S.D. sent along this article, and when I saw it in my inbox, I knew I'd probably be blogging about it.  The reason I knew that was because I remembered my science courses when I was young, all the way from elementary school through high school. I remembered those General Electric science films that were occasionally shown in class. I even remember the balding bespectacled elderly man in a white lab coat that always did the lecture on the film, though I do not recall his name. And two things I remember about those films and textbooks and laboratory hours that were constantly drummed into us was that photosynthesis - the process whereby plants convert sunlight into chemical energy and "food", exhausting oxygen as the waste product of the process renewing the oxygen supply and allowing us to breathe - was (1) the beginning of the food chain for all life on this planet, and (2) that the process itself was somewhat of a mystery. The man grinning from behind his thick spectacles and white lab coat breezily assured us in film after film that the solution to the riddle of photosynthesis might supply a new and virtually limitless energy source, and perhaps solve hunger.

Well, with that in mind, consider this article:

Experts unlock key to photosynthesis, a find that could help us meet food security demands

Now, in spite of the headline, the reality is a bit different, and right off the bat, we're in a spot of trouble:

Scientists have solved the structure of one of the key components of photosynthesis, a discovery that could lead to photosynthesis being 'redesigned' to achieve higher yields and meet urgent food security needs.

The study, led by the University of Sheffield and published today in the journal Nature, reveals the structure of cytochrome b6f—the protein complex that significantly influences via photosynthesis.

Photosynthesis is the foundation of life on Earth providing the food, oxygen and energy that sustains the biosphere and human civilisation.

Using a high-resolution structural model, the team found that the provides the electrical connection between the two light-powered chlorophyll-proteins (Photosystems I and II) found in the plant cell chloroplast that convert sunlight into .(Emphasis added)

Throw in a dash of updated Malthusianism, and voila:

"Previous studies have shown that by manipulating the levels of this complex we can grow bigger and better plants. With the new insights we have obtained from our structure we can hope to rationally redesign in crop plants to achieve the higher yields we urgently need to sustain a projected global population of 9-10 billion by 2050". (Emphasis added)

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for increased crop yields and so on. My problem is again the same as that with GMO's: a new agricultural technology was minted and circulated in the late 1980s, with corporate assurances that a genetically modified plant was "substantially equivalent" to a "natural, un-tinkered-with" plant, except of course that the un-tinkered-with plant couldn't be patented, and hence the GMO version could make you lots of money if you owned the patent on it. It went well for a few years, until the "bad news" started slowly trickling in, which "bad news" I've chronicled on this site in various blogs about GMOs over the years: (1) over the long haul, the yields of GMO per acre fell vis-a-vis their natural counterparts, while the costs of using them over the long haul outstripped that of natural crops; (2) there were rising and growing concerns, matched by independent studies done out from underneath the corporate jackboot, that the associated pesticides and their ingredients were causing a rise in cancer rates both among animal and human populations being fed the GMOs; (3) natural pests adapted faster to the GMOs than scientists could adapt to their adaptation, forcing more use of pesticides, &c &c in a vicious circle; and penultimately, (4) indications started to appear that GMOs were adversely affecting soil conditions. And there was a final problem: in Germany a biophysicist (I believe) did a study of the electromagnetic signatures of both GMO plants and natural plants, and lo and behold, while chemically "substantially equivalent," electromagnetically they are not. To borrow a concept of Dr. Rupert Sheldrake and apply it in a very different contest, their "morphogenetic fields" are quite different. In the German study, the hypothesis is that that difference in the electromagnetic fields of the two is crucial to the nutrition value of the natural plant over the GMO.

Whatever one makes of that  speculation, I suspect that the reader already knows where I'm going with this: before we rush to tinker with the process of photosynthesis itself, we had better be very certain that there are no long-term unanticipated environmental and health effects, and that can only be done by very comprehensive and long-term intergenerational testing. Will tweaking photosynthesis have any adverse effects on bees and other pollinators? We don't know. Will it have an effect on the nutrient levels of soil? We don't know. Will it drive up levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? We don't know. And that's another problem, for while Mr. Globaloney lectures the rest of us deplorables about carbon footprints, and those tweaked photosynthesis plants are putting out more and more oxygen, and Mr. Globaloney reduces the human population of oxygen breathers who exhale the carbon dioxide that those plants need for their photosynthesis... well... you get the picture.

See you on the flip side...





  1. Like Monty Python said no the battle field, if you murder someone back at home they hang you, htere they give your a f’^#ing medal.
    i cannot plant a forest and log it, let alone clear fell it, on my place because it is steep like this.

    more than 10 years ago they announce that it had been found that the photons gort from the landing zone to the chemical factory by ‘teleporting’, ie disappearing and reappearing from existence to another location.
    2018 update and a good write up, the jury is out on it.

    “According to Romero, this tuning of molecular vibrations to the right frequencies for transferring energy makes the photosystem what she calls a “quantum-designed light trap”. When you look at photosynthetic reaction centres for a range of organisms, she says, “there is only one design that is conserved, which suggests that nature has found a design able to perform efficient charge separation and has maintained it”. In other words, she says, natural selection seems to have favoured this quantum-optimized process.”

  2. Science for profit. The best science of the day back when logging ruled the Pacific Northwest, was two to three seed trees left standing and all else was clear cut. There were other voices in the science community that did not agree with this view. They did not work much. This economic “science” is a manipulation of fact caused by the great hunger for more … gold … and its equivalents.

