Hi Ivanhoe !
Nice to meet again. I am sure most Popes can lecture us in a great way on Alienation. So could Karl Marx :-)
But i can only hope the new Pope will actively help us to stabilize world population ...
As you know Christianity is the fastest growing religion in Africa and in Asia.
And as you know our current Pope is pleading rather strongly against some easy means to help control family size.
Same means that could be a great help in the struggle against HIV.
You are the expert. Please tell us if the Vatican has any plans to invest in genetically engineered food ? Any cardinal doing research on AIDS ? Big church in Rome, could easily accomodate dozens of research labs... I should have a look inside on my way to Lybia 🙂
Kindest regards,
yes, yes, i should stop picking on people
especially around christmass, i know, i know
Jan
Originally posted by Nohupi find your posts have greater value and credibility without the little 'hits' you hand out - admittedly with complete equanimity.
yes, yes, i should stop picking on people
especially around christmass, i know, i know
also, it helps when your links are consistent with your premise. for instance, chaswray quoted sections from World agriculture: towards 2015/2030 which told the whole story, while what you selected only hid some rather important issues brought out in the report. also, in another thread (gadhaffi) you make statements and provide a link as justification (with the 'warning' that it is unlikely the person will be able to read it), but after rapella does produce the translation, he points out that the link doesn't justify your statements at all and your only recourse is to say that " Well i back it up with 20 years of watching US middle east politics".
you call ivanhoe the 'expert' (facetiously, i presume), yet the quotes he provides as 'evidence' are consistent and not misleading.
what you have done is provide links to some massive or difficult to access document or other and after someone actually reads it and finds a contradiction to what you were trying to say, you move on to something else. unless your intention is to have us actually read these things to prove you otherwise, you can certainly be cited for 'hit and run' violations. 😀
in friendship,
prad
>>> i find your posts have greater value and credibility without the little 'hits' you hand out ( Prad )
Ho Ho Ho !
I am still reading that report on agriculture. The thread is still open , no ?
I just gave that one quote to back up my statement that the world food problem is more than a distribution problem.
My first objective is to fuel this thread - to widen the discussion - to animate it. Of course i defend my opinions too, most of the time i take great care to formulate them rather humbly ( 'it s my personal feeling', 'personally i think' )
In the Khadafi case, i provided what was asked for : my local news source. And i did point out carefully that my opinion was based on
a long period of spotting middle east politics, not only on the recent events, and most certainly not on 1 or 2 links.
I confess that i have very strong feelings about the war on Iraq and its justification. I don t think i should hide these feelings.
In this thread i want 'to rest my case' , because I feel it does not make sense to keep a thread open if it's only 2 or 3 people flaming or trying to force each other into inconsistent statements.
In the Ivanhoe post i just wanted to stress that abstract and philosphical thoughts - even when consistent - conflict harshly with
real life politics.
I am not sure what 'evidence' you are referring to.
I am not running at all. More hits to come ! Don t worry.
🙄 😀 🙄
Kindest,
Jan
PS I do know you try to find some common ground between all kind of people. I really appreciate. But last time I tried on this forum ,
I got no answers at all 🙂 ( My Christmas Dream )
PS 2 I checked your maths - no errors found 😉
PS 3 I most honestly consider Ivanhoe an expert in Vatican matters
, i even believe he is an expert in the history of the Catholic church
PS 4 Grrr 14 edits . Could it be the case that i am a little upset by your post ? Lost my sang froid hehe.
Originally posted by Nohupplease change 'jabs' to 'hits' since i have changed it in my original post, because it sounds more like what i wanted it to originally. better this way, don't you think?
