I think that the once noble environmental movement is going mad. Human hunger is a terrible scourge, and genetically altered wheat and other agricultural products could help substantially alleviate much human misery. But radical environmentalists loathe such experiments and try to stifle them in any way they can–whatever the cost in human suffering.
I don’t mind when they throw legal impediments in the way of such potential progress. Well, I do, but as they say, we still live in free countries (for now). But I do mind when radical environmentalists presume the right to act lawlessly and destroy work by scientists designed to feed a hungry world–such as the crime by Green Peace criminals who destroyed a genetically altered wheat experiment and bragged about it. From the Telegraph story:
ARMED with whipper-snippers and wearing Hazmat protective suits, Greenpeace activists destroyed an experimental crop of genetically modified wheat yesterday. The environmental group claims plans to test feed the GM wheat to humans have been kept secret. It also claims the CSIRO was inappropriately working with multinational companies to promote GM crops. In the pre-dawn raid the protesters scaled the fence at the CSIRO experimental station at Ginninderra, in Canberra’s north, and have claimed they destroyed the entire half-a-hectare crop.
Last month the CSIRO was given government permission to conduct Australia’s first human feeding trials on the wheat. “The wheat has already been fed to mice and pigs and among other things the results of those tests will determine if human trials begin,” he said. The wheat’s genes have been modified to lower the glycemic index and increase fibre to create a product that will improve bowel health and increase nutritional value, he said.
Law enforcement and media treat these crimes as relatively minor. But the cost of such lawlessness could be paid by hungry people in nutritionally deficient areas of the world.
We face a moral crisis in the West of anti humanity and blatant disregard for the rule of law. Radical environmentalists are at the front of the pack.
July 18th, 2011 | 11:37 am
I do not approve of “lawlessness” but I do think sometimes radical, non-lawful actions are necessary.
I am highly, highly opposed to the way that genetically modified foods have been forced on the world in the way that they have.
Especially when you stop to consider that, not only are these organisms modified, they are invasive and transform the crops of surrounding areas just by blowing into them. The businesses that have filed patents (!) on their gmo foods have successfully sued to gain proprietary rights over seeds and crops where the wind, or animals, have spread the gmo stuff into other farmer’s lands.
Do I think that this is a case that demands radical action? Absolutely. Destroying food for hungry people? I have to admit that I am on the fence. These crops could do far more harm than good, and might be a profit-driven (as opposed to a humanitarian-driven) solution that makes it possible to skip all of the other, more difficult-but-less-dangerous solutions that would be better for the world.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
July 18th, 2011 at 12:26 pm
Only as a last resort. And this isn’t a last resort. And even then, you engage in true civil disobedience and take the punishment for the crime. This is just vandalism and eco criminality.
July 18th, 2011 | 11:47 am
Also, interestingly, your picture refers to the breeding of fungus-resistant strains of wheat, which is a time-honored agricultural practice for combatting pests and pestilence. Your radical environmentalists, for all their faults, have the sense to accept this kind of thing. What they are objecting to is something entirely different.
*IN FACT, those gmo grops destroyed are being created in laboratories — rather than through responsible breeding — and are being tested in secret. Further, their existence THREATENS the very projects like the breeding one mentioned above, as their dna can contaminate everything it comes in contact with. In fact, combatting rust fungus and other destructive crop-killers demands the existence of biological diversity in crops…and companies like Monsanto, with their profit-driven gmo projects, are endangering biodiversity of food crops workldwide.
This is truly a social justice issue, Wesley, and it might be interesting to you to look into the history of Monsanto and its dealings with the public, especially the farmers who are attempting to feed their families and those of others.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
July 18th, 2011 at 12:25 pm
holyterror: I know about Monsanto. Ralph Nader and I wrote against their attempt to impose BGH on people by preventing labeling. But radical Greens object to any genetic engineering of agriculture and want it all restricted to selective breeding. That would, for example, mean no yellow rice that can provide vitamins and prevent rickets, it would prevent the creation of fungus resistant wheat other than through selective breeding, and this lawlessness is unacceptable. If Greens can do this, why can’t pro lifers, gay marriage advocates, animal rights radicals, etc? Sue, yes. Destroy? No. Or we are doomed to chaos.
holyterror Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 8:51 am
@Wesley J. Smith, I didn’t mean to sound condescending in what I wrote, Wesley. I was in fact suprised to think that you were not aware of the terrible abuses of Monsanto. Of course you are!
