This would be as funny as the Three Stooges if it didn't affect the structure of life itself.

We know that genetically identical plants are all equally susceptible to the same diseases and as a result require more pesticide and herbicide application to keep them healthy. If cloning becomes popular for animals to the same degree then you can rest assured that the same thing will happen.

In the interest of animal health and simple economics we should discourage this latest development. Imagine the additional horror mad cow disease would have caused if some animals weren't naturally resistant to it.

If you continue to do what you've always done you'll continue to get what you've always got. - Yogi Berra

How come they are putting so much effort to creating something that is the same?

I betcha it's cuz they aren't the same... and the FDA is just towing the line.

Grist... how about some critical reporting on these GMO news releases rather than just announcing their existence?

~ charles uchu ~

2.) Equally susceptible does NOT mean MORE susceptible.  Confinement is what requires more and greater use of chemicals. Equally  susceptible should require fewer antibiotics if the correct genome is chosen.  Any biologists here?

Finally 3.) GMO, and clone NOT the same thing. What part of clone do you not understand?  "I betcha" is not a convincing argument.

Cloning in animals (if you don't know)is intended to reduced variation in the herd for best quality, uniform product, and less disease.  The same process is used natural pure breeding but cloning avoids the negative effects of in-breeding.

I'm not actually defending cloning, I don't know if it really works.  I just wonder if readers here know anything about biology.

"The term clone is used in horticulture to mean all descendants of a single plant, produced by vegetative reproduction or apomixis. Many horticultural plant cultivars are clones, having been derived from a single individual, multiplied by some process other than sexual reproduction. As an example, some European cultivars of grapes represent clones that have been propagated for over two millennia. Other examples are potato and banana. Grafting can be regarded as cloning, since all the shoots and branches coming from the graft are genetically a clone of a single individual, but this particular kind of cloning has not come under ethical scrutiny and is generally treated as an entirely different kind of operation."

So, Wolverine, should we stop consuming grapes, potatoes, garlic, apples, most citrus fruit, bananas, raspberries, blue berries, walnuts, almonds, pecans,and other plants maintained by cloning? Very few cultivated fruit and nut trees are propagated by seed. I guess you could say they are abominations... though quite tastey and nutritious.

From Wikipedia:

"Many trees, shrubs, vines, ferns and other herbaceous perennials form clonal colonies. Parts of a large clonal colony often become detached from the parent, termed fragmentation, to form separate individuals. Some plants also form seeds asexually, termed apomixis, e.g. dandelion."

Cloning is actually a natural process.... as far as plants are concerned. Researchers simply accelerate the process to obtained desired plants.

So please distinguish between cloning and GMOs when presenting your criticism of technology. Maybe you DO disapprove of grafting?

Anyway, I'm not sure how I feel aboout cloning animals. It is a very different matter. Depends why it is done. I'm most concerned about relying on a herd of genetically identical critters... one strain of nasty bacteria or a virus and they are all dead. As mentioned above, it also seems to increase reliance on antibiotics and chemicals. Furthermore, somatic mutations generated during the cloning process seem more of a problem with animals. I'm comfortable discarding the occasional weird plant... but discarding weird animals?

Important strains of fungi and yeast are also propagated by cloning.

So, Wolverine, no more leavened bread, cheese, beer, wine, or yogurt for you! All abominations. All evil products of cloning!

I pose an challenge for you... try to go an entire month without eating cloned food items or products of cloned organisms! Sort of like the guy who tried to shop NON-locally.

Look carefully at each item. What would remain in our diet if we stopped consuming cloned food or products of cloned organisms? Would you be able to persuade even a fraction of people to join your cause and happily stop eating all of the items -- and a bunch more -- mentioned above?

I'm looking forward to reading your article or book. Now I'm going to go an enjoy a 100% "natural", organic, non-GMO, CLONED apple. Sorry you can't enjoy one yourself. How about a banana instead? Oh... no, that's also cloned.

It doesn't even matter if you select the most resistant animals as the "parent" of these clones.. the viruses will adapt and nothing will have been gained.