I am not running at all. More jabs to come ! Don t worry.
that way our posts will be more harmonious.
btw, i only try to find common ground when it makes sense to - in some matters, it doesn't. so we already have common ground here 😀
in friendship,
prad
ps 2 thanks for checking the math too - i appreciate it 🙂
ps 3 ya - i think ivanhoe knows what he speaks (and is very quick to tell us when he doesn't). we may not agree with him, but his sincerity and directness cannot be doubted.
ps 4 no please don't be upset too much - that certainly wasn't my intention. i generally do like your posts very much. so as far as 'sang froid' goes, sing again and be not afroid 😀
ps 5 i am trying to catch up to you in edits, but i don't think i will be able to. notice though that we have developed a unique variation on forum posting for communication that is very resource conserving. i doubt if it has been done on rhp ever before!!
Okay, after this rather personal intermezzo, I feel we should return to the subject.
I will keep defending the 'African' perspective and I will try to give Africa a voice in this thread.
I add the following paragraph because i think the possibilty to fight diseases with the help of GM's is not mentioned yet.
Maybe some of the people arguing against GM's would be willing to make an exception here ?
I also think it touches a next question, should we patronize African scientist in this matter ? Should the developed countries and their organizations force developing countries to apply to the same rather strict rules we have regarding the development of GM's ? (*)
>> Jocelyn Webster works for African Biotechnology in South Africa. She tells the programme: "There have been developments like the banana that's been modified to have cholera vaccine incorporated into it.
"At a cost of maybe five cents we could have distributed vaccine in a food easily eatable by most of the people in this country who normally would not have access to it. Africa's needs are far different from Europe's." <<
(*) In this context i would like to point to a thought provoking book
Kicking Away the Ladder?
Policies and Institutions for Economic Development in Historical Perspective - Ha-Joon Chang
see http://styluspub.com/books/book5676.html
Originally posted by Nohup"PS 3 I most honestly consider Ivanhoe an expert in Vatican matters
>>> i find your posts have greater value and credibility without the little 'hits' you hand out ( Prad )
Ho Ho Ho !
I am still reading that report on agriculture. The thread is still open , no ?
I just gave that one quote to back up my ...[text shortened]... that i am a little upset by your post ? Lost my sang froid hehe.
, i even believe he is an expert in the history of the Catholic church" Nohup
Thanks for the compliment Nohup ..... 😏
but I must admit that I'm not an expert at all 😳
I hope this takes the sting out of your remark 😉
Originally posted by Nohupwell that's fine for the banana, but there is an underlying and commonplace assupmtion that vaccines actually work (i think this will end up being a separate thread). now i know that the health food 'nuts' (like myself) have been talking about 'foods that heal' for quite some time, but cholera preventing bananas really takes this idea to a new level 😲
" Many scientists in Africa regard GM crops as the only way to avoid mass starvation on the continent. Kenyan researchers recently created a GM sweet potato that they predict could increase yields by up to 80 percent.
Meanwhile, South Afri ...[text shortened]... to insert the vaccine for the disease cholera into bananas. "
l
some scientists have indeed decided that GM is the only way to combat starvation, i'm sure. however, scientists fall prey to propaganda just like anyone else and choose to see whatever they want to and ignore the rest. let's not forget that the third world provides an excellent experimental platform to test some of these wonder foods (see UK Gov Chief Scientist slams US GM 'aid' to Africa as a 'massive human experiment' - apparently in UK observer sep2002 http://www.gene.ch/gentech/2002/Sep/msg00004.html).
the fact is that there seems to be a rather large number of scientists who find the GM is not only not a good thing, but a potentially dangerous thing - i don't think they should be ignored because big business and government offer such grandiose and hopeful promises. 'pie in the sky' doesn't do much good if the pie is poisoned (see earlier post in this thread 22 Dec '03 22:51 - on theoretical health hazards of GM which were rather on the conservative side too).
in friendship,
prad
Instead of planting a banana that comes with chlorea vaccine at what I assume would be a much higher price to third world farmers..
Would it not be cheaper to teach them sustainable agriculture? Planting crops that are renewable unlike most GM seeds? Seeds which I might add are usually very exspensive.