    Our ancient forests and trees have been cut, the water, land and air polluted, bird, animal, and insect populations are suffering or extinguished, our fisheries are, and have run out of fish, and we humans are like fish; the older we get the more manufactured toxins and chemicals we accumulate in our bodies. These are the after-effects of the relentless, competitive pursuit for “more” …

    Photosynthesis seems to be a plant process of a kind of Alchemy … and the possibilities here for “more” are immense. Yet the best science of the logging era had no idea what was going on beneath their boots. Today we find humongous fungus and mycorrhizae colonies that extend for miles and miles underneath the forest floor, and root fibers from different species communicating with chemicals, symbiotic relationships helping one species to another survive drought or disease ( this isn’t “survival of the fittest”) and we are only beginning to “see” how such interwoven environments work. Clear cut logging has many consequences not foreseen by science, and now that it has an idea, it is still practiced world-wide. Unchecked competition with wealth accumulation as its goal is a disease. In the forest floor we see competition, yet also cooperation with altruism. Humans would do well to study this more …

  3. Bye the bye, regarding the 1163 Gothic wonder, Notre Dame; today’s trees are supposedly not robust enough to support the roof, the new beams will consist of steel even plastic[it will not be visible].

    Perfect cultural symbolism…
    of before and after representation$.

    Oh, and there’s a new board game on sale at Target: Photosynthesis.
    Players grow trees for timber where one can revel in competitive meanness as your shadows smother your opponent’s ill-laid shrubs[per description]

  4. Once again, Manipulation, just another scam, if any farmer blindly believe technology without even do some home work themselves, they will always being tricked into lost their investment.

  5. Our elites are worshipers of the gods of torture and murder. They intend to use these technologies to kill us riffraff slowly and painfully. Nothing like causing suffering on an industrial scale and enjoying your victims’ death throes.

  6. Think mirror. We now have the ability to alter photosynthesis in crops to make them less productive and reduce the population through famine blamed on the boogy man climate change.

  7. How convenient! I wouldn’t be surprised if that design gets patented by bayer/monsanto just like those aluminium resistant seeds . Especially with all the geoengineering projects in the works.
    The three things plant need for photosynthesis: sunlight, water and carbondioxide.
    Take SCoPEx for example: The plan is to cover the earth in calcium silicate dust reducing sunlight penetration by 30% or more. Reduced sunlight doesn’t sound like a good idea in terms of plant growth, neither the calcium bit. Calcium is a main plant growth regulator. Excess calcium leads to toxicity , reduced plant growth and inability by plants to germinate seeds. Then there are those horrible machines they’re building to suck carbondioxide out of the atmosphere. How are the plants gonna grow? Then there’s Starlink: 42000 low earth orbit satellites to finish off our few remaining bees? Check out Martin Palls lectures on how emf radiation leads to excess calcium build up in our cells and how that destroys our mitochondria. SCoPEx <3 Starlink = True!

    1. Snuttis
      Along the lines of WalkingDead, they’re modus operandi is killing billions, not saving lives; nor, do they give a damn about experimenting w/nature at life’s expense.
      One of their latest buzz words is “regenerative agriculture” whose Orwellian definition is: a farming practice that restores the planet instead of depleting it. regenerative agriculture aims to improve the environment while simultaneously growing w/in it. It focuses on rebuilding topsoil and boosting biodiversity, which pulls CO2 from the air and traps it in the ground rather than releasing it in the air.

      So are they removing CO@ wherever, and whenever possible?

      Cui bono?

    2. Thanks for your comment. I will check out the links.

      It rings with truth – I had a hair mineral analysis and my calcium was sky high. In humans this can lead to clogging of arteries and heart disease, stroke etc. It can be brought down with Vit D, Boron, Vit K and magnesium supplementation. It’s a state that also mimics hyperparathyroidism.

    1. A Capitalism being geared to fully replace nature/life


      digitization/transhumanism. A wannabe Paladin
      not living, whose business card reads:

      Have Spaceship
      Will Travel

      Like a twisted TV version,
      To replace life wherever w/its faux copy mirror image:

      [This post reminded of a book I reviewed on Amazon:
      The Living Supply Chain:
      The Evolving Imperative of Operating In Real Time.]

  8. I tend to believe just the opposite of what the elite and their corporatocracy is spouting. While it may be fine to tweak plant life you plan on using for terraforming, it’s not a very bright approach for your home planet.
    To believe those currently in the business of killing millions are concerned about feeding 9-10 billion people is a bit naive.

  9. Mother Nature has used billennia to tweak and re-tweak and re-tweak again to produce plant genetics which are as ‘optimized’ for a changing planet as possible. They have survived comets/asteroids, extensive lava (“traps”), probably ‘snowball Earths’, and every conceivable pest/bacteria/virus. In engineering terms, the survivors are good enough . When humans tweak fundamental genetics, like for photosynthesis, they may undo some unlooked-for “subtlety” which enabled survival in one of the above calamities. We should tread carefully and respectfully…

    Speaking of Sheldrake, his research found that it was very hard to accomplish the first article of something new. In his terms, it had no “morphogenetic field” yet. Following this original ‘breakthrough’, copies became easier and easier to create as the field became stronger. Note that this field is independent of location. If a researcher in UK makes one copy, a researcher in Mongolia suddenly finds it easier to create a copy. It snowballs.

    “Morphogenetic field” effects should dictate that anything being created – good, bad, ugly, or beautiful – should be ‘wrung out’ before moving into the production stage . Once multiple copies are being made – like a crop being mass produced for sale – the genie is out of the bottle, in a morphogenetic field sense. Tinkering with photosynthesis should absolutely fall under this mantle…

Comments are closed.