1. The Prakash Road Show - Robert Anderson
2. Re: ngin: Tories on the crop trials - Ingo
1. The Prakash Road Show
The Livingstone Sharma exchange should be of particular interest to us.
Dr Prakash is a very smooth operator. Eager to give the impression of the altruistic, albeit messenger of reason from the scientific world, he is very careful to always maintain a healthy distance from his ‘hired hit-men..’ And so he should, while being chauffeured round the world in the “US limo machine” as their GE ambassador he is cautious to maintain the support and comfort of his ride. Letting the world see him as a reasonable if not somewhat obsequious scientist allows him to conveniently overlook the artificially-induced hunger and malnutrition of his fellow humans. I am sure he is well aware of the mountains of rice inaccessible to the poor of India.
The comment that Dr Prakash’s replies, “are always courteous, that he is not responsible either for the content of the material he circulates or the character of those with whom he collaborates” belies the truth. To quote Mark Anthony in that well-known speech, “For Brutus is an honourable man” and he fully intends to keep it that way.
As for the prominent display and editorial skills of Dr Prakash, they serve only to illustrate that he and supporters are vulnerable in defending a dishonest science and cause. As Orwell said, “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” Could they perhaps feel defeat is in the wind?
It is to Devinder’s credit that he recognises the ‘pitbull’ approach of Prakash’s entourage and offers in exchange the gentle and wise council so characteristic of a land that has been the womb of spirituality and wisdom since time immemorial. Bharat has much to offer the Western world besides lessons in sustainability.
Dr Livingstone, on the other hand, epitomises the growing number of scientists who have become, if not completely disconnected from the moral imperative, certainly myopic in their outlook of biotechnology. As for his comments on pornography, this is a perfect application, it seems to me, of the old saying that those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.
It is also rather extraordinary that the fury and sparks fly, not from the much-maligned rag and tag army of so called eco-terrorists, but those so smitten with the idea of “looking after humanity’s needs.” The more perceptive the criticism the more angry they get.
As for the WTO, if Dr Livingstone is unaware of the immoral nature of its manipulation of the levers of power, then he shows an astonishing political naiveté. There is none so blind as those who do not wish to see. The immoral modus operandi of the WTO is legend. Its free market ideology of profit before human need should give grave concerns to all.
I recommend Dr Livingstone read Professor Chossudovsky, “The IMF and World Bank” whose answer to, ‘how do we fight’ this was, “Not with a single-issue movement. We can’t focus solely on ”¦WTO, or environmental issues or genetic engineering; we have to look at the totality of relations. When we look at the totality we see the link to the use of force.”
It is this autocracy of oppression and force which is increasingly being used at government level, governments that have become increasingly arrogant and contemptuous of its public and scientists not toeing the party line.
It is a moral, not an economic or scientific, crisis which faces our world today. Life creates economies for living, but we are creating an economy for making money at life’s expense.
Dr Robert Anderson Member Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Genetics www.psrg.org.nz
2. Re: ngin: Tories on the crop trials
Sent: Saturday, 2 June 2001 23:18
Subject: ngin: Devinder Sharma, CS Prakash and Malcolm Livingstone
I will try to be nice, but when Tories come out with promises like that, when they were the initiators of the current biotech investment madness, it sounds like pigs flying past.
It is admirable that they want the trials near to organic farms scrapped, but they are not rejecting the trials per se and therefore don't address the consumer choice we are going to loose, they are not addressing the WTO regulations they have signed up to, nor are they addressing the arrogance shown by past conservative agricutural ministers when it comes to the subject of GMO's and EU regulations.
Truth is, all major parties, bar the Green Party, have voted in current EU regulations during the late 80's and early 1990's, most of it written by the biotech industry itself. Those liberal excesses of multinational control, plus megabucks lobbying budgets and loads of pressure, espoused to by the Lib Dems and the Conservatives alike have opened all the doors in Europe for 'novel foods', they made sure that normal food regulations did not get applied to GMO novel foods, otherwise we would have seen far more scrutiny of the scientific R&D, and we would have seen the ethical and moral debate progress in paralell with burgeoning biotech, not limping behind as it is currently happening.
There is no party in Britain that is proposing a clear message on biotech and its dangers except the Green Party, but don't take my word for it, look at what FoE and Greenpeace have to say about respective manifestos. FoE's report on the party manifesto's against a set of indicators scored the GP manifesto (42 out of 50) , as much as Con .and New Labour put together, with the Lib Dems scoring second.
I have not seen any Greenpeace report as yet but I am sure they will want to say something on political will to stop GMO's, drilling for oil, vivisection, and much much more.
Although most of the important issues were not discussed/debated during this election campaign, they are still out there, real and worth voting on, far more than some of the issues presented by the grey party spindoctors.
As for tactical voting: I don't advocate it, because you'll end up voting for a candidate that is not your real choice, only to keep one party out in favour of another party. This is ludicrous and frustrating to voters, because that will mean that whatever they vote, it is not to their benefit, but to that of a party who advocates tactical voting to get one over on their marginal rivals.
There is already a chance to spoil one's vote, with a verse by all means, and it will be counted and, most importantly, seen by all political parties who will have to 'inspect unvalid votes', so if people don't want to vote for one or the other party and want to spoil their vote, rather than vote progressive green, they can do so, they could even organise on the internet and coordinate their 'spoiler message', should they so wish, for example 'PR for Britain now!' could be appropriate, or 'no to GMO merchants' or ' eat more organic food'. the list is long. That’s why tactical voting, in our opinion, is PANTS.
But, what ever you do on the 7 June, do VOTE