Sanet Post, Patricia Dines, November 18, 1996

Interesting conversation here, good to know the points of view. The ag companies make a tempting argument for their engineering (necessary to feed the hungry), but I don't think it stands up to scrutiny (does being able to spray more Roundup really dent world hunger? ), nor handles the huge risk to our survival from tinkering with our global food supply with so little understanding (let alone respect) for what makes the whole inter-related thing work. I bet the tale looks a lot different when they talk to the shareholders. Given their past actions, it's hard to see them as Mother Theresa, only out to save the world. Their history shows acting in their own self-interest/profits and disdaining those who say they're harmed (ex. re: Risk Assessment allowing a "few" people to be killed). If they want to save the world, why not start by not poisoning it and us...?

And I find their argument a little creepy too, the more I think about it. Underneath, it seems to me that the ag corporations are claiming that if only we'll let them own and tinker with nature, they'll make sure we're all fed - or the trains run on time - or something like that... As long as we buy nature (and the toxins to "manage" it) from them. Isn't that a little different from the spiritual image of receiving and honoring the overflowing divine bounty from G-d/Spirit? Doesn't it sound a bit like Icarus and hubris, to think we could be g-ds? Or a father figure government, where we trade our freedom and sovereignty for the promise of being fed (including our right to nature's free seeds) - and then when we're not fed, we have no power to protest. Pretty creepy....

P. Dines