Evo Morales 'blames' GM food for "sexual deviations" such as homosexuality

86 posts / 0 new
Last post
Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Apr 21 2010 16:25
Evo Morales 'blames' GM food for "sexual deviations" such as homosexuality

http://www.eatmedaily.com/2010/04/evo-morales-genetically-modified-foods-cause-homosexuality-baldness/

Boris Badenov
Offline
Joined: 25-08-08
Apr 21 2010 16:29

I was just about to post this. What a fuckwit.

gypsy
Offline
Joined: 20-09-09
Apr 21 2010 16:32

Any truth in the baldness claim? Im sure i have seen baldy indigenious amazonian blokes.

Boris Badenov
Offline
Joined: 25-08-08
Apr 21 2010 16:45

GM food has absolutely nothing to do with changes in pilosity or sexual orientation. This is absolute mental reactionary bollocks. Morales is a Catholic right? But since he's also a leftist prince, he has to couch his prejudice in vaguely "anti-capitalist" bullshit, rather than outright moralism.

JR Cash
Offline
Joined: 17-02-10
Apr 21 2010 18:36

The argument over GM food is a very interesting one for anarchists. Often the first reaction is typical anti-scientific hippy nonsense that sees any attempt by humans to alter so called natural processes as inherently wrong and dangerous.

However if GM food could offer greater harvests of food for the same amount of human effort then it should be something worth considering.

There is considerable evidence for example that organic food offers no nutritional benefit over non organic food. It is the quality of the food that matters not if it is organic or not.

Any future socialist society will undoubtedly need to leverage the benefits of science and technology in order to better feed and provide for people.

There is no reason to suggest that we as a society can't over come any problems associated with GM foods.

Indeed the same can be said of nuclear power. A safe and well managed nuclear power program could have its place along side renewable energy in providing the energy supplies that people need.

For too long anarchism has been seen as being akin to hippies when it comes to science and advancing human development. We should be embracing new technology and science and attempting to take it beyond the limits of capitalist development.

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Apr 21 2010 20:29

it reminds me of this http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5inJDPJiXU9k0tYQetNGUhTCNqAcgD9F698N00

JoeMaguire's picture
JoeMaguire
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Apr 22 2010 00:04
JR Cash wrote:
The argument over GM food is a very interesting one for anarchists. Often the first reaction is typical anti-scientific hippy nonsense that sees any attempt by humans to alter so called natural processes as inherently wrong and dangerous.

However if GM food could offer greater harvests of food for the same amount of human effort then it should be something worth considering.

There is considerable evidence for example that organic food offers no nutritional benefit over non organic food. It is the quality of the food that matters not if it is organic or not.

Any future socialist society will undoubtedly need to leverage the benefits of science and technology in order to better feed and provide for people.

There is no reason to suggest that we as a society can't over come any problems associated with GM foods.

Indeed the same can be said of nuclear power. A safe and well managed nuclear power program could have its place along side renewable energy in providing the energy supplies that people need.

For too long anarchism has been seen as being akin to hippies when it comes to science and advancing human development. We should be embracing new technology and science and attempting to take it beyond the limits of capitalist development.

You have over-simplified the arguments. There is an abundance of food available, already its been an imperiative of the IMF to force up food prices by pushing stripping away at supply. See here. Which is why I object to veganism being pushed as a solution to world hunger, its a complete fabrication of an economy based under capital.

Im skeptical about GM foods and think nuclear is not desirable, but there was a good thread on this already methinks.

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Apr 22 2010 00:19
Vlad336 wrote:
GM food has absolutely nothing to do with changes in pilosity

fuck so gary null was lying to me about red foods and hairlines, eh?

rooieravotr
Offline
Joined: 28-10-09
Apr 22 2010 02:57

If the report quoted is correct, Morales made a rather stupid remark. But the word "homosexality" or "gay" is not mentioned in the quotes itself, as I read them. To imply homophobia coming from Morales here has a rather thin base, in my opinion. There are problems a-plenty with left-nationalist leaders like Morales, even without this rather silly remark being a bit blown out of proportion...