Plants face similar issues but the diseases that prey on them are different and we've managed to stave off a number of molds, fungi, and bacteria through chemical applications. If we stopped using them, we'd be in trouble fairly quickly. It is not an accident that plants that reproduce sexually (even if they are also capable of asexual reproduction) are the most populous on this planet. Genetic diversity vastly increases a species' chances of survival.

If you continue to do what you've always done you'll continue to get what you've always got. - Yogi Berra

Mad cow is not a virus. It is an infectious protein you can only spread by eating brains and spinal cord.  Cows don't do that usually unless we put in their feed.

Chemicals are not the best way to protect plants from molds and fungi.  It's MUCH better to breed plant species which are naturally resistant as we have done with tomatoes, potatoes and other food crops.  Insect pests are a greater challenge.

http://jcarrot.org/is-milk-or-meat-from-a-cloned-animal-k ...

(Zelig is a staff attorney for the Center for Food Safety.)

The impression I have is that there will never be a single Jewish sentiment or decision on the matter, but that Jews will feel free to react from a wide range of ethical or religious perspectives.

(You know the one about Goldberg and Shapiro, cast ashore on the desert island.  After some time, they are at last rescued, and the captain of the rescue ship asks, "I don't understand, there are just the two of you, so why in the world did you build three synagogues?"  Goldberg says, "Well, this one here is mine, which he refuses to set foot into; that one is his, which I refuse to set foot into; and that one over there is the one that both of us refuse to set foot into.")

I do not see how kashrut, in itself, would exclude the consumption of meat, eggs and dairy products from cloned animals, so long as the basic conditions were met.

Possibly it could be argued that a cloned cow is not truly a cow, and therefore is not an acceptable animal of the kind specified in Leviticus.  But far be it from me to try to enter into Jewish legal discourse.

Your interest in the humane treatment of animals is one that I share, and it is indeed close to my heart.  I like very much one tradition of interpreting the regulations regarding slaughter in kashrut, that they are intended to cause as little suffering to the animals as possible.  But, needless to say, there have been many who do not consider that to be an essential element; and as you must know better than I, kosher slaughterhouses in which animals are made to suffer, especially by being hoisted by their hindlegs while still alive, have received a great deal of unfavorable attention lately.

Certainly you should never cease to argue that there is plenty in Judaism and in Jewish ethical thought to inspire Jews to practise the humane treatment of animals, and even to adopt vegetarianism or veganism, even if it is not explicitly halachic (enjoined in the legal code), and even if there will be teachers telling you not to do it because it is "not traditionally Jewish."

Within my own, frightfully anthropocentric tradition, I have been striving to include a concern for animal welfare among the "pro-life" ethical concerns, so far with little success.  Nevertheless I feel justified in doing so.  

Do you know this document, "A Religious Proclamation for Animal Compassion," signed by representatives of most major religious traditions?:

www.bestfriends.org/religion.

Now, to get back to cloning: Does cloning cause animals to suffer?  It certainly used to, back in the days of Dolly the sheep.  But I have heard that that is no longer the case.  What should we believe, then?  It is certainly an important consideration.

The principle that I follow, without explicit reference to cloning but including cloning, is that the selective breeding of animals so as to promote certain features of economic benefit for human beings, but with adverse effects on the health or well-being of the animals themselves, is inhumane and unethical.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

Whenever you decrease genetic variability FOR WHATEVER REASON you are increasing the risk of catastrophic failure of that species to (pick one here) environmental changes, predation, parasitism, or disease.

BM, (Before Monsanto) reducing genetic variability in pursuance of a phenotype was limited to the reproductive abilities of the species. AM, this process can occur many times faster (even if the clones are only used as reproductive stock).

Both processes ran the same risks, but BM was a much slower deal and it was easier to deal with any possible dislocations new cultivars or breeds might have caused. With this ability to create thousands of "perfect" animals (for breeding OR eating) then genetic variability can potentially decrease even faster and subsequent dislocations will be harder to predict, more widespread, and possibly more catastrophic.

