Dots, Defects and Dangers

Today, we're going to do a little theoretical mental exercises.  Don't let that scare you.  I just want to put that up front so that everyone knows this is a mind experiment and not an accusation against several very litigious companies who make money off of trademarking natural processes and suing small farmers.

First, so readily available facts from Google searchers: Brazil is noted to be the epicenter of the Zika virus outbreak in April 2015; Brazil is noted to have one of the highest levels of glyphosate use in agriculture and consumption; glyphosate is noted to cause cancer and birth defects; Brazil has released large numbers of GM mosquitoes in the past to combat disease vectors.

To lay this out a bit, a relatively benign tropical virus discovered in Africa (Zika forest monkeys) in the 1950s, suddenly becomes a major health threat centered in Brazil where they have copiously consumed GM plants, animals and used lots and lots of glyphosate (Round-Up), where it suddenly began causing microcephaly (lit. "small head") and other birth defects.

Now, to my admittedly suspicious mind and overactive imagination, these dots link up to suggest one of two things:
1) The Zika virus mutated in contact with GM cells in the guts of manufactured mosquitoes, and may have been aided and abetted by GM foods and/or the use of glyphosate;
2) The birth defects are actually caused by glyphosate and the Zika virus is being used to cover and "explain" the problem, using a natural cause and vector, rather than face decades of lawsuits and the banning of a very lucrative product (see "DDT").

I do not rule out that the virus may be the actual cause of birth defects and other issues, but given that there is almost no literature discussing these problems before April of 2015, I am hard-pressed to believe that the virus was not modified, either by design or contact with GM genes in plants or animals.  In either case, the culpability of certain malevolent corporations is easily demonstrated.

In sequencing the genome of the Zika virus, one would think it easy to look for patented genes, or even serial numbers (a la Blade Runner) on individual cells.

I perfectly willing to accept that this is all circumstantial and that viruses can mutate naturally, even becoming far more dangerous over time.  However, this kind of event clearly shows the dangers involved in tampering with the genomes of living creatures without a lot more knowledge and practice than we currently have.

If one thing can be learned from the history of science, it is that the Law of Unintended Consequences reigns supreme.  When we begin juggling the foundational substances of Life itself, we are staring the "butterfly effect" straight in the face and daring Fate.  There are many examples of massive boulders resting precariously on tiny pebbles, and to remove even the smallest of them many cause the entire mass to avalanche.

It is the ultimate in hubris and stupidity (often synonymous) to think that humans, with a few decades of trial and error under our belts, can release genetically modified organisms into the wild and not have some kind of blow-back from it.  It is a dangerous and extremely risky game we are playing with the mass of Nature resting on such tiny pebbles.

And while this mucking about with DNA is bad enough, to think that a corporation would purposely modify a virus to cover up the poisonous effects of one of its most successful products if even more horrifying, but to take another lesson from history, it is neither unthinkable nor unprecedented.  Perhaps this situation calls for a much closer look at the origins of the problem.

The Creature

"I started from my sleep with horror; a cold dew covered my forehead, my teeth chattered, and every limb became convulsed; when, by the dim and yellow light of the moon, as it forced its way through the window shutters, I beheld the wretch— the miserable monster whom I had created. He`held up the curtain of the bed; and his eyes, if eyes they may be called, were fixed on me. His jaws opened, and he muttered some inarticulate sounds, while a grin wrinkled his cheeks. He might have spoken, but I did not hear; one hand was stretched out, seemingly to detain me, but I escaped and rushed downstairs."  -- Frankenstein; or The New Prometheus by Mary (Percy) Shelley

And so it is that we humans always come to see our creations.  We spend endless hours in pursuit of god-like status, desiring to create perfection that will in turn worship us as gods.  Yet, when we succeed and gaze into the eyes of our creations, we are repulsed and terrified.

Just because we can do a thing, it does not follow that we should.  It is a lesson Mankind has been taught repeatedly, and yet we persist in diving into the abyss with every passing thought, only to be repulsed by the result.

