- To: email@example.com
- Subject: archive #833
- From: Dirk Thomsen <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 17:59:48 +0100
- Cc: email@example.com
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
- Resent-From: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Resent-Message-ID: <"5nMKvB.A.BJ.K_C12"@bakunix.free.de>
- Resent-Sender: email@example.com
One question that comes to my mind since I read messages from this list,
that comes also to my mind when I read the email concerning the economy
and ecology of the new varieties in archive #833, discussions whether or
not GE varieties need a special treatment, whether or not growers plant
more seed because they are happy with GE varieties etc is: Why do we need
GE varieties anyway (which would be a bit too simple) connected with the
question why aren't agriculturalists and horticulturalists try to change
the way they cultivate their land. The conventional way in agriculture is
not the way to get most of the energy out you put into the system. Why e.g.
"create" a salt tolerant variety of wheat and why not try to change the
destruction of the soil by changing the way it is abused ? Maybe these
questions are too simple but ...
One of the good things you wrote, Rick, is the money making thing. And I
think it would be much more pleasant if Monsanto would say that they want
to make money without the feeding the hungry of the world bit. They won't
change the distribution of food, and hunger will therefore persist. I doubt
that Monsanto or any other company in this technology supports projects in
the so-called developing countries to beat the hunger where it actually is.