Boris Badenov
Offline
Joined: 25-08-08
Apr 22 2010 03:01
Quote:
“Baldness that appears to be normal is a disease in Europe, almost all of them are bald, and that is because of the things they eat; while among the indigenous peoples there are no bald people, because we eat other things,” said the 50 year old leader. He also claimed that the presence of homosexual men around the world is a consequence of inadequate nutrition. According to Morales, this is due to eating chicken saturated with feminizing hormones “The chicken that we eat is chock-full of feminine hormones. So, when men eat these chickens, they deviate from themselves as men.”

If this is not a reference to homosexuality, in what sense do they "deviate from themselves as men"?

LeftResistance's picture
LeftResistance
Offline
Joined: 30-04-09
Apr 22 2010 06:19

Posted this on facebook, and a trot replied;

"He didn't actually say that. It's a right-wing media bullshit beat up to distract from the climate summit. What he actually said was

"El pollo que comemos está cargado de hormonas femeninas. Por eso, cuando los hombres comen esos pollos, tienen desviaciones en su ser como hombres"

Roughly translated, that is:

"The chicken we eat is full of female hormones. So when men eat those chickens, they have deviations in their manhood."

The comment was in the context of western ecological destruction and environmental damage, and Morales was talking about the effect of hormone-filled factory chicken on men, effects which appear to include growing breasts, low sperm counts, sexual disfunction, etc., etc.

Nothing at all to do with homosexuality."

I don't speak spanish, but it makes sense.

circle A-K's picture
circle A-K
Offline
Joined: 20-07-06
Apr 23 2010 09:14
JR Cash wrote:
However if GM food could offer greater harvests of food for the same amount of human effort then it should be something worth considering.There is no reason to suggest that we as a society can't over come any problems associated with GM foods.

Sure, but that is no reason to dismiss or attack people criticising GM foods (not referring to Morales' comments, but more general criticisms of GM foods) as 'hippies' .

I find Morales comments thoroughly repugnant but there are nevertheless real concerns relating to this topic to be considered; namely preventing a lurch towards monocultural agriculture (very risky) - and the/any effects on biodiversity generally. Also as another poster suggested, the question of global hunger has arguably more to do with distribution, i.e. capitalism/the market than not enough food being produced, or not enough of the 'right' food. Also there is the question of patenting, and the implications for the world's hungry in a market dominated by GM foods, where food production is premised on crops genetically designed and patented (owned) by large corporations, will that work in our favour? Again, the question will always be distribution, and in a market society distribution follows the money and the people with it.

Quote:
Indeed the same can be said of nuclear power. A safe and well managed nuclear power program could have its place along side renewable energy in providing the energy supplies that people need.

What is a safe and well managed nuclear program? Like i'm sure the money-black hole that is the nuclear power industry appreciates the plug, but really what place does non-renewable, prohibitively expensive and pollutive/toxic energy production have in our future? What is the point in going down that way? 85 years (or less) later, there will be no uranium left - and then what? Just demolish all the nuclear plants we spent billions and decades on?

Though to be honest, the nuclear power industry has/had so much money sunk into it by private capital and government over the years (a lot of which still hasn't paid off) that i think it will continue for decades to come if only because people want to get what they paid for (even if it takes nearly a decade to build), and for investors - to see their return, people have contractual obligations after all. It's also a boon industry for any country that has large uranium deposits (like canada and australia) - so it has some natural proponents (i.e. people who can make $ or have spent $ on it already) - but not many outside of government and industry? It should also be noted that uranium rich countries are few and far between (canada and australia combined are responsible for over half of the worlds uranium production).

That could raise the question of our nuclear future potentially being dominated by a resource cartel akin to the oil-producing countries today.

Quote:
For too long anarchism has been seen as being akin to hippies when it comes to science and advancing human development. We should be embracing new technology and science and attempting to take it beyond the limits of capitalist development.

