Wildlife Gardeners - North American Wildlife Gardening

Wildlife Gardeners - North American Wildlife Gardening (http://www.wildlifegardeners.org/forum/wildlife-gardeners.php)
-   North American News and Current Events (http://www.wildlifegardeners.org/forum/north-american-news-current-events/)
-   -   "The GM genocide" (http://www.wildlifegardeners.org/forum/north-american-news-current-events/8265-gm-genocide.html)

Calliandra 02-20-2011 02:20 AM

"The GM genocide"
 
From a few years ago, but I still thought the article was worth sharing.

The Daily Mail UK, 3/11/08:

The GM genocide: Thousands of Indian farmers are committing suicide after using genetically modified crops | Mail Online

Quote:

Beguiled by the promise of future riches, he borrowed money in order to buy the GM seeds. But when the harvests failed, he was left with spiralling debts - and no income.
So Shankara became one of an estimated 125,000 farmers to take their own life as a result of the ruthless drive to use India as a testing ground for genetically modified crops.
Quote:

When crops failed in the past, farmers could still save seeds and replant them the following year.

But with GM seeds they cannot do this. That's because GM seeds contain so- called 'terminator technology', meaning that they have been genetically modified so that the resulting crops do not produce viable seeds of their own.

As a result, farmers have to buy new seeds each year at the same punitive prices. For some, that means the difference between life and death.

benj1 02-20-2011 06:35 AM

A recipe for tragedy: greed, over-population and drought.

Gloria 02-20-2011 11:35 AM

As usual the GM seed sellers disclaim responsibility for the climate,debt, and culture behind these crop failures and subsequent suicides.

The following link has a lot of good info.

India Together: Agriculture - news articles, reports, opinions and analysis - Homepage

Sage 02-20-2011 12:33 PM

Yesterday, a pro-GM guest just laughed off the NPR host's factual statements and the GM community clearly takes NO responsibility for anything. This is going to be a tough nut to crack.

maricybele 02-20-2011 02:04 PM

This issue has bothered me for some time. It proves that GMO is not sustainable. When a farmer selects best plants for seed saving, those seed should grow into plants best suited for the microclimate. Poor farmers can't survive on buying more seed if a crop fails.

The same thing is going on in the United States with some of the new laws being passed for "food safety". Monopolys on food supply, food processing, and seed are dangerous. Those laws don't help the small farmer.

suunto 02-22-2011 01:48 PM

Some news on the GM crop front that actually sounds promising, from Genetic engineering brings cloned crops closer : Nature News -

“Genetic engineering brings cloned crops closer. Seeds genetically identical to parent plant could revolutionize agriculture.”

"By combining mutations that abolish the shuffling of genes during sexual reproduction, researchers have found a way to force sexually reproducing plants to clone themselves through seeds."

The key here is that it "...could allow farmers to propagate their own crops, rather than buying seed each year. It would also speed up the time it takes for companies to generate new plant breeds."

benj1 02-22-2011 08:26 PM

Don't we depend on genetic diversity to limit exposure to disease?

suunto 02-22-2011 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by benj1 (Post 88167)
Don't we depend on genetic diversity to limit exposure to disease?

Indeed. It would be foolhardy to overlook that fact; hopefully, the proponents of this cloning procedure would take that into account and plan accordingly.

philip 02-22-2011 09:17 PM

Just so this place is not an echo chamber... here goes.

1) this is the Daily Mail we are talking about here. The Mail is the epitome of scumbag journolism. I know this looks like a weak argument to start off with; but the Daily Mail is really the lowest of the worst of the scummy bottom feeding journalism out there. Everything you read in the Mail can be safely ignored more or less.

2) It's clearly scandalous that farmers are being sold crops that are not going to be able to be grown the following year assuming they have not been told this. I do not know if this is the case or not, but ethically this would be reprehensible. It's also very bad business. I know about these terminator genes, they are something people have spent large amounts of time on.
BUT, they do not mean that GM crops are unsustainable. It means that Terminator genes in crops that are sold to people who cannot pay for them the following season are not sustainable. Or, if the company goes out of business and cannot provide more seed they are not sustainable.

Note, they bought these crops for a reason. Presumably they bought them because they were in some way expected to be better than the other crops (again whether they actually were is another matter).

Also, note that the terminator stuff is an add on to an existing modification that improves some aspect of the crop. It is not an integral part of it. If the company had no buyers the next season, then they may want to review their business, and possibly remove this gene allowing the growers to harvest viable seed.

