From: dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca (Don Christie)
Subject: Re: GP wants you, was Re: government organic food purchase
Reply-To: dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca
Organization: Nova Scotia Agricultural College, Nova Scotia, CANADA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 02:04:14 GMT

In article <1992Nov14.195736.12951@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>In article <1992Nov13.192927.22344@nstn.ns.ca> dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca writes:
>>In article <1992Nov13.124921.8198@ornl.gov>, de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov12.155844.2610@nstn.ns.ca>, dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca (Don Christie) writes:
>>>>
>>>>The Green movement, like many of the other so-called `environmentalist'
>>>>groups like Greenpeace, exist as much for economic gain as they do
>>>>for their stated purpose. Many of the rank-and-file membership are indeed
>>>>sincere in their desire to better our environment. The organizers, on the
>>>>other hand, gain financially from their efforts, and I suggest that much,
>>>>if not MOST of their motivation for promoting the movement is to bolster 
>>>>their incomes.
>>>
>>>Agricultural chemical producers, like many of the other so-called
>>>`agribusinesses', exist solely for economic gain, not an altruistic desire to
>>>improve yields or farmer profits.  Many of the rank-and-file salesman are
>>>indeed sincere in their desire to help farmers.  The management and
>>>stockholders, on the other hand, gain financially from their efforts, and I
>>>suggest that most, if not ALL of their motivation for promoting petrochemical
>>>fertilizers and pesticides is to bolster their incomes.
>>
>>yes, this is all true. But at least agribusiness people don't try to pass 
>>themselves off as the `saviours of the planet'.... and the people `who make
>>all the decisions'.... they are straight-forward about their profit-oriented
>>modus operandi. The organizers of the Green movement (or, for that matter,
>>many similar organizations like Greenpeace) are doing basically the same
>>thing as Jim Bakker did. 
>>
>Once again, I ask you for a shred of evidence that this is true of the
>Green Party.  
>>

Academics and fools are alike from the point of view that they both feel the
need for proof of the absolutely obvious! Principia Mathematica... a document
some feel to be a significant one in terms of mathematics, devotes a
spectacular amount of space to prove that 1 + 1 = 2 .... the organizers
of many of these `special interest groups' like the Green Movement and like
greenpeace make shall we say `substantial' salaries.... a few years ago
Barbara Frum (on the Journal) asked the head of Greenpeace on national
television what he earned... he declined comment.... she asked himspecifically
if the reason he was doing what he was was based more upon money or was
it a more humanistic interest... like the environment. His response, of course
was that he was interested in the environment... but he sure didn't convince
me... Of course none of this constitutes PROOF... but then nobody said that
these people were STUPID... they cover their asses so that there isn't anything
that can be used as evidence agsinst them... so there isn't any PROOF... but
like I said, why do we need to prove the obvious? 

You haven't even proven to me yet thga
that we can't trust the academic and technical people who currently lead the
agricultureal industry... why do we need to duplicate/replace/supplement
their efforts with the Green Movement or Greenpeace or whatever???

>>//Don
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Who ELSE could have written The Adventures of Wild Bill Groady??
>
>
>-- 
>
>		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)

//Don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who ELSE could have written The Adventures of Wild Bill Groady??