The problem is that 'new technology and science' is crafted by the market for the purposes of generating profit, not 'improving our lives', giving us more 'freedom' or 'saving the planet'. Of course that is not to suggest that 'new technology' or 'science' is inherently bad, it is neither inherently 'good' or 'bad' - it is how it is used and by whom and why that really counts.

The challenge we face is a world where technological developments and science are wedded inextricably to corporate and state interests (the people with power and money), whilst business comission research for future profit, governments may pursue it to further social control or another state interest (see: the massive growth in CCTV and other video/computer surveillance and monitoring programs in recent times). There are of course innovations and developments in science and technology that occur outside these spheres (the internet is home to many of these for example - in the area of computing, a hub for ideas premised largely on free-access/sharing/cooperative development etc. see - open source software of all kinds), but it is nevertheless the former that dominates our lives in a hierarchial market society.

rooieravotr
Offline
Joined: 28-10-09
Apr 22 2010 12:37

From Vlad336's contribution, who quotes from the report:
"He also claimed that the presence of homosexual men around the world is a consequence of inadequate nutrition."
That is a report of what he is supposed to have said but it is NOT a direct quote.

""According to Morales, this is due to eating chicken saturated with feminizing hormones “The chicken that we eat is chock-full of feminine hormones. So, when men eat these chickens, they deviate from themselves as men.”
If this is not a reference to homosexuality, in what sense do they "deviate from themselves as men"? "

Well, Morales may think that those "feminine hormones" may lead to men developing breasts or something like that. Then, they would "deviate from themselves as men", in his words.
It seems all very stupid. But I am still not convinced that he is talking about homosexuality.

(apologies for the unclear way I quote d from vlad336 's contribution, above, I din't seem to be able to directly quote only part of his contrbution, only the whole bit. Surely, I am doing something wrong here)

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Apr 23 2010 03:42
LeftResistance wrote:
Posted this on facebook, and a trot replied;

"He didn't actually say that. It's a right-wing media bullshit beat up to distract from the climate summit. What he actually said was

"El pollo que comemos está cargado de hormonas femeninas. Por eso, cuando los hombres comen esos pollos, tienen desviaciones en su ser como hombres"

Roughly translated, that is:

"The chicken we eat is full of female hormones. So when men eat those chickens, they have deviations in their manhood."

The comment was in the context of western ecological destruction and environmental damage, and Morales was talking about the effect of hormone-filled factory chicken on men, effects which appear to include growing breasts, low sperm counts, sexual disfunction, etc., etc.

Nothing at all to do with homosexuality."

I don't speak spanish, but it makes sense.

I do, and I'm fully aware of all the nuances - in a highly macho, and pretty homophobic culture - of referring to "effeminate men" and "sexual deviation". Every Venezuelan - left and right - who I've spoken to about it has understood it to be referring to homosexuality.

In an anecdotal aside, I have heard more jokes going around the office about Ricky Martin no longer being a "man" than I can even remember.

gypsy
Offline
Joined: 20-09-09
Apr 23 2010 06:35
Caiman del Barrio wrote:
LeftResistance wrote:
Posted this on facebook, and a trot replied;

"He didn't actually say that. It's a right-wing media bullshit beat up to distract from the climate summit. What he actually said was

"El pollo que comemos está cargado de hormonas femeninas. Por eso, cuando los hombres comen esos pollos, tienen desviaciones en su ser como hombres"

Roughly translated, that is:

"The chicken we eat is full of female hormones. So when men eat those chickens, they have deviations in their manhood."

The comment was in the context of western ecological destruction and environmental damage, and Morales was talking about the effect of hormone-filled factory chicken on men, effects which appear to include growing breasts, low sperm counts, sexual disfunction, etc., etc.

Nothing at all to do with homosexuality."

I don't speak spanish, but it makes sense.

I do, and I'm fully aware of all the nuances - in a highly macho, and pretty homophobic culture - of referring to "effeminate men" and "sexual deviation". Every Venezuelan - left and right - who I've spoken to about it has understood it to be referring to homosexuality.

