Brazzil

Folks, looks like things are really lost. Here in the state where I live, Paraná, the governor Roberto Requião is one guy supporting this kind of rethorics. His goal is to make Paranaguá Harbor free of GE crops, and the crowd goes wild for him, despite all of the nonsense of going against any free-market laws, which are also condemned here.

Put all of this in historic perspective, we can only think that all this huge text that the author has written should go straight towards a junk bin. I am not saying that GE crops are necessarily good. In fact, I don't know anything to state that right or wrong. But I can say that refrigerators are a good thing, as well as TV sets. Just you imagine if the american government tried to prohibite the manufacturing of refrigerators and declared the USA as an area where no refrigerators would be sold or made because some say that refrigerators cause cancer and that ice-breakers would lose their jobs, so refrigerators should be forbidden. The same for TV sets. Just imagine someone forbidding TV sets of being made because radio professionals and theather actors would lose their jobs, or because the blue light that emanates from the TV causes cancer (as really happened, with some different arguments, like bringind the world to inside is against God's laws, etc). Insane? Ridiculous? Absolutely right (well, if you think that we could live better without having progress, I can do nothing about it. That's your viewpoint. But defending that such measures will bring progress is nonsense, and goes against all laws of Economics)? In my opinion, that's pure nonsense.

After all, what's the point in preserving jobs in the countryside? What's the point in preserving jobs that can be done better by machines? Does that really cause unemployment? If so, why are the unemployment rates in the US so much lower than here? Progress has its price, and the price to be paid is to be flexible and to keep up to date with new technologies. In exchange, it creates several new jobs to maintain and make machines that will raise new demands, in addition to offering a quantity of products, and often in superior high quality, than ever imagined before. Also, it sets the people free to explore other more interesting areas to work, which don't cause so much harm to their bodies, nor causes them to be in risk of hunger when they lose their jobs or anything else, and they naturally can buy much more and better products, because the productivity has raisen. Which is the best? Losing your job as a highly specialized technician who can find another one similar not so much after, and resisting for more time because you could save more? Or being a peasant who, when a drought occurs, loses all the crops and has no perspective of earning something so soon?

To end, the flourishing of civilization occurred when there was no necessity for all human beings to work collecting food, what freed others to be soldiers, governors and writers like the author of this text. Freeing more people of harvesting food generated the mass of workers necessary for the industrialization. This guys wants to go the other way.

No, your lost.Just because something is new and improved, high tech whatever doesn't make it a good thing to have. You said yourself, you know nothing about the products in question. So, your ignorant on this subject, and your opinion is next to worthless on this matter.Get educated on the facts, then come back and make your case.

Yes, I know nothing on this subject. But perhaps I know something in Economics, which the author surely doesn't. And when he cited the economical effects, he slipped to an area which he doesn't know. If he had kept the subject just to the biosecurity field, I would certainly consider it and confront it against other sources. But no... like many other people who don't know anything on biosecurity and the likes, he pointed out political and economical problems which he doesn't really understand. The author should study Economics and History, and stop spreading marxist and other leftist theories already proven ineffective, before pointing anything on this subject.

I did not recognize even a line of concrect facts about the possibility of infection of other species, the danger to health, nothing. He just barely mentions someone who implies that it might, perhaps, have some effect on health, but that is not proven. And on this matter, a text written by a biologist would be much more useful than this text written by a tendencious and ignorant journalist.

I want to hear facts from specialists. Not marxist bulls**t. If some biologist proves scientifically that those grains are a terrible threat to health and that is verified by others, I agree that the kind of GE-grain in question should be immediately forbidden. That's not the case with this text.

"In fact, I don't know anything to state that right or wrong." Boy, you got that right! And that goes for your self-proclaimed knowledge of economics. What a crock of s**t, fella. Where's the so-called Marxist theory in the article? You are another know-nothing free market zealot who calls anyone who disagrees with your religion a Marxist or a Communist. Good Lord give it a rest.

No technical stuff. Just economical and political considerations. What's the point in prohibiting drugs if one of them harms health or causes unemployment among shamans? This text is nonsense.

hi