Regards,
Charlie
Originally posted by pradtfHey Prad,
some scientists have indeed decided that GM is the only way to combat starvation, i'm sure. however, scientists fall prey to propaganda ...
let's not forget that the third world provides an excellent experimental platform to test some of these wonder foods ...
Not fair !
Whenever some scientists decide something you don't like, you suggest they fell prey to propaganda.
( You followed the same line of thought on religion and science some time ago. Whenever religion is a little smelly it's not religion but pseudo-religion. Whenever science is dirty, you name it pseudo-science ... )
It would be more fair to say that the topic is controversial.
Secundo :
I've seen some articles where African scientists deplore our strict rules on GM's - you make it sound as if Africa is used as a uncontrolled area
where the bad scientists can freely launch their Frankenstein peas -
Again - controversial if you ask me.
Kindest,
Jan
Originally posted by chaswrayHi Charlie,
Would it not be cheaper to teach them sustainable agriculture? Planting crops that are renewable unlike most GM seeds?
Regards,
Charlie
Yes. I agree. Sustainable agriculture is the way to go.
However I think at least some forms of genetically modified food might be compatible with sustainable agriculture.
Sustainable agriculture should be the framework - and we should carefully investigate if and how GM's can fit in.
In some cases GM's could be a temporary pragmatic way to solve some of the acute needs of Africa. It 's an open question wether it is easier or cheaper to 'implement' sustainable agriculture or to 'implement' some GM's.
The point i am trying to make is that not all of us see GM's as a danger, some of us see a positive side.
I just was thinking about another aspect, if GM's allow us to reach higher productivity we can keep more forests and jungles.
We should at least investigate such possibilities and try to assess the risks is a realistic way. Many technologies carry some risks, we still use them daily.
Maybe we should try to define 'sustainable agriculture' more clearly in this thread and just have a look how GM's can fit in ?
Kindest,
Jan
Originally posted by Nohupon the contrary - it is very fair. here what it says up there:
Hey Prad,
Not fair !
Whenever some scientists decide something you don't like, you suggest they fell prey to propaganda.
( You followed the same line of thought on religion and science some time ago. Whenever religion is a little smelly ...[text shortened]... ion. Whenever science is dirty, you name it pseudo-science ... )
"scientists fall prey to propaganda just like anyone else and choose to see whatever they want to and ignore the rest."
this is not unusual at all even in the world of science. in fact, we are taught to do this in high school by repeating experiments where we already know the results and then explain away the discrepancies via measurement error, or instrumental error or the best one of all human error. scientists have vested interests like everyone else and it is soemtimes difficult to break free of these. it is very possible that the scientists whom you are speaking of in africa are funded by the GM industry which is one of the reaosns they applaud it so much. this does not make them dishonest - but it no doubt motivates them to see things a certain way.
i also don't know why you want to bring up all that pseudostuff again. i thought we settled that rather well - leaving you free to believe that nonpseudo science consists of things like the aristotlean theory that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones (but somehow, i don't think you really keep that open a mind) 😀
in friendship,
prad
ps i'm not making it sound as though the third world is used as an experimental lab - that british scientist is though. however, poorer population groups (even in weathy countries) have been 'used' in this way for quite some time. if you want i can provide you with some examples (though i do not doubt you know of quite a few yourself), but it is not an uncommon thing, though it is usually expressed differently.
Originally posted by pradtfHmm it s possible I am paid by the GM industry as well.
[b]t is very possible that the scientists whom you are speaking of in africa are funded by the GM industry
And most probably i am brainwashed at highshool - sure.
Sorry Prad, i don t follow you here.
In this case it s obvious that you are using all means to harm the credibility of everyone that doesn t share your opinion.
