Prince Chuck an ally/asset

[Kritters]

Seems the Prince is a Prince after all. At least with respect to our mutual concerns regarding bio-engineering. We knew he spoke out for the bees, but....this just in. All you Britt morgies might consider putting our situation in front of him and his polo horse.

ISIS Press Release 12/09/08

Prince Charles Speaks for the People and for Many Scientists
Too

Prince Charles first spoke out against genetic modification
in the 2000 Reith Lecture Respect for the Earth when he was
viciously attacked by the scientific establishment; this was
one of the very few articles defending him that got into the
mainstream media and is just as relevant today as it was
then

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho



Prince Charles embarrassed the government and the scientific
establishment with his Reith lecture broadcast on BBC Radio
4 (17 May 2000). In his wide ranging talk, which drew on the
work of theologians, philosophers, scientists and
economists, he said much that surely expressed the views of
the majority in this country. Is it possible that the prince
is more in touch with the common people than our elected
Government?

The idea that there is a sacred trust under which human
beings accept stewardship for the earth is common to most
spiritual traditions, including those that do not
acknowledge a Creator. The Prince urged us to recapture this
sense of the sacred, in which we accept that there are
bounds of balance, order and harmony in the natural world
and that development is progress only if it is sustainable.
He singled out gene biotechnology (genetic modification) for
attack as an unacceptable transgression of Nature's limits,
treating our entire world as a “laboratory of life” with
potentially disastrous consequences.

Did he attack science? Was he anti-science, as has been
claimed? Not at all. Many scientists, me included, were
quite comfortable with what he said. His attack was aimed at
the “impenetrable layers of scientific rationalism” (he
might have said, “rationalisation”) that obscure our sense
of the sacred and respect for the earth, and in the end lead
us to regard the whole of nature, including human beings, as
something that can be “engineered for our own convenience or
as a nuisance to be evaded and manipulated”. That view may
indeed infect science, but it is not at all inherent to it.

Nor does one have to believe in a Creator to agree with
Prince Charles that that there is a “perfect unity, order,
wisdom and design of the natural world” and opposing British
philosopher Bertrand Russell’s view that that the universe
is “all spots and jumps” without continuity, coherence or
orderliness.

Prince Charles is speaking for the people when he called for
support for organic farming. Who could disagree when he
argued that if a fraction of the money currently being
invested in developing genetically manipulated crops were
applied to understanding and improving traditional systems
of agriculture, which have stood the all-important test of
time, the results would be “remarkable”?



Read the rest of this article here
Prince Charles Speaks for the People and for Many Scientists Too
================================================== ======
This article can be found on the I-SIS website at
Prince Charles Speaks for the People and for Many Scientists Too

[Jo]

Thanks Kritts,

I think Charlie's comments are very well made and I agree. Nature is a fine equlibrium...very delicate and amazing. No one should mess with it, but of course we all do...but not like this - these are fundamental things I think noone should mess with - or be allowed too.

Jo xxx

[Kritters]

I agree Jo,

Just the trash, garbage, pesticides, weed-killers, chemicals the average Joe uses daily, are problematic enough. But the bio-engineering is a whole nuther ballgame with bigger, better and freaky morphing players. I really don't see how it can be reversed at this point, and there is no way everything that's being done will just stop.

Kritts

[pat]

Erm,I think Hilly was writing to Prince Charles (he doesn't look like a Chuck kritts) the last i read ,but she seems to have disappeared so don't know if she got around to dropping him a line.

[Kritters]

Chuck is short in the states for Charles. It's more a familiar form. No, he doesn't look like a Chuck. He looks like a chick.
Kritts

[pat]

Originally Posted by Kritters

Chuck is short in the states for Charles. It's more a familiar form. No, he doesn't look like a Chuck. He looks like a chick.
Kritts

Mmm I knew you had the name Chuck in the states.But I am not on familiar terms with him-and you don't want to be either.They did away with punishing people by putting them in Tower of London.Now,they invite em to Highgrove (his mansion) to 'supper'-with him and Cruella de ville!!
IMHO he does not look like a chuck or chick.He looks like an ant eater.
WHOOPS thats my one way ticket to Highgrove.

[carla]

Hilly did write a great letter to him but she has been away.
She will be back soon hopefully with a reply from him with giant ears.
carla xxx

[Kritters]

LOLOL
Great. Looking forward to hearing!
Kritts