Again, I am not saying that I am gung-ho for destruction of property. I think that peaceful civil disobedience is the way to go when one has to violate unjust laws.
What makes me sympathetic to actions like this is that those crops *are* an attack on worldwide agriculture. Just by being in existence, they threaten the future of biodiversity. And as they are, we have no idea if they are safe to consume or not. It’s like we are playing a russian roulette game with our world food supply.
Notice I say “sympathetic.” I am not saying that, in my radical mercenary little heart, I am sure I would go and do it.
But the fact is that I am privileged in that way: I am not being forced to decide. Those crops are not threatening my own crops; I do not live in a poverty-stricken nation in which these corporations are giving my people the poisonous choice of losing my land and my livelihood OR starving to death. Right now I personally only have to make the choice as to whether I can afford to attempt to avoid GMO foods by spending more money on higher-priced organic items. I also get to sit around at home and advocate between bouts of child-wrangling. Which involve enough food and shelter.
But if I had to choose, if I was forced to, I might pick destruction of property. AND ONLY because the existence of those crops is a direct attack on the agricultural life of my life as a farmer, a member of a struggling community, and of course, really, the world.
July 18th, 2011 | 1:48 pm
What is genetically unmodified wheat, pray tell? All cereal crops are “genetically modified” in some sense; if they weren’t they would be grass.
July 18th, 2011 | 3:22 pm
I tend to agree with your questions holyterror, living in the Great Lakes region it’s not fun, not fun at all when invasive animals and plants ravage your land and lakes, but Wesley is right. This is an issue of horticulture and impact on property and diets, not issues directly attacking basic human rights that such civil disobedience could be reasonably employed against. Genetically modified food may prove to be a waste of money and have a bad impact on health and nature, or it may prove to be worth every single cent of profit for increased food supplies and nutrition. Resolve it with moral debates, education and legislation, not mob thuggery.
July 18th, 2011 | 5:00 pm
I guess the starving people in Africa could always eat Greenpeace, but after the first few barbeques you’re all out of meat. And hey, some of those Greenpeace people probably carry disease, so not a good plan.
Animals and plants are much more efficient in the breeding and growing area, so we’d better stick with them.
HistoryWriter Reply:
July 18th, 2011 at 6:56 pm
@Maureen,
I care less about “the starving people in Africa” than I do about the potential disaster of introducing genetically modified agricultural products in the USA. That also goes for lacing farm animals with growth hormones and other chemicals to make them weigh more at market time. Are corporate overlords so intent on profits that they’re willing to risk the lives and health of millions? My hat’s off to the people who took it upon themselves to put an end to this “experiment” before it claimed any lives.
HW
July 18th, 2011 | 6:20 pm
A lot (but by no means all) of the opposition to GM foods seems to be, in my rather less than considered opinion, fuelled by misinformation and hysteria. I am however loath to tag Greenpeace with the “anti-human” label until I have listened to their side of the story:
July 19th, 2011 | 7:13 am
I care less about “the starving people in Africa” than I do about the potential disaster of introducing genetically modified agricultural products in the USA. That also goes for lacing farm animals with growth hormones and other chemicals to make them weigh more at market time. Are corporate overlords so intent on profits that they’re willing to risk the lives and health of millions?
If people – or “actors” as the term is – are playing according to the rules of the system, and yet their behavior comes out to something you find unacceptable, then the rules of the system are what need to be addressed.
Small-minded and stupid people will attack the actors, because it is easier and because it feels good, but this is counterproductive because it does not address the real problem – and in this case it makes the environmental movement look bad. “I don’t care about starving people in Africa, what I care about is ME and what I want!” can only sound noble if you agree that the end of the world is nigh and you forget that those are real live people who will die because of this action.
Which is what’s wrong with environmentalism in a nutshell: it’s a movement that isn’t so much about “saving the earth” as it is about trying to wrest control of resources. Environmentalists are people who are not happy that everyone gets to decide how to use their own resources, and that the only legitimate restrictions on this are laws duly enacted through rightful processes. Environmentalists want to control and micromanage all the resources. They persuade themselves that knowing what is right somehow justifies destroying or taking what isn’t theirs – including not only resources but power and control and decision-making.
The sad thing is, I’m with them on the dangers of using the world as an experimental laboratory. This is what comes from using “scientific method” assumptions instead of ethical assumptions – we act as if it’s perfectly safe to do experiments in real-time, in ways that could endanger entire populations (if not the entire planet), until and unless someone can prove that it isn’t safe. Welcome to Occam’s Razor.
