My friend Dave mentioned, what I suspect many people who have seen my most recent facebook 'update thing' [JT is thinking that Prince Charles puts the c**t in countryside], may have been contemplating. And since i took the time to write him a fairly long winded letter about my motivation, I thought I might as well make it an open letter. So here it is, my first blog; if you are particularly unfortunate, I may even write some more, when sufficiently riled:
Hi Dave
lots of people do [like Prince Charles and agree with his scientifically illiterate views on Genetic Improvement], and lots of people think he talks sense. Which is why I decided, with much fore thought to make such a striking - and, I agree, offensive - sentence.
Personally, he angered me to the point of literal wall thumping.
I've never been a fan, but in his recent diatribe against genetic modification our not-so-bonny chump Charlie is merely demonstrating anew his ignorance.
The yields from organics being what they are, they couldn't sustain even a fraction of the earth's present population; but we need to produce enough food for the future and a massively growing humankind. Yes, it would undoubtedly be better if that population weren't expanding so much, but there isn't a lot we can do about that. Unless perhaps we return to Jonathan Swift’s ingenious solution of the poor eating their own offspring.
Without the green revolution, which HRH says was only a short term solution - but is still currently all we have - millions and millions of people - perhaps a billion, some experts say - would have starved to death; mainly in Asia, which no longer belongs to us, so perhaps Charlie wouldn't be too bothered...
Organic farming is a farce, only a solution to salve the underdeveloped consciences of a tiny minority of the worlds wealthiest who are unintelligent or uninformed enough to go on instinct rather than facts.
As for 'going against nature'; not a single one of the grains we eat has much in common with the tiny wild grass they were bred from; so much so that until the recent advances in our understanding of genetics we had no idea which were even related. They have all been engineered for disease and pest resistance and greater yield; we just have the ability to do it faster and better now. If we are lucky, we may just manage the required improvements before poorer nations face mass starvation. Unfortunately science has never made its argument very well, believing that the facts would speak for themselves. And in a media driven age, they simply don't. Particularly against such a strong visceral instinct that 'meddling' is wrong. Driven, weirdly, by a coalition of green groups - when in actual fact enhancing plants could lead to a massive reduction in pesticides and nitrogen fertilizers, hugely reducing environmental impact - and religious groups, who think that it is wrong to mess with god's domain; despite the fact that we have been doing precisely that since long before any of our currently fashionable gods were a glint in a madman's eye. Prince Charles, sadly, epitomizes both: the unknowledgeable enviroMENTALIST (in which I separate him from the many well researched) and the god-botherer who of course believes it is wrong to question god's plan: after all, it was god who put him in charge of us.
He is also, however, a hypocrite of the ultimate degree. He turns off his light bulb while we pay him ten million pounds a year which could be spent on any number of worthy causes and he makes a fortune from projects that benefit from his name and position. He plays at being a farmer and romaticises the poverty of those who have to farm to survive. Of course, starvation doesn't mean much to someone who has 9 eggs cooked for him every morning so that one will be perfect and throws the other 8 away; a prince who has a tantrum if his tea isn't on the table at the right time; who screamed at his butler because the toothpaste wasn't pre-squeezed onto his tooth brush; who flies to accept an environmental award with an entourage of fifty. He is a petulant childish bore, and I owe him no allegiance.
But even if I did, he in any case breaks the tradition and bond of the crown: do you know what the Queen thinks about GM? Abortion? Immigration? No! Because her job, her role, the thing we pay her and her extended family vast sums of money for, is to keep her opinions to herself and not influence politics. If she breaks that agreement then the monarchy would have to end. Charles breaks it regularly with impunity, but only about his particular bugbears.
Isn't it funny how a man who grew up, at the tax payers' expense, in Britain's most beautiful houses and is one of the country's largest organic farmers only feels able to speak out on two subjects: architecture and GM crops. If he were a politician he would be rightly condemned for having a serious conflict of interest, as it is he seems to be being applauded. I would have a lot more respect for him if he ever used his influence on anything other than his personal hobbies. It would genuinely combat hunger and also help fight the spread of HIV if the 'Defender of Faiths' could try and influence the Vatican to change its family planning policy, for example.
I suspect, many people, like you, thought my 'update' line was out of line. But if I have changed any minds, or even drawn a little more attention to the subject, I'll be happy. I'm not running for president. Sadly, neither is Charles...