If you continue to do what you've always done you'll continue to get what you've always got. - Yogi Berra

However, that ideology has no effect on how we live day-to-day.  Yes, it's probably impossible to eat anything but cloned fruit or veggies because humans have manipulated them all.  But that doesn't prevent me from opposing that manipulation; if I could reverse it, I would, and I will work to prevent further manipulation.

As to your distinction between cloning plants and cloning animals, this thread is about cloning animals, which is what I was writing about.  Your comments about whether I would be able to eat if I refused to eat cloned plants are thus irrelevant and were nothing but a way to change the discussion by ignoring my point, which is that humans are not gods and shouldn't be messing with the basic building blocks of life.  Notice my moniker here; humans are not better or more important than any other species and have no right to screw up the planet for the rest of us FOR ANY REASON.

Your statement...

"It is irrelevant whether, by some reductionist logic, you can show that there's nothing wrong with cloning, because your entire foundation of thinking is defective."

... suggested, to me,  you were commenting on cloning in general. I should have assumed you meant "cloning animals".

And your statement...

 "Humans can never know anywhere near enough to be messing with things like genetic engineering and cloning without risking severe consequences that we can't even begin to imagine."

... again suggested, to me, you were commenting on cloning in general. I should have assume you meant "cloning animals".

By the way, your concern about genetic engineering -- see previous quote -- seems irrelevant to the the discussion of cloning animals. I do not understand why you chose to bring it up and complicate the discussion. Perhaps we BOTH need to stay on topic when commenting on original posts.

Thank you for clarifying that you primarily object to cloned animals, regardless of their non-GMO or GMO status and that your objection doe not necessarily apply to plants. We apparently agree that cloning animals is not necesssarily a brilliant idea.

Peace.

I think someone recently wrote a book about it, but I never tracked down the title. I suspect there would have to be a substantial reduction in human population. Have you read much about whether it was a big mistake to settle down and domesticate plants and animals? What would be the implications, culturally? Technologically? What would a modern hunter/gatherer society be like? Was it inevitable that human beings would settle down? Perhaps it is their natural inclination and their effect on the rest of the planet is no more evil than the transformation of the atomosphere by photosynthetic organism, dooming millions of species that evolved in the absence of oxygen to extinction and allowing new forms of life to replace them.

There has to be a website devoted to this. Though I imagine not many people trying to adopt hunter/gatherer lifestyle are surfing the internet.

Now for another apology. When someone vehemently objects to a practice, habit, technology, et cetera, I usually assume they actively try to avoid it themselves. For example, most supporters of vegetarianism try to avoid eating meat. Most of the people pointing out that SUVs are evil and should be banned don't drive SUVs. I assumed that your objection to cloning was so strong that you would not want to corrupt your body by consuming cloned food. I just could not imagine how you could do this... and now I understand... you don't.

Arguments regarding how people should live are far more persuasive if those presenting the arguments manage to enjoy life by practicing what they preach.

You probably thought I was being sarcastic, but I REALLY think you should consider going a few months or so without eating cloned food or, for that matter, any cultivated products and write a book about it! Like the guy who tried to not tell a single lie for a period of time and tried to live according to Old Testament Law for a period of time... I don't recall his name. I think peope would find the book very interesting, how you found your food, what you wore, whether it changed your views, how other people reacted. Go for it. I WOULD READ THAT BOOK.

For one of us to even think of living this way is to demean that lifestyle.  I was born and raised in a big city (Chicago) and "nature" consisted of corn fields we'd drive by during our infrequent vacations.  But not only do I not have any idea of how to hunt and gather (I did eat wild berries and other fruit while riding my horse in Illinois) or otherwise live in nature, the problem you mentioned of overpopulation has created a situation where there are too many humans and human structures to hunt without trespassing or disturbing someone, and not enough wild game to hunt for this lifestyle to be sustainable (another of the numerous reasons humans must greatly lower their population).

