Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum

Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Hot Topics => Topic started by: jessica on September 17, 2015, 12:39:11 am

Title: The opposition.
Post by: jessica on September 17, 2015, 12:39:11 am
I cant even get past the first sentence.  Vegans, people who think they can have this totally sanitary version of life and diet......telling people its okay to eat GMO's.  Veganism is a sure way to destroy nature and humanity.

http://www.thebolditalic.com/articles/7257-go-ahead-eat-genetically-modified-food-it-s-not-bad-for-you?utm_content=buffer4bad8&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer (http://www.thebolditalic.com/articles/7257-go-ahead-eat-genetically-modified-food-it-s-not-bad-for-you?utm_content=buffer4bad8&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer)

GO AHEAD—EAT GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD. IT’S NOT BAD FOR YOU.
by RYAN BETHENCOURT
Sep 15 at 10am
 share on facebook  share on twitter  send to a friend
I’m a vegan, which means I don’t eat meat, eggs, or dairy. It’s a philosophical stance, since I believe it’s wrong to butcher sentient beings for food. I’m also a scientist. I studied genetics in college, and now I help build and fund biotech start-ups. I work in downtown San Francisco and live in Oakland (which I love).

Living here in the Bay Area, I see a lot of confusion about genetically modified foods. For instance, some people think that if you eat non-GMO produce, it means you’re eating natural, but that’s wrong (fancy scientists would call this thinking the “naturalistic fallacy”).

Almost nothing you or I eat is actually natural. Our ancestors have been selectively breeding plants for at least 20,000 years, and in that time, they’ve developed most of the foods we know, love, and eat today. I hate to be the one to say it, but our food is almost all artificial—the corn you eat, the bananas you enjoy, even your broccoli and cauliflower. None of those foods is natural; they were altered by our ancestors.

And no, eating a Paleo diet does not get you closer to how we evolved to eat. The cows you eat today aren’t bison, and those pigs aren’t boars. Look again (and watch your cholesterol). Primates don’t eat that much meat!

Even more importantly, the practice of agriculture is also unnatural. Those organic apples you love are made from clones, grown artificially in fields that are artificially irrigated and artificially treated with biopesticides to prevent the destruction of crops by insects. In fact, the same genes that are inserted into GMO corn, an insecticide called Bt, is sprayed on your organic apples. It’s the exact same biopesticide. Think about that for a second, and then do a double take the next time you hear or read organic marketing materials. I repeat: it’s the same thing. Look it up!

Remember those biblical plagues of locusts and the famines that followed? Where did they go? That’s right—science and modern agriculture eradicated them (for now). If we were to grow food naturally, the organic produce wouldn’t even last one growing cycle—the plants would just be sticks in a field.

So why are so many people anti-GMO? Is it because the food is toxic? No, there’s no substantive data to support this perception, and no, you should not believe any of those sketchy blog sources with conspiracy theories. The reality of it is, if you believe climate change is real because of the overwhelming data, then why wouldn’t you believe GMOs are safe due to the overwhelming data in support of them? I’d encourage you to dive deeper into the science, specifically a scientific paper published in 2013 that reviewed 10 years of scientific data and peer-reviewed published papers about the safety of GMO crops and found that “scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of GE [genetically engineered] crops.” That is, GMO crops are safe!

“Ahh,” you’re thinking, “but the EU has banned GMOs. Gotcha!”

The EU’s GMO ban is nothing but a political smoke screen. In reality, the EU eats a ton of GMO products. Take cheese, for instance. Do you love your British Cheddar? If so, you’re eating a GMO—microbially derived rennet, an enzyme needed for cheese production in the vast majority of cheeses. If we were to get this enzyme naturally, it would come from the stomachs of dead calves (no joke). As a result of the GMO rennet, cheese is now vegetarian and a lot less gross (once you know how it’s made). So the anti-GMO posture of the EU is mostly just political theater.

So why, specifically, am I a pro-GMO vegan? Because I believe that mindfulness, knowledge, and science are more important than political games. I am against the use of sentient beings in the production of our food, and I think we can use science to give everyone what they want—milk, cheese, eggs, and even real meat—without harming animals.

My hope and aim through my work and the work of others is that one day (in a few years), you’ll all be pro-GMO vegans. Even if you keep eating steak, one day it will be lab grown, rather than sourced from suffering animals in cages—and that will be just fine by me. I might even have a few bites. Yep, real vegan steak. Ponder that for a while!
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: laterade on September 17, 2015, 01:53:45 am
These people would have us eating food off a petri dish. They don't feel at home on the earth.

They're no different than the people who think they were born in the wrong gender/body/etc.

Their goals to protect the environment almost always move in the direction of destruction. I've met a lot of these people. They are usually very irritable and childish. Most of them are women who just need a good man to put a baby in them. The men who do this are always emasculated.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: TylerDurden on September 17, 2015, 02:11:20 am
The UK Labour Oppostion now has a shadow female Minister for Agriculture who is a militant vegan and hates all farms and the consumption of animals for food. If Corbyn wins, RPDers in the UK are doomed!
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: cherimoya_kid on September 17, 2015, 04:01:04 am
Calm down, people. Nobody's going to take away your meat. And yes, most ethical vegans are unbalanced, but they are a tiny minority, and will remain that way.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: TylerDurden on September 17, 2015, 04:09:11 am
The US very nearly managed to force the EU to accept genetically-modified foods that were unlabelled. It was only because of a healthy-foods-rights movement that this got stopped. The people we oppose have vast amounts of money and have nearly managed to crush the pro-raw dairy movement in many parts of the world.

Being  part of a tiny minority has not stopped a female raw vegan fanatic from being put in charge of agriculture for the Opposition in the UK.If the Communists win under Corbyn, then this woman will indeed move in and wipe out our RPD supplies. In the UK, we have already had attempts to crush the grassfed meat movement in minor, but frequent ways, with Government Ministers using the BSE crisis etc. to ruin UK grassfed meat farmers even though BSE was not affecting their cattle.

AV was right to start that healthy food charity. It was desperately needed.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: cherimoya_kid on September 17, 2015, 04:22:45 am
These people are not the opposition. They are just idiots. Big Pharma is the opposition, these people are just their stooges.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: ys on September 17, 2015, 05:28:21 am
I've heard similar opinion from gmo engineer.  They say it is the same as manual process of selecting and cross-breeding only instead of decades it happens a lot quicker.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: cherimoya_kid on September 17, 2015, 05:35:53 am
I've heard similar opinion from gmo engineer.  They say it is the same as manual process of selecting and cross-breeding only instead of decades it happens a lot quicker.

This is technically correct. However, Monsanto has demonstrated a lack of the necessary dedication to ethics and good judgement that handling this kind of power requires.

IOW, they are scumbags with dollar signs in their eyes. You don't give an ethics-challenged money-hungry scumbag control over your food. Period.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: jessica on September 17, 2015, 05:47:48 am
its not just what they do to seeds, its how they ruin soil and ecosystems.  there are much better ways to produce food,  you just have to understand land and ecosystems, no try to mutilate them.

i'll admit that i was being a little bit dramatic with the title but seriosuly......people who indulge in this type reality are fucked, its hard for me to even completely understand how people can be so fucking stupid.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: laterade on September 17, 2015, 06:09:06 am
I don't think you're wrong at all in the title. These people are an enemy to more than just raw food eaters, if a minority can take a position in political office they'll be able to do damage. Whether or not Kerry McCarthy for example might believe in GMOs, she is a vegan, and she'll be able to manipulate the system to possibly punish and/or hinder people's ability to get the food they need. We already know by being vegan she's deficient and off course, there's no telling what she'll do.

The problem is that many people fail by giving vegans moral leverage. Many people believe "oh, well, this person cares about animals" and in a subtle way believe them to be on moral high ground. Instead of just shutting them down for being degenerate hippies who promote weakness and infertility.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: goodsamaritan on September 17, 2015, 07:42:15 am
A blatant example of a minion for the Depopulation / Population Control lobby.

These minions HATE us because we push for truth in nutrition, which leads to health and fertility... And healthy children.

FYI the fertility decline the past decades is largely due to the sabotage of our food and drink.

Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: TylerDurden on September 17, 2015, 07:57:18 am
A blatant example of a minion for the Depopulation / Population Control lobby.

These minions HATE us because we push for truth in nutrition, which leads to health and fertility... And healthy children.
FYI the fertility decline the past decades is largely due to the sabotage of our food and drink.


No, there must be more to it. Incidentally, you do NOT see hunter-gatherer tribes vastly increasing in population, even nowadays. Neither did palaeo-era hunter-gatherer tribes try to overpopulate. They, unlike us, had become, long ago,  able to grasp that the more people there were, the fewer resources would be available, thus endangering the lives of both individuals and the entire tribe as a direct result. No wonder that scientists have proven that the average brain-size of palaeo-era humans was 10% bigger than the average brain-size nowadays.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: eveheart on September 17, 2015, 08:01:13 am
its not just what they do to seeds, its how they ruin soil and ecosystems.  there are much
i'll admit that i was being a little bit dramatic with the title but seriosuly......people who indulge in this type reality are fucked, its hard for me to even completely understand how people can be so fucking stupid.

They aren't stupid, just emotional. When it comes to killing and eating sentient beings, even  meat-eaters can be pretty emotional about seeing anything to do with slaughter, blood, and offal. Mention spiders and grubs, and they go absolutely wack-o.

Why read this stuff?
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 17, 2015, 08:39:05 am
If anyone sends regurgitated Monsanto propaganda your way, here's something to point them to:

GMOs Facts and Fiction: A Cheat Sheet
https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/639877828515897345
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: RogueFarmer on September 17, 2015, 11:28:08 am
This is technically correct. However, Monsanto has demonstrated a lack of the necessary dedication to ethics and good judgement that handling this kind of power requires.

IOW, they are scumbags with dollar signs in their eyes. You don't give an ethics-challenged money-hungry scumbag control over your food. Period.
This is technically correct. However, Monsanto has demonstrated a lack of the necessary dedication to ethics and good judgement that handling this kind of power requires.

IOW, they are scumbags with dollar signs in their eyes. You don't give an ethics-challenged money-hungry scumbag control over your food. Period.

It's not technically correct. Gmo's are created by combining different SPECIES from different KINGDOMS. Tomatoes with fish DNA, corn with bacteria DNA and unless the technology has changed since I researched it, it always contains DNA from antibiotic resistant bacteria and cauliflower mosaic virus. They get these genes by blasting them into cells with microscopic gold pellets and then hope that the genes fall into the right places. The vast majority of their experiments fail.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: lb_on_the_cb on September 18, 2015, 07:11:25 am
its nice if they want to be a vegan as long as they dont tell me how to live.  (and usually there's the problem)
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: cherimoya_kid on September 18, 2015, 08:13:36 am
It's not technically correct. Gmo's are created by combining different SPECIES from different KINGDOMS. Tomatoes with fish DNA, corn with bacteria DNA and unless the technology has changed since I researched it, it always contains DNA from antibiotic resistant bacteria and cauliflower mosaic virus. They get these genes by blasting them into cells with microscopic gold pellets and then hope that the genes fall into the right places. The vast majority of their experiments fail.

If I recall correctly the tech, very recently, got a lot more precise. I can Google the link if you want.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: TylerDurden on September 18, 2015, 03:38:09 pm
If I recall correctly the tech, very recently, got a lot more precise. I can Google the link if you want.
Do so. And please explain how GM-tech can possibly avoid negative epigenetic and mutagenic effects among others. This article points to 55-66% chance of GM techniques disrupting a gene:-

http://earthopensource.org/gmomythsandtruths/sample-page/1-genetic-engineering-technique/1-2-myth-genetic-engineering-precise-results-predictable/ (http://earthopensource.org/gmomythsandtruths/sample-page/1-genetic-engineering-technique/1-2-myth-genetic-engineering-precise-results-predictable/)

I am surprised that you would favour science over nature. I mean, the whole point of going raw and palaeo is to copy former natural behaviours.Most of us have experienced awful health-problems by trusting in conventional science/conventional medicine.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: cherimoya_kid on September 18, 2015, 08:28:37 pm
Geoff, the march of technological progress isn't going to stop just because some people wish it would. It keeps getting better and better, until one day, it has no measurable flaws any more. And nature is not perfect by any means. Plenty of people have genetic defects that have been passed down for many generations. Wild animals have them too, but they can keep being passed down if the defect doesn't interfere too much with reproduction.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: TylerDurden on September 18, 2015, 08:43:39 pm
Geoff, the march of technological progress isn't going to stop just because some people wish it would. It keeps getting better and better, until one day, it has no measurable flaws any more.
Well, actually, as technology has improved over the millenia, it has always  improved some things while also introducing many other things which have ruined us, either directly or indirectly, such as DDT, the coal-fogs of 19th century London etc. etc. etc.

