File spoon-archives/anarchy-list.archive/anarchy-list_2000/anarchy-list.0004, message 16


Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 18:51:20 -0800 (PST)
From: Jamal Hannah <jah-AT-iww.org>
Subject: Opposing Capitalist Biotech


On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Phil Abbot wrote:

> There's been some stuff on the aut-op-sy list recently which i thought
> had relevance to our recent discussion on technology.
> In the absence of anything intelligent to say, i thought i might stick
> on here.
> (I post it here only because it may be of interest to people who took
> part in the discussion, not because i want to start that discussion
> again).
> If this annoys anybody, please tell me, and i won't do it again.
> 
> 
> > Can I ask a naive question please: is it biotechnology or
> > its uses under capitalism that is the enemy here? I worry
> > when I read phrases like "rape of nature" as a response to
> > science of any kind, since it implies a kind of romantic
> > "back to the garden of eden" ethos to me. Am I wrong?
> >
> > bio-(like other)technology is not some objective science existing
> > outside of historical social conditions. The development of existing
> > biotechnology is in response to needs and problems that are not those
> > of the people of this planet and is carried out in a manner responding
> > to the need to profit from its discovery rather than the need to
> > understand before full-scale use. The possibility of some other
> > bio-technology based on human need is at present rather hypothetical.
> 
> >
> 
> > Back in the 60s and 70s there was a thing called the "Green
> > Revolution"
> > which had nothing to do with "eco-warriors" but was presented as the
> > idealistic crusade by biologists, geneticists and other agro-related
> > scientists to develop new "wonder crops" by selective breeding
> > (pre-GM)
> > programmes. This programmes also involved research into all the
> > world's
> > grain varieties, collecting samples etc. (Most people in those days
> > were too
> > naive to see that this programme of collecting and catalogueing the
> > world's
> > seed stock and centralising them into massive seedbanks through
> > programmes
> > paid for by the big seed concerns (Cargill etc.) could have any
> > sinsiter
> > side to it). The point was the Green Revolution was going to increase
> > third
> > world farmers yields and thus cure world hunger. This dashing crusade
> > in the
> > true spirit of "the white heat of technology" was supported by funding
> > from
> > all the international agencies, the FAO, WHO, UNESCO etc. etc. The
> > young
> > scientists of the white west were going to make amends for the nasty
> > imperialist ways of the previous generation and, through the
> > benevolence of
> > science, feed the starving peasants of the (newly decolonised) third
> > world
> > and provide them with the material basis of their independence and
> > development. Etc. etc. Yes, you guessed it, total crap.
> >
> > In fact the new wonder strains of the Green Revolution required large
> > inputs
> > of fertiliser, copious water (often at times completely unsuited to
> > the
> > local climate) and general coddling in ways that were completely
> > unsuited to
> > local environments and social economies. Peasants outside the money
> > economy
> > had no money to buy this expensive inputs so they were encouraged to
> > borrow
> > from money-lenders. The outcome is obvious. Poor peasants lost their
> > land
> > and became enslaved to the money economy, rich farmers expanded their
> > holdings and replaced peasant labour with machines. Newly independent
> > third
> > world countries borrowed massively from the IMF to fund all these
> > programmes, thus re-enslaving them under the post-colonial debt system
> > that
> > we know so well today. And the yields? Well without all the expensive
> > inputs, water and mollycoddling, third world farmers experiments with
> > the
> > supergrains resulted in falling yields (except in those areas of the
> > third
> > world where peasants were thrown off the land and replaced with
> > large-scale
> > rich capitalist farmers). The overall result? A successful
> > re-establishment
> > of colonial power relations, the impoverishment of millions,
> > aggravated
> > hunger, and above all the extension of capitalist social relations to
> > peasants who lost their land and means of independance from the wage
> > system.
> > The details of this process have been documented (was it a Paul
> > Harrison? my
> > memory fails me, good books tho) as all the propagandists of the GM
> > "Green
> > Revolution" well know. You can tell because their propaganda has
> > subtly
> > modified to answer the superficial criticisms of the 70s' GR, note the
> > plugs
> > about the new GM crops reducing need for fertiliser or water. Yet they
> > never
> > refer to the GR directly because they are relying on people's
> > ignorance of
> > it to pull basically the same trick twice. The use of an ostensibly
> > humanitarian and libertarian argument (we only want to help the poor
> > of the
> > third world, our opponents are selfish racist luddite hippies) to
> > advance
> > further the extension of capitalist relations to any remaining areas
> > of the
> > globe where people are still eating food they haven't paid money for,
> > but
> > produced themselves in cooperation with the land.
> >
> > We are against the GM crusade not because it is "Against Nature" but
> > because
> > it is "For Capitalism".

This is basicaly my position too.  I am not into this "back to nature"
stuff, I'm more of a "destroy capitalism" type.  I think that with
capitalism replaced by a more democratic and libertarian system involving
full input from working people, the technologies developed will not
destroy the environment and trample on poor people's rights.

One thing I'm wondering.. for all this talk about neo-luddites, are they
really any kind of significant movement?  And why arnt they talking about
the hippies as an example of a cultural phenomenon they want to emulate?

 - Jamal



   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005