I’ve finally grabbed some time to catch up on this topic. Since the topic has moved along significantly since I last posted, I’ll add my two cents on some of the points discussed.
GM Food - Team Andromeda, you mentioned what I thought of GM Food. GM offers some advantages, as well as potential disadvantages. Since there isn’t anything intrinsically wrong with altering a genetic code, my position is “proceed with caution”. Regular food isn’t completely safe either; many foods contribute to undesired long term health problems such as diabetes or heart disease. If scientists can produce healthier foods that taste the same, and can be produced safely, I can’t think of a good argument as to why we shouldn’t embrace these products. I see it as an evolution of the artificial selection processes that humans have used to produce new foods for thousands of years. But, again, I stress that caution must be taken. New products must go through a scrutinous peer review process (the same way new medicines do) and also be labelled for what they are so customers can make an informed choice.
What is concerning is the patenting of life. It is concerning that a genetic combination can be owned by a corporation, such as a certain type of grain. For competition within the food industry to thrive, this form of capitalism needs to be considerably limited.
Global Warming - I had the pleasure of going to see Dr James Hansen speak about global warming last week (he did a speaking tour of New Zealand). He is one of the leading scientists on this issue. His argument for political action is simple. We need a tax on carbon that goes up by 5% each year. The money would go directly back to citizens, evenly distributed to every man, woman, and perhaps child to avoid banks and other interest groups from tampering with the distribution of wealth. This gradual tax on the use of coal would encourage the market to shift to cleaner energy sources (wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, whatever the market prefers). Essentially, he believes that we must use the market to encourage change, while implementing a simple tax to spur it into action.
Notice how this kind of goal is straight forward, and doesn’t suggest that he has anything to gain other than a potential solution to the issue? In fact, he is against the cap and trade approach that some politicians are pushing for.
Poverty - We could all probably do more to help get people out of poverty or lower the level of inequality in the world. And Team Andromeda is right, that it’s almost impossible to live completely “pure” without directly or indirectly exploiting someone or something. We could go and live in a hut in the mountains and live off the land to avoid contributing to the majority of damage that the Western world is doing to the environment, etc (although that might be counter productive, since if we are isolated from society, we cannot do anything to improve that society).
But I think The Ancient also makes an important point that while most people might not go out of their way to change their lifestyle completely, we still can advocate change. Some of it is very easy to do (sign a petition, or vote for whoever is more likely to make positive change). Much of what needs to change must be done at a “system” level, so even if we continue to buy iPods and the like which have been produced using cheap labour, that doesn’t mean we can’t do anything about it. I’d also like to thank Chizzles for his insight, and I’ll add that I’m a bit sceptical that simply boycotting these products is the best way to encourage change. After all, these people need some sort of job to provide for their families, so supporting their economies may also have a positive influence (indirectly). It’s very difficult to be sure where the money goes though. A better way to help people in poverty might be to donate money directly to the poor (e.g. to an organisation such as Oxfam).
Animal Products - Currently the Western world produces much of its meat in factory farms, where the animals live miserable lives. I don’t believe traditional animal farming is feasible on a large scale, especially as the world’s population grows, and the amount of land for free range farms decreases. Progress in bringing plant based diets into the mainstream is slow (although vegetarianism and veganism are becoming more widely accepted), so artificial “in vitro” meat could the solution here to limit the amount of on going animal suffering and environmental degradation. I agree with you, Team Andromeda, that animal production is cruel and for that reason I’ve stopped consuming animal products altogether. But even if you can’t bring yourself to go all the way, there’s clearly a continuum between the worst kinds of factory farming and veganism. Every bit helps, as every time a product is not bought it reduces the total amount of suffering very close to directly, since without the demand for the product the animals aren’t born.