On a lighter note, the monkey said yesterday that you were thinking of coming over. It would be great to see you.
your friend, The Right Dishonourable, JT.
Hi Dave
lots of people do [like Prince Charles and agree with his scientifically illiterate views on Genetic Improvement], and lots of people think he talks sense. Which is why I decided, with much fore thought to make such a striking - and, I agree, offensive - sentence.
Personally, he angered me to the point of literal wall thumping.
I've never been a fan, but in his recent diatribe against genetic modification our not-so-bonny chump Charlie is merely demonstrating anew his ignorance.
The yields from organics being what they are, they couldn't sustain even a fraction of the earth's present population; but we need to produce enough food for the future and a massively growing humankind. Yes, it would undoubtedly be better if that population weren't expanding so much, but there isn't a lot we can do about that. Unless perhaps we return to Jonathan Swift’s ingenious solution of the poor eating their own offspring.
Without the green revolution, which HRH says was only a short term solution - but is still currently all we have - millions and millions of people - perhaps a billion, some experts say - would have starved to death; mainly in Asia, which no longer belongs to us, so perhaps Charlie wouldn't be too bothered...
Organic farming is a farce, only a solution to salve the underdeveloped consciences of a tiny minority of the worlds wealthiest who are unintelligent or uninformed enough to go on instinct rather than facts.
As for 'going against nature'; not a single one of the grains we eat has much in common with the tiny wild grass they were bred from; so much so that until the recent advances in our understanding of genetics we had no idea which were even related. They have all been engineered for disease and pest resistance and greater yield; we just have the ability to do it faster and better now. If we are lucky, we may just manage the required improvements before poorer nations face mass starvation. Unfortunately science has never made its argument very well, believing that the facts would speak for themselves. And in a media driven age, they simply don't. Particularly against such a strong visceral instinct that 'meddling' is wrong. Driven, weirdly, by a coalition of green groups - when in actual fact enhancing plants could lead to a massive reduction in pesticides and nitrogen fertilizers, hugely reducing environmental impact - and religious groups, who think that it is wrong to mess with god's domain; despite the fact that we have been doing precisely that since long before any of our currently fashionable gods were a glint in a madman's eye. Prince Charles, sadly, epitomizes both: the unknowledgeable enviroMENTALIST (in which I separate him from the many well researched) and the god-botherer who of course believes it is wrong to question god's plan: after all, it was god who put him in charge of us.
He is also, however, a hypocrite of the ultimate degree. He turns off his light bulb while we pay him ten million pounds a year which could be spent on any number of worthy causes and he makes a fortune from projects that benefit from his name and position. He plays at being a farmer and romaticises the poverty of those who have to farm to survive. Of course, starvation doesn't mean much to someone who has 9 eggs cooked for him every morning so that one will be perfect and throws the other 8 away; a prince who has a tantrum if his tea isn't on the table at the right time; who screamed at his butler because the toothpaste wasn't pre-squeezed onto his tooth brush; who flies to accept an environmental award with an entourage of fifty. He is a petulant childish bore, and I owe him no allegiance.
But even if I did, he in any case breaks the tradition and bond of the crown: do you know what the Queen thinks about GM? Abortion? Immigration? No! Because her job, her role, the thing we pay her and her extended family vast sums of money for, is to keep her opinions to herself and not influence politics. If she breaks that agreement then the monarchy would have to end. Charles breaks it regularly with impunity, but only about his particular bugbears.
Isn't it funny how a man who grew up, at the tax payers' expense, in Britain's most beautiful houses and is one of the country's largest organic farmers only feels able to speak out on two subjects: architecture and GM crops. If he were a politician he would be rightly condemned for having a serious conflict of interest, as it is he seems to be being applauded. I would have a lot more respect for him if he ever used his influence on anything other than his personal hobbies. It would genuinely combat hunger and also help fight the spread of HIV if the 'Defender of Faiths' could try and influence the Vatican to change its family planning policy, for example.
I suspect, many people, like you, thought my 'update' line was out of line. But if I have changed any minds, or even drawn a little more attention to the subject, I'll be happy. I'm not running for president. Sadly, neither is Charles...
