A very frustrating part of having friends, who have such a wide range of metaphysical beliefs, is that a dinner conversation can become very long, and often end with misunderstandings or even anger. Though I am happy to have dinner party debates with friends of all types of religious and secular belief systems, I have tried to make my life a little easier, less stressful and more productive by not mixing in traditional religious fundamentalist. Certainly the combination of them and I make for fuel fired debates, but ultimately it becomes so personal that the evening ends with one of two outcomes. It is sometimes sadness, where the fundamentalist says something like “I feel so, so sad that we will not be spending the afterlife in paradise together. I really sympathize with the agony of the inferno where you will be occupying eternity”. The other side would be me causing rage, and maybe a full fist fight, when I say “go ahead and console yourself with those mindless, bigoted, pedophiles. That is a bunch I would want not to spend eternity with.”
As you can see, this is an example, one among many, of how a conversation like this can go wrong. Due to the severity of this, I avoid the party all together. Those people in general I spend only 5% of my time with. The other 95% of the time, I have two general groups of friends, who have a wide range of opinions, but whom we can make some generalizations about. The first group is the people I like in a deeply emotional way. They are often the people I cry with when I need to cry. They are passionate and dynamic. They cook well. They hike, and Kayak, and garden. They also see you as something greater than your material self. They are therefore classical Cartesian dualists, with some modern flair. That is they do believe that the mind is not the brain. It is a soul. Something which is either more important or responsive to our body, but exists separately or at least supplementary to it. The modern way of dealing with the soul is to erase some of the more dogmatic ideas of religion and search for truth outside of a religion. Many of these are great thinkers, poets or philosophers themselves. They intellectually and emotionally put together a treatise for existence based on multiple texts, from Eastern Religions and a general empathy with nature. This includes the avoidance of the suffering of animals, the elimination of pesticides, and the creation of natural temples of rocks, even in public parks, as a shrine to simplicity and nature. Thomas Jefferson was actually one of these types of people. There is another side of these friends that goes a step beyond what would appear to all of us non Osama Bin Laden, non Pat Robertson reasonable people. This other side is what is discussed in Michael Specter’s book “Denialism”. In this book, Specter looks at many claims of this group of my friends (well, he didn’t actually do this as a study of my friends, but I could have supplied him with some case studies) that when the scientific method is applied to them, the belief becomes just that, another faith based claim, similar to a fundamentalist claim. Examples of these types of claims are the use of vitamins, which science shows that 98% are completely useless. More importantly for my argument though is a dedicated belief in the wisdom of buying organically grown crops. The argument for this has its merits on some specifics. The use of pesticides is dangerous, and for me, the organic foods taste better most of the time. The argument though destroys a key desire of my friends, which involves connectivity and charity though a spiritual empathy with all other forms of life.
As a scientist and an artist, I feel the argument of my friends, but rationalize a completely other view. First I must say that being rational is essential for me. I just read from the Spinoza “Ethics”, and see that he has intellectual development as a progression, involving each step, from experience, to rational to instinctual. I get this very much. The goal would therefore be to have a great deal of experience with something, then work out why that thing happens, resulting in such knowledge that it then becomes instinctual. This is a wonderful design for an interpretive musician or for a scientist, and it is one that could be applied easily to the dualist viewpoints reaction to certain beliefs.
I would like to take just one belief of this generic stereotypical group, and one from myself, and my science friends. The first group might listen to the Deepak Chopra PodCast, while the second to “The Skeptics Guide to The Universe”. I want to look at how we perceive nature, because it is nature where both of the groups come together, in order to protect it. Both groups also claim to understand humans as a part of nature. When talking to the spiritual, organic food devotees, I ask if they are just uncomfortable with pesticides. If they say yes, I then say, “me too, they are dangerous in water supplies, and for the food chain”. If they say a more common thing though which is that they are against genetically engineered food, I become deflated, as my nature loving Chopraesque friends have lost track of truth. There have been literally billions of genetically engineered crops sold, without one instance of an illness ascribed to them. This is not even to mention that nature itself has been genetically modifying plants for thousands of years, especially if you consider humans a part of nature.