To say that those of us who realize that nature knows best, that humans are not better or more important than other species, and that humans have really screwed up the planet for everyone else, should martyr ourselves because of that realization is ridiculous.  For example, assuming you are anti-racist, are you willing to move to the deep south and spend all your waking hours fighting the racism there?  I spent thousands of hours doing volunteer work for Earth First! over a period of several years in the mid '80s.  While I don't expect a medal for doing it, I DO expect today's youth to pick up the ball and do their fair share.  I still do some volunteer work occasionally, but at my age I'm taking some R&R when I get the chance (my paid work is environmental, so I work for the environment on a daily basis).

In order to solve a problem that's been created over millennia, we need to begin by removing the most recent behavior and working backwards.  We will not become hunter-gatherers anytime soon, but we can certainly work toward that.  What we need to do first and most fundamentally is change our outlook on life by evolving mentally and spiritually.  With that, we'd stop things like cloning, genetic engineering, and the chemical and nuclear industries, eventually leading to the end of use of fossil fuels, etc.  Along with all this, we need to greatly reduce our population AND personal consumption.

"For one of us to even think of living this way is to demean that lifestyle."

Why would choosing to follow someone's example of how to live lightly on the Earth demean that life style? Please explain. This does not make sense. Furthermore, not long ago most of our ancestors were hunter gathers. Isn't it respecting our own heritage. I think you are making excuses. You wish to benefit from the agricultural revolution and a civilization built upon it, harshly criticize that civilization, and then justify not actually trying to wean your self from that civilization.

If you really believe hunting/gathering is the way to go, you should be able to find or create a suitable environment.

W wrote...

"To say that those of us who realize that nature knows best, that humans are not better or more important than other species, and that humans have really screwed up the planet for everyone else, should martyr ourselves because of that realization is ridiculous."

No one is asking you to martyr yourself. You think there is a better way. Show us how to do it. It is not enough to rip on civilization. You have to provide some constructive suggestions regarding how we are going to discard agriculture. As long as people holding your views sit in their chairs, enjoying the fruits of agriculture, rather than trying to live a dfferent way, nothing is going to change. Be the change.

W wrote...

"For example, assuming you are anti-racist, are you willing to move to the deep south and spend all your waking hours fighting the racism there?"

No. But I'm not going to claim to oppose racism and then engage in racist behavior.

A better example might be... suppose I believe organic farming is a good idea. Shouldn't I support organic agriculture? Employ organic methods if I'm a farmer? Try to buy organic food if I'm not growing it myself? It would not make sense to lecture others about the benefits of organic farming and then consume environmentally destructive chemical-laden processed food. What if all the people who believe organic farming is a good idea did not bother trying to practice what they preach, did not try to employ organic methods, did try to eliminate chemical-laden processed food from their diets? What if everyone who believed  there is a better way never actually changed themselves?

You sir, are like someone addicted to oil, pumping gasoline into their SUV, and then complaining that civilization has to kick their addiction to oil and that people shouldn't be driving SUVs.

You're not even willing to try, just for a month, to avoid the products of cloned organisms.

W wrote...

" I DO expect today's youth to pick up the ball and do their fair share."

So YOU can't change, but todays youth should?

W wrote...

"In order to solve a problem that's been created over millennia, we need to begin by removing the most recent behavior and working backwards. We will not become hunter-gatherers anytime soon, but we can certainly work toward that. What we need to do first and most fundamentally is change our outlook on life by evolving mentally and spiritually. With that, we'd stop things like cloning, genetic engineering, ..."

I think one has to have a new mentality, a new spirituality, a new way of acquiring food, a new source of energy, et cetera before you can discard the old ways. If you truly believe agriculture was a mistake and would like, perhaps generations from now, everyone to be hunter/gatherers -- for the sake of all life on Earth -- YOU have to lead the way. You have to present us with an alternative, preferably by demonstating why it is a better way. If you are not willing to give up cloned food, GMOs, agriculture, reliance on fossil fuel, why should I seriously consider your opinion?