In an anecdotal aside, I have heard more jokes going around the office about Ricky Martin no longer being a "man" than I can even remember.

I can confirm the machismo culture in Latin America is fucked up and sickening. I thought Morales was getting at that too, but he choose his words carefully.

baboon
Offline
Joined: 29-07-05
Apr 23 2010 10:31

If the quote is about homosexuality, and it seems to be going in that direction, it's on a similar but less destructive scale than the ANC's previous position that beetroot juice would cure AIDS.

On GM food: one of the recent - last 15 years or so - tendencies of capitalism has been to treat the seeds sold to farmers so that they don't seed. This is already "modification" to the point of an abomination of nature.

GerryK's picture
GerryK
Offline
Joined: 14-04-10
Apr 24 2010 17:10

This is the first time I have posted here, and I am not entirely familiar with the etiquette of posts - flaming etc. - but I have to say that I find JRCash's post completely fucked. He said:

Quote:
The argument over GM food is a very interesting one for anarchists. Often the first reaction is typical anti-scientific hippy nonsense that sees any attempt by humans to alter so called natural processes as inherently wrong and dangerous.

However if GM food could offer greater harvests of food for the same amount of human effort then it should be something worth considering.

There is considerable evidence for example that organic food offers no nutritional benefit over non organic food. It is the quality of the food that matters not if it is organic or not.

Any future socialist society will undoubtedly need to leverage the benefits of science and technology in order to better feed and provide for people.

There is no reason to suggest that we as a society can't over come any problems associated with GM foods.

Indeed the same can be said of nuclear power. A safe and well managed nuclear power program could have its place along side renewable energy in providing the energy supplies that people need.

For too long anarchism has been seen as being akin to hippies when it comes to science and advancing human development. We should be embracing new technology and science and attempting to take it beyond the limits of capitalist development.

Is he in the pay of Monsanto or the nuclear lobby?

If hippies complain about climate change and ecological collapse, does that mean we should embrace climate change and ecological collapse? If hippies say the sky is blue, does that mean we should say it is pink with polka dots?

There is plenty of scientific research to show that GMOs reduce fertility and resistance to disease. There is also the question of biodiversity, which GMOs are currently in the process of destroying. What he or she has written is dangerous ignorant nonsense. I would say I feel "disgusted" by what he or she says if the word "disgusted" didn't sound rather like an old fashioned Daily Telegraph reader from 30 years ago. And "disgusted" doesn't really express the intensity of my disgust. Perhaps the world would have been better off if his/her dad had implanted a terminator gene in his/her mum. That expresses my disgust.

I am currently translating (from French) a text which has some references to GMOs; I shall post parts of it soon. In France, where I live, if someone who said he or she was an anarchist or socialist came out with such nonsense as JRCash he or she would risk being physically attacked. I say "he or she" but I suspect it's a "he": there are relatively few women who are stuck in this kind of abstract rubbish.

My apologies for being so critical on my first post on libcom, but JRCash has really made me sick.

Tarwater's picture
Tarwater
Offline
Joined: 29-12-08
Apr 24 2010 17:31
Quote:
I am French
Django's picture
Django
Offline
Joined: 18-01-08
Apr 24 2010 20:13
GerryK wrote:
In France, where I live, if someone who said he or she was an anarchist or socialist came out with such nonsense as JRCash he or she would risk being physically attacked.

That's reasonable.

Tarwater wrote:
Quote:
I am French

Equally quality contribution.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Apr 24 2010 20:34
GerryK wrote:
There is plenty of scientific research to show that GMOs reduce fertility and resistance to disease. There is also the question of biodiversity, which GMOs are currently in the process of destroying. What he or she has written is dangerous ignorant nonsense.

I think that there is an anti-science reaction to something, witness the panic in the UK surrounding MMR, all based on a paper that the Lancet has now been forced to withdraw.

Man has been genetically modifying foods since the agricultural revolution. There is nothing wrong in the idea itself.

