GM Foods

[theAnarch]

I understand that organic farming methods help not deplete the soil and I like most people don't support Monsanto's "suicide gene" but I don't understand the general hostility to GM foods. Please enlighten me.

[A.R.Amistad]

I understand that organic farming methods help not deplete the soil and I like most people don't support Monsanto's "suicide gene" but I don't understand the general hostility to GM foods. Please enlighten me.

Most of it is barely real food. For example, your typical Tomato is not so much an actual Tomato as it is a fruit designed to survive (unnaturally) the long trip from the Pacific Islands to US markets and maintain an essence of a Tomato. To put it bluntly, its a fake tomato you'll be eating, that is injected with all sorts of unhealthy crap that is used to increase production for profit. Its not only a threat to those who eat it, unhealthy food production means unhealthy working conditions. This method is used on almost all of our foods.

[StoneFrog]

I don’t think GM foods are really injected with anything, its just their genetic structure is altered to increase food production and keep the food fresh for longer. I was told once that most tomato’s are already GM, most the time we don't even know that we are consuming it.

[Invincible Summer]

Most of it is barely real food. For example, your typical Tomato is not so much an actual Tomato as it is a fruit designed to survive (unnaturally) the long trip from the Pacific Islands to US markets and maintain an essence of a Tomato. To put it bluntly, its a fake tomato you'll be eating, that is injected with all sorts of unhealthy crap that is used to increase production for profit. Its not only a threat to those who eat it, unhealthy food production means unhealthy working conditions. This method is used on almost all of our foods.

Almost all the fruits and vegetables that we eat now have undergone some form of genetic modification, albeit primitive forms.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Most of it is barely real food. For example, your typical Tomato is not so much an actual Tomato as it is a fruit designed to survive (unnaturally) the long trip from the Pacific Islands to US markets and maintain an essence of a Tomato. To put it bluntly, its a fake tomato you'll be eating, that is injected with all sorts of unhealthy crap that is used to increase production for profit. Its not only a threat to those who eat it, unhealthy food production means unhealthy working conditions. This method is used on almost all of our foods.

You do realise that the "fake tomato" nonsense you're spouting is the exact same rhetoric used by the organic lobby (it's big business, just like GM!) as well as nutritionist quacks to sell you shit? The idea that tomatoes grown with modern methods have little or no nutrition is totally bogus - the plants they are grown on are provided with plenty of nutrients, and that is part of what the actual tomato is made from.

[The Guy]

I hate this sort of topic because it's an issue where we don't really know the answer. The posts above are both for and against, so you can't really take a fair position without causing controversy.

At the end of the day, we, human beings, are unnatural. We should have died out thousands of years ago, but we, like GM foods, filled ourselves with crap and modified our environment to defy mother nature.

If I am given clear proof that GM foods are 100% safe and do not cause any negative side effects, I'll support it fully - especially for the third world countries who desperately need it. Until then, I'll abstain from siding on this issue.

[ComradeOm]

If I am given clear proof that GM foods are 100% safe and do not cause any negative side effects, I'll support it fullyWould it not make more sense to wait until they have been shown to be unsafe? Given the impossibility of proving that something is completely and utterly harmless in all circumstance (something that no food qualifies for) you could be waiting a very long time

As it is, there's is absolutely no evidence that GMOs have any adverse health effects on consumers. None. All there is is a lot of scaremongering by the organic lobby and environmentalists who believe that nothing good can come of 'tampering with nature'. It is nothing short of criminal that many countries (particularly the EU) have restrictions on this technology at the same time that people are worried about increasing global population, etc, etc

[danyboy27]

I understand that organic farming methods help not deplete the soil and I like most people don't support Monsanto's "suicide gene" but I don't understand the general hostility to GM foods. Please enlighten me.

new age liberal, anti science ,religious primitivist hippies are to blame for that.

technology itself is neither bad or good, its what you do with it and how you use it that really matter.

the current issues about GM is that, for the sake of profits not enough research is put into deep analysis and security protocol, haa and also the fucking profit motive.

[chegitz guevara]

Most of it is barely real food. For example, your typical Tomato is not so much an actual Tomato as it is a fruit designed to survive (unnaturally) the long trip from the Pacific Islands to US markets and maintain an essence of a Tomato.

Yeah, but tomatoes were bred for that quality, not GM'ed.

It's not so much unhealthy as it is flavorless and has the consistency of wet cardboard. Yuck.

[danyboy27]

Yeah, but tomatoes were bred for that quality, not GM'ed.

It's not so much unhealthy as it is flavorless and has the consistency of wet cardboard. Yuck.

fail. they taste the same goddamn thing.

i tried both, same taste, but the organic one started rotting really fast.

[The Guy]

Would it not make more sense to wait until they have been shown to be unsafe? Given the impossibility of proving that something is completely and utterly harmless in all circumstance (something that no food qualifies for) you could be waiting a very long time

As it is, there's is absolutely no evidence that GMOs have any adverse health effects on consumers. None. All there is is a lot of scaremongering by the organic lobby and environmentalists who believe that nothing good can come of 'tampering with nature'. It is nothing short of criminal that many countries (particularly the EU) have restrictions on this technology at the same time that people are worried about increasing global population, etc, etc

That's what I meant, but I just didn't write visa versa after the first statement.

Because, like you've said, environmentalists and whatnot have bombarded the technology of GM foods, I really don't know who to believe or which side I should be on. It's like an angel and a devil on each shoulder.