 Humans, in our boundless hubris, have always imagined we can improve upon what has taken the Universe billions of years to perfect.  We look at ourselves and think, "I could be stronger, or smarter, or faster.  If I just tweak this or modify that, I will achieve perfection!"  The problem is that we are mired in materialism, seeing nothing beyond flesh and blood.  We have forgotten that perfection is intangible and cannot exist on the plane of the physical.

Humans continue to seek Utopia despite repeated failures over thousands of years.  It is unobtainable by any standard outside the individual.  It cannot exist where two or more humans come together, since at that point there are overlapping ideas and ideals.

Every human thinks their childhood was less than perfect, so they strive to raise their children in the "perfect" way, only to find that the children are individuals with their own ideas about perfection.  The desire for perfection is so deep that wars have been fought to force one people to adopt another's ideal, much like bringing 'democracy' or 'communism' to the world.

From Plato through Dante to Thoreau, poets and idealists have sought perfection.  What they find is that one man's perfection is another's hell.  Each culture chooses its aesthetic and never the twain shall meet.  And even within a culture and the individual, the ideal changes over time, like fashion and seasons.  It's a case of greener grass just over the neighbor's fence.


Like Dr. Frankenstein, though, no matter how much we strive, no matter how lofty our ideals, no matter the drive of our ego, once we have achieved what we thought was perfect, we find that we are back to where we started.  It is a vicious circle or unending strife and strive.

And so it is with our would-be kings.  The closer they come to achieving their dreams, the more they will be repulsed by what they have created, because withing every creation is the spark of individualism.  No man nor any group of men can ever be subdued and molded into an external image of perfection.  Each person is ultimately self-perfecting within the confines of their existence, but ultimately the individual can only exist with other perfections.  It cannot subdue or submit for more than the shortest amount of time.

Even now there are many who turn to machines or genetics to 'perfect' the human existence.  I cannot last and it will never succeed.  Perfection doesn't lie in the flesh or the genome.  Those are only vehicles by which the perfect part of us imagines this reality.

The Commanche have an interesting saying: You can change the vessel, but the water inside is still the same.  All transhumanist and genetic engineering is doomed to failure.  So many people are focusing on the vessel and not the contents.  Even if the vessel were to be perfected -- an impossible task since everyone's idea of perfection is different -- the water inside is still the same.  When you consider those people who are said to have achieved perfection, they did not do so with bionic limbs, Google glass and genetic enhancements.  They did it by focusing on the contents of their vessels.

Realizing the ultimate failure of those who would force their ideals of perfection on the rest of us doesn't release us from responsibility.  They will harm a great many people with their lunatic experiments and for that reason alone, we must stop them.  They will not practice on themselves.  Rather they will use our vessels to reach their goals, then turn the processes to their benefit.

All the modifications to our selves and our world will never change anything about the human condition.  The real perfection of our selves is not something you can inject, modify or enhance.  It cannot be placed on an operating table nor imaged under a microscope.  It cannot be defined by the senses nor pointed to as a goal.  It cannot be designed, built or painted.

Perfection is a state of mind, an inner realization that we are already perfect.  We can pour the water of our being into any vessel we choose.

Perfection is the sound of one hand clapping.

Mu.

Custom-Fit Genes

For eons, humans have eaten the plants and animals that inhabit our surroundings.  At the molecular level, we are bound to our environment in a way few of us really think about.

When we eat something, we are ingesting everything that meal consumed, plus its DNA.  As our bodies digest the meal, its molecules are either directly used by our bodies, or are rendered into a form which can be used.  Everything about that meal becomes us in a most intimate and fundamental way.

UPDATE: How about custom assassinations using bioweapons tuned to individual DNA?

 Within the past 20 years or more, humans have learned how to manipulate the very structure of life.  We have cataloged its structure and begun rearranging it to suit our whims.  We are changing the very fabric of the reality into which we have spent millions of years assimilating, with little concern on the part of the masses for the long-term effects.  This is in spite of the fact that we are all aware on some level that every action has a consequence, good, bad or indifferent.  And it's usually the bad we don't prepare for that bites us in the tail.