Finally, the whole GM is bad thing. GM is not bad. It's simply silly to say this. Everything on the planet, throughout the history of time is genetically modified from something else. Genetics are modified every single time sexual reproduction happens. Very pointed GMs occurred when the Egyptians etc picked the best looking grain and planted only that. Labs are now using computers to look for genes with certain traits, and trying to splice these genes into genomes.
Big deal. It's genetics. It's all genetics.
Trust in evolution, trust evolution works, and has been working for as long as time has existed. Life on this planet is brutally good at doing what it does, it's genomes are not fragile things. If there is a real pressure that exists, trust evolution has seen it, and adapted to it.
The pressures we are putting on these genomes now (better crops etc) do not matter in the grand scheme of things. They only matter to us. They will only go wild and not vanish if there is a pressure that continues to exist, which it almost certainly wont.

Calliandra 02-22-2011 11:08 PM

Yikes, didn't mean to bring in something from an disreputable paper-- I just followed links through, and didn't double-check the source. My apologies to everyone, and lesson learned.

I am still curious about the terminator gene, though.

It seems like such a two-edged sword. On one hand, it reduces the chance of release into the wild (for example, if any of the bt crops were to escape, it could have unintended effects on butterflies). On the other hand, it prevents farmers from saving seed, so it creates economic hardship.

How do they grow the seed?

What if pollen from a terminator-gene crop inadvertently pollinates a non-terminator-gene field?

suunto 02-23-2011 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philip (Post 88174)
this is the Daily Mail we are talking about here. The Mail is the epitome of scumbag journolism. I know this looks like a weak argument to start off with; but the Daily Mail is really the lowest of the worst of the scummy bottom feeding journalism out there. Everything you read in the Mail can be safely ignored more or less.

You might then find this British-made video clip entertaining, at least...

The Daily Mail appears to have more in common with the National Enquirer than with more mainstream media such as The Daily Telegraph, the Guardian or The Times (of London).

benj1 02-23-2011 07:18 AM

Good find, suunto.

And thanks to Philip for his enlightenment.

jack 02-23-2011 08:44 AM

GM seeds and Europe - Daily Telegraph
 
"Previously the EU had a ‘zero tolerance’ policy to unauthorised GM. Shipments found to contain any trace of GM that was not yet approved in Europe were turned back at the port.

However in a significant victory for the GM lobby member states voted to allow imports containing up to 0.1 per cent of unauthorised seed, Europe imported 33 million tonnes of soy last year, mostly approved GM varieties for animal feed.

If the vote is allowed through by the European Parliament and Council, which is likely, those shipments could contain GM seeds that are authorised in a “third country” but may not even have been tested in Europe.

Dr Helen Wallace of Genewatch said some of the unauthorised seeds have been bred to have certain traits for industry that may be inappropriate in the food chain."

Unauthorised GM crops could be allowed in British food chain for the first time after EU vote - Telegraph

philip 02-23-2011 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by suunto (Post 88178)
You might then find this British-made video clip entertaining, at least...
YouTube - The Daily Mail Song

The Daily Mail appears to have more in common with the National Enquirer than with more mainstream media such as The Daily Telegraph, the Guardian or The Times (of London).

Heh. Nice one Suunto.

Yeah, you'd be best off leaving out the Daily Mail alright. Just for the record, a while back The Times was bought by our friend Rupert Murdoch. I would be fairly careful about what's written in that subsequent to this purchase. I personally would take the Independent over the Telegraph, if I was buying an English paper. The Guardian is very good though, true enough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calliandra (Post 88176)
Yikes, didn't mean to bring in something from an disreputable paper-- I just followed links through, and didn't double-check the source. My apologies to everyone, and lesson learned.

I am still curious about the terminator gene, though.

It seems like such a two-edged sword. On one hand, it reduces the chance of release into the wild (for example, if any of the bt crops were to escape, it could have unintended effects on butterflies). On the other hand, it prevents farmers from saving seed, so it creates economic hardship.

How do they grow the seed?

What if pollen from a terminator-gene crop inadvertently pollinates a non-terminator-gene field?

Basically all you have to do to make a Terminator strain is to remove the ability for the next generation to be viable. In reality there are lots of ways to break viability, so I suppose Terminator Gene is a little misleading (implying that there is some single thing added to the genome that results in death).

