You know the old story about the two women ranting at one another from their respective doorsteps on opposite sides of a narrow street. And a passing wit ((You can continue to think it was Dr Johnson; I check someone else’s sources.)) remarked: “They will never agree, for they argue from different premises”. That’s how I feel about almost everything and everyone involved in almost every kind of discussion of genetic engineering.
Watch, if you will, this extract from a longer discussion with Michael Pollan, foodsayer extraordinaire.
Now, tell me, what exactly did he say that might cause someone else to say
I’m thinking he is just another tool. Now he suddenly supports “open source” genetic engineering…absolutely not….playing god/artifically manipulating DNA is not our place.
What’s with the “scare quotes”? How does a self-described seed breeder manage to elide playing god with artificially manipulating DNA?
I’m reminded of another quote, this one definitely attributable to Woody Allen. It runs something like this ((And stap me if I can’t find a source.))
The great advantage of being smart is that you can always act like an imbecile, while the reverse is never possible.
Hell yeah.
I’m personally impressed by Michael Pollan’s ability to evolve his opinions of agriculture over time. He started out knowing nothing, became relatively dogmatic for a time, and now is expanding his views as he expands his knowledge. I went through a similar transition (not that I’m comparing myself to Pollan at all) when I went from nothing to embracing technology in conventional farming to where I am now. Pollan recently said (in a Times editorial, I think) that feeding the world will take all sorts of farming from small integrated farms to monocultured grains. How else could we do it than with diversity both of crops and of farms?
Anyway, I wonder if Pollan has read Tomorrow’s Table. It had a huge effect on my understanding of agriculture, convincing me that more biological methods are needed as an alternative to chemicals. I’m hoping that proponents of organic farming will read it and conclude that some traits developed with genetic engineering may have a place in organic farming.
Pamela Ronald, one of the authors of Tomorrow’s Table, has developed flood tolerant rice. The gene is patented, but no restrictions are placed on its use in breeding or farming. To me, this is the sort of open source gene technology that will be most valuable in the developing world. The rice lines that were eventually released are actually bred, not genetically engineered, but the idea holds true.
In another question/response he also said:
“Well, when I think about the future I imagine a time where there will not be 1 agriculture system. Where there will be more than one. On a 50 year horizon I don’t see industrial agriculture vanishing. And I’m not even so sure that would be a good thing, for it to vanish. I think, you know, coming up with one solution is another form of monoculture thinking. And that we would make a mistake to throw all our eggs in one basket, whether it was pastured beef or organic agriculture or any number of different things. We need a resilient system, which is to say with many many different ways of doing the same thing.”
I’ve been irritating people all over the web with that :)
You can see the whole talk now–The Long Now has made their videos all public.
Pollan’s: http://www.longnow.org/seminars/02009/may/05/deep-agriculture/
Pam Ronald and Raoul Admachak: http://www.longnow.org/seminars/02009/jul/28/organically-grown-genetically-engineered-food-future/
I sure hope he has read Tomorrow’s Table, after all, he did write a blurb for the back page of the book!
I think when he talks about GE not increasing yield, he is referring to the UCS report, which actually contradicts this point and indicates that Bt corn has in fact increased yield. One of the many reasons why I hope to interview Pollan on this and other issues.
Although it seems that his opinion has changed somewhat in the past few years, he still doesn’t give the kind of effort into doing his research like he does his other topics. Still, he has the URL for Biofortified, so maybe that will change… :)
I forgot to mention – just to chow how far Pollan’s opinion of genetic engineering has come in the last 8 years, in 2001 he referred to Golden Rice as “The world’s first purely rhetorical technology.” In 2004, he told the Sierra Club in an interview, “I don’t think in ten years we’ll be talking about GMOs. I can easily see the industry withering away.” Five years later, his endorsement of open-source genetic engineering, and genetic engineering for sustainable agriculture could be the beginnings of a dramatic turn-around.
Stewart Brand is talking about that GMO turn-around for enviros in general, too. His talk at The Long Now was just on Friday so there’s no video yet–but he’s launching his new book this week and seems certain that GMOs will be turning the corner to acceptability.
http://www.longnow.org/seminars/02009/oct/09/rethinking-green/
The mp3 is up in the downloads section, but I want the images/slides too.
I’m dreaming of a day in December when I’m in the Bay Area and can swing through both Sausalito and Berkeley for back-to-back interviews. Thanks for the link to Stewart Brand!
You are right, Karl! I totally forgot that Pollan did a blurb for the book.
Mary, that is the exact Pollan quote I was thinking of. Thanks for finding the source!
I think “monoculture thinking” is really an effective description of the discussion blockage. And it seems to take the monoculture thinkers aback, at least temporarily :)