Anyway, the problem is not with technology but with the flaws inherent in the human race which make the future technologies much worse than they would otherwise be.
Quote
And nature is not perfect by any means. Plenty of people have genetic defects that have been passed down for many generations. Wild animals have them too, but they can keep being passed down if the defect doesn't interfere too much with reproduction.
Nature does not seek perfection, only (some) humans do, which is not logical as perfection is not natural. The point is that, in Nature, some defects are bad, some are good(ie beneficial mutations), and thus evolution happens. If the defects are bad enough, the animals won't survive, and vice-versa, and that is natural selection.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: cherimoya_kid on September 19, 2015, 12:06:12 am
I've got some thoughts to share regarding purity, perfection, and orthorexia in diet/lifestyle, but I'm going to let other people share first.

And as far as human nature goes, you make a very good point....except for the fact that now we are really starting, using MRI tech, to understand the brain. There is already a therapy or two using low electrical current to combat depression with excellent results, and we can already see general personality traits through MRI. The next step is to gain finer and finer-grained control over the brain. At some point you can literally change human nature on an individual level, in very precise ways. Cure sociopathy, anxiety, depression, schizoid disorders, etc.. We can all have the brains of enlightened people if we choose, at that point. This is coming in the next 10-20 years. THAT will be the game-changer. Forever.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: lb_on_the_cb on September 19, 2015, 12:30:33 am
THAT will be the game-changer. Forever.

whats the goal?   what is it that needs to be fixed so badly?
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: jessica on September 19, 2015, 12:34:24 am
whens the last time any of you lived in a heavily GM/chemical agricultural zone and actually saw AND WERE ABLE TO RECOGNIZE first hand how devastating it is to an ecosystem?
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: cherimoya_kid on September 19, 2015, 12:47:02 am
whats the goal?   what is it that needs to be fixed so badly?

See Jessica's post above this one. Rofl

But seriously, when you correct the defects in people's brains, then you take away all or most of the reason people come into conflict in the first place. You people who are too young to remember the Cold War don't know what it was like. We literally came within a few minutes of global nuclear war several times. I hear World War II kinda sucked too. I also imagine living in most of the Middle East kind of sucks right now as well, especially Iraq and Syria.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: cherimoya_kid on September 19, 2015, 12:48:36 am
whens the last time any of you lived in a heavily GM/chemical agricultural zone and actually saw AND WERE ABLE TO RECOGNIZE first hand how devastating it is to an ecosystem?

Who do you think is advocating the current system of agriculture? Jesus, relax. Lol
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: lb_on_the_cb on September 19, 2015, 01:25:26 am
whens the last time any of you lived in a heavily GM/chemical agricultural zone and actually saw AND WERE ABLE TO RECOGNIZE first hand how devastating it is to an ecosystem?

i see dead soil here on a farm just on the edge of town.  just totally dead, no organic matter.  somehow the crop grows and looks ok but maybe thats the reason supermkt produce has no taste for me. 

i also live near rice fields in a kind of wildlife area and there are coyotes roaming and in the winter time its kind of a flood zone and manmade "wetland" and the ducks and other birds love it.  i dont think the soil is any better though.


You people who are too young to remember the Cold War don't know what it was like. We literally came within a few minutes of global nuclear war several times. I hear World War II kinda sucked too. I also imagine living in most of the Middle East kind of sucks right now as well, especially Iraq and Syria.

i do remember the cold war, im 48.   

But seriously, when you correct the defects in people's brains, then you take away all or most of the reason people come into conflict in the first place.

will this solve for greed, lust for power, or people that have no respect for the law? 


Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: TylerDurden on September 19, 2015, 02:09:04 am

But seriously, when you correct the defects in people's brains, then you take away all or most of the reason people come into conflict in the first place. You people who are too young to remember the Cold War don't know what it was like. We literally came within a few minutes of global nuclear war several times. I hear World War II kinda sucked too. I also imagine living in most of the Middle East kind of sucks right now as well, especially Iraq and Syria.
  It all depends on who defines what is a defect. If the brain really could be controlled within 2 decades, (thankfully not likely), we would be far more likely to be brainwashed than before. And all those past wars have nothing to do with brain-defects but had to do with special interest groups, financial interests, religious differences etc. etc. Hmm, I do not like religion much, but imagine if the morons in charge outlawed specific religious beliefs for being "defective" and declared that all those with such beliefs had to be treated. Just like Communism all over again, really....
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: cherimoya_kid on September 19, 2015, 03:20:17 am
  It all depends on who defines what is a defect. If the brain really could be controlled within 2 decades, (thankfully not likely), we would be far more likely to be brainwashed than before. And all those past wars have nothing to do with brain-defects but had to do with special interest groups, financial interests, religious differences etc. etc. Hmm, I do not like religion much, but imagine if the morons in charge outlawed specific religious beliefs for being "defective" and declared that all those with such beliefs had to be treated. Just like Communism all over again, really....


Those wars were the result of greed, ignorance, and bigotry, which can all be seen on an fMRI scan.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: cherimoya_kid on September 19, 2015, 03:23:16 am
i see dead soil here on a farm just on the edge of town.  just totally dead, no organic matter.  somehow the crop grows and looks ok but maybe thats the reason supermkt produce has no taste for me. 

i also live near rice fields in a kind of wildlife area and there are coyotes roaming and in the winter time its kind of a flood zone and manmade "wetland" and the ducks and other birds love it.  i dont think the soil is any better though.


i do remember the cold war, im 48.   

will this solve for greed, lust for power, or people that have no respect for the law? 




Any personality problem that can show up on an fMRI scan can be studied, and if it can be studied, it can be fixed. And they all show up on fMRI scans, because blood flow in the brain is the ultimate truth-teller. You are where the blood flows in your brain.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: TylerDurden on September 19, 2015, 04:00:42 am
Those wars were the result of greed, ignorance, and bigotry, which can all be seen on an fMRI scan.
They were the result of various odious special interests, not just basic  human emotions. Also, if one allows any one group to have the arrogance to define what is ignorance, greed or bigotry or whatever and decides to get rid of them, then the human race as a whole will be faced with a terrible, brainwashed future and ultimate doom. I recall Damon Knight's famous short-story,"The Country of the Kind", where humankind has in the future gotten rid of all its  desire for aggression and violence, through eugenics, genetic engineering and social engineering/brainwashing etc.. But, in so doing, they also managed to get rid of the human artistic ability and the human ability to reach beyond themselves and create ever newer concepts/ideas. The result is an odious, stagnant society. Simply put, all so-called "negative" emotions are part and parcel of humanity- you take those away from humans, then they are no longer human.

What I am stating is that the further we get away from Nature, the more likely we will eventually become extinct, in accordance with the Great Filter theory which gives the only logical explanation for the Fermi paradox.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: lb_on_the_cb on September 19, 2015, 04:24:21 am
Any personality problem that can show up on an fMRI scan can be studied, and if it can be studied, it can be fixed. And they all show up on fMRI scans, because blood flow in the brain is the ultimate truth-teller. You are where the blood flows in your brain.

interesting.   

Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 19, 2015, 06:03:16 am
i see dead soil here on a farm just on the edge of town.  just totally dead, no organic matter.  somehow the crop grows and looks ok but maybe thats the reason supermkt produce has no taste for me. 

i also live near rice fields in a kind of wildlife area and there are coyotes roaming and in the winter time its kind of a flood zone and manmade "wetland" and the ducks and other birds love it.  i dont think the soil is any better though.


i do remember the cold war, im 48.
Me too. I remember a speech I attended with other youths by the head of the Reagan administration White House transition team, given shortly after Reagan took office, in which he said "War with the Soviet Union is inevitable." It was long before the Internet and there were no cameras or recorders, so he gleefully revealed his true apocalyptic views, perhaps hoping to sway impressionable youths. He advocated a massive military buildup and a far-right autocratic state to prepare for the "inevitable" Armageddon. He basically wanted to bring on the destruction of the human race sooner, rather than later (my guess is that he was hoping for The Rapture). Ironically, the picture he painted of his desired America was not much different than the highly militarized Soviet Union, which I pointed out to him and he said something along the lines of "Better an American version than a Soviet one" (the phrase "Better dead than red!" was experiencing something of a revival at the time--and it was on a massive banner at a sort of quasi-military youth rally/gathering I was unfortunately present at not long after--Cold War hysteria and Reaganite militarism was at a peek at the time). George Gordon Liddy later echoed that idiotic sentiment when I asked him the same basic question not many years later, after he had given a similar fanatical speech, again without cameras or recorders present. I had seen enough news reels of Hitler that I recognized that Liddy emulated some of the physical and vocal style of Hitler and Goebbels when speaking. I just looked it up and, not surprisingly, Liddy admitted that he was enthralled by Hitler's speeches and Nazi music.

I witnessed at times how mobs of people could disturbingly check their brains at the door in the right context and embrace war and fanaticism even if it risked self-annhilation. Luckily, the transition-team douchebag got a negative reception from the youthful crowd and Reagan turned out to be more peaceful than the rhetoric of his most fanatical followers. I also like to think, or at least hope, that much of the more fanatical rhetoric and crowd behavior was bluster that people would not really have acted upon--some sort of mob venting. Perhaps too optimistic of me.

Ironically, we are now fighting the Islamic Jihadists that the Reagan administration armed and trained to fight the Soviets when atheistic Communism was seen as enemy #1. It's amazing how things have dramatically changed since then--nearly flipped. Fanatical religion has replaced atheistic Communism as the #1 bogeyman. On the other hand, there is much similarity too. We still find ourselves in endless war or hostilities. My nation has been at near continuous war, either cold or hot, for pretty much my entire life so far.

Quote
will this solve for greed, lust for power, or people that have no respect for the law?
All living things have an innate drive to garner and consume energy and dissipate entropy. That's why the onward march of steamrolling "progress" is so difficult to manage and why resistance seems futile. It may also explain the Fermi paradox.

Quote
quote author=TylerDurden link=topic=10760.msg132454#msg132454 date=1442606442]What I am stating is that the further we get away from Nature, the more likely we will eventually become extinct, in accordance with the Great Filter theory which gives the only logical explanation for the Fermi paradox.
Fascinating. I just noticed that you too mentioned the Fermi paradox (sorry, I sometimes skim the comments instead of reading everything). So you have also recognized the mess our species is in.

If the destructive technology explanation is accurate, then resistance is nearly futile (with mavericks like you and me being drowned out by the millions calling for endless so-called "progress"), but we may as well try to resist, via things like raw Paleo diets and lifestyles. Might as well make our existence interesting and try to be the one intelligent species in the universe that somehow manages to survive.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: TylerDurden on September 19, 2015, 07:58:34 am
Fascinating. I just noticed that you too mentioned the Fermi paradox (sorry, I sometimes skim the comments instead of reading everything). So you have also recognized the mess our species is in.

If the destructive technology explanation is accurate, then resistance is nearly futile (with mavericks like you and me being drowned out by the millions calling for endless so-called "progress"), but we may as well try to resist, via things like raw Paleo diets and lifestyles. Might as well make our existence interesting and try to be the one intelligent species in the universe that somehow manages to survive.
You are correct. I do believe the Great Filter hypothesis is the correct one, sadly. For us to easily avoid it, we would have to be the very first sentient species to undergo interstellar travel("Rare Earth Hypothesis"), highly unlikely, given the many billions of years this Universe has already gone through). More than likely, virtually all species become extinct once they reach the point where they have just barely gone into Space but yet  failed to reach more distant locations, such as other solar systems.

