Yes, beyond the disagreement about facts there is another deeper disagreement about values.
However, the division of values into "humanism" and "naturalism" is not as deep as it gets.

The underlying issue here is WILFULNESS and our attitude towards it, for which there are three approaches:

1) Apathy, inertia - "I don't care to bother or make an effort".
2) Vigour - "I can and will do anything to achieve what I want".
3) Serenity - "I could do things if I'm called for it, but I'm at peace and everything is well as it is".

Vigour is better than apathy, but serenity is better than vigour.

We are all animal species and, us such, we all share this planet.
We do not own it.
We, as Homo Sapiens, are no better, and no worse, than any other species of animal.
In fact it can be argued that perhaps we are a worse species than other animal species as we are the only species wantonly destroying our own Environment for our own selfish personal gratification.
We certainly do not have a right to destroy it.

Like most apologists for genetically modified "foods" Don pretends that the processes involved in both nature and those involved in old-fashioned plant and animal breeding (WHICH WERE ALWAYS WITHIN THE SAME SPECIES) is no different than that done when genes of fish (for instance) are inserted into a plant genome.
The Black Adder would have had something to say about that in very expletive terms - in two words the first of which is UTTER, the second begins with C.

Meanwhile the author and inspiration of these profoundly human references provides a template for understanding humankind's place in the natural world.
http://sacredcamelgardens.com/wordpress/the-unique-potential-of-man
http://www.dabase.org/p2anthro.htm
http://www.a-institute.org

The above author was also very much opposed to GM "foods".

These two references provide all the information that one needs to debunk all of the claims put forward by the advocates of GM "foods" - and their wall-to-wall lies and disinformation:
http://gmo.mercola.com
http://www.i-sis.org.uk

And I am sure that the people who produce and have affinity with the contents and message of these two deeply human magazines are agin GM "foods" too.

http://resurgence.org
http://orionmagazine.org

Don, I think you misunderstood Dyson and I suspect Dyson meant normal environmentalists are humanists but there are some on the fringe he refers to as naturalists. I think normal environmentalists who are humanists want to avoid wiping out species and want to avoid unneccessary destruction for a combination of reasons ranging from perserving yet unknown genetic solutions to wanting to preserve a natural environment so our grandchildren will still have an option of going camping and taking their own beautiful wilderness photos. And I suspect Dyson's naturalists are the fringe who, so to say, chain themselves to bulldozers to prevent any blade of grass ever again being cut by mankind.

Royal National Park is a nice effort but it does not include a native orchid that now only grows in a small part of Chain Valley Bay, nor does it include platypus or jack ants that may yet improve the quality of life of future generations in ways not imagined by us. So while I will not chain myself to the front of a bulldozer to save a weed growing in the footpath or even a empty lot; I do not trust our three layers of government enough to blindly accept their assurances that all is well.

" It occurs whenever a human being grafts a branch from one fruit tree onto another, or ensures that a mare is serviced only by a particular stallion. "

Err, no Don. Grafting is not genetic modification in any sense.

I can can see what you are getting at with with the horse breeding example, modification by breeding and artificial selection. This is of course the origin of most of our modern domestic animals and crops.

However, the phrase 'genetic modification' has a fairly specific definition in modern parlance, which neither of these examples fit.

Does this make your argument stronger, weaker or are they irrelevant to the argument? In which case, why were they included?

I could make the suggestion that you ensure that you fully understand the concepts you write about, but that would mean a massive reduction in your output, so I won't.

ateday,

Speak for yourself, if you don't mind. There are people who are referred to as 'animals' because they act like animals. That in itself should be enough to indicate that people are expected to operate on a higher plane than animals, and they usually do; even the ones who get a bit animalistic sometimes.

I don't think many people would take offence at your comparison of them with animals, but you are putting yourself down.

The other day I heard a woman tell one of those little, white fluffy dogs that look like mops without a handle to, "Come mummy". Yuk! In her case, I would have to agree that I would be pressed to decide which of the two had the more sense. But in general, I prefer people, and would never compare them with animals.

It is not difficult to see that Don is simply pointing out that we have for a long time profitably intervened in the development of plants and animals and GM is just another type of intervention.
Consider the great variety of goldfish, all patiently bred from wild carp.
Greater possibilities than those of selective breeding are offered by GM, and the opposition is largely puerile in its basis.

I thank those who have commented. I always learn from the comments. To Bugsy, the fact that some people have their own view of what 'genetic modification' means doesn't mean anything more than that. Human beings have been fiddling with nature for a very long time, and inserting genes from one species into the the DNA of another is, IMO, just a new version of the tendency.

I may have not understood Dyson, though I have read and heard what he said.

