>
> >The fear of unintended consequences expresses itself in the

precautionary principle. This is where you dream up all the terrible
> scenarios of a proposed action, and become so paralyzed you don't do
> anything.


I'm in agreement Pete!  What we all need to keep in mind is that on a
planet with finite resources, the human population is increasing at the
rate of 200,000 people every single day.  That means that nearly everything
related to agriculture and the environment is going to continue to change.

So we can wring our hands and blindly fight the adoption of new
technologies, or we can intelligently make ourselves aware of potential
problems (including unintended consequences) of those technologies, and
then regulate them appropriately.  We unfortunately can't trust those with
financial interest to do so, so we must depend upon objective independent
researchers and our regulatory agencies (which unfortunately are under the
influence of political pressure).

I do not see any way that farmers are going to completely give up
pesticides, nor that plant breeders are going to ignore the potential of
precision breeding.  Thus, it is up to us to educate ourselves on these
technologies, rather than futilely fighting them across the board.

What has bothered me on the List of late, is that if one posts factual
corrections to a previous post, one is then labeled as a "booster" for
whatever subject was being discussed.  Some of us are simply trying to keep
the discussion factually truthful and honest.

A poorly-designed or interpreted study should be called out as junk, no
matter which way its conclusions went.  And well-performed studies should
be disseminated.

I'm well aware of how pesticides can adversely affect my bees and other
wildlife.  And I'm very aware of how gene editing could be used for
bioterrorism (this does scare me).  But no amount of anti-whatever protests
are going to prevent some nefarious person from using poisons or
biologicals for ill intent.  Better that we acknowledge that things change,
and that we attempt to foresee how things could go wrong, and be prepared
for the inevitable.

A good analogy might be the popular "All Forest Fires are Bad" movement,
promoted by using charismatic Smokey the Bear.  As a result of suppressing
all forest fires, we in California are now living in a tinderbox just
waiting to burst into searing-hot fires far hotter than would occur had we
allowed nature to simply take its course.  Although the fight to suppress
all forest fires was done with the best intent, we now see that we'd be
much better off if we had instead learned to use fire as an important tool
in land management (as the Native Americans) did for centuries.

In my own life, I'm far more of a Luddite than a booster for high tech.
But I do use cutting edge solar and engine technology, the internet, and a
chainsaw rather than a handsaw to cut firewood.  Technology will continue
to evolve.  It is up to us to choose and adopt the best new developments,
and to be restrictive of those in which the risks outweigh the benefits.

-- 
Randy Oliver
Grass Valley, CA
www.ScientificBeekeeping.com

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html