There seems to be a conundrum, whereby some humans can be quite intelligent as individuals, but fail vastly when mingled together as mindless groups(eg:- The Roman Mob).
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: cherimoya_kid on September 19, 2015, 08:03:02 am
Tyler, you miss the obvious possibility that advanced aliens have no interest in us. We spend very little in the way of resources to study traditional tribes, and they are pretty much the same as us. How much less resources would we dedicate if we were so much farther advanced that we were effectively a different species?
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: lb_on_the_cb on September 19, 2015, 10:25:50 am
Me too. I remember a speech I attended with other youths by the head of the Reagan administration White House transition team, given shortly after Reagan took office, in which he said "War with the Soviet Union is inevitable." It was long before the Internet and there were no cameras or recorders, so he gleefully revealed his true apocalyptic views, perhaps hoping to sway impressionable youths. He advocated a massive military buildup and a far-right autocratic state to prepare for the "inevitable" Armageddon. He basically wanted to bring on the destruction of the human race sooner, rather than later (my guess is that he was hoping for The Rapture). Ironically, the picture he painted of his desired America was not much different than the highly militarized Soviet Union, which I pointed out to him and he said something along the lines of "Better an American version than a Soviet one" (the phrase "Better dead than red!" was experiencing something of a revival at the time--and it was on a massive banner at a sort of quasi-military youth rally/gathering I was unfortunately present at not long after--Cold War hysteria and Reaganite militarism was at a peek at the time). George Gordon Liddy later echoed that idiotic sentiment when I asked him the same basic question not many years later, after he had given a similar fanatical speech, again without cameras or recorders present. I had seen enough news reels of Hitler that I recognized that Liddy emulated some of the physical and vocal style of Hitler and Goebbels when speaking. I just looked it up and, not surprisingly, Liddy admitted that he was enthralled by Hitler's speeches and Nazi music.

I witnessed at times how mobs of people could disturbingly check their brains at the door in the right context and embrace war and fanaticism even if it risked self-annhilation. Luckily, the transition-team douchebag got a negative reception from the youthful crowd and Reagan turned out to be more peaceful than the rhetoric of his most fanatical followers. I also like to think, or at least hope, that much of the more fanatical rhetoric and crowd behavior was bluster that people would not really have acted upon--some sort of mob venting. Perhaps too optimistic of me.

Ironically, we are now fighting the Islamic Jihadists that the Reagan administration armed and trained to fight the Soviets when atheistic Communism was seen as enemy #1. It's amazing how things have dramatically changed since then--nearly flipped. Fanatical religion has replaced atheistic Communism as the #1 bogeyman. On the other hand, there is much similarity too. We still find ourselves in endless war or hostilities. My nation has been at near continuous war, either cold or hot, for pretty much my entire life so far.
All living things have an innate drive to garner and consume energy and dissipate entropy. That's why the onward march of steamrolling "progress" is so difficult to manage and why resistance seems futile. It may also explain the Fermi paradox.
Fascinating. I just noticed that you too mentioned the Fermi paradox (sorry, I sometimes skim the comments instead of reading everything). So you have also recognized the mess our species is in.

If the destructive technology explanation is accurate, then resistance is nearly futile (with mavericks like you and me being drowned out by the millions calling for endless so-called "progress"), but we may as well try to resist, via things like raw Paleo diets and lifestyles. Might as well make our existence interesting and try to be the one intelligent species in the universe that somehow manages to survive.

interesting. 

You know what i liked about Liddy?  he didn't say (like a little pssy)  "Its the the YouTube fellas fault! He did it! He got them muslims all riled up and they couldnt control themselves!  Now excuse me i got some big donors in Vegas"

He took the blame like a man and went to prison.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 19, 2015, 09:48:14 pm
You are correct. I do believe the Great Filter hypothesis is the correct one, sadly. For us to easily avoid it, we would have to be the very first sentient species to undergo interstellar travel("Rare Earth Hypothesis"), highly unlikely, given the many billions of years this Universe has already gone through). More than likely, virtually all species become extinct once they reach the point where they have just barely gone into Space but yet  failed to reach more distant locations, such as other solar systems.

There seems to be a conundrum, whereby some humans can be quite intelligent as individuals, but fail vastly when mingled together as mindless groups(eg:- The Roman Mob).
Well put. Presumably most alien civilizations also perish before they get to the point where they have the technology to contact us. It could be that they choose not to, but that seems less likely given that we started communicating as soon as we had the capability, and in spite of the possibility that it might attract a predator civilization. Our achieving interstellar communication thus seems like a notable technological achievement.

He took the blame like a man and went to prison.
He addressed that. He said he was proud of what he did and would do it again, including not only the Watergate break in, but also the arming of fellow prison inmates and planning and leading a prison break (whether he actually did these other things, I don't know, he bragged quite a bit). The basic philosophy he espoused was that of the ends justify the means.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: TylerDurden on September 19, 2015, 10:32:11 pm
Tyler, you miss the obvious possibility that advanced aliens have no interest in us. We spend very little in the way of resources to study traditional tribes, and they are pretty much the same as us. How much less resources would we dedicate if we were so much farther advanced that we were effectively a different species?
It does not matter whether advanced aliens had no interest in us, per se. Simply because they were so far advanced we would have seen some evidence of their passing, whether in the form of Cerenkov radiation or whatever.No such evidence exists, so we can safely state that no spacefaring aliens have ever been anywhere near us. Yes, I know there is all that Von-Danikenesque stuff, but that has been proven bogus long ago.

Let us say, that there were indeed spacefaring aliens around, then, logically, they certainly would be worried about other species developing interstellar travel in the future and becoming rivals, and so they would take steps to prevent that from happening.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: lb_on_the_cb on September 20, 2015, 12:13:43 am
He addressed that. He said he was proud of what he did and would do it again, including not only the Watergate break in, but also the arming of fellow prison inmates and planning and leading a prison break (whether he actually did these other things, I don't know, he bragged quite a bit). The basic philosophy he espoused was that of the ends justify the means.
eh i dont agree with any of that behaviour but it would be refreshing if some politicians today actually accepted the consequences of their actions like Liddy did instead of lying thru their teeth.

"I DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMAN!"  (matter fact never seen that bitch in my life)

"CANDY, I SAID IT WAS TERRORISM DIDNT I?"  (hmm, yes u did king, i think you said that once.  of course you said that dirty youtube fella done it about a thousand times)

Tyler, you miss the obvious possibility that advanced aliens have no interest in us. We spend very little in the way of resources to study traditional tribes, and they are pretty much the same as us. How much less resources would we dedicate if we were so much farther advanced that we were effectively a different species?

i heard one of science geniuses (Hawking?) recently said that it wasnt a great idea to try to contact aliens because there was a good chance that they wouldn't be friendly.   (and that what we've done so far was already a mistake)
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: cherimoya_kid on September 20, 2015, 01:10:51 am
It does not matter whether advanced aliens had no interest in us, per se. Simply because they were so far advanced we would have seen some evidence of their passing, whether in the form of Cerenkov radiation or whatever.No such evidence exists, so we can safely state that no spacefaring aliens have ever been anywhere near us. Yes, I know there is all that Von-Danikenesque stuff, but that has been proven bogus long ago.

Let us say, that there were indeed spacefaring aliens around, then, logically, they certainly would be worried about other species developing interstellar travel in the future and becoming rivals, and so they would take steps to prevent that from happening.

Why would they automatically be spacefaring? If their technology is that good, it's also good enough for physical immortality, making there no need for reproduction , which would keep the population steady. A steady population means there's no need to expand territory.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: sabertooth on September 20, 2015, 01:34:53 am
It does not matter whether advanced aliens had no interest in us, per se. Simply because they were so far advanced we would have seen some evidence of their passing, whether in the form of Cerenkov radiation or whatever.No such evidence exists, so we can safely state that no spacefaring aliens have ever been anywhere near us. Yes, I know there is all that Von-Danikenesque stuff, but that has been proven bogus long ago.

Let us say, that there were indeed spacefaring aliens around, then, logically, they certainly would be worried about other species developing interstellar travel in the future and becoming rivals, and so they would take steps to prevent that from happening.

Higher Consciousness within living organisms must be sparsely distributed throughout the cosmos. As life of a habitable planet evolves the organisms feed each other and evolve as one. Beginning with the slime molds reaching upward and outward primitive forms cover the world, and by transforming solar energy through a biological matrix the collective enterprise of differentiated beings work together to terraform the lifeless rock into a celestial womb in which the seeds of consciousness can grow.

Reaching the apex of terrestrial biological evolution by which it is possible to leave the mother planet for other star systems must be an even rarer event than the arising of consciousness, there may not be any others within our galactic neighborhood close enough to make contact, even if such methods of faster than light communications were possible. The likely scenario is that we are not alone in the universe, though we are marooned in the cosmic boondocks by the vastness of intergalactic space and time.

I like the story of "the forbidden planet" and how it could be applied to whats going on today. An ancient race of advanced beings began working on this great endeavor. They found a way though technology to amplify and interconnect the power of their minds( the internet) but when the time came to test their greatest achievement, which was the ability to control all matter with the power of their minds, their whole civilization was destroyed in an instant, by monsters which lived in the subconsciousness which were unleashed with limitless power. I see how humanity is racing at break neck speed to develop these supernatural technological powers, without realizing the kind of soulless monsters who may in subsequent generations inevitably inherit such power, and could lead potentially to our own destruction.
...............
I've been trying to focus more and more on the integral symbiotic and mutually evolving nature of life and how it operates? Though there are leaps and bounds being made in this field, it still fields like there needs to be as much effort into discovering the unified field theory of biology as there seems to be in the fields of physics.

There are so many connections which the mainstream seems ignorant of, even with the emergences of so many luminary minds we all now have access to. Many of times I lie awake at night on the cusp of some great insight, only that when I try to outwardly explain it in words, it seems to not be able to encompass the entirety of the insight.

Just think about the world as a huge compost heap where the dead are converted into living mater and constantly fluctuating between life and death, form and void, then think about us, an evolved being which is the aggregation of the eons of a multilateral mutigenetic chain reaction. Ive come to realize that despite how far we have come in our understanding we still have very little understanding of how things work in entirety,

The problem arises when individuals whom are possessed by the false notion that they know whats really going on, insist upon acting on their ignorance in ways that from this" hypothetical" perspective of some advanced alien race would appear to be tragically insane.

These aberrant Ideas have permeated every orifice, edephis, facade of our modern world...they can be seen reflected in the political, biological, and spiritual zeitgeist of our age, and there isn't anyone here who is not infected in someway.

"Infection" is good example of one of these aberrant ideas run amoke. Beings immersed within a shared environment become in a sense infected by each other and inoculated by each other. There is a very fine line between infection inoculation, or emersion( which leads to adaption) both in human thought as in biological evolution.

Early in the development of biological science one aspect of the life process was identified, abstracted and obsessed over, to the point where many subsequent discoveries have been completely overshadowed by it. Germ theory is responsible for turning life against itself in the mind of humanity. The bacteria and microbes which are our symbient coevolving partners in the living enterprise where demonized outright because at the time there was no way to know of the myriad of other environmental influences which kept the checks and balances.

Checks and balances are more associated with political life, but their origins emerged from within the divine spark which holds all of existence together. Our huge brains are fueled and nourished by a gut full of microbes that seek out a balance from within us. Perhaps it is these insatiable microbes which where the driving force of our evolved brains to begin with. These microbes needed a way for their symbiont( Humans) to be able to manipulate the outer environment in order to maximize thier internal abundance. During the times when starvation was always not far away, the death agony of trillions of symbiont microbes and their bio secretions drove our species to higher and higher states of evolutionary awareness. Ecoli bacterial forms which flourish in the human gut are now known to produce brain food nutrients. These microbs produce critical enzymes and vitamins which are absolutely vital in maintaining the gargantuan demands of our brains. Foolishly when the signs that we are not getting what is necessary to maintain a healthy and well functioning mind, became apparent, instead of going back to a more evolutionary diet, factory foods began to be fortified with synthetic vitamin and mineral supplements, though these fake nutrients can stave off severes signs of deficiency, there is no way to arbitrarily measure the proper balance needed. These synthetic vitamins now being added to everything reek havok with the balance of gut microbes and keep one perpetually dependent on the vicious cycle of haphazard nutrition and unchecked imbalance.