Are there problems with genetic modifying? Quite possibly there are. Does that mean that a socialist society would not investigate the possibilities? I'd like to hope not.

GerryK wrote:
In France, where I live, if someone who said he or she was an anarchist or socialist came out with such nonsense as JRCash he or she would risk being physically attacked.

It is good to see that the French socialist/anarchist movement has a 'good attitude' towards discussion and debate.

Devrim

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Apr 24 2010 21:13
GerryK wrote:
I say "he or she" but I suspect it's a "he": there are relatively few women who are stuck in this kind of abstract rubbish.

That's my favourite part of the post. Women are incapable of doing abstract thought. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w

circle A-K's picture
circle A-K
Offline
Joined: 20-07-06
Apr 25 2010 02:23
Dev wrote:
I think that there is an anti-science reaction to something, witness the panic in the UK surrounding MMR, all based on a paper that the Lancet has now been forced to withdraw.

Ok, but that sentiment is not present in this thread, so perhaps in context not really a necessary response to the thread (i.e. JRCash's rant about how anti-science and 'hippy' anarchists are?).

Dev wrote:
Man has been genetically modifying foods since the agricultural revolution. There is nothing wrong in the idea itself.

Of course not, but to compare the simple genetic manipulation of ancient faming techniques (done on an individual level) with the issue of massive corporate-led and owned genetic modification of food and food production is very misleading to say the least (this is not 'man' [sic] but capital modifiying food). Traditional 'GM' type practices in farming do not pose the same risk to biodiversity (which really is central to ongoing life for humans) that this large-scale corporate so-called 'revolution' does.

The problem with GM food is not that genetic manipulation is inherently evil (no one says this), it's that there are real risks involved and as capitalism is not an ethical or environmentally sustainable/conscious system, these risks pose a real threat to our species if seen through, i.e. a genetically vulnernable monoculture.

Dev wrote:
Are there problems with genetic modifying? Quite possibly there are.

It's not a question of 'possibly' - the problems are serious and well known.

Dev wrote:
Does that mean that a socialist society would not investigate the possibilities? I'd like to hope not.

Of course not, but supporting the development of GM foods by large corporations in a capitalist society is a very different proposition - we are talking about an economic-scientific development led large by market forces - given the risks involved and questionable ethical record (*ahem*) of 'large market forces' - i.e. Monsanto loves the $tuff, the least we should do is remain critical:

article on monsanto wrote:
Over the 12,000 years that humans have been farming, a rich tradition of seed saving has developed. Men and women choose seeds from the plants that are best adapted to their own locale and trade them within the community, enhancing crop diversity and success rates. All this may change in the next four to five years. Monsanto Corporation has been working to consolidate the world seed market and is now poised to introduce new genetically engineered seeds that will produce only infertile seeds at the end of the farming cycle. Farmers will no longer be able to save seeds from year to year and will be forced to purchase new seeds from Monsanto each year.

I think especially so since there will no doubt be 'leftists' in favour of it because of this argument about 'solving world hunger' (a 'confidence trick'). Shifting the agriculture of 'developing countries' to crops genetically owned and designed by large corporations, or administered by an NGO that is funded by one - infertile seeds mind you - this not only reinforces 'dependence' over a very long period, potentially worsens food security in these regions, and of course reduces biodiversity in the regions.

tsi
Offline
Joined: 4-04-08
Apr 25 2010 09:54
Quote:
supporting the development of GM foods by large corporations in a capitalist society is a very different proposition

I didn't read anyone above as doing this.

I think it is perfectly sensible for communists to point out that the "problems with GMO food" are attributable to capitalism and not GMO food in principle. It is likewise sensible to distance this statement from anti-science hippie nonsense.

Quote:
The challenge we face is a world where technological developments and science are wedded inextricably to corporate and state interests (the people with power and money), whilst business comission research for future profit, governments may pursue it to further social control or another state interest

It is true that science and technology will be linked to the imperatives of capital for as long as capitalism survives. If there is any value for a communist perspective on any of this it is in critiquing this relationship, not denouncing individual products of science in the service of capital.

