Throughout time, we have influenced the genetics of organisms that surround and inhabit us. We humans began cultivating crops, domesticating them if you will, about 12K years ago. Between nine and ten thousand years ago, wheat first became domesticated. Halfway around the world, between seven and ten thousand years ago, potatoes were first brought under cultivation. As were beans, selectively planted in modern day Nepal, about 9K years ago. Half as old again are rice and corn (about 4.5K years ago). For perspective, one thousand years earlier, ancient Sumer had reached it's zenith. Our relationship with food has been intimate since the first one of us kept a few seeds of something that they knew they liked, planted it where they knew they would be back to enjoy the following crop and we have been coexisting with foods we like in pretty much the same ways since the Neolithic era. There has been an ongoing interaction between humans and plants for even longer periods, but manipulation of genetics could not have been intentional before then.
The ethos, or belief system that informs seed saving is plant your very best seed, to give the plants the best chance at survival. A weak and damaged seed will frequently lead to a withering, sickly crop. As issues of survival became less pressing, greater care could be taken to protect the seed from drying out, being eaten by rodents, or unwanted growth during storage. All of these relationships required great interaction and effort on the part of humans, to help propagate and generate new breeds. Our time travels with plants have bred many of our most prized foods to be unable to perform in the wild. Without humans many of the crop species would be doomed. Indeed, in addition to whole species being dependent upon human interaction with the plants, many varieties are currently threatened by lack of interest in seed saving and genetic diversity. It is only within the last hundred years that we have been able to send seed vast distances and manipulate species so drastically as to make an entire field a virtual clone of just one genotype.
We have hit a wall on ethics. We cannot yet conceive what bombarding genes with other genes is really about, what it could lead to, or even adequately surmise what the effects of brand new organizations of genetic material might do the the rest of the relationships we have with our food. The technology has no track record in human/plant history. I fear that we will forget that often the "discoverer" of a phenomena or technology is one of the first to die from the damage done by their "miracle" discovery. I have every reason to believe that the first guy to fashion a knife had it taken from him and was immediately stabbed with it. In all seriousness, the inventor of ultrasound said that it should only be used in rare cases where information was needed about the health and safety of the mother or baby. The opposite of routine, which doctors do now like a "commercial" for your baby to show off. It is not contributing to scientific knowledge in any way, but can cost thousands, so hey. I have seen images to tissues exposed to ultrasound and all the cells get jiggled so violently that I declined offers of doing it to any of my children after seeing the footage. When the same authorities are saying so many things that do not add up, do we really want to follow them further down a gilded path to base, senseless and immoral behavior?
Take for example the issues around nukes. Hundreds of billions of dollars has been spent on creating nuclear fallout around the globe. Add to that the costs of many millions of acres of mines, milling facilities, waste tailings ponds, not to mention the storage of "hot" materials for unimaginable amounts of time. It seems as if there are those who are fully expecting our race to go extinct so why not just wreck everything. I will remain a stand for the exact opposite perspective. We are making change because we will no longer stand for the lies or the liars that tell them. The sanctity of the planet may be under attack, but I will not yield. I do not understand why this remains an issue. The vast majority just wants labeling, which I believe is nowhere near a strong enough policy, so it must just be the money fueling the arguments for GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms) are not just like the way we have always manipulated genes of the plants and animals that we "domesticated". Patenting any life form, especially a totally new experimental one, that may only be an hour old, runs contrary to the unbroken ethical dilemma, how do I help make the world a better place?
The ethos, or belief system that informs seed saving is plant your very best seed, to give the plants the best chance at survival. A weak and damaged seed will frequently lead to a withering, sickly crop. As issues of survival became less pressing, greater care could be taken to protect the seed from drying out, being eaten by rodents, or unwanted growth during storage. All of these relationships required great interaction and effort on the part of humans, to help propagate and generate new breeds. Our time travels with plants have bred many of our most prized foods to be unable to perform in the wild. Without humans many of the crop species would be doomed. Indeed, in addition to whole species being dependent upon human interaction with the plants, many varieties are currently threatened by lack of interest in seed saving and genetic diversity. It is only within the last hundred years that we have been able to send seed vast distances and manipulate species so drastically as to make an entire field a virtual clone of just one genotype.
We have hit a wall on ethics. We cannot yet conceive what bombarding genes with other genes is really about, what it could lead to, or even adequately surmise what the effects of brand new organizations of genetic material might do the the rest of the relationships we have with our food. The technology has no track record in human/plant history. I fear that we will forget that often the "discoverer" of a phenomena or technology is one of the first to die from the damage done by their "miracle" discovery. I have every reason to believe that the first guy to fashion a knife had it taken from him and was immediately stabbed with it. In all seriousness, the inventor of ultrasound said that it should only be used in rare cases where information was needed about the health and safety of the mother or baby. The opposite of routine, which doctors do now like a "commercial" for your baby to show off. It is not contributing to scientific knowledge in any way, but can cost thousands, so hey. I have seen images to tissues exposed to ultrasound and all the cells get jiggled so violently that I declined offers of doing it to any of my children after seeing the footage. When the same authorities are saying so many things that do not add up, do we really want to follow them further down a gilded path to base, senseless and immoral behavior?
Take for example the issues around nukes. Hundreds of billions of dollars has been spent on creating nuclear fallout around the globe. Add to that the costs of many millions of acres of mines, milling facilities, waste tailings ponds, not to mention the storage of "hot" materials for unimaginable amounts of time. It seems as if there are those who are fully expecting our race to go extinct so why not just wreck everything. I will remain a stand for the exact opposite perspective. We are making change because we will no longer stand for the lies or the liars that tell them. The sanctity of the planet may be under attack, but I will not yield. I do not understand why this remains an issue. The vast majority just wants labeling, which I believe is nowhere near a strong enough policy, so it must just be the money fueling the arguments for GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms) are not just like the way we have always manipulated genes of the plants and animals that we "domesticated". Patenting any life form, especially a totally new experimental one, that may only be an hour old, runs contrary to the unbroken ethical dilemma, how do I help make the world a better place?
No comments:
Post a Comment