The whole point of it (again, not that I am defending or otherwise these companies) is they want to protect their technology from being "stolen" from them. They feel they have spent a few thousand PhD hours on making rice grow in slightly salty environments (for example) and they need to make this investment back somehow.

My point is, it's an application of genetic modification.

It's a bit like saying computers are bad because they are used in missiles. Yes, they are used in missiles, but they are also used for other things. Computers are not bad per se, however they can be used to do a lot of things.

Genomics / GM / genetic engineering is nothing more than science ever was. It's an application of knowledge. Science is not something to fear (that's what bank executives are for), it's a tool.

Regarding the question of what happens if they get into the wild, they presumably die. They are missing vital information that is needed for viability in the next generation, without which they cannot survive. Therefor they vanish.

All organisms that do not have this cross are fine. Life goes on, evolution by natural selection works.

Regarding animals that live on these plants, I would imagine they would not be effected either way by whether the plant can reproduce properly. Do you care if the tomatoes you eat are sterile or not? Can you tell?


Just... an aside, I hope I am not seeming to be obnoxious in my tone here. I suppose I work (ed) in this area for a while, and I maybe feel like I need to push my point a little.
I mean no offense *at all*.

benj1 02-24-2011 07:24 AM

Philip, the best decisions are made by hearing and considering all viewpoints. I thank you for your input.

TheLorax 02-24-2011 10:25 AM

Quote:

The whole point of it (again, not that I am defending or otherwise these companies) is they want to protect their technology from being "stolen" from them.
At what expense have we allowed the protection of multinational corporate profits? The patenting of life is so very wrong for so very many reasons.

MichaelCrichton.com | Patenting Life
Quote:

You, or someone you love, may die because of a gene patent that should never have been granted in the first place. Sound far-fetched? Unfortunately, it's only too real.
Gene patents are now used to halt research, prevent medical testing, and keep vital information from you and your doctor. Gene patents slow the pace of medical advance on deadly diseases. And they raise costs exorbitantly: a test for breast cancer that could be done for $1,000 now costs $3,000.
Why? Because the holder of the gene patent can charge whatever he wants, and does. Couldn't somebody make a cheaper test? Sure, but the patent holder blocks any competitor's test. He owns the gene. Nobody else can test for it. In fact, you can't even donate your own breast cancer gene to another scientist without permission. The gene may exist in your body, but it's now private property.
This bizarre situation has come to pass because of a mistake by an underfinanced and understaffed government agency. The United States Patent Office misinterpreted previous Supreme Court rulings and some years ago began—to the surprise of everyone, including scientists decoding the genome—to issue patents on genes.
Diamond v. Chakrabarty has resulted in monopolies exploiting the entire human race. Bioprospecting is now internationally sanctioned.

The patenting of life was not necessary for scientists to do meaningful research.

Gloria 02-24-2011 01:56 PM

Something interesting to read.
Assessing Benefits and Risks of Genetically Modified Organisms | Genetics Society of America

Quote:

From the viewpoint of geneticists, reduction in genetic diversity of crop plants, for whatever reason, can increase the risk of invasion by a single virulent pathogen. Solutions to the problem of loss of genetic diversity, which are not unique to GMOs, are quite distinct from the possible solutions for organisms believed to pose a direct threat to us or to the environment. There is nothing about GMOs, per se, that limits the genetic diversity of food crops, and it is possible that heirloom strains could be revived with this technology.
Quote:

It is important, however, to keep in mind that it is not the method of introducing foreign genes by molecular techniques per se that is likely to make a given GMO different from anything that might have appeared or has appeared naturally, but the nature of the specific change that is made. Therefore, a scientifically valid evaluation of risks (and benefits) needs to be tailored to the specific plant and/or product that is under consideration; the properties of one GMO are unlikely to be shared by another. Much of the concern by scientists about labeling reflects the emphasis that has been placed on every GMO, that is, on the method of construction per se, an issue which is not scientifically supportable. Labeling to indicate significant changes in the composition of the final product, independent of the method of construction, would be a scientifically valid approach to this issue, and indeed is currently required by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Gloria 02-24-2011 03:09 PM

Philip, I am trying hard to understand this whole separating the method of gene introduction, from the nature of the individual change.
You are telling us that what we are doing isn't the problem , the problem is what that might cause to happen after any given change.

Gloria 02-24-2011 05:43 PM

Currently working my way through...I,m determined to understand this better.