[danyboy27]

That's what I meant, but I just didn't write visa versa after the first statement.

Because, like you've said, environmentalists and whatnot have bombarded the technology of GM foods, I really don't know who to believe or which side I should be on. It's like an angel and a devil on each shoulder.
you know a lot of people who died from eating GM tomatoes?

me neither.

[Boboulas]

I find that food i know is GM doesnt taste at all different from organic and is usualy cheaper. I also have no idea why many on the left oppose GM, i think it springs from the old conspiracy theory that they put things purposefully in our food to harm us and keep us stupid, or something like that.

dannyboy is right that not enough reaserch goes into GM, once you have done enough to make sure the prodouct can survive the journey from seed to store, thats the end of the line for them.

Further reaserch should be done to improve GM and make it healthier for people and the enviroment, not like its killing people or anything, just that it will benefit society. But hey, when was that a corperations concern?

[chegitz guevara]

fail. they taste the same goddamn thing.

i tried both, same taste, but the organic one started rotting really fast.

Try growing your own, especially an heirloom variety.

Organic tomatoes aren't any better than commercially grown tomatoes because they have the same market needs, a tomato that can survive the packaging and shipping process. It's the same shitty tomato, just grown organically. They're just a little healthier since they aren't doused in pesticides.

[danyboy27]

Try growing your own, especially an heirloom variety.

Organic tomatoes aren't any better than commercially grown tomatoes because they have the same market needs, a tomato that can survive the packaging and shipping process. It's the same shitty tomato, just grown organically. They're just a little healthier since they aren't doused in pesticides.

hoo but when i was yonger my parent used to grow their own tomatoes, and in 15 year, i didnt noticed any real change in taste.

some varieties taste differents, but it usually come at a price, namely fragility against insects, or their unability to be conserved for long.

[Adil3tr]

Capitalism has cheapened nature to a horribe degree. Thsi coupled with their cheap and extremely unhealthy food has shortened the lives of the poor and made a thin healthy lifestyle solely for the wealthy!

[Invincible Summer]

Capitalism has cheapened nature to a horribe degree. Thsi coupled with their cheap and extremely unhealthy food has shortened the lives of the poor and made a thin healthy lifestyle solely for the wealthy!

How has GM food "cheapened" nature?

[Adil3tr]

It recklessly messes with these plants DNA to raise their productivity while at the same time ting them to companies. I want to eat a fucking apple, Not a Monsanto SuperGrow© Red Nutritional Supplement with Super Glucose!

[Ele'ill]

In my opinion there are plenty of other options to buying GM foods. There is a lot of evidence suggesting that genetically modified fruits and vegetables have much less nutrients than their regularly grown counterparts (organic or non-organic).

GM foods have created lots of other issues as well. I'll reply as soon as the usual group denies it.

[Invincible Summer]

It recklessly messes with these plants DNA to raise their productivity while at the same time ting them to companies. I want to eat a fucking apple, Not a Monsanto SuperGrow© Red Nutritional Supplement with Super Glucose!

Again, I'll ask: How does GM food "cheapen" nature?


I don't get this whole "nature is pure" undertone that I get from anti-GM folks. Nature is created through processes of genetic modification anyway, just not with lab equipment. The corn we had even 60 years ago is not the same corn from 160 years ago.

[Adil3tr]

It messes with it simply to make it cheaper to grow. We should carfully think about what we do in the field of genetics as a society, but capitalism has blindly folowwed the pursuit of profit into the unknown.

And I'll say again, I want to eat a fucking apple, Not a Monsanto SuperGrow© Red Nutritional Supplement.

[Invincible Summer]

It messes with it simply to make it cheaper to grow.
Why is it bad that things are cheaper to grow? I mean I understand if you're saying that quality is sacrificed, but there's too much conflicting evidence to say that's the case.




And I'll say again, I want to eat a fucking apple, Not a Monsanto SuperGrow© Red Nutritional Supplement.
But what is an "apple" really? If it's the fruit from a certain tree that looks red (sometimes green), has a certain texture/flavour profile, then what's the difference?

I'm not defending agri-corporations, but my point is that this fetish for "authenticity" is ridiculous, considering that authenticity is an illusion.

[bailey_187]

It messes with it simply to make it cheaper to grow. We should carfully think about what we do in the field of genetics as a society, but capitalism has blindly folowwed the pursuit of profit into the unknown.

And I'll say again, I want to eat a fucking apple, Not a Monsanto SuperGrow© Red Nutritional Supplement.

which is one thing we can admit capitalism has been good for, if nothing else

[Adil3tr]

I suppose we'll have to set this issue aside, since there seems no chance of convincing each other.

You might want to take a look at this though
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/genetic-engineering
I would assume Greenpeace would be a fine source on REVOLUTIONARY LEFT .com

[Ele'ill]

Fuck Greenpeace- what a bunch of conflict avoiders. I'm kidding sort of.

I think I know where this conversation is going- that GM organisms are being mis-created, mismanaged and used for exploitive purposes because of Capitalism. I agree with this.

Under a leftist ideology GM foods would be used when necessary and they'd be created to be free and healthier rather than for profit and not as healthy as regular non-GM.

I don't think there's any argument here.

I don't disagree with GM foods at face value if they're used in a sustainable manner.

Perhaps it could be a back up plan and act solely as an alternative in areas of a leftist organized world where food shortages occurred.