"ONLY agricultural societies employ ecologically destructive practices like mining and logging. The beginning of human-caused ecological destruction was our discovery and use of agriculture 10-12,000 years ago."

Weren't the folks who exterminated megafauna across North America and South America, dramatically altering ecosystems and indirectly eliminating numerous plant species that depended on the megafauna hunter/gatherers?

Humans have a long history of altering ecosystems. It started before agriculture.

Let's call this MEGAFAUNA, Part II.

I encountered some interesting information in Alan Weisman's "The World Without Us". I've read about this before, but he summed it up quite nicely.

According to anthropological and archeological studies, human beings were setting fire to the landscape of east Africa tens of thousands of years before the advent of agriculture, essentially converting jungle into fire-tolerant woodland and dramatically altering the ecological landscape and composition of flora and fauna... for better hunting.

When humans arrived in North America, the following sorts of creatures "mysteriously" disappeared... several species of camel. wooly rhinos, mammoths, mastadons, various large sloths, three genera of horses, giant armadillos, glyptodonts, the giant shot-faced bear, a large beaver, the American lion, dire wolves. the stag moose, numerous other antlered species, the saber-tooth tiger, the American cheetah, a giant species of bison... at least 40 species of large herbivores and carnivores.

It all happened in a ecological blink of an eye. Oddly enough, sloths survived on various Caribbean islands... until humans reached the islands. A mammoth or mastadon population survived on an island off of Alaska... until humans arrived.

What's particlularly interesting is that shortly after these species were erased from the face of the Earth, the human population crashed... and started employing agriculture. Sounds like the noble hunter/gatherer is no more sensible and caring than any other human being. Enough numbers and they can destroy the dominant fauna of two continents in a few thousand years. First they destroy the prey. Then the predators die. Then all the animals and plants dependent on them pass into oblivion, without a human being planting a single seed.

It is likely that a similar event transpired in Europe and Asia as humans moved out of Africa. It happened in the Pacific as they moved from island to island. It might have even happened as they moved across Africa.

You are wishing for a Golden Age that never was.

Okay. Suppose he's correct. Suppose the humans species returns to an idyllic state, perhaps generations from now, where we are hunter/gatherers. Our population is lower. Ecosystems rebound. And all is well.

What would have to be done to maintain that state? Won't someone a few hundred years later, if not sooner, decide to try agriculture again? Surely, a few groups of people would find it useful in some environments. And, surely, one of those groups would become more powerful and compete with those still hunting and gathering. I just can't imagine how Wolverine or someone sharing his views could create AND SUSTAIN -- around the entire globe -- a new mentality and spirituality that embraces the hunter/gatherer lifestyle and never returns to agriculture. It's absurd.

I think this is an important matter to think about and comment on because the human species and the rest of the biosphere does not have time to invest in trying to return to some past era we thought was better or, perhaps, was better. We have to build on what we have. There are also far too many of us and no way to get everyone to agree on such a radical policy.

I understand rejecting cloned animals for safety reasons or moral reasons.

But just because one doesn't like cloning? Or agriculture? Or technology in general? Or because it isn't "natural"?  Or because corporations patented it? Or someone you dislike came up with the idea? Ridiculous. Such arguments are not going to help us preserve and restore Earth's biosphere.

1. "Why would choosing to follow someone's example of how to live lightly on the Earth demean that life style?"

It's demeaning not because being a hunter-gatherer is living lightly, but because that lifestyle, like any other, must be learned.  Any modern human who'd try to just go live as a hunter-gatherer wouldn't survive very long if at all.  If you think it can just be done, go into a National Forest or National Park wilderness and try to live like that for a day or two.  You better bring your own water, because another reason it can't be done in this country is that the cattle industry has polluted all of the natural waterways.

One more thing about this general issue:  Don't tell me or anyone else what to do!  I listed some of the massive sacrifices I've made for the Earth, what have you done?  Specifically, what exactly do you believe in and what have you sacrificed for it?  Activists do what we can; any attempt to demean our efforts and sacrifices by saying we're not doing enough is just a dishonest way of opposing our work.  In additions to my thousands of volunteer hours, I don't own a car or cell phone, have no kids, and only have this computer because I need it for my environmental job.  Again, what have you done?