Jenre
Offline
Joined: 16-05-07
Apr 25 2010 10:12
tsi wrote:
It is true that science and technology will be linked to the imperatives of capital for as long as capitalism survives. If there is any value for a communist perspective on any of this it is in critiquing this relationship, not denouncing individual products of science in the service of capital.

indeed

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Apr 25 2010 11:24
circle A-K wrote:
Dev wrote:
Does that mean that a socialist society would not investigate the possibilities? I'd like to hope not.

Of course not, but supporting the development of GM foods by large corporations in a capitalist society is a very different proposition - we are talking about an economic-scientific development led large by market forces - given the risks involved and questionable ethical record (*ahem*) of 'large market forces' - i.e. Monsanto loves the $tuff, the least we should do is remain critical:

article on monsanto wrote:
Over the 12,000 years that humans have been farming, a rich tradition of seed saving has developed. Men and women choose seeds from the plants that are best adapted to their own locale and trade them within the community, enhancing crop diversity and success rates. All this may change in the next four to five years. Monsanto Corporation has been working to consolidate the world seed market and is now poised to introduce new genetically engineered seeds that will produce only infertile seeds at the end of the farming cycle. Farmers will no longer be able to save seeds from year to year and will be forced to purchase new seeds from Monsanto each year.

I think especially so since there will no doubt be 'leftists' in favour of it because of this argument about 'solving world hunger' (a 'confidence trick'). Shifting the agriculture of 'developing countries' to crops genetically owned and designed by large corporations, or administered by an NGO that is funded by one - infertile seeds mind you - this not only reinforces 'dependence' over a very long period, potentially worsens food security in these regions, and of course reduces biodiversity in the regions.

I can see your point here. What I was trying to say is that there is nothing inherently wrong with the idea of genetically modifying food. I also objected to the idea that somebody stating this would be physically attacked.

Of course the prime motivation behind this technology is not to 'solve world hunger', but to make money. That is the nature of capitalism. Nor do I think that Monsanto will use it in anyway to benefit the peasantry. I take it as a given that they will use it to make money from the peasantry and try to screw them as much as possible.

The 'infertile seeds' trick is up their with things such as companies producing with built in obsolescence, which is why for example Gillette owns the patent to the diamond filament razor blade, and you won't be seeing it in your shops soon.

Is it damaging the environment? Quite probably.

Is it the only thing doing it? Certainly not.

Is it the largest thing doing it? Personally I doubt it. There are a lot of bad things going on out there.

So it is bad for the environment and the peasantry are getting screwed. What makes this issue special. Many things, for example gold mining, have the same effects, but we don't see people going on about that all the time, do we?

Devrim

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Apr 25 2010 17:06
GerryK wrote:
I am currently translating (from French) a text which has some references to GMOs; I shall post parts of it soon. In France, where I live, if someone who said he or she was an anarchist or socialist came out with such nonsense as JRCash he or she would risk being physically attacked. I say "he or she" but I suspect it's a "he": there are relatively few women who are stuck in this kind of abstract rubbish.

So are you going to force GerryK to eat some chicken?

Seriously I think you are overreacting to JR's post and the idea that anyone would be attacked for suggesting the use of GMO is sadly true (but only in the rarest of cases and generally by people who call themselves anarchists and socialists but have no interest in actual communism) but that you would endorse that is also idiotic. Of course we suspect organisations under capitalism because they are capitalist organisations. This does not mean that I think after the revolution we won't have toothpaste, or red meat or or fly kites or any number of activities that currently exist. I also think that violence should be reserved for people that we actually are oppose to ideologically rather than people we disagree with. For a clique to threaten one person from deviating from the 'party line' is pathetic and insular.