PS You seem to suggest i see science as an Aeternal Truth. Not fair. I always stress social and historical context. Even in this thread i admitted that some questions are too complex to fall within our scientific scope. You really make it sound as if science is a method to brainwash people. That s an extremely one sided view. It s not even funny
🙁
Originally posted by Nohupok let me explain it then - without the slightest bit of humour.
Hmm it s possible I am paid by the GM industry as well.
And most probably i am brainwashed at highshool - sure.
Sorry Prad, i don t follow you here.
In this case it s obvious that you are using all means to harm the credibility of everyon ...[text shortened]... ople. That s an extremely one sided view. It s not even funny
🙁
science most certainly can be used as a brainwashing tool and has been. one of the most blatant examples of absurd science is the 'proof' they produced that cigarettes don't cause cancer back in the 50s and 60s. these documents were exposed in the 80s and 90s on tv shows like W5 and the cigarette companies were even sued successfully in some cases. however, the 'proof' that was carefully and scientifically contrived in the earlier days was used by various groups with vested interests and even by doctors to 'justify' smoking.
the mass agri meat and dairy industries fund provide scientific rationale to convince people that these foods are the way to go despite the realities of heart attack, cancer, impotence, osteroporosis etc etc (it'll be in another thread) and despite all the counterscientific evidence (even published in the pretigious medical journal the lancet in the 90s). hormones, additives, antibiotics they can all be explained away if you really want them to be.
in the early 90s a scientific study revealed that the intelligence level of the yellow races was the highest, then the white races and finally the black races. the professor (from western university in london, on canada) went lecturiing about these findings amid the obvious protests to his methodology and intentions. i don't remember the details or the names, but i can find out if you want me to.
i am not trying to undermine the credibility of all those who don't agree with me (i doubt if they particularly care anyway) - but i am strongly urging that we look closely at some of the behind the scenes happenings. if GM funding is provided for these scientists, it is very likely they will produce results favorable to the GM industry. this has little to do with their credibility as scientists.
it must be remembered that science is not by any means always a 'noble search for truth'. it is a very pragmatic field often with specific goals and purposes. as such, it is a very good idea to carefully examine and try to understand the methodologies and intentions behind scientific theories - and if you can't understand it, at least try to compare it with the otherside.
science has been (mis)used throughout history and still is to brainwash people. we like to 'leave things to the experts' in all fields when we should do our best to understand what is going on or at the very least see how the differing perspectives interact with each other. i'm not sure why you object to this idea of not blindly accepting things since you appear to like playing devil's advocate so often.
we deny the best in us when we simply accept things because it is written in a book or some expert said so many moons ago. this isn't faith - it is subservience to a dangerous dogma.
in friendship,
prad
ps i have no idea what you are talking about your seeing 'science as an Aeternal Truth'. all science is not created equal - that's why some isn't even science (hence pseudoscience). there is no grounds for opposing this because the study of science has many biases - even the 'hard' sciences. sometimes, these biases are politically motivated as with the geo-centric theory of the solar system - nothing really 'wrong' with the idea though it made life more complex than it needed to be, however, it provided its adherents and 'funders' (eg the church) a remarkable hold on power. to call this sort of stuff pure science is pseudo at best.
i hope i have expressed what i am doing and that it is by no means 'unfair' as you keep saying it is. however, if you are not convinced that what i this is honestly intended and truthfully verifiable, i can continue to explain myself provided you wish me to.
Originally posted by pradtfHi Prad,
it must be remembered that science is not by any means always a 'noble search for truth'. it is a very pragmatic field often with specific goals and purposes
I agree on that one.
Still we should try to develop this thread.
We cannot do so if you wave away all elements i try to add.
I fully realize it s a highly pragmatic issue, that s why I find it interesting.
I fully agree we shouldn t trust science or scientists blindly, but i also feel we shouldn t discredit science or scientists too easily.
If a good part of the scientific community is not entirely against gm's or even slightly pro , i don t think that s the result of a conspiracy - it rather indicates we shouldn t judge too easily on the topic.
Kindest
Jan