So much for taking a stand
Oct. 19th, 2012 22:48![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
torquillI just had an interesting cycle of events.
I was reading a political blog that suggested people are voting for the oligarchs out of resignation -- a sense that the rigged game is the only one in town -- because they can't see any other form of self-governance anymore. My thought was, the way to break out of that is to speak up for what you believe in, fight for it, and take your government and country back. Right?
So I set my horse at (admittedly) the biggest damned windmill out there: California's Prop 37, the GMO labeling law. I linked to an excellent, balanced analysis by Freakonomics (hardly a tool of industry, right?) that said that even if you support labeling, this law is badly flawed. I added that I, personally, am not in favor of labeling in the current climate, and that transgenic crops are not incompatible with organic and sustainable practices (I cited the aphid-repelling wheat developed by a university in England). There, I had put my position forward.
I got a reply from one of my online acquaintances that he wished he could discuss it, but it was obviously like spitting in the wind, so he'd have to settle for expressing violent disagreement. I said I respected that, I know emotions run high on this, and that I hoped that he had room for science and rational thought in his opinions. I went on to ask what he thought of the logistics of this law, philosophy aside.
He replied that the fact that I thought he couldn't incorporate science and rational thought in his opinion was proof of the futility of discussing it with me, and he was un-friending me. *blink*
I tried to apologize, and explained that I had simply been expressing the hope (and faith) that he was intelligent enough to be different, because so many other people out there seemed to be missing those important elements. I added that I can and do change my own opinion if offered some evidence that it needs to be reconsidered, and it saddens me that he thinks I'm so inflexible and lacking in empathy. Heaven only knows whether he'll actually see the reply, but I suspect that his mind is so closed toward me anyway that it might not make a difference. I am The Enemy, I'm Wrong, and there's no way to ever Convert me to the Light. sigh.
I told my mom about this, and added that I had done all of this inspired by the need to stand up for something... but that I'm not sure there's any point when it feels like the sides are so entrenched that I'm either preaching to the choir or branded as the devil. I just hope that maybe, if I show people enough moderate opinions with actual facts in them (offered by green activists, and eco-activists, and home-and-hearth groups, to soothe the tribal feathers) that some folks might read them, and become more informed, and think a little.
My mom suggested that I tell my story, that I have chemical sensitivity and food sensitivities and I *still* support GMOs... that I have reason not to accept the supposed brainwashing of the educational-industrial complex, and came to my opinions by my own process. I said that it wouldn't mean more to strangers who read me than the testimony of a pro-labeling activist. She thinks it would. I added that it would be too long a story for G+, and if I take it anywhere else (say, here) no one would read it. She conceded that. I simply don't have enough of an audience, all told.
And suddenly here I am, back at apathy and resignation. How can you change the world when you feel like no one's paying any attention?
They're all watching the rigged game and betting their future on whoever tells better lies. Maybe I'll give up and vote for Romney too.
A tidbit of less personal, but positive, news: A virus-resistant (transgenic) strain of cassava has been developed just in time to save that staple crop from what the BBC reported as an epidemic of Cassava Brown-Streak Disease sweeping across Africa. This is similar to making papayas resistant to Papaya Ringspot Virus in the mid-1990s. (Did you know that the vast majority of papayas grown in Hawaii are transgenic? Now you do.) It could save millions of Africans from famine, and the researchers want to pass on the technology to labs in Africa. Hopefully, by making the transformation process more transparent and accessible, they will avoid what happened with the GMO papaya strain. That was a bright spot in my day.
I was reading a political blog that suggested people are voting for the oligarchs out of resignation -- a sense that the rigged game is the only one in town -- because they can't see any other form of self-governance anymore. My thought was, the way to break out of that is to speak up for what you believe in, fight for it, and take your government and country back. Right?
So I set my horse at (admittedly) the biggest damned windmill out there: California's Prop 37, the GMO labeling law. I linked to an excellent, balanced analysis by Freakonomics (hardly a tool of industry, right?) that said that even if you support labeling, this law is badly flawed. I added that I, personally, am not in favor of labeling in the current climate, and that transgenic crops are not incompatible with organic and sustainable practices (I cited the aphid-repelling wheat developed by a university in England). There, I had put my position forward.
I got a reply from one of my online acquaintances that he wished he could discuss it, but it was obviously like spitting in the wind, so he'd have to settle for expressing violent disagreement. I said I respected that, I know emotions run high on this, and that I hoped that he had room for science and rational thought in his opinions. I went on to ask what he thought of the logistics of this law, philosophy aside.