Perhaps part of the reason for the diminished brain size as well as the epidemic rise in mental dysfunction in our current generation is the obliteration of our symbiant gut organisms, as well as the subsequent imbalances that occurred once we began to isolate and insulate ourselves against the natural order. The soil in which we lived harbored the life force which we used to protect and serve us through our evolutionary journey. The myriad of substances secreted by microbes, fungi, plants and animals consumed by our ancestors fueled our mutagenic assent, but have now been greatly reduced, so now we are faced with the task of maintaining a demanding brain on less and less optimal fuel, so as a result the body is forced to economise leading to smaller brain size and more and more cognitive decline 

Now the world is becoming monocultured, antibioticed, antiviraled, monsantoed, rounduped by herbicidal bactericidal manicas who know nothing about how what they are doing is upsetting the checks and balances of the universal order. The signs are clear and the writing is on the wall, but I apprehend that as this system progresses there will be fewer and fewer whom are wise enough to be able to read the old earth centered language, nor will anyone longer value the notion of a soul and its interconnected relationship to earth as a biological being.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: TylerDurden on September 20, 2015, 02:16:42 am
Why would they automatically be spacefaring? If their technology is that good, it's also good enough for physical immortality, making there no need for reproduction , which would keep the population steady. A steady population means there's no need to expand territory.
Good answer. But the urge to reproduce is pretty powerful among all biological species, for obvious reasons. Also, as technology increases it becomes more able to affect distant environments as well. So, just like 20th century humans could affect distant parts halfway around the world by flying there or lobbing atomic weapons there etc.,  so could aliens have a powerful effect on distant stars. Besides, you are assuming a stagnant, decadent alien society that refuses to explore new areas/dimensions etc. Plus, any alien civilisation that just stayed where it was would eventually become extinct due to, say, a sudden release of gamma-rays or some similiar cosmic disaster in the galactic neighbourhood.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: TylerDurden on September 20, 2015, 02:23:34 am
Higher Consciousness within living organisms must be sparsely distributed throughout the cosmos. As life of a habitable planet evolves the organisms feed each other and evolve as one. Beginning with the slime molds reaching upward and outward primitive forms cover the world, and by transforming solar energy through a biological matrix the collective enterprise of differentiated beings work together to terraform the lifeless rock into a celestial womb in which the seeds of consciousness can grow.

Reaching the apex of terrestrial biological evolution by which it is possible to leave the mother planet for other star systems must be an even rarer event than the arising of consciousness, there may not be any others within our galactic neighborhood close enough to make contact, even if such methods of faster than light communications were possible. The likely scenario is that we are not alone in the universe, though we are marooned in the cosmic boondocks by the vastness of intergalactic space and time.
Please read the Fermi Paradox. It points out that, over billions of years of the Universe existing, that there must have been sentient aliens existing well before us. If interstellar travel was indeed possible, then even if such alien species were  far,far away, they would, even at the slowest (non-FTL) speed, have reached us by now or at least made some sign of their presence:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: lb_on_the_cb on September 20, 2015, 02:39:33 am
Please read the Fermi Paradox. It points out that, over billions of years of the Universe existing, that there must have been sentient aliens existing well before us. If interstellar travel was indeed possible, then even if such alien species were  far,far away, they would, even at the slowest (non-FTL) speed, have reached us by now or at least made some sign of their presence:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

its all opinion. 

 for how long did scientists think that planets were few and far between and now they find them all over the place.  maybe the circumstances for life to develop are extremely rare or maybe they arent, nobody knows for sure and then if we find other life they will all say "of course it makes sense"  and if we dont then they will adjust their models in the other direction and say how truly rare the circumstances on earth are.  just more bs.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: TylerDurden on September 20, 2015, 02:56:00 am
The issue is not whether we find other life but whether interstellar travel is at all possible. Indeed, the Great Filter Theory will apparently be more or less proven if we discover any form of life on other planets via telescope etc. If we discover intelligent life at a distance, then the Great Filter Theory is proven, almost beyond doubt.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2612958/Could-search-alien-life-trigger-end-humanity-Great-Filter-theory-suggests-habitable-exoplanets-spell-demise.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2612958/Could-search-alien-life-trigger-end-humanity-Great-Filter-theory-suggests-habitable-exoplanets-spell-demise.html)
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: cherimoya_kid on September 20, 2015, 02:56:51 am
Good answer. But the urge to reproduce is pretty powerful among all biological species, for obvious reasons. Also, as technology increases it becomes more able to affect distant environments as well. So, just like 20th century humans could affect distant parts halfway around the world by flying there or lobbing atomic weapons there etc.,  so could aliens have a powerful effect on distant stars. Besides, you are assuming a stagnant, decadent alien society that refuses to explore new areas/dimensions etc. Plus, any alien civilisation that just stayed where it was would eventually become extinct due to, say, a sudden release of gamma-rays or some similiar cosmic disaster in the galactic neighbourhood.

As people grow more wealthy, better-educated, and longer-lived, they reproduce less and less, and later in life. Why would that trend reverse?

As far as stagnation, why would they be interested in random backwater solar systems? I can see them investigating unusual environments like black holes, but regular solar systems are not going to hold any mystery for a race like that.

As far as becoming extinct from a gamma ray burst, that's silly. If they are aware of such dangers, which they would be of necessity, then they would have technology to guard against them.

The idea I find interesting is a solar system with two intelligent races on two different habitable planets just happening to evolve at the same time. Now that could be a true space war...but that's the only situation where something like that could happen.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: sabertooth on September 20, 2015, 03:30:20 am
Its not that Earth like planets where life flourishes are rare in the universe, chances are they are quite numerous, its just the vast scales of space and time are very difficult to fathom. The Fermi Paradox in a half ass way explains why we do not see evidence of extraterrestrial life within our local group, but in no way is anyone capable of saying that such advanced beings with godlike technological powers have not arisen from other galaxies far beyond our primitive signals to possibly ever reach. With everything in flux, even at the peak of an alpha and omega extraterrestrial civilization, there is no way for us monkeys to know what the next step would be. Do they go out with a bang as in "forbidden Planet" or a Whimper like many of earth's creatures relegated to evolutionary dead ends, or has there ever been an instance when beings evolve to the point where they transcend the threshold of the Gods, and learn to harness the great cosmic forces in ways beyond anything we could imagine? What good does such imaginings do for us here on earth?

That being the case it seems more logical to take a slow downed approach and realize we are at a phase of our own development when anyone of these future scenarios I've outlined seems possible. When and if we do take to the stars, let it be from a place of peace and balance, and not as Mckenna exclaimed it to be, an escape from a fire in a mad house. Because the conditions from which such a departure is made will govern the ends. If a balanced race of enlightened and free humans have cultivated the technology necessary to take the next step in a such a way that is not forced, then blessed be those whom we may meet along the way....But if our journey outward is a mere escape from a dying world of fear and depravity then I fear the safety for any inhabitants of a less advanced civilization that humans may venture too.

Future Humans are the extra terrestrials, it depends upon us as to what those aliens will be like?
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: TylerDurden on September 20, 2015, 03:42:47 am
As people grow more wealthy, better-educated, and longer-lived, they reproduce less and less, and later in life. Why would that trend reverse?
Not all that sure that this is a given. For example, the general downward trend among UK births has only been reversed recently by the wealthiest UKers who are all now having tons of children. The upper-clases/wealthiest tend to have far more children in all ancient and modern societies than the rest of the population, with the exception of the working-class.
Quote
As far as stagnation, why would they be interested in random backwater solar systems? I can see them investigating unusual environments like black holes, but regular solar systems are not going to hold any mystery for a race like that.
If a particular species was about to discover interstellar travel, there would be competion involved, which no sane alien civilisation would tolerate.
Quote
As far as becoming extinct from a gamma ray burst, that's silly. If they are aware of such dangers, which they would be of necessity, then they would have technology to guard against them.
Gamma-ray bursts are a seriously-considered extinction possibility by scientists:-
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.231102 (https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.231102)

http://www.livescience.com/49040-gamma-ray-burst-mass-extinction.html (http://www.livescience.com/49040-gamma-ray-burst-mass-extinction.html)

The point being that if the aliens were genuinely insular and stuck to their original solar system(an unlikely possibility if they had interstellar travel), then gamma-ray bursts would have easily wiped them out.

Quote
The idea I find interesting is a solar system with two intelligent races on two different habitable planets just happening to evolve at the same time. Now that could be a true space war...but that's the only situation where something like that could happen.
Actually some scientists have suggested that if interstellar travel were possible, that interstellar warfare would also be possible(and a lot more dangerous - imagine if only a kilo or so were projected at incredible FTL speeds at a planet, the damage would be catastrophic).
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: TylerDurden on September 20, 2015, 03:54:08 am
Its not that Earth like planets where life flourishes are rare in the universe, chances are they are quite numerous, its just the vast scales of space and time are very difficult to fathom. The Fermi Paradox in a half ass way explains why we do not see evidence of extraterrestrial life within our local group, but in no way is anyone capable of saying that such advanced beings with godlike technological powers have not arisen from other galaxies far beyond our primitive signals to possibly ever reach. With everything in flux, even at the peak of an alpha and omega extraterrestrial civilization, there is no way for us monkeys to know what the next step would be. Do they go out with a bang as in "forbidden Planet" or a Whimper like many of earth's creatures relegated to evolutionary dead ends, or has there ever been an instance when beings evolve to the point where they transcend the threshold of the Gods, and learn to harness the great cosmic forces in ways beyond anything we could imagine? What good does such imaginings do for us here on earth?

According to the very theory of Technological Singularity that you espouse, and even according to Ray Kurzweil, whichever alien species reaches the Technological Singularity first, will change the entire Universe, in a process of "mindfire", into a gigantic computer, where there will be no space left for other alien species to develop.So, your theory is bunk. OK, so if aliens developed in entirely different galaxies, then maybe a few alien species do develop galactic travel, but go extinct once their galaxies die out.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: sabertooth on September 20, 2015, 10:56:51 am
Hear me out on this, its very possible that the fabric of the universe is woven in such bunk.

Its not imperative that the mindfire kindled by a technological singularity would obstruct other beings from raising to higher consciousness. The results from such an event as an engineered singularity are only limited by the imagination of the beings involved in its creation.

I espouse a multiversal cosmos where singularities of this sort have already occurred, and perhaps the ripples of such events have already reshaped our universe in ways that are favorable to the emergence of the conditions which has enabled or own species rise to awareness. What more awesome way for ascended beings to utilize the infinitesimal possibilities in their control than to use such powers to spread the seeds of consciousness through the matrix of all space and eternity. With the experience gathered from a truly eternal existence. There is no telling what such beings are capable of or inclined to do.

If there is a God then perhaps the "almighty" is an ascended Alien, and our universe is some sort of creation which serves as  a Zen garden, to bemuse the great celestial entity and keep them company. Eternity after the singularity would be a lonely place once all other beings have been extinguished, so perhaps these Gods which work in mysterious ways to rekindle the flame of life and allow it to bloom into sentients throughout all creation.

"Time is of no importance, only life is important"
The 5th Element



 
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: TylerDurden on September 20, 2015, 05:48:40 pm
A genuine god or gods, however, would always want to interfere, if only out of boredom. Besides, the whole point that Kurzweil makes is that every atom in the Universe/multiverse is changed into becoming part of a vast, omnipresent computer, so I do not see how it could be something else as well.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: goodsamaritan on September 21, 2015, 02:27:38 pm
My my... how far we have strayed from the vegans + pro gmo purposely sabotaging human health.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: sabertooth on September 21, 2015, 02:48:08 pm
All who wander are not lost.... Its difficult to direct the quantum flow of the great cosmic computer god mentality.... Once it becomes clear that the Pro GMO Vegan Agenda cannot be reasoned with, or taken seriously we have no other option here other than to transcend the situation altogether.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: ys on October 13, 2015, 10:59:53 am
I have yet to find concrete evidence that GMO is somehow harmful.  The web is full of "credible studies" both pro and con.  Most evidence is anecdotal and highly speculative but nothing concrete.

By concrete evidence I mean:
 - Nutritional analysis that shows there are anti-nutrients present (type and amount), or gross imbalance of one nutrient over the other that's nutritionally undesirable.  I've heard claims that GMO might be less nutritious.  Assuming it is true it does not fall into harmful category.

- Genes interfering with digestion.  There is a lot bad science involving genes.  First, our gut does not care if the cucumber gene comes from cucumber itself or from pork modified with cucumber gene.  In both cases the gene sequence would be identical and our bodies would not know the difference.  Second, all genes get digested into the same components: A,G,C,T + the base molecules.  Claims that they found strings of DNA floating in blood have not been verified and points to bad science.  Our gut is designed in such a way that it only permits small molecules into the bloodstream.  Undigested strings of DNA simply get excreted or consumed/metabolized by gut flora.

