In the “Another World is Possible” documentary,
which both followed and brought to light a condensed version of the 2002 World
Social Forum, the viewer is accosted by certain issues that certain members of
the world population are facing today. Among those issues are the ideas of
intellectual property, genetically modified crops, and the widening of the
digital divide among “civilized” and “uncivilized” nations. However, in my
personal point of a view as a fellow human being with seemingly varied opinion
from the majority, I was more concerned with the fact that many attendees of
the WSF did not see these issues as beneficial to the population.
I’m
concerned with the fact that much of the populous which is against the
genetically modified food is not considering the benefits that they give. For
example, this food, which has been genetically altered, was altered for the
fact that it could not grow in certain areas before; and now, after being
modified, it can grow in new areas of the world on a much larger scale. The
need for new areas for farming grew out of a rising population around the
world; and the idea of genetically altering seeds and domesticated creatures
was a potential assist for this growing population issue.
It distresses me that the documentary failed to
mention that much of this research that goes into creating growth hormones and
genetically altered foods is the lifeblood of many people. Observers who think
that these foods are a problem often overlook that researchers and scientists
have put years of their life into finding correct ways to modify these foods.
If we look at something with a gaze that ignores the realities of capitalism
and a growing planetary population, we deny the accomplishments of many who
have worked their entire life to alter nature for more practical uses. That is my
response to this documentary; though I agree with the issue of accountability
and a moral obligation to society when it comes to altering nature, I disagree
with the demonization of processes that have helped so many.
I am glad that you focused in on the debate around biotechnology and the genetic modification of food plants (and animals) in agriculture. While I hope that you (and all of us) will maintain an open mind about these issues and the ways that diverse people experience and understand them, it is certainly useful that we initially approach these debates and practices with skepticism of a scholarly sort. Your final sentence is strong and important in that it warns against demonization of actors working and dealing with complex, nuanced issues.
ReplyDeleteEditorial comments sent privately. Welcome to any commentators who follow after me.