On a lighter note, the monkey said yesterday that you were thinking of coming over. It would be great to see you.
your friend, The Right Dishonourable, JT.
posted by jontrig at
2:41 pm
3 Comments:
On the plus side he does do a lot of work for charidee
By
Iain Martin, at 7:40 am
Strong words JT, and no criticism for such. I'll stir the pot with my two pen'eth to ask only if your research of the scientific facts has, or even can, predict the ongoing effects that this work could have. I am not against change, and I listened to your arguments on this subject once before with enough attention to have my mind changed. But I am fearful for the long-term. You answered, I think, that even if it serves as a short-term solution to the human catastrophe of starvation, it was worth it. That if long term ills arise those bridges must be crossed as and when. And I'd not be the man to look a mother in the eye and wring my hands for the future while she buries her children.
I would say though that somewhere in all the haste and good intention these things require a common sense. Which sounds like a gimme except for the fact that these advancements come with a dollar value which means corporate giants and greed. As an example one only has to look at the production of life saving drugs which the West produces and denies to the majority of the needy world. We as a public donate to save these people as and when we are able, but that money goes almost immediately into corporate treasuries.
So I am a supporter of GM, but one made cautious by its very infrastructure. I find the idea that the world can be fed alluring of course. Unfortunately seeing that actually happen brings out the cynical streak. Charles I can live with at a distance but big business I'd take a stick to.
CJ
By
Paul Clifford-Jones, at 11:43 pm
Hi mate.
good to hear from you.
Actually, i tend to agree on big business; which is why governments and the EU in particular should be massively funding GM research, not blocking it. Which in part was initially due to French farm lobbyists (who already sap 50% of the entire EU agricultural budget, the very existence of which is a murderous disgrace) trying to block north and south American competition and has subsequently snowballed into a cultural belief.
For Profit Companies do what they say on the tin. But they do have their part to play none the less, as with medical research: it is a great, disgusting and continued shame that poorer nations don't have access to all kinds of new drugs; but without the private research companies those drugs wouldn't exist at all. To my understanding 'we the public' don't pay for research which then becomes private property, the two are separate domains. Unfortunately, we don't pay for much research at all and scandalously little on GM. At least with private drug research the Cubans - the world's most affable and least deserving pariah state - are able to copy the drugs and sell them at virtually cost price. sooner or later they will do the same with new corn varieties...
In terms of long term risk, I think there is a lot of confusion - largely tabloid and interested party fueled - about what is going on anyway: the vast, huge, predominance of research is just in swapping individual genes from the same sub-species with no risks at all, at least less than involved in 'nature'. Eg instead of just cross breeding two slightly different strains of wheat - one which can cope with saltier soil, say and one which produces greater yield or is more temperature resilient - you take the specific genes you want and take them across in a controlled way. Instead of cross breeding (which is itself genetic engineering) and not getting the genes you want and getting lots you don't (and don't even know what they do) and only getting one stab per year, you just take the particular characteristic you need. all of these trials are extremely closely monitored, but the 'risks' are almost non existent.
genes swap and mutate constantly anyway. Nature is continually making 'hopeful monsters' which usually fail but occasionally, as with a particularly virulent flu epidemic, or a seemingly talentless German family, succeed massively.
If we should have a fear for the future, it is just such an epidemic, or a new disease currently completely unknown, that I think we should worry about. Not a slightly different strain of food stuff, which could save millions.
I personally love the oxymoron arguments that you often get from anti GM groups (which i'm not suggesting you make) where they are against GM crops in case they are impossible to eradicate once released, and against the businesses which create sterile seeds because that stops small farmers from saving some to sew the following year...
Prince Charles though is just an idiot and shouldn't be expected to be able to follow a subplot on The Archers, never mind complex issues. That's not his fault, it is an accident of birth, a coincidence of genes, but it does mean that even if he wasn't destined to be a constitutional monarch he should keep his stiff upper lip clamped firmly to his wobbly, tantrumous lower one.
He's not all bad. He does do some good. But not much. And he shouldn't do even that. His role - unless he wants to become a private citizen, which I for one would welcome - is to stay out of politics. He abuses his ability to get a front page, and what is even less fortunate is that he is ill informed and, even by aristocratic standards, thick. He went to Eton and had private tutors and still got one D at A-Level: now that takes a real talent at ignorance. Luckily he still got into Cambridge on it, how strange...
oh no, I've gone off on one again...
By
Unknown, at 10:47 pm
Post a Comment
<< Home