And as I wrote on my website to another commenter, I think I'm a mixture of environmentalist and humanist, as most people probably are. It's the balance in al of us that is different. I do think we are different from other animals, and also that because we have intelligence, we have a steward's responsibiity to use that intelligence wisely.

No Don, people don't "have their own view of what 'genetic modification means". "Genetic modification" has an objective definition, look it up.

Grafting has absolutely nothing to do with modification of genes in any sense, any more than a liver transplant does.

If you were talking about "fiddling with nature", then why not just talk about fiddling with nature, rather than using the term 'genetic modification' in examples that clearly show that you don't understand the subject matter.

I am actually accepting of GM in our food and arguments about the safety of our food with GM are weak. However, I do find that many environmental concerns generally are quite valid and worth at least considering before ignoring.

Environmentalism is about thinking about consequences, and preventing irreversible harm, not "doom and gloom".

Yes we humans interfere with the environment in order to improve our chances of survival just as do most other creatures, an obvious example is the the beaver, in fact just about all forms of life attempt the alter the environment for their own benefit. Unfortunately humans sometimes get it terrible wrong, you only have to look at the harm done in Australia by the introduction of rabbits, foxes, the cane toad, carp and a huge range of exotic plants.

The other problem that is unique to humans is the greed. An animal will seek the best territory that supplies all its basic needs, but humans appear to have an insatiable appetite for more and more. It leads to a situation where genetic engineering is more likely to be exploited to yield greater profits for the companies owning the seed, rather than the farmer. Typically GM seed is some 30% more expensive than conventional seed, but does not necessarily translate to increased profits for the farmer.

On the plus side we have Golden rice:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice#Distribution

On the down side we have:-
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/1999/04/toxic-pollen-bt-corn-can-kill-monarch-butterflies

Good article, Don. Well done.

Don,

If I said your home was to be torn down and you get nothing, the majority of the public would be outraged. Why then are humans not so outraged when (the living habitats) of birds and native animals are destroyed by humans?

A lot do not care. Those that do, should not be made to look or feel like criminals - becuase they do not fit in with the views of left wing socialists (favouring humans at any cost) or the right wing and/or business sector (wanting financial growth (at any cost).

Environmentalists are often "dumbed down" and have rude comments made about them. I know being an environmentalist myself, but I'm not going to let these left/right people distract me from the important issue of environmental protection and sustainability. The comments I've had are in my view a "denial" of the issues at hand, and a way to "cop out", talk and face up to Australia's (and other countries) serious and complex environmental issues.

What I found strange, was the point by (Freeman Dyson): "The natural ecology of England was uninterrupted and rather boring forest" With humans replacing the forest.... with a much richer variety of plant and animal species. The National Trust (I am a member) is aiming to restore the natural environment of the U.K and has done so for a long time.

http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/what-we-do/what-we-protect/nature-and-wildlife/

After viewing the film http://www.wastelandmovie.com/, I also cut my waste/recycling home by two thirds, seeing the damage humans are causing to the planet. I don't agree serenity is better than vigour. We need more passion in general and good balance, that goes beyond a materialistic society.

Finally I won't be responding to Sarah Russell saying: "I am happy to discuss human’s responsibility to care for our planet... I could go on... but would prefer to do so another time." She is simply in my view not interested - and is being lazy, and this applies (sadly) to so many humans.

I have had another look at this article a couple few points that occur to me

First of all I think the attempt to classify people as either Humanist or Naturalist is a long way from reality, personally I trust science to provide the best options both for the environment and humans.

Secondly Dyson has totally lost the plot with his view of The UK environment. The woods around where I grew in Ireland had some fifty different types of birds on the other hand the moorland had no more ten that I can think off the top of my head. The only reason that UK still has a wide variety of plants and animals is due to the landed gentry keeping woods, hedges, and wetlands for their own enjoyment. Moorland existed in the UK on the hills long before humans made any impact. The first humans went in for wholesale destruction on arrival in the UK. They ring barked the trees often changing the environment from one with huge range of plants and animals to one of bogs with maybe only a few dozen types of plants and a very limited range of birds. Today the widespread use pesticides and insecticides has radically reduced the flora and fauna wildlife in some parts of the UK.

Nightingale down 95%
Common starling down 91%
Linnet down 89%
Lesser redpoll down 85%
Spotted flycatcher down 83%
Lesser spotted woodpecker down 82%
Whitethroat down 81%
Willow tit down 77%
Yellowhammer down 77%
European turtle dove down 76%
Tree pipit down 75%
Eurasian woodcock down 70%
Marsh tit down 68%
Common cuckoo down 63%
Dunnock down 57%
Willow warbler down 52%
Song thrush down 47%
Bullfinch down 39%

The last point is the use of a strawman argument when Don says energy is good therefore generating CO2 must also be good