Back in the 90s, I was witness to a series of experiments injecting the P53 Wild gene into tumor cells.  The gene was attached to the protein coat of a certain virus and then injected directly into the tumor.  The protein coat acted as a key to allow the gene inside the cell wall, where it was incorporated into the cell's DNA.  The tests were reasonably successful with the P53 Wild gene acting as a switch to turn off the run-away growth of cancer cells.

In those experiments, the P53 gene was 'wild', meaning it was a naturally occuring, though unmutated, gene found in all of our cells.

Today we have companies such as Monsanto and DuPont liberally mixing and matching genes of different species, turning them on and off, and even creating wholly new ones from the basic building blocks of DNA.  The chimeras created in this fashion are liberally sprinkled in the environment in the form of GMOs for the stated purpose of increasing food crop yields, or producing natural substances on a mass scalle, or even to provide antibiotics and antivirals within in the foods we eat.

There is no concern for consent or even basic information.  There have been no life-long controlled trials to see what the outcomes will be.  If anything, there is callous disregard for how these modifications will affect not only individual humans, but the global environment.  Some would suggest that this cynical disregard for consequences is motivated merely by profit, but I believe there is a far more sinister agenda at play.

There are numerous examples of companies such as Monsanto suing farmers for possession of their crops for the simple reason that the farmer's crops were cross-pollenated by neighboring GMO fields.  The pollen carried patented genes into the farmer's crops, thus allowing the mega-corp to claim ownership on the basis that the natural crop now contained their intellectual property.  Governments have issued patents and courts have upheld claims, so there's no reason to think things will change soon or easily.

Monsanto and others have also gone on pogroms to destroy 'heirloom' seed banks that preserve generational seeds that can be reseeded.  The GMO seeds switch off after one generation so that the crop cannot be reseeded without buying fresh stock from the corporation that owns the patents.

Some might see these actions as strictly profit motivated, others see an agenda to take control of food sources, and these are likely correct.  But I submit there is a much more nefarious agenda at work.

If it is conceivable that our bodies ingest the DNA of foods we eat, and that DNA can be manipulated to produce, say, viral protein coats.  Then it is easily within the realm of possibility that GMO foods could insert patented genes into the human genome.  If this is possible, then any number of outcomes can be realized.

For one, if a human is found to have patented genes in his or her genome, then legal precedent states that the owner of the patent can claim ownership of that person.  If that's the case, then the owner can claim royalty rights for the life of that human, as well as any offspring they have (presuming the gene is passed on).  In time, the mega-corps could legally claim ownership of the human race, forcing us to pay annual royalties simply to be alive.

If we take that scenario as a given, it is entirely possible for the inserted gene to cause things such as vastly shortened lifespans.  Presumably, the patent owner would have a remedy that could be sold to turn off the gene or forestall its expression for another year until the next payment.

Genes could also be inserted into our DNA making us susceptible to various diseases.  This would create a rather lucrative licensing opportunity with Big Pharma for cures or treatments.

At the highest level of the agenda, this kind of ability would grant certain mega-corps absolute authority over humankind.  They would have the ability to 'tax' us and the enforcement would be certain death or disability.  We would be utterly dependent on the patent owners for every aspect of our lives.  And the worst part is that all of this could be achieved before any of us is even aware that it was happening.

It seems rather apparent that the world is moving towards a global government and that the form of that government would be corporatocracy.  A select few mega-corps, which already operate above all laws, could congeal their iron-handed control within a couple of generations, depending on how fast they can infect the human genome.  And who could argue with their taxing scheme?

While this may seem like wild speculation, there are plenty of reasons to think this is quite plausible.  The P53 Wild experiments show that gene 'seeding' is doable.  There is a lot of research hinting that the HIV virus and others were manufactured to affect certain genetic haplogroups.  Courts have upheld patent ownership even in cases of 'accidental' cross-pollenation.  And even proposed laws, such as California's doomed Prop37, to label GMO foods have failed to protect humans from this insidious attack.