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Apr 25 2010 17:26

http://noticias.universogay.com/gays-de-bolivia-exigen-a-evo-morales-rectifique-su-declaracion__24042010.html

Bolivian LGBTs demand that Morales withdraws his statement.

capricorn
Offline
Joined: 3-05-07
Apr 26 2010 05:48
GerryK wrote:
This is the first time I have posted here, and I am not entirely familiar with the etiquette of posts - flaming etc. - but I have to say that I find JRCash's post completely fucked.

Is he in the pay of Monsanto or the nuclear lobby?

I am currently translating (from French) a text which has some references to GMOs; I shall post parts of it soon. In France, where I live, if someone who said he or she was an anarchist or socialist came out with such nonsense as JRCash he or she would risk being physically attacked. I say "he or she" but I suspect it's a "he": there are relatively few women who are stuck in this kind of abstract rubbish.

My apologies for being so critical on my first post on libcom, but JRCash has really made me sick.

Quel con !

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Apr 26 2010 13:04
JRCash wrote:
There is considerable evidence for example that organic food offers no nutritional benefit over non organic food. It is the quality of the food that matters not if it is organic or not.

This claim begs more questions than it answers; if one does an experiment comparing 2 vegetable patches, one organic and one not, and compares nutritional content at first harvest - then one might simplisticly conclude as 'Cash' does above. If one takes into account that organic farming replenishes the nutrition of the soil, while non-organic tends to progressively deplete it by increasing use of artificial fertiliser/pesticides (and GM crops often only produce with this increased chemical input) - then ones gets a very different long-term nutritional outcome. Add to that dangers of chemical residues in food, soil, leeching into wildlife, water supplies and aquatic food sources - all of which routes its way back into a cocktail for human consumption. Add declining yields of GM crops as experienced by many farmers left with depleted soil and ever-increasing dependency on expensive chemicals and seed supplies. Add the decline/loss of bio-diversity and its long-term adaptation to local conditions and farming techniques. Add the recent drastic decline in global bee populations (bees being an essential pollinating element of food production), linked to pesticides.

The fear of GM is partly of irreversible changes to the biosphere with unknown consequences; eg, traditional modification of plant breeds have not included inserting animal genes into fruit & veg. It is also a recognition that less profitable and safer alternatives will be ignored in favour of GM agri-biz.

Quote:
Any future socialist society will undoubtedly need to leverage the benefits of science and technology in order to better feed and provide for people.

There is no reason to suggest that we as a society can't over come any problems associated with GM foods.

That depends on what long-term, possibly irreversible problems they may or may not cause and the degree of care taken in their use. Their interbreeding with other varieties increases this risk.

Quote:
For too long anarchism has been seen as being akin to hippies when it comes to science and advancing human development.

"We as a society" - and "human development" as some ahistorical asocial category - in a society that is at present a class society; where the ruling class determine and monopolise research/development and will happily trash the planet and working class environments/living conditions in pursuit of profit - and where naive people talk about science as some impartial progressive development for the great classless social "we".

Quote:
We should be embracing new technology and science and attempting to take it beyond the limits of capitalist development.

Your concept of this "we" is woolier than your 'green hippy' stereotype. To "embrace new technology and science" such as GM now is to embrace the social relations it emerges from and that determine how it will be (mis)applied.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Nyarlathotep
Offline
Joined: 26-04-10
Apr 26 2010 18:38
JR Cash wrote:
Often the first reaction is typical anti-scientific hippy nonsense that sees any attempt by humans to alter so called natural processes as inherently wrong and dangerous.

Ignoring your lame "hippy" ad hominem, it's interesting to point out that you are creating a quite beautiful strawman by claiming that anyone opposed to a specific attempt by a specific group of humans (namely the international bourgeoisie) to alter so-called natural processes for a specific reason (the refinement of commodity production at the expense of ecological safety) as dangerous is someone who "sees any attempt by humans to alter so called natural processes as inherently wrong and dangerous."