So it’s sad that the environmentalists are doing this, because they are making it harder to find a real solution to a problem that is in fact a serious problem – the problem of “the commons”; one man’s right to experiment on his own land does not necessarily include the right to experiment in ways that will spill over onto neighboring lands. Nobody has the right to pollute, and since there’s more than adequate evidence to support the idea that GE crops pollute, the responsibility should be on those who want to use GE crops to keep their effects contained – the burden shouldn’t be on everyone else to protect themselves as best they can.
holyterror Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 8:53 am
@Blake, Ah, Blake. Nice job as usual, on the difference between the goodness of environmentalism and the lurking facism behind its desire to control the optimal outcome.
You can see we probably disagree on whether this behavior is justifiable.
HistoryWriter Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 9:18 am
@Blake,
“The tree of liberty must, from time to time, be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
Blake Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 7:03 am
@HistoryWriter,
“The tree of liberty must, from time to time, be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
That doesn’t make all acts of violence “just”.
In fact, there are already some guidelines in place to help us determine when a war is “just”, and how to conduct a “just war”.
What is possibly worse than that is that this is also bad tactics. Stupid-man strategy hurts the cause more than it helps.
July 19th, 2011 | 9:03 am
Wesley, I also wanted to answer your rhetorical question about whether it is ok for prolifers, etc. to do such things.
I was thinking about it the other day. And my answer is that radical disobedience of the law is only justified when real lives are being threatened in a demonstrable way. Action also has to be balanced with what is good, and just as well as what is useful, and what is appropriate to the scale of the injustice.
That is why it would be wrong for somebody to shoot an abortion doctor: because the action is contrary to the Good, specifically the prohibition against killing (except in direct defense of imminently threatened persons if you think in Just War terms). It is also inappropriate to violently destroy a laboratory where experiments on animals are taking place for many reasons including the fact that the action is useless because it doesn’t stop something that is unabashedly threatening, and will undoubtedly do no long-term good.
I remember when prolifers were blockading clinics by rushing the doors and chaining themselves there, going limp and “helpless as the fetus” when arrested by police officers. Then, and now, I sympathize with this action, although right now I would not do it. While not as physically destructive as the crop burnings, it did shut down clinics for a day or more and lose them money. It also saved the lives of many children whose mothers, according to statistics, never go back a second time if they had problems accomplishing an abortion on the first try.
I wonder if you think the comparison is apt?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 9:47 am
Those actions constituted civil disobedience. That is a legitimate method of public advocacy IF one takes the consequences, as the Operation Rescue types did. But if you sneak in and destroy others’ property and hide your identity, that isn’t CD. It is criminality.
holyterror Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 10:08 am
@Wesley J. Smith, That makes a lot of sense. I agree that hiding your identity is not part of civil disobedience.
July 20th, 2011 | 11:02 am
Thank you Greenpeace.
My Christ forgive us for EVER forcing these genetically modified crops on humanity.
They are not safe, enslave people, do not feed the hungry, and are out and out EVIL.
Do not call yourself a Catholic and write this drivel. Please. Do your research. GM crops are just about the worst thing humanity has seen.
Follow the money.
Jesus advocated destroying the temple. The temple of money, greed, and evil. This is EXACTLY the same thing.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 11:05 am
donna: I won’t call myself Catholic. Ever. I promise. And please, get a grip.
July 29th, 2011 | 9:12 am
[...] of genetically modified (GM) wheat earlier this month in Australia. They apparently decided that they have the right to act lawlessly and destroy work by scientists designed to feed a hungry world. Even The New York Times rebuked Greenpeace’s actions and argued that the GM wheat field [...]
July 30th, 2011 | 5:05 am
[...] of genetically modified (GM) wheat earlier this month in Australia. They apparently decided that they have the right to act lawlessly and destroy work by scientists designed to feed a hungry world. Even The New York Times rebuked Greenpeace’s actions and argued that the GM wheat field [...]
August 6th, 2011 | 11:38 am
[...] of genetically modified (GM) wheat earlier this month in Australia. They apparently decided that they have the right to act lawlessly and destroy work by scientists designed to feed a hungry world. Even The New York Times rebuked Greenpeace’s actions and argued that the GM wheat field [...]
August 7th, 2011 | 12:06 am
[...] of genetically modified (GM) wheat earlier this month in Australia. They apparently decided that they have the right to act lawlessly and destroy work by scientists designed to feed a hungry world. Even The New York Times rebuked Greenpeace’s actions and argued that the GM wheat field [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact