--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If you think the blindness of millions of kids is > worth stopping some > > unspecified and very small risk that genetically > engineered rice might > > in some way harm someone, then you're into a > morally insupportable > > position. > > You're still doing it. Their judgement and evidence > may be shaky, but > they could honestly believe that there is a serious > risk of much of the > human race dying in the future. > > It seems to me the rant about people honestly > disagreeing only applies > when people disagree with YOU, not when you disagree > with people. > > Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
Look Erik, this isn't actually that hard. Yes, you should generally give people you disagree with the benefit of the doubt. But not all disagreements are worthy of respect. It was possible (for example) to honestly disagree on Iraq. It is possible right now to honestly disagree on any number of other issues. But on golden rice you've got: Definite blindess of millions of children vs. Very small risk of unspecified future harm
And the vast majority of the environmental movement chose option 1.
On DDT you've got: Death of millions due to malaria vs. Virtually no risk of environmental damage
And the whole world (at the behest of the environmental movement) chose option 1.
You can _honestly believe_ that option 1 was the right thing to do in both cases. But if you _honestly believe_ that, then you do so because you _honestly think_ that the blindness or death of millions isn't as important as very, very small risks of unspecified future harm. And that's morally unacceptable. I _don't care_ what their motivations are. It's like Debbi saying that she finds people starving to death abhorrent. I'm sure that she does. I'm sure that most (although not all) people in the environmental movement do. That _doesn't matter_. What matters - what has moral weight - is what you choose. And if you choose such things when the options are so clear cut, that is, very simply, wrong.
Just because not all issues have a moral and an immoral side to be on doesn't mean that _no_ issues do. It just means that some do and some do not. Iraq (for example) was unclear. Even there, though, claiming that you opposed the war for the sake of the people of Iraq was morally questionable at best. But in the case of saving millions of people from starvation, or blindness, or death from malaria, then the question does have moral weight.
And, as Gautam points out in his earlier posts, the millions of kids who will go blind and the millions of people who will die are mostly poor and non-white, and environmentalists are of necessity from rich countries because the people who the aforementioned policies will directly affect are frequently too poor to have time for such activities, as they are just barely eking out a living, and, while I don't have any figures showing a breakdown of environmentalists
by ethnic heritage, the majority of the ones I see making statements like those or protesting are white.
Forget The Other Forty-Nine. One Simple Thing You Can Do To Save The Earth: Leave Maru
-- Ronn! :)
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