Edit** I'd also like to say that I trust- to a degree- that leftists would further pursue research on the long term environmental affects of GMO as well as long term and short term health affects. I think we'd be eager to do this. There would be other motives but not a profit motive and thus I think the truth would be handled more appropriately than by Capitalists.


As for right now- Fuck GMO and its pushers.

[bailey_187]

I would assume Greenpeace would be a fine source on REVOLUTIONARY LEFT .com

No. Greenpeace are reactionary, like most environent focused groups.

[Ele'ill]

You should all be thanking the activists that fight for the earth. It makes no sense to resent them. Unless they're against worker's rights- don't do it. There are annoying people with illogical beliefs in every group- most environmentalists would stand with you against a riot line- no questions asked (except for possibly, 'you're vegan, right?')

This issue shouldn't even be about the environmental movement- environmental activists expose how capitalism is destroying our planet- Worker's rights activists expose how capitalism is destroying wealth balance through exploitation- Is one more important than the other? I can argue both sides all day long. I'm happy I have comrades engaging from all angles. I wouldn't want to trade that for anything in the world.

[Adil3tr]

No. Greenpeace are reactionary, like most environent focused groups.

WHAT!!!
This is greenpeace!
They don't exactly give up much to the capitalists. They have a chart of how exxon mobile funds global warming deniers, they have a ship they steer around the pacific catching illegal whalers. I'm sure their members are either progressive or liberal. You can get fustrated with some of these groups, but if you give up completely on greenpeace and call it "reactionary" you've really given up hope on anyone but socialists fighting for good.

[ContrarianLemming]

At the end of the day, we, human beings, are unnatural.


why?

[ContrarianLemming]

You should all be thanking the activists that fight for the earth. It makes no sense to resent them. Unless they're against worker's rights- don't do it. There are annoying people with illogical beliefs in every group- most environmentalists would stand with you against a riot line- no questions asked (except for possibly, 'you're vegan, right?')

This issue shouldn't even be about the environmental movement- environmental activists expose how capitalism is destroying our planet- Worker's rights activists expose how capitalism is destroying wealth balance through exploitation- Is one more important than the other? I can argue both sides all day long. I'm happy I have comrades engaging from all angles. I wouldn't want to trade that for anything in the world.

I'm glad some of us are sane!
c'mon guys, we can't just spout these guys off as "bourgeois" (though they are), there also people who have made it there personal respnsibility to protect our planet, If that reactionary then I'm reactionary.

[ComradeOm]

So after another few posts there is still no evidence that GMOs cause adverse health effects and just a few unsourced (no, Greenpeace does not count - not when they refer to the "so-called Green Revolution" that has fed vast numbers of people around the world) rumours of possible future environmental damage.


This is greenpeace! They don't exactly give up much to the capitalistsBeing anti-capitalist (which I don't for a second believe that Greenpeace seriously are) does not make you a communist or socialist. You've got to look at what Greenpeace are for, not against, to see if they have anything in common with us


I'm sure their members are either progressive or liberalAnd this is supposed to be a recommendation to people on a board called Revolutionary Left. Excuse me while I get out my 'Yes We Can!' placard...


most environmentalists would stand with you against a riot line- no questions askedFor what? Freeing little chimps, yes. Taking a stand against wage labour though...? Most of them would be running off home or wondering what the fuss was about. Socialism and environmentalism are not interchangeable terms and it is grossly incorrect to argue that the latter, traditionally a petit-bourgeoisie movement, is a serious ally in the fight against global capitalism

Is there some crossover, sure, but not on the serious subjects. The core of each movement (worker control of production vs constraining production) are simply too different from each other to be entirely compatible


This issue shouldn't even be about the environmental movement- environmental activists expose how capitalism is destroying our planet- Worker's rights activists expose how capitalism is destroying wealth balance through exploitation- Is one more important than the other? I can argue both sides all day longThen as far as I'm concerned you should be restricted immediately. Anyone who is on this board simply because they feel that capitalism is destroying the planet - as opposed to, you know, actually being motivated by the exploitation of the working class - is not a socialist. Period

So yes, one is decidedly more important than the other and I see no reason to consider some environmentalist a 'comrade'. Not unless they're willing to fight for the socialism and not some narrow environmental agenda

[Ele'ill]

For what? Freeing little chimps, yes.


Or large chimps- or medium sized chimps-

I don't understand the self-righteous sneer that some of you have whenever you talk about environmentalists. Give your ego a rest- finding people that do things which you deem 'less than necessary' and then using them as a ideological punching bag is a bully mentality that shouldn't really be tolerated. I'd wager that there are many environmentalists that have done more for working conditions through environmentalism than many people on this forum have done for worker's rights- outright.






Taking a stand against wage labour though...? Most of them would be running off home or wondering what the fuss was about.

Most environmentalists are environmentalists because they understand what capitalism is doing to our planet- and to its inhabitants. I'm an environmentalist and I'm involved in many different issues as are all of my friends. To say that 'most of them would be running off home or wondering what the fuss was about' shows your gross inexperience with the leftist movement in real life to the point that I feel embarrassed for you.




Socialism and environmentalism are not interchangeable terms and it is grossly incorrect to argue that the latter,

I don't think this was ever brought up by me. I would like to say that without an environment you're not going to have socialism- in fact- you may not even have inhabitable areas.




Then as far as I'm concerned you should be restricted immediately.