This is now an old argument. I want to introduce a new debate between these two groups, by first posting it here, and letting ideas form before we meet over wine and hydroponic winter melons. The concept is this; consider that we are all material parts of nature, and are either connected through a spiritual force as one group may claim, or through common elements as the other would claim. I think that no matter which philosophical leaning we are talking about, all seem to take some comfort, and understanding in the famous Carl Sagan quote that we are all “star stuff”. This is not just us, but all matter, and all life. So accepting this is not a stretch. Then consider biological sciences as it applies to human medicine. Most of us, all liberal politically, took the decoding of the human genome in 2000 to be a positive advancement, as it would help us not only understand existence better, but potentially cure diseases. We were also shocked and angered by the Bush Administration’s ban on government labs using embryonic stem cells, as the potential for those cells are so great. Just last month, now that Obama has ended this ban, an important study proved that embryonic stem cells injected into specific regions of the brain will create axons which reach a designated target. For example if the cells are placed in the visual cortex, an axon will grow to reach the optic nerve, potentially making the blind able to see again. This has been demonstrated in mice. Since axons can be so long that they can reach to the base of the spinal cord, this could one day be used for spinal cord injury. Paraplegics could walk again. Though this may be a while, it is on a testing regime that leaves many doctors and scientists hopeful. I would doubt that any of my friends would not be thrilled by this. Actually, the Chopra crowd also tends to fall into the old conservative jab of being “bleeding hearts”. This is likely the reason they are my friends. I want friends with empathy and compassion. So, stem cell research is a genetic engineering that we can all agree on. Which then gets me to what I would consider a double standard. If all life is connected, why is genetic engineering good enough for people, but not for plants? This seems surprising for two reasons. It is Genetic Engineered foods that will feed starving parts of the world. This should appeal to us bleeding hearts. It also makes for stronger crops, the way we are trying to make for stronger humans.
11 comments:
Great stuff Matt. I'm certainly on your side of the debate here. Why people react emotionally to this issue when there is the opportunity to truly help the world with GM foods is beyond me.
How do you feel about nuclear power? I feel like this is a similar issue. People have a knee-jerk negative reaction to nuclear power, but with the advancements in safety and efficiency possible with Generation IV reactors, it's a great way to produce clean efficient power for an ever power-needy world. Yet for some reason people can't get beyond that initial reaction to the term.
Anyway, good stuff, really have been enjoying your posts.
-Todd-
Food for thought: Genetic Engineering has not been around for thousands of years in plants. GE today is the manipulation of DNA, which has been here since 1996 (first crop). Hybrids have been around forever, as bees cross-pollinate plants organically. There is a HUGE difference in the two so please do not confuse readers, especially if you are a scientist.
The reason why GE is becoming increasingly unpopular in the food industry is because GE has been linked to many diseases. Problem is, those studies, being third party (although done by accredited scientists and researchers) are disclaimed by Big Biotech's and governments as their only guiding force is profit. Period. And Biotech's are in Governments back pockets.
Secondly, GE foods are being developed faster than our human bodies can adapt. That argument is simple, which is why many scientists cannot accept it. Unless it can be debated ten ways to Sunday, they dismiss the simplicities.
There was nothing wrong with our food supply before GE. Our vegetables were nutritious enough. Chemicals have altered the earth, making it useless for any growth. Nutrition comes from the ground, not just the plant.
Feed the world? Get real. Just look at Haiti. They don't want to feed them. Once NPO money runs out for rice, do you really think Monsanto will continue to send supplies?
We have enough food for the world. What we need is less dominance from the US and controlling countries.
There is more to it than your debates. What you need to do is get your head out of science and into the political arena to really understand what is going on with our food supply.
April Reeves
Steering Committee, GE Free BC
Speaker on GE foods
Thanks. i do agree scientifically about nuclear power, and even envirornmentally. i think the benfits outweigh the risks. Here in France nuclear is the predominant source of energy. The thing that must be remembered though is that uranium/plutonium isnt a renewable. The quantity availble is limited. So yes, lets use it, but also look at fusion, and geothermal solutions.