There is also sufficient reason to believe that at least some mega-corps are acting in such a way as to belie an egenda of global domination.  This has been visible for at least the past century or so.

From the standpoint of increased crop yields, GMO technology holds little promise of greater harvests.  There are plenty of failures to point to.  Here in Indonesia, cocoa growers were sold a bill of goods that promised trees with larger canopies, and more and bigger pod production.  However, the larger canopy came at the cost of an equal root ball and the trees have literally fallen out of the ground.  On top of that, the pods are hopelessly withered and undersized, though there are more of them per tree.  As a consequence, Indonesia's cocoa crop, one of the largest in the world, has suffered quite a bit this past season.

We already know that the use of antibiotics in livestock have spurred the growth of more virulent disease-causing bacteria.  The use of antibiotics can also be blamed for weakening our natural immune systems, making us even more susceptible to disease.

How much does any one of us know about what we put into our bodies?  How many folks read the fine print on vaccines before we allow them to be pumped into our bodies, much less those of our children?  And those are voluntary actions.  What about the foods we eat?  How much do you know about the corporate-farm grown meats and vegetables on your plate?

Worse still, how many of us consider the consequences of allowing corporations so much power over our lives?  Worse still, how many of us close our eyes to these possibilities because they seem too far-fetched and beyond consideration?

Finally, if we know mice can grow human ears, pigs generate human blood and goats produce spider silk, what sorts of things don't we know about?  And how far has this permeated our daily lives before any admission is made?  Furthermore, by actual consent, or consent by lack of action, how much have we allowed this to be done to us without our knowledge?

The time for discussion is passing quickly.  By the time we know the full implications of this technology, we may be in mortal danger with all-powerful corporations holding the key to our survival.  The most dangerous part is the unintended consequences, which always appear because every single variable can never be fully accounted.  For such deep and lasting effects, we are asking far too few questions and allowing far too much free rein.

Are you willing to take these risks with the next 20 generations of your family?  Where's your line in the strand?

Ethics Are Immoral

You can tell Al Gore is warming the planet. His mouth is moving.

This is one of those issues that has become so knee-jerk that almost no one ever thinks rationally about it. We have all been told that carbon dioxide is the key substance that is causing a trend towards global environmental warming. We are told that in order to combat this situation, we must trade carbon credits, limit release of carbon dioxide and create global taxation and bureaucracy to combat the problem.

In other words, we must impoverish ourselves to support an unelected and unaccountable group of individuals whose job it is to limit all life on Earth to control a natural process in order to stop a problem that doesn't exist.

Do I have that right? The only way we can combat this supposed problem is by sterilizing ALL LIFE ON EARTH?

If I remember my high school biology correctly, all life on Earth are CARBOM-BASED. We need carbon to exist (with the possible exception of NASA's bullshit arcenic microbes). This is the biggest pile of excrement from the backside of a male bovine I have ever heard! The whole global warming/climate change issue is based on research that has been shown and admitted as rubbish, and to offset our BREATHING, we must buy "carbon credits," which basically amount to promises to plant some grass somewhere in the world to absorb the breaths I take. In other words, I can take a picture of some plants and show them as evidence that my 'carbon footprint' has been ameliorated.

But wait! What's this?

Respiration rates of plants are sensitive to temperature changes. Plants take in carbon dioxide during photosynthesis in the day, and release it during respiration at night. But they don't necessarily photosynthesize and respire at the same rates. Eventually half of the CO2 they use in photosynthesis is released back to the atmosphere by plant respiration

In other words, we must offset our carbon bootprint by planting organisms that also release carbon dioxide. Am I just stupid or what? It there something I'm missing here?

The whole global warming issue is a farce. Hackers got hold of email and documents that included communications from one of the leading 'scientists' in the field, which admitted that the data did not show global warming and in some cases even admitted falsifying data to make it fit the story. Furthermore, Al Gore told us that all scientists in the world were in complete agreement on the issue, but if I remember my schience training right, issues are never settled but are open to investigation at all times.