He replied that the fact that I thought he couldn't incorporate science and rational thought in his opinion was proof of the futility of discussing it with me, and he was un-friending me. *blink*
I tried to apologize, and explained that I had simply been expressing the hope (and faith) that he was intelligent enough to be different, because so many other people out there seemed to be missing those important elements. I added that I can and do change my own opinion if offered some evidence that it needs to be reconsidered, and it saddens me that he thinks I'm so inflexible and lacking in empathy. Heaven only knows whether he'll actually see the reply, but I suspect that his mind is so closed toward me anyway that it might not make a difference. I am The Enemy, I'm Wrong, and there's no way to ever Convert me to the Light. sigh.
I told my mom about this, and added that I had done all of this inspired by the need to stand up for something... but that I'm not sure there's any point when it feels like the sides are so entrenched that I'm either preaching to the choir or branded as the devil. I just hope that maybe, if I show people enough moderate opinions with actual facts in them (offered by green activists, and eco-activists, and home-and-hearth groups, to soothe the tribal feathers) that some folks might read them, and become more informed, and think a little.
My mom suggested that I tell my story, that I have chemical sensitivity and food sensitivities and I *still* support GMOs... that I have reason not to accept the supposed brainwashing of the educational-industrial complex, and came to my opinions by my own process. I said that it wouldn't mean more to strangers who read me than the testimony of a pro-labeling activist. She thinks it would. I added that it would be too long a story for G+, and if I take it anywhere else (say, here) no one would read it. She conceded that. I simply don't have enough of an audience, all told.
And suddenly here I am, back at apathy and resignation. How can you change the world when you feel like no one's paying any attention?
They're all watching the rigged game and betting their future on whoever tells better lies. Maybe I'll give up and vote for Romney too.
A tidbit of less personal, but positive, news: A virus-resistant (transgenic) strain of cassava has been developed just in time to save that staple crop from what the BBC reported as an epidemic of Cassava Brown-Streak Disease sweeping across Africa. This is similar to making papayas resistant to Papaya Ringspot Virus in the mid-1990s. (Did you know that the vast majority of papayas grown in Hawaii are transgenic? Now you do.) It could save millions of Africans from famine, and the researchers want to pass on the technology to labs in Africa. Hopefully, by making the transformation process more transparent and accessible, they will avoid what happened with the GMO papaya strain. That was a bright spot in my day.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-10-20 06:56 (UTC)Also, I look at just exactly how much attention most people pay to Prop. 65 labels, and I see this going the same way. I feel a bit different about eating something with a pinch of xanthan gum than I do a basket of conventional corn chips.
no subject
Date: 2012-10-21 00:35 (UTC)You're spot-on with the Prop 65 analogy... apparently this would result in just about everything getting the label, which would kind of defeat the purpose. If you don't want GMOs now, you go for organic labeling; almost everything else has at least traces.
From a Dreamwidth comment of mine, here are a few links -- first, Freakonomics:
http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/06/22/how-california%E2%80%99s-gmo-labeling-law-could-limit-your-food-choices-and-hurt-the-poor/
The Sacramento Bee's brief take:
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/09/16/4822220/prop-37-is-a-sour-plan-for-food.html
I look at the current composition of commercial GMO crops (mostly Roundup-Ready stuff from Monsanto) and I share the public's hostility... but I can see beyond the current crops to ones developed in the past (like papaya) and future (crops to withstand floods and salty soils, to pull more fertilizer from the soil so there's less wasted in runoff, to scavenge toxins for remediation, to add nutritional value for poor countries, to withstand devastating diseases) and I think it would be such a waste if we were to cement that opposition with laws that reinforce the public view that all GMOs are equal and all of them are bad. We haven't seen even a fraction of their real potential yet.
I'm in the process of trying to gather well-regarded, solid toxicological studies on GMOs that show negative impacts on human (or rat) health, and so far all I've found are indications that Roundup residue is bad for us (which I knew). I will certainly post if I turn anything up, but the fact that I can't find any easily says something to me.
Thanks for your personal trust, thanks for keeping an open mind, and (whichever way you go) thanks for voting.
no subject
Date: 2012-10-21 02:14 (UTC)The one thing that I do worry about, and I think there is a reason for this, but I am willing to listen to arguments, is concern about genetic drift, and the inability to truly contain genetic material.
My biggest concerns that are grounded in verifiable facts are those about Round-Up residues in food, and about unethical business practices on the part of the large biotech companies, and this law does nothing to address those issues.
I also worry about the small farmer that is growing edamame from saved seed, which can't be certified GMO free, being labeled the same as Twinkies, which is a bit daft.