Matthew,
This certainly makes for a provocative discussion!
First off, I have to say that April's point in relation to the Political factor is a crucial one. Nature genetically modifies over long periods of time as a survival adaptation to changes in the environment. On the other hand, the genetic engineering adaptations we pursue are generally driven by profit motivation which, as we have seen in the recent case of the banking industry, does not necessarily lead to a greater social good. Profit-thinking is always biased towards individual benefit over social benefit. As a matter of fact, the profit motive can, carried to its logical extreme, generate huge individual (or corporate) profits while simultaneously destroying the planet! The profit motive also skews science and other research-driven fields in that more and more, scientists have become contaminated (pardon the pun) by corporate money so that even basic decisions as to what will be researched can be heavily influenced by the Profit motivations of companies who co-opt scientists. And, not only are research decisions compromised, but as we have seen, scientists being funded by Corporations have often skewed their perceptions and interpretations in a corporate-friendly way.
As for genetic engineering, I am no scientist, but there are multiple areas of concern I see here. I will list a few in no particular order:
Genetically engineered crops are patented. This means that, for the first time in human history, the food chain will soon be owned by Corporations who, unlike Nature, have different motivations when it comes to changing the genetic code. I have heard many stories of genetically modified seeds spreading into farmland that uses "Nature's seeds" and altering them. In other words, once unleashed, we have no idea what the impact will be in the long term over our environment.
Big Pharma is now using genetic engineering of plants to produce Drugs to treat multiple illnesses. Apparently these are also starting to contaminate "regular" crops so that soon adults and CHILDREN will be ingesting, without their consent, all kinds of pharmaceuticals in their meals. Here's a link to an article about that and other concerns:
(http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2003/01/04/genetic-engineering.aspx).
This is a Pandora's Box of a potentially calamitous nature and I don't believe that Science and the scientific method has really spent the time to look carefully at, and to consider the permanent and potentially life-destroying ramifications of humankind's meddling with a process of natural selection that has evolved over millions (dare I say billions) of years and that we, in our profit-based model, have decided to mess with.
I will leave my discussion of nuclear power for another time.
To reiterate, the concept that the scientific method is somehow operating in an objective container is, in my opinion, flawed. Historically, we see that science is continuously correcting its own errors and re-framing its own identity as to what constitutes reality (e.g. Quantum Theory). It's important not to become too attached to any one way of perceiving and interpreting the world, as today's scientific truth is tomorrow's fallacy. And genetic engineering of our food supply is one potential fallacy that could permanently and deleteriously alter the species.
An aside to Todd H.: "Reacting emotionally" is what makes us fully human. I agree that one shouldn't base decisions purely on emotion, but certainly we should not deny our emotions when interpreting experience. Emotions fuel our curiosity, they fuel our desire to grow, and they are, consciously and unconsciously, an integral part of our perception of the world. We can pretend that our decisions are free of emotion, but we do so at our peril.
Anyhow, very thought-provoking piece, Matthew. Here's to the exchange of ideas and the growth of Consciousness!
Robert
April, thanks for reading and commenting. i agree that cross pollination and individual gene selection are different, but this argument doesn't have anything to do with safety. In fact i would feel more confidant with a deliberate selection of a gene, which i have evidence of its expression, than random variation, as would be carried out by the bee. Both do change the genes. that is what has been the same for thousands of years.
Your point regarding business interests has nothing to do with this post. in fact i dont disagree that when dealing with such large issues, corporate greed should be kept in check. That said, you should research African famine pre-1996 to the present. Despite all of the horrible poverty in Africa, it has actually improved. i am not crediting biotech with this, but we certainly cannot say that there was plenty of food before GE crops. Starvation has always been a problem, and in many of the poorest countries, where GE programs are in place, it is less so now. i don't think there is a political conspiracy, but I do respect groups like yours that keep an eye on all of our motivations.
