Being the aspiring blogger than I am, I am not proud to admit that two weeks ago, I didn’t even know what “luddite” meant. I learned of the word through my college-age kids. I looked up the definition in several places and most said about the same thing: a person who is opposed to new technology or working methods. The word got its name from a person named Ned Lud, one of a group of workers who destroyed machinery in factories in the early 19th century because they believed it would take away their jobs.
The thing is, by this defintion, I’m most certainly not a luddite. I embrace lots of new technology. Computers, smart phones, tablets, mp3 devices, all good, and this coming from someone who self-produced her own CD just as people stopped buying CDs. Luddite? No way.
But I do oppose technology that threatens beloved Mother Earth and the people on it. I guess we should coin a new term for that type of person. Whatever that term could end up being, call me a card-carrying member. I do oppose many current uses of GMO. Mind you, I am not opposed to ALL GMO. I do believe there are some benefits to the technology, but enabling plants I will eventually eat to split open the guts of bugs that bite them and to tolerate dousings of Roundup is not my idea of progress. If this means I’m a kook and a loon, then I’m a kook and a loon. But of course, I’m not a cook, nor a loon. I am an aware person.
Below is an article from British publication The Independent, written by Peter Melchett. In it, the author talks about the comparison of pro GM folks with anti GM folks and I believe his point is – hey, it’s a complicated issue and both sides have their points. He writes: Arguments about genetic modification, often wrongly characterised as science versus irrational nature-worshippers, have lost none of their passion. On one side are those who yearn for simple, high-tech solutions to complex problems. Against GM, there are ecological realities and scientific evidence. Continue reading.