Genetic Diversity editors Springer,Mahoney 2009 Nova Science Publishers 2008


Environmental Microbiology Edited Mitchell,Ji-Dong Gu 2010

Molecular Approaches In Natural Resources Conservation and Management 2010

Evolutionary Conservation Genetics Jacob Hoglund 2009

Speciations And Patterns Of Diversity 2009

philip 02-27-2011 12:47 AM

Hey,

I had a hectic week in work, I wanted to respond carefully so I put it off.

I am just going to walk through the points made, and offer viewpoints (I just want to be clear though, not all of these view points are held by me, but I do understand the point to some extent I suppose).

Patenting of life.
So, again, I would say the phrasing it this way is slightly inflammatory. Generally what is being referred to is patenting of the use of an allele for some specific application. (Aside : from what I understand of patent law (not a huge amount) you don't patent technologies, you patent applications of technologies.)

And, at first glance this does seem bizarre. How can somebody patent something that is part of me???

Well, this is not new. The drug industry has patented chemicals ~identical to chemicals in our body for a long time.

This does not make it right, but it is not a new concept fundamentally.

The rights and wrongs of it are not black and white. We live in a Democratic, Capitalistic society. We exchange money for services. Companies must make profits
or they will cease to exist. If you want to use the tools presented to you by the understanding of bits of the genome, you need to pay for these tools to be understood somehow.
Patent law exists to allow this to happen. It allows companies pay for the salaries of armies of people to sort through data and test hypotheses. This is not a surprise.

Clearly extortion is never a good thing, but if the spirit of the law is implemented in the way it was framed it's not guaranteed that this will happen. It's easy to say corporations are evil, and to rail against this idea. But they are an outcome of capitalism. In reality not all corps are evil though.

I would be very wary of the likes of Crichton (who in reality doesn't know a huge amount about this sort of thing) defining your viewpoint. It is not as simple as he is portraying it.
The patenting of genes is definitely not necessary for science, but it is one way to go about it.
Again, to be pedantic, they are not patenting life, they are patenting an application of a technology, the technology in question being a piece of chromosome.

Also, If jurisprudence works, and abuse is found, the law can be changed. The law is generally there to protect people, not harm them.

Gloria, I suppose I am generally thinking about changes that are known as "integrated" into the genome. That is they are actually inserted into the c'some, along with some class of control elements. How they get integrated is interesting, but I am thinking about the end result, ie a new stretch of data in the c'some. Once a change is integrated, then it becomes heritable. Once it becomes heritable, then it can become wild.

This is (I think) the part that people worry about, or maybe should worry about.

What I am saying is, change has occurred for a long time in our genomes. How these changes occur does not bother me, there are a lot of ways. But saying some changes are bad, and some are OK because of how they got there seems silly to me.

Just a little aside; there is a thing called horizontal gene transfer. It's widely used in the bacterial world. Genes cut themselves out of the genome, duplicate themselves, and go through a little tube into another organism, and re-integrate themselves in that organisms genome.
Think about that. The gene simply copies itself over into another genome of another organism. This has happened for a very long time.
If anything sounds potentially disastrous, that does.

Yet, here we all are, alive and well.

Take another example, look at say any human viral genome. They regularly copy big chunks of their our genomes into their own. Why would anything want to rob our genes?
What use is it for a virus?
Well, what they use them for are for example to make molecules that change the behviour of the host's immune system to allow them to replicate better.
Imagine this, this is the most crackpot 9/11 conspirators wildest dream. The system that is meant to keep us alive, our immune system, is being cloned dropped into another genome, and used by foreign organisms to imitate and subvert its original function.

My point is, genes are moving about place at a phenomenal rate. They are jumping around the place, and doing all kinds of crazy things.
BUT, we are doing fine. And the reason we are doing fine is because we have the incalculable pressure of natural selection driving genomes to be very resiliant. It's always been doing this, brutally efficiently, and it's not about to stop.

I am not saying that we just throw caution to the wind and start to party, but I am saying that genomes are not fragile things just about to explode.

jack 02-27-2011 08:38 AM

Directive from Biological Earthling Police
 
Program Philip,

You have been identified as an alien computerized robot designed to lower the guard of Homo Sapiens whilst your parent species (identity still unknown but suspected to be called Monsantians) proceeds to usurp from our evolutionary heritage valuable genetic information and claim it for themselves.

You are under inter-galactic, biological alert arrest. Further directions will be transmitted at a later date. In the meantime, clandestinely fabricated argumentative assertions will be outlawed from your programming. Even if you attempt to counter this order through disregard or contempt, the arguments you make will be found to be senseless and counterproductive.

