity (and not "diversity in the
catalogues  of those who sell seeds" which is different) will increase.
For it's not beacuse one MIGHT propose more possibilites that
1) he wil propose these possibilities
2) his client will accept them.

Let's assume GMO are perfect. That there is NO risk. (I have a dream ...)

Then :
While there will be one "better" solution , there used to be 10, 100, 1000
"good" solutions. For example, in France, there used to be 2500 varieties of
apples for cider. Right now, it's difficult to find more than 10 varieties
of appple trees. Even if possibilites are very large : some labs may have
rare varieies. But access is difficult and it's sufficient to limit the
representation of some varieties in Nature. Of course those we are sold
are aften "better". But what is the cost ?

The problem is philosophical : The "better" is sometimes against the "good"
(french saying already quoted and discussed).

I claim that :
a) biodiversity
b) diversity
c) possibilities

are three very different things that should not be confounded. I am
still writing the "rather philosophical" aspects of GMO, in which I
am to detail this.

An other example : the wineyard : some americans (from the north,
but not canadians) came in france to take the "most
profitable" vine (cepage). They must have laughed at those "locals" who
kept so many varieties that were less profitable. Yet when they happened
to have a new Phylloxera, almost all their wineyard was wiped out.

This would not have happenned if the U$ had considered that the
profitability is not the only criterion.