Well Robert, i will mostly refer you to my comments to April. Your questioning of motivation is a good one, but in this particular case it doesn't play out in the facts. Science can be used for evil of course, but absolutely 100% of all scientific tests ever performed on GE foods have shown that they do no harm. Even if there was a conspiracy, this would have to be one on such a grand scale that i cannot contemplate it. The Pandora's box is an issue we always have to look ar when dealing with anything, from abortion, to extension of life issues, to foreign aid. We always have to weigh the options. This 14 year experiment in GE foods,(which truly is a million year trial, no matter how slow you say it moves. Locally it occurs every generation), has shown more successes than failures. In fact it hasn't shown any failures. it saves life. Now i will reiterate that corporations have abused this technology for profits, and people have suffered. They have suffered not from GE crops though. they have suffered from not being able to get them because the corporations charge too much for them.
and as i say in the last paragraph of the blog, I am interested in asking the question to those of you who are for genetic engeering as it applies to humans, but not for crops. Is it ok to use the genome to find unque genes, and use that to save lives? if it is, why is it not ok to genetically modify crops to save lives?
Matthew,
I actually question whether all studies show that genetically modified food is safe. I refer you to the following Austrian study:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/ge-threat-to-fertility-11112008
In this study it was shown that Monsanto's genetically modified maize "severely impaired" the reproductive ability of mice.
If nothing else, I think it imperative to do more longterm follow-up studies before committing to such a radical experiment.
Also Doug Gurian-Sherman, a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit science advocacy group, published a report called “Failure to Yield”, in which he stated that in a nearly 20 year record, genetically engineered crops have not increased yields.
As I said, this is all "food for thought." Better to think it through carefully now, rather than pay a disastrous price later.
The Austrian Mouse study on infertility was ruled inconclusive in peer review, yet Green Peace still used it, as it is scaping. Yet, I take your point. For a full history (and yes it is a biotech industry paper, it also has multiple sources from peer reviewed scientific journals) go to http://www.isaaa.org/Resources/Publications/briefs/35/pressrelease/default.html
http://www.bio.org/ataglance/Fact_Sheet.pdf
The issue that your getting at is an interesting existential one. what are we doing now that we are playing with code of life? It is a good one to debate. My point was not even in defending GE crops, but in bringing up the question of how we make decisions. is it to keep the most people alive in a crowded planet? Is it to keep infant mortality down? Is it to bring about equality? I dont think GE crops answer this question, they just help raise it. Further more, what is the Pandoras box for stem cell reseach? Wont it possibly also have long term side effects? I have said it before in my blogs that science is dangerous. It led to the atomic bomb. But is it worth it? I think it is, but it is not an easy question, and i am not saying that it is.
Simplistically, we might consider DNA as software, and the cell as the hardware that executes it (but I'm a software engineer, not a biologist). Making large changes to the software without appropriate changes to the hardware can lead to "bugs" in the system. For example, trying to make us grow wings in one iteration could lead to the biological equivalent of device driver software complaining with a "device not found" error. (But changing the software can also change the hardware in the biological case.)
One result of altering DNA the wrong way is cancer. Both chemicals and viruses can create bugs in the DNA software to cause cancer. Oddly, viruses have been around for a while and still cause problems even though it is to their advantage not to. Granted, a virus doesn't need a perfect working cell as long it gets a cell to copy it, I would expect more from a creation of nature that has been around for so long. Viruses have the advantage of running genetic algorithms for all that time.
Genetic engineering is similar to what a virus does, altering DNA for a purpose. We humans think we are going to start making changes to the human genome and not have some problems? We better stick to the very small changes whenever possible. - Mike Ferrell
Thanks Mike. Interesting comment. A virus is a strange thing as it relates to the genome. The history of major viruses are stored in the genome, an area historically thought of as junk DNA. It is through this historical record that could provide a kind of immunity, or anti viral. I am not sure though how our choices in amount of DNA we alter has much to do with it. DNA is altered by large amounts through normal reproductive means. Sometimes this causes problems too, such as inherited diseases. By understanding the purpose of individual genes, we should be able to control them.
Post a Comment