:lol:




Anyone who is on this board simply because they feel that capitalism is destroying the planet - as opposed to, you know, actually being motivated by the exploitation of the working class - is not a socialist. Period

The part where you fail miserably is at the "simply because they feel that capitalism is destroying the planet".

I think it's insulting to suggest that I be restricted for one of my beliefs (that's a decent one- protecting our communities from environmental dangers posed by deregulated corporate intervention) when I in fact was recently unrestricted because people saw the amount of other things I'm involved with.














So yes, one is decidedly more important than the other and I see no reason to consider some environmentalist a 'comrade'. Not unless they're willing to fight for the socialism and not some narrow environmental agenda

Maybe you just really suck at multitasking.

[ComradeOm]

Or large chimps- or medium sized chimps-Exactly, they care more for monkeys than the working class. If they didn't then they wouldn't be environmentalists, they'd be socialists


Most environmentalists are environmentalists because they understand what capitalism is doing to our planet- and to its inhabitantsNo. If "most environmentalists" felt that capitalism was destroying the planet and carried this thought through to its logical conclusion then they would be anti-capitalist. This is still not enough, see below, but for now I'll note that anyone who believes that the environmentalist movement is anti-capitalist, or even a majority of it is anti-capitalist, is completely delusional. Look at the leading environmental NGOs, look at the near-uniform composition of the Green political movement, and you'll see that these are overwhelmingly middle class organisations. Why on earth (no pun intended) would they stand on the barricades and fight for workers' rights?


I'm an environmentalist and I'm involved in many different issues as are all of my friends. To say that 'most of them would be running off home or wondering what the fuss was about' shows your gross inexperience with the leftist movement in real life to the point that I feel embarrassed for youPlease don't. I'm not the one arguing from anecdote; that is, suggesting that your small group of friends are representative of the entire environmental movement. I doubt you're that popular


Maybe you just really suck at multitasking.I do, but that's beside the point

Can you be a socialist who is involved in environmental work? Of course. Feel free to join the RSPCA or SVP as well. I'm not going to tell you what you can and can't do with your life. What I do object to is the suggestion that mere involvement with environmental organisations (such as Greenpeace or whoever) automatically makes you part of the revolutionary left. This is simply not true. I have further suspicions of anyone who bases their 'socialism' on environmental principles but that's another matter dealt with below

Even if an environmentalist arrives at an anti-capitalist position (unlike, say, these guys (http://www.greenparty.org.uk/)) that is not enough. Socialism is not just anti-capitalism, it is a positive programme that insists on the replacement of capitalism with a socialist society that is dominated, or comprised entirely of (depending on your reading), by the working class. You can tack a few environmental measures onto that, if you really want, but the core policies of socialisation of the economy and the betterment of mankind must remain untouched


I think it's insulting to suggest that I be restricted for one of my beliefs (that's a decent one- protecting our communities from environmental dangers posed by deregulated corporate intervention) when I in fact was recently unrestricted because people saw the amount of other things I'm involved withClearly an error was made. I'll make this simple because I don't like holding these sorts of conversations (even on the internet):

I have absolute disdain for anyone who arrives at 'communism' from the perspective of the environment rather than the working class. Period. If you're a socialist who has an interest in the environment then that's fair enough, we all have our hobbies, but I reject, entirely, the suggestion that environmentalism alone is compatible with socialist positions, or the idea that the latter can be derived from an environmentalist platform

This may be my ego, this may be my sectarianism, I don't care. If your primary goal is not the emancipation of the working class then you do not belong here. And not the 'emancipation of the working class in order to avert environmental catastrophe'

[bricolage]

Period. If you're a socialist who has an interest in the environment then that's fair enough, we all have our hobbies,

It's pretty ridiculous to equate any 'interest in the environment' with 'our hobbies'. I'm going into exaggeration here but how are you going to have communism in a ravaged and barren world, where islands are gettting swept up by the sea, deserts expanding across continents and cities covered in fumes so much people can hardly breath? (yes I know these are all in many ways cinematic representations more than anything else but the point still stands) .

People in the west like to dismiss anything relating to the ecological effects of capitalism or the results of 'climate change' as 'petit-bourgeois' or 'middle class', I suppose its fair enough most environmentalists are middle class and anyway we havent really experienced these effects here. However when you start looking beyond these narrow blinkers, start looking at movements in the Global South, places where they are actually experiencing these effects in the here and now and it is hardly a hobby for them. Interestingly the Marxist-Leninists are probably most guilty of this but the few Maoists that have been on here from the Indian subcontinent, you know what have been pretty real about these 'hobbies'.

[ComradeOm]

It's pretty ridiculous to equate any 'interest in the environment' with 'our hobbies'. I'm going into exaggeration here but how are you going to have communism in a ravaged and barren world, where islands are gettting swept up by the sea, deserts expanding across continents and cities covered in fumes so much people can hardly breath? (yes I know these are all in many ways cinematic representations more than anything else but the point still stands)Well, as you say, this is a complete exaggeration and as such its impossible to really argue against. Obviously a socialist society will be impossible "in a ravaged and barren world" but this will either never happen or occur so far into the future as to be effectively irrelevant. That's not to say that I'm not aware of the dangers that climate change and the like present, particularly to 'Third World' nations, but I refuse to give it precedence over class struggle

Will socialism be good for the environment? Probably. It implies an important expansion of society's productive forces (so that's most of the environmentalist movement gone - industrialisation will be a priority) but done so in a more efficient way. But then that does raise an interesting hypothetical question - if socialism could be proven to not, for whatever reason, significantly contribute to 'saving the planet' would you still consider yourself a socialist?. Or would you reject it for a more environmentally friendly option?


