Posts by Kyle Matthews
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
That's the likely reading Giovanni. "Was John Key right to apologise to the Chinese Delegation?" would be the other side?
-
I don't know what a right winger could shout at Obama
Stop stealing 20 billion from BP? Something about communism taking over health care? I'm guessing it would sound silly.
-
Personally I think all heads of state and their next echelon down should be protested at on regular basis by someone about something.
The chances of any of them making everyone happy at a particular time are pretty slim, and people popping up to protest about issues are the sign of a healthy democracy. Particularly when it comes to relationships with China, which isn't a particularly healthy democracy.
Norman may have broken one of parliament's rules or ettiquettes. I don't have a problem with that, protesters should push boundaries and break rules, it's about challenging systems. If he's broken a rule or law he should be sanctioned for that. Was he a danger to anyone there apart from some egos on both the Chinese and NZ side? Nope. Could he have done worse? Sure, imagine him sitting down in the doorway at the last moment and blocking entry.
I also don't have a big problem with the Chinese security guard not being very well assessed for an arrest. The issue has got good coverage, if it was an assault it was pretty minor, I thought Norman did pretty well in terms of his issue.
-
I don't think the principle is wrong, but then of course the issue becomes how you manage it in practice, and whether politicians and the public can evaluate the merits of a scientific enterprise in a rational fashion. Our collective scientific illiteracy plays a big part in this.
Where I've ended up with GE, after being relatively opposed to it about 10 years ago, is "informed engagement":
1. I don't think GE is any worse or better than other forms of meddling with nature that we do. Witness the Gulf at present for an example. It's a technology which can have negative and positive impacts. It's how we use it that matters.
2. Even if NZ outright bans it happening here, we just import it all anyway in products, so our ban would just be pushing the "risk" onto other countries. I'd much rather NZ government funded scientists were pushing the boundaries of science than some genius in the basement of Monsanto with no oversight.
3. I'd much rather us actively engage with the technology and embrace it's good points and minimise the negative points. It seems to me that the only way that can happen is through controls over it which are strong without being repressive (I don't know enough about the current scheme to say where it is, but certainly people have indicated that it is repressive), and a progressive scheme for movement from lab to greenhouse to field tests to general release which is rigorously debated by scientists independent of companies who have profit motive. That means government needs to get involved and put some money forward and the normal scientific process of peer review of methods, data, and conclusions needs to be followed.
4. There are going to be mistakes. I think they'll be the same sorts of mistakes humans have been making throughout their history and we need to minimise them through an open process of engagement with the technology in a responsible manner. I just don't believe that the NZ scientific community is going to run the sorts of risks that people raise as worst case scenarios. Responsible development can help push irresponsible development out of the field. I don't like the fact that something went wrong with three cows who were part of an experiment, but what I'd like to see is oversight which ensures that nothing unethical was done, the animals were treated properly, the experiment was reasonable given the knowlege that we have and the potential for it to go wrong, and the correct process was followed to minimise harm. We need to remember that lots of unpleasant things happen to animals in scientific testing, mice get given all sorts of human diseases all the time for testing of medicine, it's the GE ones that get the headlines.
5. I think end results should be transparent to the consumer, and that includes being able to look at packaging and figure out what's in it. People have the right to know what they're eating, without wanting to be paranoid about it and slap big stickers on everything.
(our collective scientific illiteracy is a problem, but I think it's a general problem in many scientific fields, and it hasn't stopped them going ahead with their work)
-
OOGA-BOOGA!
You made a funny face while typing that didn't you?
-
So, were you thinking Phil Goff would find a spine with a pair of balls attached?
It's for reasons like this that I vote Green. They may have a couple of anti-science policies, but at least if they say they have principles, they'll most likely still have them when it's uncomfortable to do so. These things matter.
-
Well I've never Godwined a thread before, but hell why not:
Because that was silly. No doubt Bart and other scientists won't be offended at all at the comparison.
-
Well, yes, CR, I do take your point insofar as the Communist Party's anti-comics crusade
That's a first post on a new page where you have to go back to page 1 to see if you've somehow changed threads or missed a page or something.
-
The father should be where, in the garage? I could use some specific instructions here.
Out working! And giving your good wife housekeeping money every week, unless you've spent it all down at the put before 6 o'clock closing.
-
Is that person covered by the whistle blower legislation? I can't remember the details of it.