Crooked Timber has some interesting articles on identity and humanity and nature.
Questions: To what extent is the nonhuman world an obstacle to human endeavor? What about the endeavor to change human nature? Does the human portion of the natural world become an obstacle to human endeavor?
Genetically modified food, for the most part, does not bother me. I am not troubled by ‘golden rice’ or by pest-resistant bT soy any more than I am by a hybrid rose, a plumcot, or a purebred dog. Which is to say, there’s potential for trouble there, but not, for the most part, awful trouble. It’s perfectly possible to have all of these things without ethical problems– but they can arise.
So what if we synthesize all of our food some day? So much of what I eat is contaminated with industrial waste: the mercury in my fish, the pesticide in my vegetables. Why wouldn’t hothouse everything be safer? An individual hothouse tomato, grown without pesticides, might be better. An individual farm-raised fish could be safer than one roaming free in the heavy-metal ocean. But human beings cannot maintain the biodiversity or healthy balance of nature. At least, not yet. Remeber what happened to the various biodome experiments? Systemic failure.
I saw a blind woman in the T this morning, holding the cane just a fraction of an inch below her foot level as she descended the stairs, so it tapped only when she reached a landing. She went all the way into the station, mostly not touching the walls or the floors, tapping only once or twice when she needed to make a turn. But she was close by the wall. She’d need sight, (or a much longer cane, or a lot of practice) to walk down the exact middle.
Moderation is often the hardest route to take. It’s much easiser to hew closely to one wall or another.
Secretly Ironic 