People in the west like to dismiss anything relating to the ecological effects of capitalism or the results of 'climate change' as 'petit-bourgeois' or 'middle class', I suppose its fair enough most environmentalists are middle classWell, yes. You've more or less hit the nail on the head - I call the movement 'middle class' largely because "most environmentalists are middle class" ;)

But carry that analysis one step further. If the majority of the environmental movement is 'middle class', and I don't think that anyone can seriously argue with that, then does it not stand to reason that the policies of the environmental movement are similarly 'middle class'? And if this is the case, how much do we really have in common with them? Why should we consider them allies?

[bricolage]

Well, as you say, this is a complete exaggeration and as such its impossible to really argue against.
As I said an exaggeration but the basic premises are still there, desertification, rising sea levels, air pollution are all very real things.


Obviously a socialist society will be impossible "in a ravaged and barren world" but this will either never happen or occur so far into the future as to be effectively irrelevant.
I don't think that's necessarily true, it is quite conceivable that a number of areas of the world could suffer that which I just mentioned in the foreseeable future.


That's not to say that I'm not aware of the dangers that climate change and the like present, particularly to 'Third World' nations, but I refuse to give it precedence over class struggle
I don't one needs precedence over the other, they are intertwined, for example it's hard to engage in class struggle in the middle of a tsunami.


Will socialism be good for the environment? Probably.
More than probably, of course it will be.
There is a book by Joel Kovel about this, I've never read it but I heard it was quite good.
I had an good article about this too, I'll try find it.


But then that does raise an interesting hypothetical question - if socialism could be proven to not, for whatever reason, significantly contribute to 'saving the planet' would you still consider yourself a socialist?. Or would you reject it for a more environmentally friendly option?
I don't deal with hypotheticals though, I mean I could just as likely ask 'if socialism could only be achieved by everyone losing one ear, twelve teeth and their middle finger would you still consider yourself a socialist?'. Obviously neither makes any sense.
Oh and I don't buy into the whole 'saving the planet' discourse, the planet can quite easily save itself as it has done many times before and will do in the future. Climate change is real because if effects the way humans (and other sentient beings - although I imagine that's not of any issue to you) live on this earth, our access to water, food, land and clean air and the base quality of our lives.


Well, yes. You've more or less hit the nail on the head - I call the movement 'middle class' largely because "most environmentalists are middle class" ;)
My point was that most environmentalists in the west are 'middle class' so everyone assumes anything to do with the environment, climate change or ecology is inherently middle class in itself so ignores the issues. However when you move outside the Global North the reality is the other way around.

[Niccolò Rossi]

I think there are two dominant positions being asserted in this thread so far. In my opinion they represent mirror images of one another and neither is accurate.

The logic of arguing against the genetic modification of food on the basis that it 'perverts nature' or 'plays god' or other anti-scientific bases is reactionary. However, in response to this it is important not to fall over into apologism for capitalist argiculture.

Capitalism does not employ genetic modification for the good and welbeing of the masses but for it's own interests: bigger profits, reducing the costs of reproducing labour power and matching the logistical needs of global capitalism in the 21st century. The advent of capitalism did indeed throw up revolutions in science. However, as much as some would like to deny it, science does not stand outside of the material world. The laws of capitalism apply to it as much as any other.

Even if this were the case, that genetic modification was carried out for the good of humanity and not for the interests of capitalism, the anarchy of the system prevents the rational planning and conscious control of technologies such as genetic modification, without which there are major dangers, whatever the actual outcome.

Also, although not directly related to the discussion on genetic modification, I think against this kind of apologism for capitalist progress it's also worth noting that today entire sectors of the economy, namely the health and fitness/well-being industry, rely on society being systemically ill. Capitalism offers to humanity progress, it also offers it new forms of death, destruction, barbarism and decay. To free us from hunger it offers us obesity, diabetes and heart disease. To free us from an early grave through the miracle of modern medicine it offers us instead cancer and mental illness. Etc.

Also, for the record, I would like to point out that organic foods and foods not subjected to genetic modification are two different things. In my opinion there are definite health benefits to eating organic food.

Nic.

[bailey_187]

As I said an exaggeration but the basic premises are still there, desertification, rising sea levels, air pollution are all very real things.

Yeah but whats the hippy solution to rising sea levels? Less production.



I don't think that's necessarily true, it is quite conceivable that a number of areas of the world could suffer that which I just mentioned in the foreseeable future.

The places that will suffer the most are the economically the least developed. Holand is below sea level, but it is pretty unlikley loads of Duthc people will die from climate change. The third world needs economic growth to protect itself against rising sea levels, changes in weather patterns. The hippies oppose economic growth.



I don't one needs precedence over the other, they are intertwined, for example it's hard to engage in class struggle in the middle of a tsunami.

Well you will be glad to know climate change doesnt cause Tsunami's then. Its hard to protect against Tsunamis when you are underdeveloped though.






Oh and I don't buy into the whole 'saving the planet' discourse, the planet can quite easily save itself as it has done many times before and will do in the future. Climate change is real because if effects the way humans (and other sentient beings - although I imagine that's not of any issue to you) live on this earth, our access to water, food, land and clean air and the base quality of our lives.

Climate change will have the most dramatic impacts on the underdeveloped world, they need growth to protect against it, hippies oppose this.