Since there is still much unknown about consuming GMO long term I think we are all in agreement it's best to avoid it.  But it would be nice to have good science explaining it all.

Now to my point.  If I end up in situation to choose either GMO produce or produce treated with pesticide/antibiotics I would choose GMO.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: goodsamaritan on October 13, 2015, 11:26:55 am
I have yet to find concrete evidence that GMO is somehow harmful.  The web is full of "credible studies" both pro and con.  Most evidence is anecdotal and highly speculative but nothing concrete.

By concrete evidence I mean:
 - Nutritional analysis that shows there are anti-nutrients present (type and amount), or gross imbalance of one nutrient over the other that's nutritionally undesirable.  I've heard claims that GMO might be less nutritious.  Assuming it is true it does not fall into harmful category.

- Genes interfering with digestion.  There is a lot bad science involving genes.  First, our gut does not care if the cucumber gene comes from cucumber itself or from pork modified with cucumber gene.  In both cases the gene sequence would be identical and our bodies would not know the difference.  Second, all genes get digested into the same components: A,G,C,T + the base molecules.  Claims that they found strings of DNA floating in blood have not been verified and points to bad science.  Our gut is designed in such a way that it only permits small molecules into the bloodstream.  Undigested strings of DNA simply get excreted or consumed/metabolized by gut flora.

Since there is still much unknown about consuming GMO long term I think we are all in agreement it's best to avoid it.  But it would be nice to have good science explaining it all.

Now to my point.  If I end up in situation to choose either GMO produce or produce treated with pesticide/antibiotics I would choose GMO.

How about the pesticides used for the GMO?

How about those beetles / insects dying from eating the farm produce... if you see all those dead insects with tummies burst from the gmo plant's defense, would you still eat such a gmo plant?

See http://www2.ca.uky.edu/entomology/entfacts/ef130.asp (http://www2.ca.uky.edu/entomology/entfacts/ef130.asp)

The claim:

"Bt Delta Endotoxin
The Bt delta endotoxin was selected because it is highly effective at controlling Lepidoptera larvae, caterpillars. It is during the larval stage when most of the damage by European corn borer occurs. The protein is very selective, generally not harming insects in other orders (such as beetles, flies, bees and wasps). For this reason, GMOs that have the Bt gene are compatible with biological control programs because they harm insect predators and parasitoids much less than broad-spectrum insecticides. The Bt endotoxin is considered safe for humans, other mammals, fish, birds, and the environment because of its selectivity. Bt has been available as a commercial microbial insecticide since the 1960s and is sold under many trade names. These products have an excellent safety record and can be used on many crops until the day of harvest.
 
To kill a susceptible insect, a part of the plant that contains the Bt protein (not all parts of the plant necessarily contain the protein in equal concentrations) must be ingested. Within minutes, the protein binds to the gut wall and the insect stops feeding. Within hours, the gut wall breaks down and normal gut bacteria invade the body cavity. The insect dies of septicaemia as bacteria multiply in the blood. Even among Lepidoptera larvae, species differ in sensitivity to the Bt protein."

And how sure are THEY or YOU, that this is harmless to humans and livestock?  Tsk tsk tsk...
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: sabertooth on October 13, 2015, 12:06:01 pm
Actually the new science has discovered through a mechanisms for RNA transference, genes from the foods we eat encoded into our own genetic code. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtwTEHW8_8k (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtwTEHW8_8k)

The proteins do indeed pass through into the bloodstream and get directly absorbed into our cells, and have been shown to alter our gene expression. The limited and highly restrictive animal feeds done on GMOs have shown there to be great potential for trans generational negative genetic, as well as short term health detriments.

This is just an opinion but one I agree with........You would be either a fool, derelict or a prisoner, if you think that you are in such a position that you would have to chose between the lesser of two evils.

Go find a local orchard, join an organic CSA ,or grow your own if need be. There seems to be a minority of paleos who will recommend choosing some of the safer commercial produce is ok, but the more puritanical paleos would advise not only  avoiding commercial produce but also GMO....and there is even a rare subgroup whom question the quality of much of the organic stuff on the market. At the local market place in the civilized world there are now multinational corporations involved in the production of all foods Conventional, GMO and organic.

"Labels"in today's world MEAN NOTHING. If its labeled in printed letters and sold at a grocery stores, its not paleo in a pure sense. There are many of us who do indeed, on faith in their fellow humans, chose to pick one" branding" over another. Based on someones recommendation, advertisement or gut intuition.

Developing ones" intuition" needs to be the first priority. Without being attuned to our intuition /primal instincts , there would be no way to ever test these laboratory foods in the real world without being injured. The opposition makes it so that people are being denied the freedom to readily access the optimal quality of foods needed for people in dire need of access to the best this world has to offer. Someone who is attuned and has access to a wider variety of resource will be more capable of recognizing and avoiding foods which is harmful to the being on the holistic level.

It is dread to think that its very well possible such individuals are becoming extinct, an endangered breed that is giving way to those who where capable of adapting to a Chemo-Geneticaly mutilated ecosystem.  The signs are clear and the writing is on the wall of whats happening but its up to you to chose what to pay mind to.

Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: eveheart on October 13, 2015, 12:20:35 pm
How about the pesticides used for the GMO?

How about those beetles / insects dying from eating the farm produce... if you see all those dead insects with tummies burst from the gmo plant's defense, would you still eat such a gmo plant?

See http://www2.ca.uky.edu/entomology/entfacts/ef130.asp (http://www2.ca.uky.edu/entomology/entfacts/ef130.asp)

The claim:

"Bt Delta Endotoxin
The Bt delta endotoxin was selected because it is highly effective at controlling Lepidoptera larvae, caterpillars. It is during the larval stage when most of the damage by European corn borer occurs. The protein is very selective, generally not harming insects in other orders (such as beetles, flies, bees and wasps). ...

Bad example, GS. Bt is specific against caterpillars. It occurs naturally everywhere, like in the soil and plants. It is not a bacteria that colonizes in humans. I avoid food grown with pesticides and chemical fertilizers, but I've used Bt in my own garden and considered it natural enough.

I think GMO is an interesting concept, and I suspect that many GMOs are completely harmless, but I'm sure that there are some ruthless mad-scientist types developing GMOs that are bad. I worry about alterations that make people get addicted in some way to a food so that the grower makes more money.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: goodsamaritan on October 13, 2015, 09:04:39 pm
Seeing dead caterpillars all around the bt freak is not going to give me warm fuzzy feelings of illusions eating bt for myself or for my kids.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: eveheart on October 13, 2015, 09:24:27 pm
Seeing dead caterpillars all around the bt freak is not going to give me warm fuzzy feelings of illusions eating bt for myself or for my kids.

Do you or your children have caterpillar digestive tracts?
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: goodsamaritan on October 13, 2015, 09:59:51 pm
Do you or your children have caterpillar digestive tracts?

It's all about instinct, Eve.

Here, we welcome half a worm on the guava we bite into.

If the birds were dropping dead while eating the mangoes on our tree, I would not eat those mangoes as well.

Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: sabertooth on October 13, 2015, 10:01:27 pm
The issue with bt used as a external treatment is very different from the bt which is engineered to be produced internally by the plant. BT in relatively small amounts such as what is used by gardeners to dust their crops, is not nearly as harmful as the BT which is produced by genetically combining BT producing bacterial with the crop plants.

The sheer amount of the BT toxin within the cells of engineered plants can be enough to cause gastrointestinal problems, and there is the possibility that through gene transference the gut bacteria when exposed to BT producing Genetic material may be mutated in a way that is toxic to healthy gut ecology.

Its also important to note that most BT GMO crops are also treated with roundup and that there is an even greater toxicological risk when the two are combined.

Im with GS on this one, if a crop is toxic in a way that it kills the bugs who eat it then I don't care how safe some scientist claims it to be!

http://www.nationofchange.org/monsanto-s-bt-toxins-found-kill-human-embryo-cells-1390666070 (http://www.nationofchange.org/monsanto-s-bt-toxins-found-kill-human-embryo-cells-1390666070)
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: jessica on October 13, 2015, 11:09:22 pm
listen to any of vendana shivas lectures talks on seed politics and the interests of those who wish to pervert nature with their greed and you will realize there are so many other issues besides the possibility that GMO's might mutate cells within the body.  the actual food produced by gmo crops might be the least destructive part of the process.  i dont know why its so hard for people to wrap their heads around the fact that it is mulitfauceted destruction of land and how we relate to nature and each other.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzFFz14r_tg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzFFz14r_tg)
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: sabertooth on October 14, 2015, 05:30:42 am
I am more than aware of the multifaceted levels of destruction and mutilation involved whenever big agricultural multinationals are involved. As is above so is below and the forces behind the abomination of the genetic code are the same that hold profit over the subsequent ecological balance that ensues. The more ecological damage the farm land suffers the more big agricultural products the farmers must buy to get anything to grow in the wastelands. The more corrupt and ecologically imbalanced our system of agriculture is the more money the corporations stand to make in cleaning up the mess they created. There is no accountability.

 Its an ends and means argument being used by the pro GMOs to impose the seeds of deception upon the people of the world. They claim that the increased total food production which will save the masses from starving, somehow justifies the risk involved in playing god. The problem is that its all bullshit and there is no evidence which proves that the world is being improved. One might dream.... if all that money that is going into conventional farming were instead invested in more integrated holistic farming methods, then we may be able to feed everyone, without contributing to the mutilation of our Genome, and the raping of the earth. Then if for some reason that isn't enough I am sure that by simply taking one fourth of the worlds war machine budget and put a few trillion dollars, into sustainable agriculture projects, then there would be no reason for anyone in the world to go hungry or have to eat poison laced food.

The Pro GMO crowd exhibit the same kind of thinking of Zorg from the fifth element, in the way they seem blinded by the arrogance behind the corporate message that "they" know what "they" are doing and are working in the best interest of the world....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnzzWGcdMqY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnzzWGcdMqY)
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: cherimoya_kid on October 14, 2015, 06:53:46 am
I have no problem with GMOs in theory.  Only a gullible moron would willingly give that kind of power to companies that try to patent human genes, though. It's like letting Jerry Sandusky be a Scoutmaster.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: eveheart on October 14, 2015, 07:56:11 am
It's very hard for me to condemn GMO crops because they are the obvious answer to the pest problems of monoculture. I don't think it's possible to turn our backs on 10,000 years of single-crop farming, unless we're talking about test-tube food. Like it or not, this is how it is.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: goodsamaritan on October 14, 2015, 09:03:59 am
We still have choices where I live.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: TylerDurden on October 14, 2015, 09:08:09 am
The problem with GM is that the companies appear to use dna from widely different species, such as fish genes in GM tomatoes.  Also, companies like Monsanto cannot be trusted given endless reports. Anyway, there are sufficient organic methods to deal with so-called "pests". I only have to look at my own garden to see what environmental damage will happen when profit is always the motive. The rest of the coast, other than mine and my immeidate neighbours' garden, is filled with greenhouses supporting monocultures. Outside the greenhouses, it is practically a desert. We and those neighbours I mentioned are the only properties with significant numbers of insects such as butterflies, wasps, dragonflies etc., solely because we use organic methods to grow our plants.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: sabertooth on October 14, 2015, 09:49:25 am
It's very hard for me to condemn GMO crops because they are the obvious answer to the pest problems of monoculture. I don't think it's possible to turn our backs on 10,000 years of single-crop farming, unless we're talking about test-tube food. Like it or not, this is how it is.

Monoculture is responsible for the pest problems to begin with! GMO is not the answer! In fact the root worms that BT was built into corn to kill are building resistance, and its only a matter of time before the pest are able to overcome the current generation of pesticide measures, which will lead to ever more abominable practices of higher levels of strong pesticides.

This horticultural arms race reminds me of the folk tale of the" old lady who swallowed a fly", every remedy she ingest only leads to further calamity, and at the end of each verse where she swallows another animal, is the line "I don't know why she swallowed the fly, perhaps she will die".

 I don't know why mono-culture cannot be reformed? like I was expressing earlier if the trillions of dollars that are wasted on building death machines were properly invested in integrated and sustainable agriculture projects, new methods of feeding the world without the use of poison could indeed make the problems of mono-culture a thing of the dark ages.