I guess by that logic if I am opposed to the clear-cutting of old growth forest, dumping synthetic chemicals and human waste into the ocean, the contamination of the eco-system with radioactive waste, (which can have a half-life of millions of years) and so forth, than I must also be opposed to horticulture, animal husbandry, irrigation, and so forth. (This is very convenient for reactionary opportunists such as John Zerzan who want to co-opt legitimate criticisms of capitalist valorization to support their psychotic, misanthropic stone age New-Age-fascist reaction...)

Quote:
However if GM food could offer greater harvests of food for the same amount of human effort then it should be something worth considering.

Yes, but to consider something we must also consider its disadvantages, not ignore them. The disadvantages to GM food includes the harmful effects of consumption (under capitalism the working-class tends to consume the most GM food for obvious reasons) as well as the effects that the GM plants have on the ecology. (Which effects the well-being of humanity for obvious reasons)

Communism unlike capitalism is not constantly trying to maximize production to the detriment of human health and the ecology. The point of communism is to abolish commodity production.

Quote:
There is considerable evidence for example that organic food offers no nutritional benefit over non organic food. It is the quality of the food that matters not if it is organic or not.

Actually there is considerable evidence that synthetic chemical pesticides are poisons that the bourgeoisie are contaminating the bodies of the international working-class with....

Quote:
Any future socialist society will undoubtedly need to leverage the benefits of science and technology in order to better feed and provide for people.

Again, another strawmen, if anyone disagrees with you on this specific issue they are opposed to "technology" and "science"...might as well be a Christian who says anyone who disagrees with you worships Satan.

Quote:
Indeed the same can be said of nuclear power. A safe and well managed nuclear power program could have its place along side renewable energy in providing the energy supplies that people need.

Consider that most of these "needs" are produced by bourgeois society, like any other commodity...using capitalist energy-extraction technology in cases of genuine necessity is acceptable, however communism is a new and different society which puts the needs of the entire community before bourgeois "convenience"...all forms of industrial energy-extraction, within the context of alienated labor and commodity production, are equally detrimental to the ecology, which includes humanity...you are brainwashed by the "alternative energy" bourgeoisie into thinking fossil fuels are uniquely evil.

Quote:
For too long anarchism has been seen as being akin to hippies when it comes to science and advancing human development. We should be embracing new technology and science and attempting to take it beyond the limits of capitalist development.

The basic principles of science and technology don't drastically change overnight. There is no such thing as "new technology and science", only new ways for the bourgeoisie to discipline the working class. (Pardon me if I'm not cheering on the bourgeois-technocratic conquest of the genetic microcosm ) But then again you'll just call anyone who disagrees with you a "hippie"....

Nyarlathotep's picture
Nyarlathotep
Offline
Joined: 26-04-10
Apr 26 2010 18:36
LeftResistance wrote:
Posted this on facebook, and a trot replied;

"He didn't actually say that. It's a right-wing media bullshit beat up to distract from the climate summit. What he actually said was

"El pollo que comemos está cargado de hormonas femeninas. Por eso, cuando los hombres comen esos pollos, tienen desviaciones en su ser como hombres"

Roughly translated, that is:

"The chicken we eat is full of female hormones. So when men eat those chickens, they have deviations in their manhood."

The comment was in the context of western ecological destruction and environmental damage, and Morales was talking about the effect of hormone-filled factory chicken on men, effects which appear to include growing breasts, low sperm counts, sexual disfunction, etc., etc.

Nothing at all to do with homosexuality."

I don't speak spanish, but it makes sense.

I am not going to question the detrimental effects of synthetic animal hormones on the human health, this is an obvious example of how the capitalist mode of production maims and poisons the toiling majority.

However, it is very telling that a Trotskyite would be quick to defend Morales. Accusing homosexuals, "effeminate" men, hermaphrodites/transfolk, etc. of being the social products of environmental contamination is a textbook fascist line. This proves that Morales like Chavez is nothing more than a social-fascist, and the fact that Leninists in the Anglosphere support the political regimes these men serve as figureheads is a perfect illustration of how Leninism as an ideology perpetuates bourgeois class-rule.