2. "Weren't the folks who exterminated megafauna across North America and South America, dramatically altering ecosystems and indirectly eliminating numerous plant species that depended on the megafauna hunter/gatherers?"

Yes.  You've made a great case against the human race; you have not in any way shown that agriculture is not more ecologically harmful than living as a hunter-gatherer, the way that ALL other species live.  The human race fits the medical definition of being a cancerous tumor on the planet.  We can either radically change our behavior, by greatly reducing our population and living far more naturally, or we will perish, unfortunately taking a great deal of the planet with us.

3. "Wolverine suggests we would be better off as hunter/gatherers."

No the rest of the planet would be better off.  Whether "we" would be better off depends on personal opinion.  Some of us would like the hunter-gatherer lifestyle (far more free time, more freedom) a lot better, some would like the agricultural lifestyle (more food security and physical comforts, less travel in search for food) better.  Whether one species or members thereof would like one better than the other is irrelevant to whether one is in harmony with natural processes and the other is not.

4. I "oppose the cloned animal not because of an inherent danger in cloning, but because cloning is just an extension of agriculture, which he considers inherently bad."

No, I oppose all cloning because it amounts to humans playing god by subverting natural processes.  Natural evolution is very slow; if it starts to go in the wrong direction (i.e., an unsuccessful one) it can reverse itself and start over.  It's the human hubris of thinking that we can and/or should manipulate life to which I'm opposed.  Cloning is just a symptom of that mental disease.

And, BTW, your defense of cloning makes you sound like an industry shill.  Just like genetic engineering, the other Nazi science with which we've been attacked over the past couple of decades, no one has asked for this crap.  It has been forced upon us by the jerks who run these industries because they stand to make a lot of money on it.  Are you one of those who blindly worships western science and its myopic and very limited reductionist thinking, or are you just an industry shill?

5. "What's particularly interesting is that shortly after these species were erased from the face of the Earth, the human population crashed... and started employing agriculture [in North America]."

Wrong!!!  Other than the very few large Native American Nations that had moved in the same ecologically harmful direction by agriculture and overpopulation (Aztec, Maya, Inca) the vast majority of Native Americans were hunter-gatherers and lived in small populations when white people invaded.  Anti-environmentalists, aided by some dishonest natives, have been propagating the lie that Native Americans had large populations and many used agriculture, but this is simply revisionist BS.  As one of my American Indian Movement friends once told me while discussing the issue of traditional v. progressive Native Americans ("progressive" in this sense means advocating giving up traditional lifestyles in favor of modern ones), "we've always had a problem with 'scouts.'"  So forget the new lies, the Americas were an ecological paradise when white people got here, regardless of whatever extinctions the Native Americans had caused millennia before.

6. "I understand rejecting cloned animals for safety reasons or moral reasons.

"But just because one doesn't like cloning? Or agriculture? Or technology in general? Or because it isn't 'natural'?"

You obviously don't understand.  I DO reject cloning for moral reasons, which are because it's not natural (see above) and for safety reasons, though it's the safety of life in general with which I'm concerned.

I don't like GMO or cloning because I think they both reduce random biodiversity. They go against the principles of the theory of evolution. The greater the biodiversity, the greater the likihood of finding an individual (plant or animal) with a natural resistance to the rapidly modify bacterias and viruses (or infectious proteins).

re: "cows not evolving fast enough"...evolution, to me, is about the advantages of biodiversity, not immediate change. It's about the survival of some already existing individuals who have a naturally occuring beneficial mutation when faced with a biological threat that the majority, non-mutant, individuals do not possess.

