LokStok Posted May 17, 2013 your right Stillman, theres already a 'bag Monsanto' thread or two here which it would have been more appropriate for me to post my last link in. I'm often guilty of responding spur of the moment to just the last post in a thread and not taking into account what the thread is about according to the OP. My apologies for any offence taken, none was meant, dont take it personally. Although I may not agree with you on all things GM, I certainly appreciate and acknowledge your passion, knowledge and drive to make the world a better place. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gtarman Posted May 18, 2013 (edited) I'm also disappointed you're not interested in sticking around and discussing further Stillman, but if you don't want to it's your call of course. But I certainly don't feel we've "dirtied up the thread" simply by discussing Monsanto. If GM is the topic, it's perfectly relevant and even fundamentally important in my opinion to include the biggest player on the field in that discussion. But Monsanto or no, my misgivings that I posted previously still stand as relevant - I could never believe that if Monsanto hadn't come along, that some other company wouldn't have pounced to take their place...because the science and practice of GM can be abused for large amounts of profit and power just by it's nature. These problems run deeper than Monsanto. We also can't discuss purely the subject of GM science or it's safety without a broader context of how it is to be implemented or the ways in which it could be misused or abused, because it is after all (and as you say) just a tool for modifying plants. In the same way that nuclear fission is "just a tool for splitting atoms". The safety of just about any tool depends almost entirely upon how it's used. - context is everything, and I don't believe that we've stepped outside the bounds of relevance here. Edited May 18, 2013 by gtarman 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