[bricolage]

I don't really get what your point is.
ComradeOm said dealing with the environment is a 'hobby', I said it was essential to any class discourse (you've actually highlighted well how those that suffer most from climate change are those who get screwed over most of the time anyway).
I never actually said what methods we should use to deal with this, just that it should be addressed to which you respond with the complete 'hippie' strawman... ignoring the fact I never made any such points in the first place.

And I'm pretty sure there is a relationship between global warming and tsunamis.

[bailey_187]

I don't really get what your point is.
ComradeOm said dealing with the environment is a 'hobby', I said it was essential to any class discourse (you've actually highlighted well how those that suffer most from climate change are those who get screwed over most of the time anyway).
I never actually said what methods we should use to deal with this, just that it should be addressed to which you respond with the complete 'hippie' strawman... ignoring the fact I never made any such points in the first place.

Ok far enough. But most environementalist groups favour a reduction of production and consumption, not a raising of it like communists want. The poorest will be most hurt my climate change in their current state, but the solution out of their poverty is demonised by environemntalists is my point.



And I'm pretty sure there is a relationship between global warming and tsunamis.

No, Tsuanmis are caused by tectonic plates shifting under the sea, creating earthquakes and large waves. A rise global tempreture/change in weather patterns will have zero effect on tectonic plates.

[ComradeOm]

I don't think that's necessarily true, it is quite conceivable that a number of areas of the world could suffer that which I just mentioned in the foreseeable futureWhereas I consider them to be potential dangers for the distant future. Do I want to see the world turned into an arid desert devoid of all life? Of course not. Do I think that this is a realistic threat that should shift 'the left's' centre of gravity away from the labour movement? Absolutely not


I don't one needs precedence over the other, they are intertwined, for example it's hard to engage in class struggle in the middle of a tsunamiYet we have had people in this very thread advocating alliances with what you confess to be a middle class movement. All to stave off some vague threats about the seas boiling and the sky falling


More than probably, of course it will be.
There is a book by Joel Kovel about this, I've never read it but I heard it was quite good.
I had an good article about this too, I'll try find itSend me the links if you can, I'd be interested in the argument. We know that socialism will greatly increase society's forces of production and we know that vast swathes of the world are underdeveloped. I'd be interested in knowing how he reconciles these with environmentalism's traditional suspicion (to be charitable) of industrial progress and development


I don't deal with hypotheticals though, I mean I could just as likely ask 'if socialism could only be achieved by everyone losing one ear, twelve teeth and their middle finger would you still consider yourself a socialist?'. Obviously neither makes any sensePlease, I know that hypotheticals are one thing but that is just absurd


Climate change is real because if effects the way humans (and other sentient beings - although I imagine that's not of any issue to you) live on this earth, our access to water, food, land and clean air and the base quality of our livesStrangely enough I approach the topic from the exact same approach. The Industrial Revolution, and subsequent progress, has vastly improved the "base quality of life" in the West. Emphasising any cost to 'nature' instead of focusing on the positives, which are legion, strikes me as bizarre. You talk of clean water, I say that never before have so many people (hundreds of millions of people in the West alone) had ready access to disease-free water; you talk of food when we have banished the bony hand of famine from much of the world; of land when we are capable of constructing and maintaining staggeringly large metropolises on a scale that our ancestors could not have dreamed of

These are amazing accomplishments of mankind and the task should be extending these basic services across the globe, not decrying any and every possible side-effect. If there are environmental impacts then we will address them without sacrifice living standards or economic development


My point was that most environmentalists in the west are 'middle class' so everyone assumes anything to do with the environment, climate change or ecology is inherently middle class in itself so ignores the issues. However when you move outside the Global North the reality is the other way around.Move outside the "global north" and, aside from a few unfortunately situated nations, you will find that people tend to be a lot more interested in economic development than the environment. The reason why China, India, Brazil, etc, are industrialising so furiously is because they look to the West and see the advances that have been made and how this has tremendously increased the "base quality of life". Hence also the rightful resistance of African and Asian nations to surrender their futures at the recent Copenhagen talks


Also, although not directly related to the discussion on genetic modification, I think against this kind of apologism for capitalist progress it's also worth noting that today entire sectors of the economy, namely the health and fitness/well-being industry, rely on society being systemically ill. Capitalism offers to humanity progress, it also offers it new forms of death, destruction, barbarism and decay. To free us from hunger it offers us obesity, diabetes and heart disease. To free us from an early grave through the miracle of modern medicine it offers us instead cancer and mental illness. Etc.I think that at this point its worth making the distinction between capitalism from the tools that it has developed. Obviously as a system it continues to perpetuate gross misery on a grand scale (although I do not think that your post is a fair reflection of this) but this should not give cause to ignore the real and progressive developments that have occurred in the past two hundred years. GMO is a case in point - will this technology end world hunger or suddenly provide for all? Of course not, that would be asking far too much of mere capitalists. It does however have much more potential than the market will allow for and will almost certainly become increasingly used as much of the world's population seeks to move beyond bare sustenance

[bricolage]

Whereas I consider them to be potential dangers for the distant future. Do I want to see the world turned into an arid desert devoid of all life? Of course not.
Well desertification is a real threat in the present; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6247802.stm


Do I think that this is a realistic threat that should shift 'the left's' centre of gravity away from the labour movement? Absolutely notI didn't say that either, organised labour is obviously the key social agent in society and it is obviously only organised labour that can enact the change necessary to prevent these ecological problems. My point was that such problems should be seen as a big issue facing working class people in many places in the world.