IMHO

cmello

I told you I'm ignorant...can spell "good" :P

cmello

I could not resist checking the thread. I would not say you've "hit a nerve". You commented on a couple things I'm interested in and I decided to present my views on the subjects. I do not believe humans are necessarily more important than other organisms, but I do not believe they are less important. There is a place for our species. We emerged on this planet via evolution, we modified the environment around us like a lot of other organisms have, we affected the evolution of other species... some benefited and some did not. Change is inevitable. Species come and go. The problem is that we are overwhelming natural systems and, if we do not want to go extinct like other species that have overwhelmed their environment, we have to correct our behavior. We have to evolve culturally, not return to an earlier period of history. There is no going back. It is not natural.

You seem to despise humans. You appear to be saying that you do not simply want us to clean up our act and walk more lightly on the Earth, adopt better agricultural habits, live in harmony with other organism; you'd prefer our species disappear. You almost view us as a mistake, agriculture as a mistake, the invention of tools more complex than a bow a mistake. But it all emerged from nature and evolved as a part of nature. How could it be a mistake that must be erased?

Demeaining the hunter/gatherer lifestyle... I did not suggest you walk out your front door and try to live in a national park for even a few days!!! I assumed you would find a mentor or study a bit before you tried to live a month without consuming food from cloned organisms. You would not necessarily disappear into the wilderness, but perhaps try to do it in an urban setting. I still think it would be a interesting story.

Regarding "Don't tell me or anyone else what to do!"... Sorry. I was presenting what I thought was an interesting suggestion. And then, as the discussion unfolded, I was suggesting that you might be able to make a stronger case if you actually practiced what you preach. BUT... if you want to go down that path... then right back at you! You pursue your fantasy of persuading humanity to become hunter/gatherers and absolutely stop telling others they should not be practicing agriculture! You can also stop telling ME that just because I defend cloning, GMOs, and anything else I do -- to protect the environment, I might add -- that I'm an anti-environmentalist! You mind your business and I'll mind mine. But if you are going to criticize something a feel is benign, than I think I have a right to defend myself. Seems like a NATURAL response, no?

I will not bore other Grist visitors by trying to explain, in this thread, what I do to protect or restore the environment. I've commented on this elsewhere and this is not the place to see who can mark the highest spot on the "true environmentalist" fire hydrant. When I criticize environmentalists it is not to undermine their efforts. It is my attempt to support their efforts and suggest ways of being more effective. To continue a tone I believe you set... how dare YOU criticize ME by accusing me of not doing enough? This was supposed to be a discussion about cloning, then the hunter/gather lifestyle, then agriculture.

Regarding "your defense of cloning makes you sound like an industry shill"... No. I like apples, bananas, potatoes, garlic, all sorts of fruits and nuts (see far far above) that human beings have because of our ability to clone plants. That's what I wrote long ago. But your response was a general condemnation of agriculture. And how can someone resist conversing with someone who condemns agriculture? I am not an industry shill, I do not blindly worship science, I do not engage in reductionist thinking (prefer looking at the big picture, and I try to anticpate the consequence of much of what I do... though perhaps not the consequences of this post.

Regarding "Nazi science"... what the...? What makes grafting an interesting branch from an apple tree onto a disease-resistant root stock Nazi science???!!! Why is cloning Nazi science? Why, exactly, are GMOs Nazi science?

Regarding "the Americas were an ecological paradise when white people got here, regardless of whatever extinctions the Native Americans had caused millennia before"... First, I was not singling out Native Americans, but using the early migration of humans to the Americas as an example of environmental destruction caused by human beings. You had said that we did not do much damage until the invention of agriculture. This is clearly not true. We modified east Africa, Europe, Asia, the Americas, Pacific Islands as we moved around the globe. Second, if you are correct, that the Americas were an ecological paradise before Europeans arrived, it was a man-made paradise. Not agriculture by you definition, perhaps, but subtantially modified to provide forage and game over an enormous area. What better way to ensure adequate game than to kill almost ALL competing species? That's natural?

Regarding "I DO reject cloning for moral reasons, which are because it's not natural"... Please, please, please... tell me how you decide what is natural and what is not natural. If a human uses a stone to kill an animal for food, is it natural? A spear? A bow? A gun? Where do you draw the line?