If you take a really close look at the history of mono-culture you will learn about how it is being practiced now is nothing like how it was first practiced 10,000 years ago( its apples to radiated oranges) regarding the original farmers of the Nile compared to what is going on in Iowa)

During the early days it became apparent in many cultures that mono-cropping would ruin the land within a few generations. Pestilence, and sickness would set in if the land was not allowed to rest, replenish and renew. This emergence of pest is mother earth revolting against the imposition of unbalanced systems. The pest are an immune reaction of the earth which serve a vital function in maintaining a healthy and diverse ecosystem. If one life form overgrows its ecosystems ability to keep it in balance , then it is just a mater of time before Gaia unleashes the worms, locust, etc. A vibrant ecology with a balance of plant eating insects living in a diverse herbosphere, actually stimulate the health and promote the development of strong immunity in the plants that share that environment. To systematicly poison all herbivorous insects in an environment, remove all other symbiotic life forms, and grow one single crop sprayed with herbicides and fed with chemical fertilizers is ecologically insane, and although it may yield short term gains, the long term effects will be disastrous to the subsequent generations forced to subsist such an unholy substrate.

 The systems of crop rotation where developed and enabled mono-culture grain to be planted one year then legumes the next, then left to the Pasteur animals on the third year. If the agricultural sciences were truly unleashed from the bondage of corporate slavery then researches and innovators working side by side with growers of food on the grass roots level could develop the kind of integrated and highly efferent poly-cultural systems which would make mono-culture, obsolete.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: eveheart on October 14, 2015, 10:04:12 am
Monoculture is responsible for the pest problems to begin with!

That's what I'm saying. I don't see any agribusinesses rushing to intercropping anytime in the future, either. It costs too much. There are plenty of alternatives if you want to pay more for food, but the masses still want "10 for $10" or they'll shop someplace else.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: ys on October 14, 2015, 10:17:50 am
Quote
Actually the new science has discovered through a mechanisms for RNA transference, genes from the foods we eat encoded into our own genetic code. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtwTEHW8_8k (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtwTEHW8_8k)

That's the kind of bad science (I should really say incomplete science) I was talking about.
That's some bold claim and again without much facts.

From the paper itself:
The authors of this study hypothesized that epithelial cells in the intestine might take up miRNAs in food, package them into MVs and release them into the circulatory system.

This is just another speculation.  Key words are hypothesized and might.

I also could not find any credible peers reviewing these claims.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: goodsamaritan on October 14, 2015, 10:23:37 am
You looking for peer reviews?

Seriously?  As raw paleo dieters, we are in experiential territory.

I would rather accept your personal experiences eating raw GMO animals or plants or fruits.

---------

Plus if you are looking for peer reviews... the peer reviews should support the notion that their GMO is absolutely safe.  Not the other way around.  They are the new kid on the block.  So the burden is for the GMO to be proven safe in the first place. 
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: ys on October 14, 2015, 10:30:09 am
Quote
You looking for peer reviews?

Seriously?  As raw paleo dieters, we are in experiential territory.

I would rather accept your personal experiences eating raw GMO animals or plants or fruits.

Peer reviewing scientific papers has nothing to with raw paleo or any other diet.

I do not wish to experiment with unknown in any way.  That's why I would like to see some real facts.  I am highly suspicious of GMO just like everyone else. But sometimes on rare social occasions I do consume GMO food (conventional produce that's likely GMO).  And I am interested to know the actual facts.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: goodsamaritan on October 14, 2015, 10:30:55 am
Plus if you are looking for peer reviews... the peer reviews should support the notion that their GMO is absolutely safe.  Not the other way around.  They are the new kid on the block.  So the burden is for the GMO to be proven safe in the first place. 

The idiotic propaganda is that they assume GMOs are SAFE until someone spends billions on peer reviewed researches that they are not safe / harmful.  :P

-----------

I have little respect for "studies".  Especially the self serving ones.

I'd rather have honest raw paleo diet practitioners do their self experiments consuming the new GMO creatures and tell us how good they are after a year.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: TylerDurden on October 14, 2015, 11:48:07 am
Just a moment, I vaguely recall that dna transfer is a scientific fact:-

http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2015/03/humans-may-harbor-more-100-genes-other-organisms (http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2015/03/humans-may-harbor-more-100-genes-other-organisms)
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: sabertooth on October 14, 2015, 11:55:35 am
That's the kind of bad science (I should really say incomplete science) I was talking about.
That's some bold claim and again without much facts.

From the paper itself:
The authors of this study hypothesized that epithelial cells in the intestine might take up miRNAs in food, package them into MVs and release them into the circulatory system.

This is just another speculation.  Key words are hypothesized and might.

I also could not find any credible peers reviewing these claims.


What about the peer reviewed studies which proof that the BT toxin does not get destroyed by the gut enzymes and does indeed pass directly into the blood stream and can be detected in breast milk. This is how bad science works, you have some BT and you put in in a dish with an acidic PH of equivalent strength of an average human stomach, and you see that the acid breaks down the toxin, then go on to profess that the toxin cannot pass through the stomach so therefor its safe for everyone to consume, as much as they want.....but this assumption does not take into account the myriad of factors involved in the digestive system. Some people have enzymatic insufficiency from other issues, and their already weaken digestive tract could become further decimated by ingestion of GMO. The epidemic rise in leaky gut and colitis, and multitude of other digestive illnesses which have erupted since GMO foods have come into use cannot be ignored, in the light of the animal testing which show very similar conditions in animals after only 6 month feeding studies.

There are many issues with bad science, and like GS and myself are claiming, the burden of proof should be on those who claim GMOs to be 100 safe, which to my knowledge there is not the kind of long-term trans-generational animal studies which prove such a " bold claim"

When you look into the limited studies conducted by the bio tech industry you find monumental scientific fraud . Some studies where originally designed for long term, but after adverse reactions in the first trial, the companies had the data deep sixed, and shortened the time of the trial period in other test to right before the negative effects would show. The kind of long term studies needed to prove one way or another the safety of GMOs are being obstructed by the powers that be. Yet despite the lack of proof of long term safety there is an ocean of propaganda proclaiming GMOS to be safe whenever you search engine the subject.http://naturalsociety.com/biotech-bullying-french-government-withdraws-long-term-gmo-study/ (http://naturalsociety.com/biotech-bullying-french-government-withdraws-long-term-gmo-study/)

I should also mention that I worked as a butcher and have seen the lesions, tumors , abscesses, swollen joints and other detrimental health effects seen in GMO fed animals, these organ lesions and health issues I have found in 2 year old farm animals, are very similar to the ones discovered in GM fed lab rats...... while at the same time I noticed none of those issues on farms that grew their own non gm corn to supplement their livestock.

Here here, all yea who are claiming GMOS to be safe, I say to you put up or shut up , take the GMO Challenge, and eat exclusively all GMO  for a year  and come back and tell us how you feel?
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: ys on October 14, 2015, 12:03:45 pm
Quote
So the burden is for the GMO to be proven safe in the first place.

History will show you otherwise.  Just like with margarine, everyone was eating it until someone put it under the microscope and proved it to be unsafe.

Quote
Just a moment, I vaguely recall that dna transfer is a scientific fact

Again, speculative keyword may.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: ys on October 14, 2015, 12:17:01 pm
Quote
There are many issues with bad science, and like GS and myself are claiming, the burden of proof should be on those who claim GMOs to be 100 safe

I am not looking for proofs that GMO is safe.  I am looking for proofs that say otherwise.
You are claiming that GMO fed stock looks sickly.  Would it not get approval stamp?
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: sabertooth on October 14, 2015, 01:06:01 pm
There were many who had an Idea margarine wasn't good by its taste, and didn't need a microscope and 50 years of increased rates of heart disease  to convince them not to eat the stuff. Just as there are people here who don't feel the need to let history prove anything in hindsight, and choose not to eat things that have been engineered. Our lives are now much of history is useless bunk...even after artificial oils were proven to be more harmful than butter or lard, there was no universal penance among the scientific community because they had it all wrong, there was no apology or reparations. How many times has science failed to foresee the dangers they were unleashing. Nearly all the chemical pesticides which were used in our parents generation have been banned, and much of the negative effects of such recklessly insane practices, have ever been formally recognized by science.   Nor should we expect much better treatment by the hustlers in the bio tek business which have hijacked the systems of our own time.

As for the accusation of speculation, I will plead guilty, for I am one who believes its much better to speculate than to spectate, and if you or anyone else has a better theory to explain the gene transference phenomenon, being open minded, I would love to discuss it . There is still much that nobody knows regarding the workings of the life force?  In this vacuum between the ignorance and the cusp of new discovery there is freedom to fathom the deeper mystery of it all and speculate on what truths may be uncovered. These life affirmations are more and more becoming evolved within a larger world view that science alone cannot comprehend without the help of the spirit. Life to me is much more a spiritual journey than it is an empirical scientific inquiry, though I would like to be able to find common ground by which the two could work together to further the human enterprise. This view of life as divine creation that is holy in and of itself, makes one very suspicious of those who would try to fuck with the structural integrity of the sacred spiral, for selfish gain, without fully understanding the total impact on all the interconnected systems which will be affected.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: sabertooth on October 14, 2015, 01:15:04 pm
I am not looking for proofs that GMO is safe.  I am looking for proofs that say otherwise.
You are claiming that GMO fed stock looks sickly.  Would it not get approval stamp?

Let me educate the public, I have worked next to a USDA inspector when animals with swollen joints and liver lesions have come through the line. The policy in the united states is that if the organs are bad just throw them out and send the rest of the animal to be processed. Its totally insane what is going on, there is no scientific oversight, these sick animals are not being studied in order to discover exactly what is causing the issue. Since these animals are butchered by 2 years of age most of the long term debilitating effects of GMO fed lotting are not given time to manifest, but I can vouch that many of these animals brought in to slaughter are sick and shouldn't be fed to people. One problem is that the whole system of animal agriculture is out of tune with reality, some instances the lesions are caused by parasites from being crowed in fed lots and given chemical wormers chronicly, and the swollen joints are because they are over fed. I have noticed non of these issues in the grass fed animals. Many of the animals would have their belly's full of corn and although I cannot be sure, I assumed it was GMO.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: goodsamaritan on October 14, 2015, 01:23:50 pm
I am not looking for proofs that GMO is safe.  I am looking for proofs that say otherwise.
You are claiming that GMO fed stock looks sickly.  Would it not get approval stamp?

That is YOUR mistake right there.

You are looking at it from the opposite side.

It's like some new creature was just CREATED from the lab, and you ASSUME it is safe... and wait for "STUDIES" to prove the GMO creature is not safe to eat.

Duh... of course you can search how MUCH $$$ it takes to pay for such studies.  Who has the $$$ and the interest to do such a study?

It's just like we are eating raw paleo diets here... because we didn't need no stinking study to tell us raw paleo diets worked... we had to rely on testimonies and personal experience... because the "STUDY" methodology was not working for us.

Maybe a bunch of raw paleo dieters would want to do their personal "study" and experience the GMO creatures first hand and give their reviews after some time as staple food... testimonials... not peer reviewed.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: TylerDurden on October 14, 2015, 01:51:18 pm
I am not looking for proofs that GMO is safe.  I am looking for proofs that say otherwise.
You are claiming that GMO fed stock looks sickly.  Would it not get approval stamp?
Here is one example of what you mean:-

http://www.ijbs.com/v05p0706.htm (http://www.ijbs.com/v05p0706.htm)
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: JeuneKoq on October 14, 2015, 03:45:20 pm
I think you guys all heard about the Seralini study. Here's their website. They also answer critics who claimed that the study was poorly conducted:

www.gmoseralini.org (http://www.gmoseralini.org)

Keep in mind that they have little to gain from having their study declared valid or not, except the satisfaction of making others aware of the danger, or perhaps supporting the comparatively much less profitable organic agriculture industry, unlike GM companies who have a lot more to lose from having their own "studies" invalidated (and so does the US government).
 