Thank you for your attention.

Biological Earthling Police

philip 02-27-2011 10:14 AM

Oh man.

What gave it away?

To be honest, this human suit was causing my scales to get a bit rashy, and these new immigration laws are making human babies thin on the ground so I'm absolutely starving.

BTW I just got word that there are some spare cabins on the mother ship. If any of you guys need a lift, let me know. Note; I am not going to guarantee that there wont be probing involved.

suunto 03-01-2011 08:17 AM

Thanks very much for your post #20, Philip - a little enlightenment always helps, as we tend to fear most that which we do not understand.

philip 03-01-2011 08:50 PM

Thanks suunto.

I thought maybe I had broken the cardinal rule of forums; Keep it short, stupid.

Like I said, I personally am in a grey area when it comes to this sort of thing. But I don't like weasel words, incitement of paranoia and so on.

The great thing about this group is: they are happy to listen to the likes of me, to the likes of someone that is not going to just echo their opinion and confirm what they know.
I am certainly not as open minded as I could be, and have a tendency (present in all of us maybe) to try to confirm what I "know" and discount conflicting viewpoints.

Gloria 03-01-2011 11:10 PM

Whatever else is said I can not lose sight of the fact that many GMOS are created so that more herbicides may be used, lessen diversity within species, add more toxins within plant tissue and divise ways to ensure patent laws are strengthened.
This does not sound like a formula for food safety or security.
What I have seen so far does not suggest this technology is without risk . I say that caution is advisable and that funding for outside testing should be a requisite not hendered by patent law.

sprucetree 03-02-2011 12:58 AM

Probably most of gardeners here would never pay the higher prices for the GM seed, And don't spray round-up on their veggies either, We all know Pesticides can be pretty indiscriminate in what insects it kills so we are careful with them too. Lets look at the legumes,, Most are nitrogen fixers and would benefit from inoculation. Where the real damage is done is when acres and acres are planted with GM seed that can tolerate Round-up. Years ago[Pre1999] most acres in agriculture had a fair amount of Milkweed and after a decade of spraying this tough perennial has nearly been extradited along with many other prairie weeds like sun choke which is a bumble bee favorite. Maybe the Monarch's can survive by what little milkweed grows in the ditches but most is mowed before the caterpillars mature.

Calliandra 03-02-2011 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gloria (Post 88602)
Whatever else is said I can not lose sight of the fact that many GMOS are created so that more herbicides may be used


From Lords of the Harvest (Charles, 2002, Amazon.com: Lords Of The Harvest: Biotech, Big Money, And The Future Of Food (9780738207735): Dan Charles: Books ):

"The Bt gene in both cases eliminated substantial spraying of insecticides. ... Commercial growers of sweet corn normally spray their fields with insectides five or six times during a growing season. Bt sweet corn, by contrast, requires only one spraying."

Roundup-ready products may reduce the variety and toxicity of herbicides sprayed.

I'm not a fan, but I don't think GMOs necessarily increase pesticide use.

Calliandra 03-02-2011 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philip (Post 88585)
Thanks suunto.

I thought maybe I had broken the cardinal rule of forums; Keep it short, stupid.

Like I said, I personally am in a grey area when it comes to this sort of thing. But I don't like weasel words, incitement of paranoia and so on.

The great thing about this group is: they are happy to listen to the likes of me, to the likes of someone that is not going to just echo their opinion and confirm what they know.
I am certainly not as open minded as I could be, and have a tendency (present in all of us maybe) to try to confirm what I "know" and discount conflicting viewpoints.

I'm glad you're here, Philip. :)

I feel a little guilty for starting this thread, truly. I wanted to think about technology, and how sometimes it's helpful and sometimes it's not. I do think that the farmers at the start of the thread were put in a horrid economic bind... and that it was unwise of our multinationals to get involved... and that wisdom all around is something that we all can use more of.

GMO technology has the potential to do much good, but can also cause harm. I'm worried that the companies involved are not thinking through all the downsides.

I guess I am okay with GMO "tweaks" (analogous to what can be achieved via selective breeding) but am leery of larger changes. It's like in computer coding-- if you have a program that works, only make judicious mods, and keep your original source code in a safe directory. And don't ever create anything that goes viral.

jack 03-02-2011 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calliandra (Post 88625)
I'm glad you're here, Philip. :)

I feel a little guilty for starting this thread, truly. I wanted to think about technology, and how sometimes it's helpful and sometimes it's not. I do think that the farmers at the start of the thread were put in a horrid economic bind... and that it was unwise of our multinationals to get involved... and that wisdom all around is something that we all can use more of.

