 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the future, when you head for the Golden Arches of McDonald's, you won't have to fear munching French fries made of any genetically modified potatoes. The premier American food ambassador to the world has knuckled under to the demands of the latest branch sprouting from the rotten tree of the eco-fascists: the bio-Luddites.
Descendants of the original Luddites who smashed the labor-saving machinery that heralded the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, the new bio-Luddites seek to halt research into and application of genetic engineering. They are uninterested in science, reason, or facts. These enemies of progress prefer, instead, to cower behind a mask of fear. They do not attempt to persuade their opponents through rational argumentation. Relying instead on appeals to emotion and ignorance, the bio-Luddites hope to stampede a credulous public and publicity-shy corporations into acceding to their wishes.
McDonald's capitulation to the shrill cries of the bio-Luddites is, perhaps, unsurprising. A number of years ago, other eco-fascists criticized the company for using Styrofoam containers for its food products. Never mind that the Styrofoam was actually more efficient than paper wrappers. Never mind that McDonald's had already planned to recycle the Styrofoam. Never mind the bizarre spectacle of so-called "environmentalists" on the one hand insisting on the use of greater supplies of paper goods (and the trees from which they come) while on the other hand decrying any business practice that harvests more of those same trees.
Such a disconnect is hardly new when examining the behavior of the eco-fascists. It is clearly and exasperatingly evident in this latest controversy, as well.
Eco-fascists delight in crying wolf. Whether bemoaning the coming ice age or the coming heat wave; wailing about chlorofluorocarbons used in our refrigerants while accusing capitalists of exploiting Third World peoples (who can ill-afford the CFC substitutes); or screeching about global warming but ignoring the benefits of longer growing seasons and warmer winter nights, these enemies of humankind reveal their true goal.
Though the average citizen (rightfully) wants clean air and water and to prevent pollution (which is not identical to "wastes"), the ecological extremists' ultimate purpose is not a livable environment. Their holy grail is power. Control over other people -- their lives, their property, their jobs -- lies at the heart of the bio-Luddites' agenda. The thin veneer of concern they voice for the well-being of others covers a nasty core of viciousness and Dark Age irrationality.
As other writers have pointed out, these closet-statists are, in reality, Watermelons: Green on the outside, Red in the middle.
The farmers in my home state of Iowa are among the largest producers of corn, soybeans, beef, and pork in the world. If purchasers of their products such as Quaker Oats refuse to buy their harvests of grain because of intimidation by the bio-Luddites, many of those small businessmen may soon be out of business.
Even if the farmers manage to hang on economically by their fingertips, if they are forced to give up genetically engineered seeds and return to older varieties, the negative consequences would be ones the bio-Luddites should oppose.
Seeds engineered to resist diseases and insects produce crops that require lesser amounts of herbicides and pesticides to achieve good harvests. Reversion to a reliance on "natural" seeds would lead to heavier doses of the "artificial" chemicals railed against by the eco-fascists. This would increase the likelihood of chemical run-off into streams and water supplies.
Far, far worse would be a total switch to "organic" farming. The harvests from such fields are inferior to modern techniques. Thus, to obtain the same supplies of grains would require the plowing under of much more of the land the eco-fascists so frantically tell us they want to preserve. Converting more marginal land to farmland would eventuate even lower harvests leading to greater expansion of land devoted to agricultural production. Plus, much of this less-than-optimal land must be irrigated and fertilized. Such actions would strain water supplies to an even greater extent and mean an expansion of and dependence on those "evil chemicals" we are told are destroying us and our children.
The ultimate result of moving into "harmony with the land" would be to condemn billions of human beings to death by starvation. Of course, some eco-fascists would -- in their own words -- view that eventuality as a positive development...
Genetic engineering offers the promise of increased food supplies; the development of new sources of medicines; a more benign and efficient husbandry of our natural resources, both land and water; less pollution; improved lifestyles for billions of people -- especially poor people -- around the globe; and increased wealth for the producers of our food in an increasingly competitive market.
One would think that the Jeremy Rifkins of the world would applaud such advancements. After all, the bio-Luddites have begged us to move towards those very end results for longer than we care to remember.
So why are our home-grown bio-Luddites haranguing McDonald's? Why are their kin in Europe pushing for personal boycotts of and governmentally imposed barriers to American genetically engineered agricultural goods?
If you answered, "From a deeply abiding love of freedom and a truly generous desire for the well-being of individual people," I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
As I explained in "The Resurrection of Lysenko," (published in Laissez Faire City Times), science has been and is being corrupted towards political ends. If genetically modified plants and animals truly represent the dire danger alleged by the bio-Luddites, then it is incumbent upon them to show us the evidence. If eating such food is slowly killing us, produce the supporting facts. If the costs of such practices outweigh the benefits, give us the studies that prove that case.
Pondering unlikely "what ifs" can be intellectually stimulating; can be amusing; can sometimes even provide real insights.
But arbitrarily asserted "what ifs" are no basis for curtailing freedom and crafting political policies.
Scare-mongering may motivate people to accept one's position. Such tactics, however, devoid of a foundation in reality sink to the level of the basest propaganda. That so many otherwise reasonable people are repeatedly taken in by the lies and half-truths of the eco-fascists says far too much about the precarious nature of our rights and our liberty. Over the past century and especially in the last four decades, the government and the state-run educational prisons they run have successfully stultified and numbed the critical faculties of their youthful victims.
The bio-Luddites succeeded in squelching the widespread acceptance and use of irradiated food. Though such products are safer for consumers and generate less waste due to their longer shelf-lives, they are hardly common fare in our local grocery stores.
Before it is too late, the agricultural community must mount their own corrective publicity campaign. Too long have the bio-Luddites dominated the public relations field. The food producers of this country need to take a cue from the plastics industry.
The makers of our water bottles and plastic bags were favorite whipping-boys of earlier eco-fascists. In recent years, however, the American public has had an opportunity to consider what life would be like should plastics disappear from their lives. Creative commercials tout the benefits of plastics in protecting our food from pests and decay; in preventing accidents and injuries that might occur from glass containers; and in saving lives -- via everything from bullet-proof vests to medical devices -- and energy as containers continue to decrease in weight for shipping by trucks and trains.
Genetic engineering is in its infancy. If the bio-Luddites win these early rounds and create momentum for additional restrictions, the loss in progress, improved living standards, and longer lifespans will be incalculable. Scientists have barely tapped into the potential for directly treating human diseases and deformities by correcting errors in our genetic codes. Preventing them from pursuing their research and stopping the technologists from utilizing those findings in as yet undreamed of applications will be a defeat not only for us materially but for our freedom, as well.
