Basically, I'm sympathetic, the US press is generally full of sh*t about lots of things. But this case isn't really supportive of your conclusions. The fact(s) that "revengance" (sigh) disputes are easily testable and don't really require too much (possibly untrustworthy) external information to prove.
The fact is that the US has so many skeletons in its closet it makes Iraq look like Oral Roberts on Sunday morning.
Maybe if Oral Roberts gassed his own people (probably does). And I guess I forgot about that time 12 years ago when the US government murdered a couple of hundred people for peacefully protesting.
I'm not trying to say that the US doesn't occassionally kill people that annoy the government, and I'm certainly not trying to say we haven't committed some truly heinous acts (pretty much the entire history of US involvement in Latin America for example), but be realistic. The US can act morally superior to China because it is.
Argue with it all you want, but read a little about the Cultural Revolution first. If we were having this discussion in 1860, I'd temper my criticism, but we're not.
When there's that much capital to be had, you create the impression in people that they're intrinsically worth what they're being paid. This has lead to gross excesses and marginally talented people and offerings getting more than their due share and feeling like they are entitled to it. They're figuring out that they're not, and it was bound to happen.
On the other hand, slapping up 10 pictures you got from usenet isn't the same thing as creating daily content. Don't kid yourself into thinking that the "excellent adult sites" are de facto excellent web sites. Some porn sites which are truly excellent web sites might exist, but I've never seen/heard of one.
I agree (whatever that is worth) with your premise though - there's space for judiciously-run content-oriented websites.
I believe good science should be the ultimate goal of all societies. But...
This isn't good science, this is pandering to the cotton growers. We're not talking about clothing people, or feeding people, we're talking about putting extra money in the pockets of huge corporations. Forgive me if I don't see the "help" part of this one.
Releasing genetically engineered species into the environment at large is fundamentally different than the X-Ray research you point to. But that brings up another point - you're willing the trade the lives of many to make yourself (or your SO) more comfortable. That's not the attitude I want making these kind of decisions when their ramifications are global, rather than just effecting the small groups of people.
The problem is that no one can know what will happen when these species (plants especially) are released into the great wide world. Find someone who's allergic to StarLink Corn and ask them how they feel about help vs. hurt now that it's made it's way into much of our corn. Clearly, the major agribusiness companies could care less about letting you know what your eating or what they've done to it before it got to you. They lobbied hard to prevent the FDA from requiring labling on genetically modified foods because they "didn't want to confuse the consumers."
There are very few places in the world where lack of adequate food is due to lack of food production technology. The problems are more likely poltical and social instability. Don't make the mistake of thinking that any of this is to feed people who are going hungry or clothe people who are naked.
It's easy to say "that was a bad decision" *after* the fact
Know why? Because people are great at doing things before they adequately examine the possible outcomes. That's precisely what's going on here and the laboratory in which they're preforming the experiments is global, belongs to all of us, and is the only one we'll ever have.
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone is a liar. It's true.
Basically, I'm sympathetic, the US press is generally full of sh*t about lots of things. But this case isn't really supportive of your conclusions. The fact(s) that "revengance" (sigh) disputes are easily testable and don't really require too much (possibly untrustworthy) external information to prove.
The fact is that the US has so many skeletons in its closet it makes Iraq look like Oral Roberts on Sunday morning.
Maybe if Oral Roberts gassed his own people (probably does). And I guess I forgot about that time 12 years ago when the US government murdered a couple of hundred people for peacefully protesting.
I'm not trying to say that the US doesn't occassionally kill people that annoy the government, and I'm certainly not trying to say we haven't committed some truly heinous acts (pretty much the entire history of US involvement in Latin America for example), but be realistic. The US can act morally superior to China because it is.
Argue with it all you want, but read a little about the Cultural Revolution first. If we were having this discussion in 1860, I'd temper my criticism, but we're not.
When there's that much capital to be had, you create the impression in people that they're intrinsically worth what they're being paid. This has lead to gross excesses and marginally talented people and offerings getting more than their due share and feeling like they are entitled to it. They're figuring out that they're not, and it was bound to happen.
On the other hand, slapping up 10 pictures you got from usenet isn't the same thing as creating daily content. Don't kid yourself into thinking that the "excellent adult sites" are de facto excellent web sites. Some porn sites which are truly excellent web sites might exist, but I've never seen/heard of one.
I agree (whatever that is worth) with your premise though - there's space for judiciously-run content-oriented websites.
I believe good science should be the ultimate goal of all societies. But ...
This isn't good science, this is pandering to the cotton growers. We're not talking about clothing people, or feeding people, we're talking about putting extra money in the pockets of huge corporations. Forgive me if I don't see the "help" part of this one.
Releasing genetically engineered species into the environment at large is fundamentally different than the X-Ray research you point to. But that brings up another point - you're willing the trade the lives of many to make yourself (or your SO) more comfortable. That's not the attitude I want making these kind of decisions when their ramifications are global, rather than just effecting the small groups of people.
The problem is that no one can know what will happen when these species (plants especially) are released into the great wide world. Find someone who's allergic to StarLink Corn and ask them how they feel about help vs. hurt now that it's made it's way into much of our corn. Clearly, the major agribusiness companies could care less about letting you know what your eating or what they've done to it before it got to you. They lobbied hard to prevent the FDA from requiring labling on genetically modified foods because they "didn't want to confuse the consumers."
There are very few places in the world where lack of adequate food is due to lack of food production technology. The problems are more likely poltical and social instability. Don't make the mistake of thinking that any of this is to feed people who are going hungry or clothe people who are naked.
It's easy to say "that was a bad decision" *after* the fact
Know why? Because people are great at doing things before they adequately examine the possible outcomes. That's precisely what's going on here and the laboratory in which they're preforming the experiments is global, belongs to all of us, and is the only one we'll ever have.