I was going to title this "Hello, Hello, It's Good to Be Back", but then I remembered ....
OK, a thought that struck me while on holiday, in the form of three questions;
- Hands up if you believe that Benjamin Franklin was talking sense when he said "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety" ....
- Hands up if you believe that African governments are doing something wrong or stupid in rejecting genetically modified corn given as food aid.
- Now ... hands up again if you still think agree that "that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety"
And the beauty of it is, that nobody will be able to argue with me 'cos comments still don't work.
More later ...
old comments ...
ReplyDeletedatetime Monday 2002-09-16 18:56:15 /datetime
name Andrew Edwards /name
email /
uri sketch.blogspot.com /uri
Don't quite follow you D^2.
Maybe I'm just thick. /text
===========
- comment
datetime Monday 2002-09-16 19:13:29 /datetime
name Jason McCullough /name
email jason[at]hronk[.]com /email
uri http://zebco.blogspot.com/ /uri
This is dangerously close to the Ray Charles/Love/Blind construct. /text
===========
- comment
datetime Tuesday 2002-09-17 08:18:45 /datetime
name dsquared /name
email /
uri /
I think it's a serious point. An awful lot of bullshit is rationalised under the name of "give me liberty or give me death", by people who have never had to make the choice. I'm not sure I approve of the decision of the Zambians (hence the decision to phrase this in the form of Delphic questions), but my God you have to admire the guts of a political leader who's prepared to make a stand of this kind. /text
===========
- comment
datetime Tuesday 2002-09-17 16:50:25 /datetime
name a different chris /name
email /
uri /
Yes, it takes a lot of guts to look down the road but, if the GM genie gets out of the bottle, then the following possible scenarios arise:
1) The future inability to sell to Europe- wham, whole market gone. And I bet China will outlaw GM foods just for political/economical chess-playing reasons. Ouch.
2) If the EU gives up GM resistance, it eliminates #1, but it then puts Z. in competition with US farmers. This causes Z.'s farmers to go from selling a value-added product to selling a lowest-cost product against a heavily-subsidized giant. Prices drop, income drops, the economy collapses permanently, and guess what? Even more starving people than you started with.
3) Contaminated crops show the GM characteristic (that nobody every talks about) of low-yields (Roundup-Ready soybean has a 20% lower yield than the regular stuff). Can Z. afford a crop yield drop when they're starving already?
4) Monsanto sues them for growing plants that show markers for their patented genes, as per. that poor Canadian farmer.
5) Once Monsanto gets their foot in the country's door (or upon it's neck would be more accurate) they could force upon them those sterile plants that eliminate seed saving. How are Z's farmers supposed to survive (see #2) when they have to buy seeds - in US dollars - every year?
Not to be alarmist or anything. ;>
/text
===========
- comment
datetime Tuesday 2002-09-17 20:30:02 /datetime
name kevin /name
email kevin[at]leanleft[.]com /email
uri www.leanleft.com /uri
What I find odd is how little attention is being paid to the fact that we sent them GM foods in the first place. It had to be well known that they would be reluctant to take them, as their future economic well being good be destroyed by just a handful of farmers planting seeds form these crops. It seems to me that either by intention or by ignorance, the US has forced upon the government of Zimbabwe an awful, awful choice. /text
===========
- comment
datetime Wednesday 2002-09-18 02:21:17 /datetime
name nick sweeney /name
email nick[at]nonspace[.]org /email
uri /
The presentation of the GM/Zambia issue on the US network news is frankly scandalous: it devotes approximately .3 of a second to the 'controversy' over GM, presenting it simply as 'well, Americans eat it, so what's the problem? look at the starving people!'. Nothing about the IP aspects, nothing about it affecting the export markets, etc ad inf. Gotta love News Lite. /text
===========
- comment
datetime Wednesday 2002-09-18 04:07:35 /datetime
name Matt Weiner /name
email mcwst5[at]pitt[.]edu /email
uri /
d-squared, could you spell it out for us thick people? what exactly is the liberty issue here? it seems more like a well-being vs. well-being issue to me, for the reasons a different chris mentions.
/text
===========
- comment
datetime Wednesday 2002-09-18 07:15:43 /datetime
name dsquared /name
email /
uri /
I suppose it depends on whether you consider the right to self-determination of the Zambian nation as a "liberty issue". Franklin certainly would have done, which is why I stuck the quote up. /text
===========
- comment
datetime Sunday 2002-09-22 01:33:00 /datetime
name Matt Weiner /name
email mcwst5[at]pitt[.]edu /email
uri /
d, I just don't get that. I don't have to think that Zambia should give up its right to self-determination to think that it's stupid or wrong for it to use that right in certain ways. Similarly, I will defend to the death Ann Coulter's right to free speech, but I will also call her wrong and stupid for exercising it in the particular way she does. Or is there a deeper point that I am missing?
(BTW, I don't actually think that Zambia is doing something wrong or stupid in rejecting GM corn--though that opinion may be revised if I accidentally learn some facts about the issue. I'm just trying to score philosophical points because, well, that's what I do for a living.) /text
===========
- comment
datetime Thursday 2002-09-26 00:49:32 /datetime
name Maynard Handley /name
email name99[at]redheron[[[.]]]com /email
uri /
However Zambia could have done what Zimbabwe will do which is to mill the corn into flour before distributing it, thus preventing planting and making the point moot.
Given how little countries like Zambia seem to care about their economic future (or to be more specific, given how little the current ruler of Zambia seems to care about the future wellbeing of his country) it's hard to go along with his claims that this is all being done out of, understand, his love for the people. /text
===========
- comment
datetime Friday 2002-09-27 23:39:25 /datetime
name jstein /name
email sa95061[at]odin[.]mdacc[.]tmc[.]edu /email
uri /
Three hands up.
How exactly is it that the freedoms of starving people in Zambia are enhanced (or compromised) by their leaders opting for their starvation?
I think you're confusing liberty with national economic interest. Even if you believe that transgenic crops are a bad idea for Zambian agricultural trade in the long term (due to European protectionism, Green ideology, neo-Ludditism, Gaia worship, popular anti-Americanism, etc.), that simply doesn't mean that National Self Determination and individul Liberty are the same thing (particularly in a non-democratic nation). A person with libertarian inclinations might point out that government decisions are often at odds with individuals, particularly in this case. I doubt a starving Zambian will question the genetic purity of their food aid. His or her safety in this case is intimately linked with the freedom to obtain food aid, a liberty and safety that the Zambian government seems more than willing to deny.
/text
===========