Posts by Sacha
-
Why should the public submit itself to uncertain risks
Because our current flavour of capitalism is about socialising risk and privatising profit. And GE is about profit, not feeding the world's poor.
I understand the view from the lab bench is bound to be different but unless the stuff is staying purely in the lab then it seems essential to also consider the bigger picture - and to insist on more certainty.
tractors should not be allowed on farms except perhaps as stationary engines to power chaff-cutters in preparing the horse feed needed
If there was a reasonable and unfalsified risk that putting tractors in the field would permanently poison all the grass, then the analogy holds. The danger lies in what could happen in the interaction with the rest of the environment. If the consequences are big and/or irrevocable then so should our caution be.
I'd personally welcome the prime beneficiaries of GE - the large commercial agriculture/genetic companies - being asked to put up suitably-sized bonds for potential damage, just like BP has been forced to now for their Gulf of Mexico oil gusher.
Then we could allow more risks in research and development, knowing that society and the environment weren't going to be left holding the can. Of course, that would require quantification of the risk..
-
Raymond the dodgy process is enough, though in any case I doubt Labour ever directly funded private organisations to provide services in competition to those unions.
-
Islander, my understanding is that the social role is how others see you, not just how you see yourself. From the outside, your gender is far more likely to be woman, not that I'm denying the interplay with biology or sexuality. I just believe that feminism relates more to social dynamics. Call me a non-essentialist.
-
Perhaps living in a female body makes it easier to be feminist
I'd say living as a *woman* rather than just the biology most associated with that social gender role
-
I am much more fascinated in seeing how initiatives like this might work.
Same, so the faster we resolve the dodginess about the process, the better.
-
Colin Espiner comes down on the side of Russel Norman being out of line.
Strange how none of the many cameras there - both still and TV - managed to capture the so-called attack, or the flag trampling.
What they did capture, though, was an MP behaving in a way that no self-respecting member of Parliament with any dignity should behave.
Don't get me wrong. I fully support Russel Norman's right to have his say. This is a free country, unlike China.
But sometimes, I think the RIGHT to free speech and EXERCISING it are confused.
For example, I can walk down the street and tell someone I don't know that they're fat. I have that right. But to do so would be impolite and irresponsible.
One of the deals of having freedom is the responsibility that comes with it over how you use it.
-
You'd think simple curiosity might come into play about how a seven figure item got all the way into the Budget without going through the responsible Minister or the usual tendering processes.
I'm relieved to see the existing Pacific Business Trust funding also survived, though I'm sure they might have been interested in bidding for it to be doubled.
-
an ethical vacuum
To be fair, there would have been independent ethics committee approval. Admittedly that probably doesn't affect how any utterances from management come across. And it doesn't resolve any bigger questions about ends and means.
-
So how exactly does Mary English tie into that?
I don't know, do you? Maybe she doesn't and it got to her husband some other way. That's why some "investigation" might be called for. From "journalists".
-
Then interview all those around him and dig out public records of his life - just like you'd expect journos to do with any subject unwilling to talk.