Re: [Re: Suicide Seeds on the Fast Track]

From Ben Earnhart <>
Date Tue, 28 Mar 2000 23:02:09 -0600

[: hacktivism :]

Just for clarification -- I thought that the alleged purpose of the suicide
function was that such seeds *can't* reproduce...  I suppose that depending
on how their reproductive functions were turned off, they might still
spread their genetic material (for example, if you disabled females but the
males could still spread active pollen), but in general, the suicide
function, if well-implemented, *adds* safety to using the seeds.  

Of course, there are still strong economic and cultural arguments against
them, and they probably should do more testing to clarify scientific
issues, such as to be darn *certain* they can't reproduce.   However, it
seems unfair (or at least illogical) to slam them for creating seeds that
can't reproduce, and then using as a part of the argument fears regarding
"what if they reproduce?"  

Or maybe there are nuances to the issue I'm missing?  Several postings (and
sites I've gone to for information) have had this same apparent logical
flaw, and I'm wondering if I just missed something. 

           Ben Earnhart
    Department of Sociology (student)
         University of Iowa
          Iowa City, Iowa
           (319) 335-2505

[: hacktivism :]
[: for unsubscribe instructions or list info consult the list FAQ :]
[: :]