Yet we have had people in this very thread advocating alliances with what you confess to be a middle class movement.Meh, most of this forum spend their time advocating alliances with 'middle class' movements (ignoring the fact we've now entered the spurious world of 'middle class') but that's another issue altogether...
Anyway I said most of the environmentalist movement is middle class, there are of course working class trends related to environmental issues (ie. social ecology) and of course practical examples of the labour movement acting in accord with environmental issues such as the Visteon occupations.


All to stave off some vague threats about the seas boiling and the sky fallingNoone said either of those, but things like rising sea levels are of course very real, go tell people on the Maldives that they aren't.


Send me the links if you can, I'd be interested in the argument.I'll have a look around for you sure.
I think the argument would largely be that in capitalist development the people doing the development tend not to care for the people it affects, its just done to increase the ability of capital accumulation as such it involves a number of negative externalities, ie. accumulation by dispossession and a new enclosure movement. But also it has a number of negative effects of the environment, dumping damaging waste in poor communities (you can see this in most of Africa) or air pollution (Bhopal as an extreme example). Under communism as such development would be done under the control of the working class these would be considered and if it was found that certain ways of production were causing effects that were detrimental to the lives of other people (ie, by causing desertification of rising sea levels) they would be altered.


Emphasising any cost to 'nature' instead of focusing on the positives, which are legion, strikes me as bizarre.Good thing I never said that...


These are amazing accomplishments of mankind and the task should be extending these basic services across the globe, not decrying any and every possible side-effect.Yes but you assume the only way we can reach these accomplishments is the exact same way it was done in the West, things change and there is a lot to suggest to you can reach such a standard of living (probably even higher) using a combination of what was done before and new, less ecologically damaging, technologies. Considering that much development in the west was powered by fuels that are now becoming increasingly more expensive and the supplies of which are running lower and lower this is more a necessity than anything else and one that also required the adjustment of the way we power out own countries themselves.

[bricolage]

The poorest will be most hurt my climate change in their current state, but the solution out of their poverty is demonised by environemntalists is my point.
Yes that is true in a lot of cases, but that doesn't change the fact that climate change is a real threat something that many people seem to ignore.


No, Tsuanmis are caused by tectonic plates shifting under the sea, creating earthquakes and large waves. A rise global tempreture/change in weather patterns will have zero effect on tectonic plates.



Earthquakes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake), volcanic eruptions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_eruption) and other underwater explosions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwater_explosion) (including detonations of underwater nuclear devices (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_device)), landslides (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landslides) and other mass movements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_wasting), meteorite ocean impacts or similar impact events (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_event), and other disturbances above or below water all have the potential to generate a tsunami.


So from that it seems there are a number of factors that could cause tsunamis.


And this seems to suggest global warming is linked; http://in.reuters.com/article/idINTRE58F62I20090916

[Ele'ill]

Exactly, they care more for monkeys than the working class. If they didn't then they wouldn't be environmentalists, they'd be socialists

What you're attacking isn't environmentalism- You're attacking people that work (fucking hard) to make the world a safer and more just place-

You're essentially saying that leftists are not allowed to engage in any form of progressive activism- or activism at all- as all activism pushes to change- it's the only element of an actual revolution that we can tangibly hold onto at this point in time- In North America and many other places- there isn't an armed struggle.

You might as well be attacking housing rights activists- people that stand against anti-homeless ordinances- people that stand and organize against police brutality on a neighborhood and city level- people pushing for an abolishment of anti-immigration legislation - so on and so forth.

The people protecting our planet from people and groups of people that want to ravage it for profit is as much a part of socialism as 'worker's rights'.

To think otherwise is insane.


On top of this- I can honestly say I have not met an environmentalist that didn't also fight for worker's rights- anti-capitalism- and fight for general community awareness as to what's going on.

In situations where worker's rights is needed right away- I'm there. In situations where it looks as if worker's rights will be a relatively long process of organizing but the possibility of doing so includes directly environmental issues, I'm going after the environmental issues first because I know how to prioritize- There's no sense in organizing a body of workers over a two year period while the river, forests and local communities could have been spared and saved in under three months.

Prioritize and do what you can when you can.




No. If "most environmentalists" felt that capitalism was destroying the planet and carried this thought through to its logical conclusion then they would be anti-capitalist.

Most environmentalists I've met are anti-capitalist- I've marched with environmentalist friends on MayDay and taken part in various workshops- demos and actions with them as well.

They understand that capitalism is destroying the planet- they also understand that humans make up a part of this planet's demographic.





This is still not enough, see below, but for now I'll note that anyone who believes that the environmentalist movement is anti-capitalist, or even a majority of it is anti-capitalist, is completely delusional. Look at the leading environmental NGOs, look at the near-uniform composition of the Green political movement, and you'll see that these are overwhelmingly middle class organisations. Why on earth (no pun intended) would they stand on the barricades and fight for workers' rights?

I wouldn't consider most aspects of the 'green political movement' to be green at all and neither would eight of my friends that I can think of off the top of my head (I literally just ran through a list of names in my mind). None of them have faith in current systems of governance. Many of them are anarchists.

I'm not sure what type of environmentalists you're talking about. Al Gore? Party politics?

I think you should explore the environmentalist movement further- in your area.




