THE GMO SCRAPBOOK: RAPPAPORT ON THE MAUI CASE AND MON(STER)SANTO
Rarely do I write a blog where almost the whole blog is someone else's blog, but that's the case today, and the reason that it's the case today is because I cannot improve either upon Mr. Rappaport's words nor exceed the passion with which they were written, and which I share. I will say something about that passion, from my own personal standpoint, after this article:
So what's my own personal passion in all of this?
I've written about GMOs before, and about the almost complete lack of long-term intergenerational studies on their health and environmental impacts, studies only now coming out from various independent sources - and by independent, I mean something other than the bought-and-paid-for government rubber stamp of corporate scientism and its dogmas. Russia, readers here will recall, has specifically embarked on such long-term studies, recognizing that they were never adequately implemented in the corporatist west. University studies, including some in GMO-friendly USA, have indicated falling rates of production for rising production costs for GMO crops, vs their natural counterparts, and all this while IG Farbensanto, Duponzanto, Syncrudda and other "agribusiness" firms were hauling farmers to court and suing them when they found GMO crops growing in their fields, often without the farmer's intention, but simply as the result of natural causes!
For me, the real issue here is much deeper than GMOs, human health, or global food production. Those are, to be sure, life and death issues. There's no getting around this fact. But the deeper issue is philosophical and, one might almost say, cosmological, and that is, can real science even be conducted when sheer amounts of money and political influence can be wielded to distort, or even circumvent, the normal scientific method? To distort or suppress the results of evidence contrary to its assumptions? Is this science? or merely scientism, a new kind of religion by authority when "experts" with PhDs confidently compose their encyclicals and ukases for the faithful to believe, which to question is to be irrational and "unscientific"? And what will be the result culturally if, over time, such practises will be allowed to continue? Will scientists themselves feel secure in their position and in the moral calling that science requires, namely, to be truthful? Science itself - let me repeat that, science itself, all the sciences - is and are at stake in the GMO issue, and when its results can only be assured when bought and paid for, rather than experimentally observed, then science itself is in danger of dying.
Thus, for me, the real issue posed by GMOs is the health, and validity, of science itself. This is the central core of the GMO issue.
We've seen this before, with oligarchy-driven "scientific" memes such as global warming, and when that meme was quickly exposed for doctoring some, and suppressing other, data, then the meme had to be changed to the self-evident generalization and tautological (and hence, non-scientific) meme of "climate change." Let us never forget that the globaloney of overpopulation and carrying capacity was an invention of The Most Serene Republic of Venice, and it has been a dogma of financial oligarchies ever since. It was science that caused those initial Venetian estimates of maximum carrying capacity to be constantly revised... upward. It was science and scientific invention and human creativity that outflanked the "scientific" dogma. GMOs were sold as a means of again circumventing the contemporary estimates of "carrying capacity" and as a means of increasing production to "feed a growing population and hungry world". But data to the contrary of the theory grows, and now, suggestively, it has to be suppressed.
Or, as Mr. Rappaport so suggestively put it in his blog, while the lawsuit drags on, the shredders are working overtime to kill and suppress the data that opposes the dogma.
The real nightmare for Interessen Gemeinschaft Farbensantoindustrie, Aktiensgesellschaft is... when will the whistleblowers start blowing whistles, and leaking, Snowden-style, the documents? That's why the shredders are probably working overtime, because the old memes of "what's good for Wall Street, what's good for capitalism, is good for America" and "corporations and governments never lie", just isn't playing in Peoria any more. And it's certainly not playing in Maui.
See you on the flip side...
Help the Community Grow
Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.