GMO technology has the potential to do much good, but can also cause harm. I'm worried that the companies involved are not thinking through all the downsides.

I guess I am okay with GMO "tweaks" (analogous to what can be achieved via selective breeding) but am leery of larger changes. It's like in computer coding-- if you have a program that works, only make judicious mods, and keep your original source code in a safe directory. And don't ever create anything that goes viral.

Calliandra, please be assured that the introduction of the post was desired,needed, and fascinating. This is the issue of the day, and if not addressed by a group like our own that purports to be looking for the answers to wildlife gardening and the health of the biological world, than who would be interested in addressing it?

My earlier post was meant to add a bit of levity while communicating my disagreement with any such tinkering with an environment we still barely understand, especially by those whose primary aim is corporate, and hence personal, profit.

I'm much too cynical to believe that any of these companies are interested in the health of others when investing in such research.

Gloria 03-02-2011 08:16 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/energy-environment/04weed.html


Quote:

Just as the heavy use of antibiotics contributed to the rise of drug-resistant supergerms, American farmers’ near-ubiquitous use of the weedkiller Roundup has led to the rapid growth of tenacious new superweeds
Quote:

To fight them, Mr. Anderson and farmers throughout the East, Midwest and South are being forced to spray fields with more toxic herbicides, pull weeds by hand and return to more labor-intensive methods like regular plowing
The superweeds could temper American agriculture’s enthusiasm for some genetically modified crops. Soybeans, corn and cotton that are engineered to survive spraying with Roundup have become standard in American fields. However, if Roundup doesn’t kill the weeds, farmers have little incentive to spend the extra money for the special seeds.
This is a good thread Calliandra. Philip's help in understanding is very welcome.
I have nothing against science or all large corporations (Haliburton and Monsanto excepted). I just think everyone should try to understand enough about what is being done to be able to make some evaluation of risk versus benefit; to keep the decisions from being made completely by those whose perspective may not include our own concerns.

philip 03-03-2011 09:25 PM

I completely agree with pretty much all of what G and C are saying above...
And again, I am not any big time expert, I was invited over to do some work in a University here, and I was at it for less than 6 years. So, I know a little bit, but would be the first to point out that I get plenty of things wrong.

Re the farmers getting up to their eyeballs in debt, I had been looking at this sort of thing for a while. Very sad so it is. It's not just seed also, it's machinery, gas, chemicals and a year of back breaking work can literally get washed away.


Really I just want to make the point that, like a lot of things, it's a complicated issue.

I almost feel like it's a developmental stage that one goes through, the realization that you are very fallible in a lot of ways. It's so easy to come to a conclusion and never question it.

Growing up I clearly remember a point when I realized that the fact that there were foreign soldiers driving armored vehicles about and pointing guns at people was not quite as simple as it seems. My entire life till that point I am looking at the people with their funny accents in my country. What on earth are they doing there? Have they ever seen a map? Why are you in my country? Why do you even want to be here? It was baffling.

Then one day we were going across the border, we had our headlights turned off, and the interior lights on as we drove into the concrete maze checkpoint. As we inched through, I look out at a soldier standing in the dark, and a blinding flash of understanding hit me. I realized that those soldiers were just terrified kids from London or something, who didn't want to be there, who were in fact bravely protecting other Irish people. They were protecting us, against ourselves, while trying to cope with being bombed, shot at, shelled, mortared and who knows what else. The rights and wrongs of it could be debated, but everything turned into a lot of shades of grey.

This 180 degree turn in opinion was so shocking, and so sudden I think it affected my whole life. Very few things are as simple as they seem. All of us need to be on the constant lookout for corruption and wrong doing and greed, but we also need to able to see other things too.

BooBooBearBecky 03-04-2011 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jack (Post 88629)
Calliandra, please be assured that the introduction of the post was desired,needed, and fascinating. This is the issue of the day, and if not addressed by a group like our own that purports to be looking for the answers to wildlife gardening and the health of the biological world, than who would be interested in addressing it?

I agree Jack!

This is a very informative thread.....sort of like a respectcful debate with all sides being presented along with opinions and facts.

I'm getting a good education on this topic with all the detailed explanations and examples posted here.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:30 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2