farmers we now have. Most of the lossnwill be due to innovations in technologynwhich keep market prices very lownand so drive out less efficient, i.e.,nconventional farmers. Theoretically,nthe introduction of almost any newnbiotechnological innovation should benable to be adapted by anyone. But thenOTA concluded that for a variety ofnreasons, it will be the large farmers whonare in a position to make the changesnand benefit from them—particularlynat that critical eariy period in anyninnovation’s lifespan when great profitsnare made because the market pricesnhave not adjusted. Smaller farmers willnchange, but it will be in response to thenflooding of the market with cheapernfoods created by the new technology.nMost of these smaller farmers will bentoo late in making the change, andnthey will be forced out of business.nEach wave of change in farming hasnfollowed this same pattern.nThis might lead to another socialncrisis in farming similar to what wenhave just gone through (thanks to increasesnin farm costs against decliningnvalues for land). The OTA considerednseveral choices which are available tonus, if we hold constant that biotechnologynis inevitable and we have to worknaround it. The most obvious scenario isnthat the government gets out of thenfarm subsidy business — as it is nowntrying to do. With cheap and abundantnsupplies of food, mostly coming fromnabout 50,000 large farms, the countrynwill continue to be fed. Meanwhile, angreat weeding out of small andnmedium-sized farmers will take place.nOTA did consider the economicncost to America if for some reason wenwanted to “save the family farm,” asnwe have been trying to do. For this itnwould be necessary to create a two-tiernsystem, in which farmers who did notnuse technology were subsidized as theynnow are. The other farmers would notnbe subsidized. This kind of system doesnnot seem very likely or very popular.nNo one would be happy with it. Thencosts could be staggering — far morenthan the $30 billion in farm subsidiesnwhich we have seen in recent years.nA third possibility is that those whondo not utilize technology will stay onnthe acres as hobbyists, possibly growingnalternative crops and selling direct—inneffect, avoiding the main food chain.nThere is nothing wrong with this. Butnit certainly changes the role of farming.nUltimately, what is at issue here is anquestion of direction. The federalnagencies have only danced around thenissue of regulation of biotechnology innagriculture. Remember that in thenhealth science area we have excellentnchecks and balances, reviews ofnprocedures, rules and regulations, andnclear designation as to who is overseeingnbiotechnological research. In thenagricultural field, where the experimentsnare infinitely larger and potentiallynmore dangerous, we have almostnno such control.nThese days, it would seem, Prometheusnwears overalls. We should notnmake the mistake of judging the mannby his attire. The new bionic farmernain’t exactly American Gothic.nWilliam Mueller lives on a farm innIowa.nSCIENCEnDarwin for Sissies,nor What EvernHappened tonSurvival of thenFittest?nby Mark D. RentznEvolutionists used to be hard-boiledntheorists who maintained that nature,nincluding man, was based only on thenimpersonal plus time plus chance. Theyncoolly asserted that the fittest survive,nthat some species die off and othersnthrive because of natural selection. Allnenduring creatures, great and small,nhave mutated and adapted to their environments.nThe new breed of evolutionist is justnas firm on these “orthodox” positions,nbut insists on blatantly interfering innnature. They justify their propping upnendangered species who can’t cut thenmustard by citing a natural transcendence—nsomething that soundsnvery similar to the Christian transcendencenthey have despised so much in thenChristian “myth.” Face it: the newnevolutionist is a blubbering sentimentalist.nTune in to just about any animalnprogram and you can see: a NationalnGeographic wildlife special. Nature,nAnimal Kingdom, NOVA, a documentarynon Jane Goodall at the GombenStream chimpanzee reserve in Tanzania,nor just about any post-Tarzan erananimal flick will do. Hear how overnmillions of years these endangered animalsnhave evolved, and that we mustn’tnlet them simply die out in an epochalnfortnight. Hear how man’s conquest ofnnature is an immoral act. Watch noblenand enlightened conservationists on anromantic rescue effort to save pandas,nelephants, blue whales, snail darters,nBengal tigers, rhinos, baby seals —nsaving everything but the human fetusn(people needn’t apply for protectionnbecause they are, after all, doing all thenenvironmental damage, and there arentoo many of them anyway).nThese weak-kneed evolutionists, apparentlynin need of a cosmologicalncrutch, have discovered pantheism.nThey’ve replaced monotheism and then”antiquated” creation model with anromanticized nature. Speciesists, theynilFMYnThe Family Wage: Work, Gender,nand Children in The ModernnEconomy A fascinating collectionnof essays that will help Americansnbetter understand the current economicnchallenges to family life.nSend for your copy today!nDYES , please send mencopies of The Family Wage: Work,nGender, and Children in thenModern Economy at $11.50 eachn(postage and handling included).nNamenAddressnCitynnnState. .Zip.nSend this coupon and your check madenout to The Rockford Institute to: ThenRockford Institute, 934 N. Main St.,nRockford, IL 61103nDECEMBER19881 SSn