Please don't. I'm not the one arguing from anecdote; that is, suggesting that your small group of friends are representative of the entire environmental movement. I doubt you're that popular

Well, my small group of friends are fairly critical of the world around them and they each probably have a hundred or so friends or acquaintances that they can tolerate and those people likely have lots of other people that I don't know etc..

My point is that there is a fairly large number of people that I would consider environmentalists that are extremely anti-capitalist.

I don't make friends all that easy- the friends I have are extremely close and there are actually quite a few of them.





Can you be a socialist who is involved in environmental work? Of course. Feel free to join the RSPCA or SVP as well. I'm not going to tell you what you can and can't do with your life. What I do object to is the suggestion that mere involvement with environmental organisations (such as Greenpeace or whoever) automatically makes you part of the revolutionary left. This is simply not true. I have further suspicions of anyone who bases their 'socialism' on environmental principles but that's another matter dealt with below

I don't disagree entirely- being a member of a socialist part or organization doesn't make you part of the revolutionary left either. I base success on actions and involvement.

People are already fed up with the banks- every day people that aren't part of the revolutionary left- If there's a banner drop regarding the 'Umpqua' Bank and it's chairman of the board being the president of an extremely unsustainable forestry corporation- people start to realize the ties-

I support attacks from all angles- and the people attacking are not idiots that don't know what capitalism is.






Even if an environmentalist arrives at an anti-capitalist position (unlike, say, these guys (http://www.greenparty.org.uk/)) that is not enough. Socialism is not just anti-capitalism, it is a positive programme that insists on the replacement of capitalism with a socialist society that is dominated, or comprised entirely of (depending on your reading), by the working class. You can tack a few environmental measures onto that, if you really want, but the core policies of socialisation of the economy and the betterment of mankind must remain untouched

And it would no doubt address various social and physical issues that capitalism brought about in its drive for profits- such as homelessness, fair housing, the environment being destroyed for profit, police forces vs civil defense forces, etc..

I think your problem is with capitalists that use environmentalism as a way to make profit or politically to take power. I agree. I resent these people. I also resent people not in touch with leftist politics but want to 'go green'. I understand your frustration.




Clearly an error was made. I'll make this simple because I don't like holding these sorts of conversations (even on the internet):

Yes you do- you love these conversations otherwise you wouldn't be here with us.

As for the mistake- maybe you're craving a little singular power over a relatively democratic process. That's not socialism- and this being an internet forum that doesn't guarantee a leftist system of operating doesn't cover the individual desires that come out in conversation.


I have absolute disdain for anyone who arrives at 'communism' from the perspective of the environment rather than the working class.

Don't burn your bridges- there's a lot of leftists that arrive at 'communism' from cool crowd highschool blink-182 type bullshit. .



Period. If you're a socialist who has an interest in the environment then that's fair enough, we all have our hobbies, but I reject, entirely, the suggestion that environmentalism alone is compatible with socialist positions, or the idea that the latter can be derived from an environmentalist platform

Well while I'm literally saving the rivers, forests, oceans and open space for you while I'm organizing against local ordinances that target transient individuals and local homeless folks- you can just organize in the work place (which I have also done- and will do- and thank you for anything you've done) and after the revolution you can thank me that there was something to actually win.

Who would have thought! - There's still a planet under all that grime!




This may be my ego, this may be my sectarianism, I don't care. If your primary goal is not the emancipation of the working class then you do not belong here. And not the 'emancipation of the working class in order to avert environmental catastrophe'


I'd like to take this time to thank you for any efforts you've made towards organizing. It isn't possible to do everything at once so the next time you pass a logging truck or see a river or part of the ocean catch on fire think of me and this conversation and know that if there was a worker's rights issue that I felt I could approach and help I would (and have in the past.

[comrade_cyanide444]

I'm not going to take the time to read this thread. But here are my $0.02.

GM foods are foods that have had portions of their genome cut out and reinserted with new genes. To this date, humans cannot produce synthetic genes (aka from scratch), so these inserted genes are either from other plants or animals (GFP, the glowing protein is from jellyfish). Only the desired protein is produced by the GM plant, so unless you're allergic to that specific protein, or that protein is somehow toxic, GM plants are not harmful. Most modification is to keep away pests so toxic pesticides don't need to be used. A certain gene may be inserted so a plant produces a protein in its cells that disallow fungi to feed off of it. Generally shelf life is not the goal.

The main risk is environmental contamination with GM plants. Some of these plants are like super-organisms and could easily overpopulate whole ecosystems. Tomatoes spread like weeds sometimes, and with this plant, we've shortened the length of Darwinian selection to an immensely short time. The resistant tomato will overpopulate whole forests, and very few will die, because fungi and pests would not be able to eat the plant. In my opinion, GM is a lot less harmful to the environment than pesticides. I really dislike how companies are trying to "patent" life. Life is not a commodity. Leave it to Capitalism to ruin everything.

Think of GM plants this way. They are deficient in one thing, so they have this weakness. Scientists remove a useless gene and insert a gene from another organism that has the trait that is necessary. The result is a plant that has fewer weaknesses than the un-modified plant. Now, given a few million years, I'm sure that natural selection would select pests that develop a resistance to the protein in the GM plant that kills them. One day, a small population of pests will be born with a mutation that makes them invulnerable to the protein factor, and they will concentrate very highly, probably drastically reducing the "super-plant" population. All in all, you gotta remember, that the universe is looking for equilibrium, and will "find" a way to balance out disequilibrium.