Of course, the whole thing has been repackaged as 'blimate change,' because global warming has been shown to be bogus. In fact, global temperatures have not risen, and have in fact fallen over the last 15 years. So, as 'climate change,' we can now outlaw seasons and deserts and even oceans, since they cause changes in seasons and climates.

Hell, you can drive across Texas and watch the climate change at least five times between Orange and El Paso. That's right, in 24 to 48 hours (depending on speed traps), you can change from coastal plains to diciduous forests to foothills, to alpine to high desert to mountains. Each one is, by scientific definition, a 'climate.' And each of those climates change on an annual cycle called 'seasons.'

One of the prophets of 'climate change' is a man who owns half of dozen mansions, several private aircraft, a fleet of private cars, and flies around the world, using piles of kilowatt hours of electricity to flap his jaw releasing pounds of carbon dioxide to tell us that we are the problem. "Mr. Internet" should be reforesting North America in order to offset his activities to tell us that life is the problem.

By that measure, BP should be reforecting the entire Earth to offset just one of the environmental assaults it has carused.

In fact, the whole issue is related to corporate efforts to patent DNA. 'They' want to tax and control not only the building blocks of life, but the very products of life itself. 'They' can therefore charge you to live, eat, reproduce, and deficate.

There is only one solution to the whole problem: remove legal codes that make corporations legal 'persons' and make all members of a corporation personally liable for any and all crimes committed by the organization. Simple. You'd see the world change overnight. That one single act would defang every evil on the Earth in one fell swoop.

The cause of all the problems in the world today come down to one simple concept: the corporate veil. This is a legal concept that says that the individuals who make up a corporation are not personally responsible for the actions of the corporation as a whole. Yet, who makes the decisions that control the actions of corporations? This one concept protects the CEOs and CFOs from personal responsibility for the damages caused by the organizations they control.

Don't you wish you had that personal protection from the results of your actions?

The corporate veil is further enhanced by the legal concept that corporations are legal 'persons.' Under western law, 'persons' are legal entities, not living, breathing human beings. 'Persons' have no conscience and therefore must be regulated in order to enforce 'ethical' behavior. Remember that ethics and morals are not the same. Morals are tautologies that exist across time and space. Ethics can change according to trends and fads. Morals have esoteric and philosophical implications, while ethics can change on a whim.

That's why things like carbon credits, genetic modification and abortion can meet the strictest ethical scrutiny and still be immoral. Ethics are situational and morals are not. Corporations can be completely ethical and moral travesties at the same time, and not be contradictory.

Ethics are subject to rule of the majority, morals are not. That is the basis of our natual rights. It can be ethical to disarm individuals, but it is immoral. It is ethical to license an individual who is operating a personal travel machine, but it is immoral to restrict the right to travel. It is ethical to institute a 'Fairness Doctrine,' but it is immoral to limit the free exchange of ideas. Taxes can be ethical, but are never moral. The list goes on.

Destroy the corporate veil and you destroy the ability of organizations to behave ethically while ignoring moral considerations. When individuals are personally liable for their actions, and unable to hide behind legal constructs, they will default to the strictest interpretation of their actions so as to avoid direct liability.

The very legal foundation of our laws is, in fact, the cause of our greatest woes. Recall the 'butterfly principle,' where a single small movement in one part of a dynamic system causes huge effects in another part. The corporate veil is that one small movement. By destroying that, we are able to dramatically change the outcomes in other parts of the system. If the heads of Merck, BP, ExxonMobil, McDonald's, and other mega-multi-national corporations were personally libale for the outcomes of their actions and decisions, do you think we would see major changes in the way the world works? If the boards of JPMorgan/Chase or GoldmanSachs or Lehamnn Bros. were personally responsible in a court of law for the damage they do, do you think we'd have the economic mess we have today?

It all boils down to being precise in our definitions of ethics and morals. As anyone knows who has planned and executed a major project, it's the smallest detail overlooked that will bring down the greatest of plans. We need to correct the small detail now, and that detail is the 'corporate veil.'

As the old saying goes:

For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.