Comments: Genetically Modified
Hate to say it, but that attitude isn't totally crazy.
The tree's survival indicates a certain level of compatibility with the natural environment, so you know it isn't something that will disappear without massive technological support. Its survival without substantially changing the environment around it or affecting nearby creatures adversely also attests to a form of safety.
Think of it as "tested vs. untested", and tested in numerous very subtle ways, rather than "controlled vs. uncontrolled mutation".
Posted by Joe at September 30, 2003 02:44 AM
A fair point. I suppose I was operating under the assumption that commercial GMOs are routinely subjected to (at least) the same level of scrutiny with regard to environmental compatability and consumer safety as any other agri-goods. But of course that doesn't speak to cross-temporal compatability; and the distinction between a 'new' variant and a variant that's existed 'safely' for some time is a valid one.
Of couse we don't know the counter-factual - what immeasurable impact have natural variants had on their surroundings? And do we have a tendency to presume that the current state of affairs is the 'natural' state of affairs without taking into account the once-possible alternatives?
Posted by David Mader at September 30, 2003 03:12 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)