Is this debate about changing the genetic make up of plants purely an anthropocentric one? Can we make ethical judgements about what we do to plants and the environment at large based purely on their value to humankind? Do we need to extend the sense of interconnection in the natural environment to the point where humankind becomes not the centre but a part of the picture, where plants, animals, human beings and the wider environment which supports them all have intrinsic value in themselves? But how is their value defined and by whom? Is it really possible to quantify and allow true intrinsic value of anything without any reference to its instrumental value? Does a biocentric approach make it inherently wrong for humans to change the genetic code which defines any other form of life?
Margaret Atkins (2002) makes the point that ‘the choices generated by the holistic approach will be unpredictable . . . . At the very least, all our ordinary intuitions about the value of individual creatures, human and others, will be questioned.’ (p.244). She sees the same risks in a more egalitarian approach, where cooperation might make it possible to ‘respect the needs of all relevant creatures’ but where choices constantly have to be made ‘all of which would harm the interests of some creatures.’ If, as Margaret Atkins suggests, we are trapped by ‘Adam’s dominion’ should we just accept that there are always going to be some losers in any environmental choices that we make and just focus on the winners and losers amongst humankind?
Why think about GM farming?
Why is it so important to talk about the ethics of GM farming?
OK, lets keep this simple (to start with at least!).
· We need to eat to survive.
· Methods of producing food are changing – fast?
· Large areas of the world are struggling to produce enough nutritional food to feed their people.
· GM farming offers a way to develop and produce crops that can survive in conditions that traditional crops cannot.
· GM farming also offers crops which will grow containing more of the essential vitamins specifically lacking from the diet of the most nutritionally deprived in the world.
· Even in our relatively easy climate in the UK crops are produced using vast amounts of herbicide and pesticides.
· GM farming promises to develop and produce crops that are resistant to pests and diseases – thus reducing the need to chemical eradication of these problems.
OK – so what is the problem?
· Almost all of the above statements can be questioned (at least in part).
· There are huge, much disputed questions about the effects of genetic modification on the environment and on those who eat the crops produced as a result.
· Views expressed by ‘experts’ in this field often rely on evidence which is discounted by those with opposing views.
· Much of the ‘evidence’ needed to make judgements about the safety or otherwise of this technology will not be fully know until well into the future.
So we are faced with choices:-
· Do we trust those who say that GM farming offers greater benefits than risks and allow progress with appropriate safeguards (do we know what these are?)?
· Do we refuse to trust the reassurances and reject the potential of GM farming and the benefits it might bring to all those whose circumstances give them much fewer choices in life and death?
· Do we seek to find out what we can, think about the information we are given, listen to the ideas and opinions of others who are thinking it through and come to ethically informed decision based on that process?
This final point is why I am thinking about GM farming. This is a subject which directly effects us now and increasingly in the future. I can read around and come to my own opinions, but those will be limited by my individual perspective. I invite you to contribute your perspective. It will be uniquely valuable because it is uniquely yours. Maybe together we can come to an understanding which will feed the opinions and choices both of ourselves and others. Now that really could be Bread of Life!
Thank you for your time and interest. I look forward to reading and responding to your thoughts. Helen.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
So is it dolphins or mice that are the most intelligent creatures in the universe – ah, I’m thinking of a different Adams. (DA – THHG2tG) Oh well, back to THE Bible :-
Gen1:31 “God saw all that he had made and it was very good.” – begs the question, ‘Why change it?’
Gen1:27f “… in the image of God he created… them… Be fruitful… fill the earth… subdue it…” – So lets get on, GM and be creative!
My main question about this entry is – are we trying to genetically modify, “the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” – and with what results? (ref Gen2:9 – the NIV Study Bible makes an interesting comment on this verse – do we seek to be morally independent from God – what is our source of free will?)
Helen, I think you ask an interesting question about creation (plants, animals, etc.) having an intrinsic value, rather than humanity being the centre of creation. It seems clear to me with global warming, extinction of species, and pollution of oceans and space that we aren't very good at caring for or about creation, which seems to have become a disposible entity - here to serve our needs and desires. So is the point of GM foods to further serve our needs, surely doesn't seem to be for the benefit of the plants. I go back to asking, just because we have the capability, does that make it right/good/sound/necessary?
You know I never had thought about changing genetic coding and putting pesticide on plants as a harmful act. You gave me new perspective on the issue of human kind altering the environment for our own needs as unethical, but at the same time as any advancement it's a lose lose situation b/c without those altreations many food products wouldn't be able to be consumed by humans .... I guess this points to Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest and looks like humans will come out on top until we start destoying ourselves. Hopefully that will never happen!
Greetings! Peter invited me to the blog. I am a scientist (currently teaching science rather than engaging in research) and a Christian (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). My feelings about human use of the environment is that we should treat it as a stewardship. The idea of Adam's dominion has been mentioned--to me this dominion implies responsiblity rather than simply exploitation. In other words, I believe God intended us to fully use everything He created in the natural world, but not to abuse it or strip it bare so future generations could not benefit.
On the question of how genetically modifying crops fits into the equation: Humans have been genetically modifying plants and animals for centuries by selective breeding. The plants we've come to depend on for food were often originally much smaller, less nutritionally dense, etc. We owe our high crop yields and abundant food supply to this genetic modification. In principle, modifying food using recombinant and other more "high tech" techniques doesn't seem any different ethically than any of the selective breeding techniques that have been around for centuries. The primary question, in my mind, is to what extent we are being good stewards of the resources we have.
Of course, "high tech" GM raises more stewardship questions because it hasn't been around long enough for us to really understand all of the environmental applications of its use.
There's my two cents for today.
Post a Comment