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: jessica on October 14, 2015, 10:33:45 pm
for the people who think monoculture and GMO is the only way to "feed" the country.  its not.  poly culture, silvopasture,  and returning our grasslands to cattle and other grazing animals would only improve the amount of food, sequester carbon back into the soil, and help grow back the top soil and diversify the prairie.  our grasslands, at some point, sustained 10's of millions of bison.......thats a lot of meat, fertilizer, leather, etc. the land has just been misappropriated, much like all other resources on the planet, and people are being forced to make poor food decisions, whether it be due to lack of proper education, "supply", thinking meat is too expensive, dogma, etc..

http://www.voanews.com/content/cattle-replace-bison-to-restore-grassland-health/2947283.html (http://www.voanews.com/content/cattle-replace-bison-to-restore-grassland-health/2947283.html)
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: cherimoya_kid on October 14, 2015, 11:34:59 pm
It's great to know all that, Jessica. I understand you've worked hard for the knowledge. Right around the time people really start getting into that stuff, though, vat-grown food will become better than even the best wild or farmed food. That's my prediction.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: jessica on October 14, 2015, 11:47:06 pm
People are already really into that stuff, and i also understand people are also into frankenfood at the same pace, but why would you eer on the side of "science" and all of its horrendous consequence? "If you plan for anything other than Eden, that's what you are going to get"-Mark Shepard.....PLAN FOR EDEN. 
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: cherimoya_kid on October 15, 2015, 12:24:40 am
We tried Eden. Human curiosity ended that. It is denying a fundamental fact of human nature to think that we will ever abandon science. No matter where it leads, it's what we are. And I'd rather crash and burn as a species than try to be something we're not. But maybe that's just me.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: JeuneKoq on October 15, 2015, 01:27:08 am
Technological advancement doesn't necessary mean it has to be destructive and keep us out of tune with our environment. There is a growing number of initiatives and projects surrounding the "eco" ideal out there (meaning eco-technology, eco-villages, eco-farming, eco-everything...). If we already tried Eden, then let's try Eden 2.0!

I hope we'll one day have permaculture machines capable of harvesting different plants at their optimal picking time, in squares of land with several species growing next to one another.

Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: sabertooth on October 15, 2015, 01:56:21 am
Science if applied in accordance with the balanced systems of nature would not need to be abandoned, and could indeed be used as a lodestar to guide us those of us whom so desire, back into the Garden. What is now needed is for us to take a much slower and sustainable and saner approach to reaching life's ultimate goal(whatever that may be). It is my belief that we have come too far, too fast riding on the backs of these autonomous mechanical giants. We have been carried into a no mans land, lost, far from home, Separated from our mother earth. Feeling abandoned by the goddess, in accordance with our nature, we have begun to attach ourselves to the machine. In the process of  the construction of a machine world, Human beings, as the image of the creator, had to develop a machine machine mind in order to relate to its own creations. This mechanical, maniacal mind has come to replace the pantheist, spirit centered mind that preceded it over the course of history. The universal dominance of the mechanistic scientific model within the mind of the human entity, is now emerged as the dominating force and is playing the role of GOD, and its a jealous God which demands that the old ways be forgotten, and all opposition be denounced, in the name of progress. Progress is this entity's illusion, as well as its Dogma and in order to accomplish this illusion of turning its dogma into truth, the Machine mind will ignore or in some cases violently attack, any contradictory intelligence which does not fit the mechanistic model.

Its easy in these discussions to make it into an" either or" debate, when it could just as well be a "both and". These are huge issues which I believe mankind needs time to grapple with before declaring progress to have been made on any front. Sure our technology, scientific endeavor and world economy is full of innovation and growth , but what good is all that if our spirits are empty and our bodies are enslaved to a mechanical apparatus.  Let us set up our own models based upon the rediscovery of the science which operates within the Gaia spirit to develop life affirming technology which would allow for a more healthy integration of the accomplishments of machine mind back into a holistic and balanced view of earth.

I have a feeling the garden of Eden model was prematurely abandoned, in the madness and calamity that insured after the tree of knowledge event, and although there is no way to go back, there may at least be ways of bring forth a new vision of Eden that would give us a viable alternative to a future of virtual insanity.

As Raw paleo Dieters this is our endeavor, and our contribution to enhancing the scientific understanding of the world.
We need to stand firm and see ourselves in this experiment, as a control group by which the immature genetic pseudo sciences clumsy attempts at the engineering of life can be measured against. The proof may not come in the form of an accredited document published in some journal, but will be found in our own living being and the quality of life and health that manifest through us.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: jessica on October 15, 2015, 02:55:56 am
Quote from: JeuneKoq

I hope we'll one day have permaculture machines capable of harvesting different plants at their optimal picking time, in squares of land with several species growing next to one another.



We have those, they are called humans, they are the most technogically advanced things on the planet and we have billions of them.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: JeuneKoq on October 15, 2015, 03:30:32 am
We have those, they are called humans, they are the most technogically advanced things on the planet and we have billions of them.
Ugh, but they're like, organic, and full of germs. And they're gonna ask for, like, a fair wage, which is gonna upset daddy for sure...
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: cherimoya_kid on October 15, 2015, 03:32:23 am
We have those, they are called humans, they are the most technogically advanced things on the planet and we have billions of them.

The problem is they overpopulate and end up with wars and disease epidemics as a result. Their tendency to separate into tribes and isolate themselves causes this. The only solution is technological advancements that fix human ignorance and personality flaws permanently. And this same technology can be, and almost certainly will be, to produce food without the need for human labor or soil.

Just because you're a farmer doesn't mean that farming will always exist. When's the last time you met a telegraph operator? LOL
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: nummi on October 15, 2015, 03:37:17 am
The path of technology VS the path of nature.

The path of technology. You create ways and systems and design foods that are "superior" to that which already exist (but are they really superior if our Earth is so poisoned to begin with? How about healing Earth first to see the truth?). Eventually you design it all so whole that the system drives itself, where it has different organisms growing that include different nutrients and substances, where new ones create themselves, and you need ways to recognize what is what so you could eat the right thing instead of the wrong thing. Oh wait... that's nature...

Seriously...

Why try to use the destruction of one to end up creating the very same thing the creation of which demanded the destruction of? I'd call that insane... and for some reason there are some people who have no problem with it, or are simply blind... or worse...

Being or existence is energy. Information is the difference between different energies, but information is itself also energy. There can be no nonexistence or non-being, but there can be and is information of it. With "being" there is immediately the information of "being" which hints at "non-being". Since energy is being and information is also energy, then the information "non-being" is energy that is in direct opposition and contradiction with itself. And this contradicting energy is one of the most founding energies there is.
So... essentially, there is energy of insanity. Energy that "wants" to not be energy, but can't and thus destroys and recreates itself without stop.

Of course, those two fundamental energies would create further differences, further energies, etc. Endless possibilities.

How well does this explain what is going on on Earth? We already have nature... technology would end up recreating nature of some sort.

What energies are dominating you? I am fairly certain you all can choose. So what kind of "energy" do you want to live, what kind of world do you want to live in, and what actions correspond and lead to what you want?
There are many more options, but:
Do you want to destroy so you could recreate it in some form?
Or would you rather take the existing one and improve it? But of course after you've discovered the potential of the existing one, because otherwise in your ignorance you could instead end up harming and destroying the existing one which might be far superior than what you can even imagine.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: TylerDurden on October 15, 2015, 04:16:16 am
The problem is they overpopulate and end up with wars and disease epidemics as a result. Their tendency to separate into tribes and isolate themselves causes this.
Aiee! Aiiee!! The above poster's ideas are so un-palaeo he ought to be staked out and burnt as an evil  witch(or perhaps eaten alive like in good old palaeo times?!). First of all, epidemics/diseases were far less effective in palaeo times precisely because they separated themselves into far-off isolated tribes. As soon as they adopted stupid, Neolithic-era ideas  such as huddling close together into settled cities, THEN they suffered mass epidemics sure enough. One only has to look at Roman and Ancient Chinese etc. history to see how plagues wiped out endless settled civilisations/eras. Tribes are the essence of the true natural human spirit. I do not agree with the Noble Savage Theory in its ridiculous religious-like  idolisation of primitive tribes,  but it does have a point of sorts.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: jessica on October 15, 2015, 07:39:59 am
traveling causes plauges also, we need to stop thinking globally and get back to ourselves, what we are capable of as individuals and how that translates to our immediate environment and community.  its sad that people are already so disempowered that they dont even know how to access their own physical capabilities and potential, but i refuse to go the way of those people.  that is why i investigated my own health issues and found raw paleo.  i am not a farmer, by a long shot, i am a human and i see that we are brilliant beings with huge capability for creating both harm and harmony.  most of our current cultural and social psychology is driven by power hungry greedy sociopaths, and we all live as scared children on planet time out.  obviously i think its important to be informed by history, and i dont think we should or even could revert back to previous times and ways. but the trick is to not be fooled by history and the powers that be who use history as religion to scare people into believing that there is only one way to progress and that it is to give all of your power to a higher source, be that government or religious idol, and live on earth as if it were purgatory or hell.  its a choice to live this way, to create a world that is unsuitable for humans, it is suicide to give your personal power away to this ideology.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: jessica on October 16, 2015, 12:59:11 am
ps good luck doing anything without soil.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: cherimoya_kid on October 16, 2015, 03:07:58 am
ps good luck doing anything without soil.
Ever heard of foliar feeding?
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: cherimoya_kid on October 16, 2015, 03:17:17 am
"...H.B. Tukey was head of Michigan State University Department of Horticulture in the 1950s. Working with S. H. Wittwer, they proved conclusively that foliar feeding is effective. Radioactive phosphorus and potassium were applied to foliage. A Geiger counter was used to observe absorption, movement and nutrient utilization. The nutrients were transported at the rate of about one foot per hour to all parts of the plants.

Juice from plant leaves can be tested with a refractometer. If after feeding the amount of light refracted significantly rises, at least some nutrients have been absorbed. A spray enhancer can help nutrients stick to the leaf and then penetrate the leaves' cuticle...."


That's from the wiki article. It specifically talks about using seaweed as a base for mixing foliar solutions.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: jessica on October 17, 2015, 04:59:30 am
If we didn't have soil our atmosphere would be so fucked there would be no seaweed to derive nutrients from.  Find some other article about where you can dervice those same nutrients, t doesn't fucking matter to me.  Data is not knowledge.  I remember when I worked in orchard country going to a federal research lab and talking to "scientists" about biological control of pests using insects and such.  We went into their greenhouse where they grew sample plants to use in the laboratories and I noticed a bunch of volunteer plants grown on the greenhouse floor.  It blew me away that none of the scientists could identify the volunteers!  They were so "specialized" in their scope they had no idea (and weirdly enough no curiosity about) what was growing right under their feet.  People are so fucking narrow minded nowadays, and it's to be expected.  We are trained in such a way as to limit our abilty to perceive the world, and most if it is fear based education.  And now we are being totally alienated from knowing nature as THE SOURCE, that people don't even know how to learn from their surroundings, observation and experiences.  Sure they can write down data but their scope is so small and they necessitate beig able to make everything clean, linear, calculatable... That's not life.  this is a huge mutliverse and a lot of it is meant to be felt rather than interpreted through our diminished mental capacities.  People are totally being physically and psychologically damaged by the over culture that has made false history and abstracted technology religions.  The more you rely on technology and listen to the sick murmurs of our overculutre that the only way "out" is to continue at the same rate and in the same direction of "progress" the sicker and weaker we will become as a species.  There is no healthy future using the fear, war and control based technologies men have created.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: cherimoya_kid on October 17, 2015, 05:58:56 am
Honestly, Jessica, it looks like you're still suffering from that mood disorder you claim to have recovered from.  I'm sad for you, I know that must be hard.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: TylerDurden on October 17, 2015, 06:28:10 am
Honestly, Jessica, it looks like you're still suffering from that mood disorder you claim to have recovered from.  I'm sad for you, I know that must be hard.
It must be so sad for you  to reject anything natural, whether it be palaeolithic or an integral part of Nature etc........Philistine is the word that describes you so well.....
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: jessica on October 17, 2015, 06:51:37 am
Low blow, my friend.  If that's the best you have keep at it.  I am totally emotionally resilient and intact.  If the fact that I can recognize fault and feel grief means that I have a mood disorder, so be it. 

Isn't there a saying that it's no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society?  It took me years to realize I wasn't the one who was nuts.  I am actually just extremely perceptive and have an unruined soul.  I'm lucky, even when the world tried to break me from trusting my own nature, the nature inside of me, I always relied on the nature outside of me to be my guide.  And in that way I was able to recognize and regain my instincts and health, mentally, psychically and emotionally. Part ofthat journey was figuring out how to nourish my body in a way that didnt stimulate mental unrest and physical degeneration.   That's why I am here.  I see our current system and way of believing as a global culture only progressing in ways that cause mental unrest and physical degeneration, why would I accept that?  Why would not those same principals that truely heal one not heal all when we are all so basically similar.  We can't go towards a world with no air, sun or water because these are the very things we coevolved with, if we do we are not human.  I am not for trans humanism for whatever the fuck scifi future everyone has such a boner about these days.

Your thinking about growing veggies in an artificial environment with lame inputs is why the industrial agriculural system is a failure.  Same shit different pile.

Also, if you want to discuss psychology, it must suck to be in a culture where you should be enjoying praise for the many initiations you have gone through and services you bring to the community, but you don't because I am guessin you are some kinda desk Jocky and your worth is symbolic and abstract and nobody gives a why.  You are numbers.  So here you are tryin to convince people your value and earn accolades and following from folks on a message board.  Wouldn't it be nice to exist within a different paradigm?
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: cherimoya_kid on October 17, 2015, 08:17:33 am
Jessica, the fact that you've randomly unfriended me and changed your Facebook name 3 DIFFERENT TIMES does not speak to your stability. I realize you are probably going through a lot of spiritual stuff, maybe, and are doing that as part of some renewal process. However, it's hard to relate to someone who is so changeable, and to such an extreme degree. I've given up on it, quite frankly, and am hoping you'll just grow out of all of it, the mood issues, the "spiritual" drama, etc.. You don't have to rant and rave about every little thing in life. You can be sensitive, compassionate, AND calm. I'm certainly the pot calling the kettle black on this, and I know that. LOL

I'm just hoping you will one day realize that it's possible to be plenty enlightened without eating a healthy diet, spending time in nature, or taking shrooms. I've done plenty of all of that (not the shrooms, but whatever), and, while it helped me be calm and centered, it didn't make me a better person or more enlightened.

You may hate the technocrats, but they are, in most/many cases, aiming for the same kind of ecstatic Oneness with the All that you are. They are getting there via a different path, that's all. In my opinion, anyway.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: goodsamaritan on October 17, 2015, 08:42:38 am
Honestly, Jessica, it looks like you're still suffering from that mood disorder you claim to have recovered from.  I'm sad for you, I know that must be hard.

I do not see why character assassination is warranted here. 

You owe her an apology.

Jessica stated completely logical arguments.

Please stick to civilized logical discussions.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: cherimoya_kid on October 17, 2015, 08:53:05 am
I'd like to hear Jessica's thoughts first. Maybe she wants to offer an apology for her unfriending me 3 times on Facebook with no explanation. Was it because of stuff going on with her that had nothing to do with me? I would guess so. That doesn't mean that OTHER people that she did that to didn't feel hurt or rejected, although it did me no great emotional damage.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: jessica on October 17, 2015, 09:01:05 am
So you judge people's emotional stability by the way they participate on Facebook?  Are you in junior high?  That is so ridiculously laughable.  If youd like I can explain the name change, it's purely aesthetic.  I have Unfriended, for the most part, people I don't know in real life.  Perhaps I added you mistakenly, I hope that you do not take social media so seriously that you would take offense to being unfriended.  Perhaps it would also help if I explained how I use social media and the Internet, since folks seem to take it so seriously as to get photoshoots and such to express of uphold whatever image they are trying to project.  I mostly use Facebook to communicate through extremely limited photo sharing with my mom, I am also interested in events in my community and anything educational from organization that I respect.  I don't use it to share much of my personal life or keep in contact with a lot of people because I am too busy livin and enjoying the company of those who do not give two shits about documenting every small occurance and being in communication with otherwise.  It's kind of bizarre to me how much importance people give to their internet personas and how muh minutia people share.  Oh well.  As for my participation in this message board, it's always been a place I have come for trouble shooting or to keep myself accountable and it's been super patchy use. 

If my fault is being honest about my struggle with "mental health" so be it.  If i had ever cared to explain the source, i am sure you would realize i have been through more than most people, and come from some extremely difficult stock.  I shared because I knew, always, that being "mentally ill" was something happening TO ME, whether it be due to diet, social, culutral or physical environment, and it was something I could find a solution to.  I investigated and spoke about it because I refuse to become disempowered by other people's narrow minded ideas about emotional issues, their source and what it takes to deal wih them.

Sure it would be great if I had posted all my success and growth, it would probably have been extremely helpful to others.  I don't seem to have much time or attention span for sharin those things, especially I am busy sharing with and enjoying my family and community in real life.

It's pretty obvious you haven't ever taken mushrooms. If people can be "enlightened" without eating healthfully or appreciating nature, then they are attund to ill health and what... What do we have without nature?  We don't even have ourselves.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: jessica on October 17, 2015, 09:08:30 am
Ps CK..  I don't even know/remember your real name.  If that is offensive to you you really need to consider what stake you are putting in your Internet relations.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: cherimoya_kid on October 17, 2015, 09:35:40 am
Ps CK..  I don't even know/remember your real name.  If that is offensive to you you really need to consider what stake you are putting in your Internet relations.

It's not offensive in any real sense. We were discussing the theoretical harm I had caused you by pointing out your volatility, and so I brought up the theoretical harm you had done me by unfriending me twice with no explanation. I'm not trying to insult you.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: TylerDurden on October 17, 2015, 11:51:23 am
CK does have one valid point in that we should not be scared of technology all the time and that one can use it in a beneficial way(IF one is an enlightened type like Salatin etc.). On the other hand, I strongly suspect that most of us, myself included, have failed miserably in the past as regards curing their own health problems using modern technology, and indeed many of us have had their health-problems increase dramatically as a direct result of the use of modern technology.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: sabertooth on October 17, 2015, 10:10:18 pm
I was impressed by Aldous huxleys vision of a balanced and humane aplication of technology in "Island"

The book started with a quote, "In framing an ideal we may assume what we wish, but should avoid"
impossibilities. ARISTOTLE...afterward there was a call out for "attention" to the "here and now" and for "compasion"

It went on to tell a story about a people who learned to use, control and harness technology in a way that was focused upon human happyness and not technological progress for progress sake. Its full of jems which I find exremly relevent to this discussion.

"We" said Dr. Robert, "have always chosen to adapt our economy and technology to human beings---not our human beings to somebody else's economy and technology. We import what we can't make; but we import only what we can afford. And what we can afford is limited not merely by our supply of pounds and marks and dollars, but also primarily---primarily," he insisted---"by our wish to be happy, our ambition to become fully human."

"God has nothing to do with it," Ranga retorted, "and the joke isn't cosmic, it's strictly man-made. These things aren't like gravity or the second law of thermo-dynamics; they don't have to happen. They happen only if people are stupid enough to let them happen..."

"Certainly not. I do muscular work, because I have muscles, and if I don't use
      my muscles I shall become a bad-tempered sitting-addict."

"With nothing between the cortex and the buttocks," said Dr. Robert. "Or rather with everything---but in a condition of complete unconsciousness and toxic stagnation. Western intellectuals are all sitting-addicts. That's why most of you are so repulsively unwholesome. In the past even a duke had to do a lot of walking, even a moneylender, even a metaphysician. And when they weren't using their legs, they were jogging about on horses. Whereas now, from the tycoon to his typist, from the logical positivist to the positive thinker, you spend nine tenths of your time on foam rubber. Spongy seats for spongy bottoms---at home, in the office, in cars and bars, in planes and trains and buses. No moving of legs, no struggles with distance and gravity---just lifts and planes and cars, just foam rubber and an eternity of sitting. The life force that used to find an outlet through striped muscle gets turned back on the viscera and the nervous system, and slowly destroys them."

[...Vijaya explained,] "If you'd been shown how to do things with the minimum of strain and the maximum of awareness, you'd enjoy even honest toil." ( This expains why if machines are alowed to take on all the laborious task the human body and mind will atrophy and we will loose touch with the real world altogether)

 "In Pala," she explained, "we don't say grace before meals. We say it with meals. Or rather we don't say grace; we chew it."
"Grace is the first mouthful of each course---chewed and chewed until there's nothing left of it. And all the time you're chewing you pay attention to the flavor of the food, to its consistency and temperature, to the pressures on your teeth and the feel of the muscles in your jaw." (this is very insticto)



Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: jessica on October 17, 2015, 11:06:02 pm
It's not offensive in any real sense. We were discussing the theoretical harm I had caused you by pointing out your volatility, and so I brought up the theoretical harm you had done me by unfriending me twice with no explanation. I'm not trying to insult you.

lol ck so youre a scientist and a politician?

If you hadnt insinuated that my previous mental health status were something i was currently suffering and that it was apparently driving my opinion, or were a reason to "feel sad" or something "hard" for me to have gone through i wouldnt have had to explain to you that it was quite the opposite. 

Having had mental health issues was perhaps the best learning experience of my life that brought me to a higher level of empathy, consciousness and knowledge about the multifaceted causes and also solution to mental health issues.  It has also made me healthier, mentally, physically and yes, spiritually, than many of the people I know because i did not fear to stifle my emotions, rather knew that being totally open and honest about what i was feeling was the only way I was ever going to find a solution.  If having a spiritual life, being vulnerable and also having feelings towards and about the world ruins the validity of my opinions in your view that is something I cannot understand.  I would much rather live in a world with feeling, empathetic, people who are aware and willing to admit their short comings and come up with heart felt solutions instead of trying to deny that they can and may do wrong and push forward with headstrong destruction.   

My internet use is not my resume on life and your view on it, that you should be able to totally judge the content of my character, my validity, my emotional status etc, by how i use social media is just the exact shit scientist do when they take a small, abstracted portion of a reality of a situation and use it as causation to judge the whole of a situation.  Its not adequate information, its not real knowledge, its just a tiny, obscure peace of the puzzle.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: cherimoya_kid on October 18, 2015, 05:00:56 am
Yeah, but when you unfriended twice without explanation, THAT was indicative of a lack of stability. Not that I care, it's just that you really are an aggressive and confrontational person with less than perfect emotional control, and discussing things calmly with you can be challenging as a result. I find it annoying that someone with no actual awareness of Moore's Law or anything remotely related to it is preaching about it like they know everything. But you don't. For pete's sake, you didn't even know about foliar feeding, yet you still claim to be some kind of expert on permaculture, plants, etc.. I mean, that's fine, but don't expect me to be interested in discussing this more with you. Keep working on yourself.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: TylerDurden on October 18, 2015, 05:27:40 am
Quite frankly, whatever happened on facebook is of no relevance to rawpaleoforum, let alone other personal matters. If you want to post in another thread  about the, er,  health benefits of GM foods or the  current success laboratories are having with growing meat in a vat etc. , fine.....
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: cherimoya_kid on October 18, 2015, 05:38:21 am
Just because technology has failed to give us better lives than hunter-gatherers doesn't mean it will always fail at that. Science advances as a group, and groups of people have learning curves. Children fall a lot when they first learn to walk. So what? There's a learning curve. And Moore's Law is the key to it all. Nobody who disagrees with me actually understands that because they refuse to research it. That doesn't make it untrue.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: jessica on October 18, 2015, 07:47:03 am
 
Yeah, but when you unfriended twice without explanation, THAT was indicative of a lack of stability. Not that I care, it's just that you really are an aggressive and confrontational person with less than perfect emotional control, and discussing things calmly with you can be challenging as a result. I find it annoying that someone with no actual awareness of Moore's Law or anything remotely related to it is preaching about it like they know everything. But you don't. For pete's sake, you didn't even know about foliar feeding, yet you still claim to be some kind of expert on permaculture, plants, etc.. I mean, that's fine, but don't expect me to be interested in discussing this more with you. Keep working on yourself.

I have done foliar feeding in countless greenhouses and on row crops.  What I said was its highly unlikely you are going to have an adequate source of nutrients for foliar feeding when you destroy the soil and atmosphere.  I cant imagine anything more dire and its not a future I am willing to agree to.

Really, coming back to this facebook thing?  Facebook honestly has such little bearing in my life its quite absurd of you to keep bringing it up.  I am sorry that you were offended and think that it is indicative of instability.  It's not. 

I know you will never take my opinion seriously because I am not well read and, at times, lack tact.  I use expletives, get over it.  I live with and love people who are passionate and enjoy debate and even enjoy a good verbal "confrontation".  Debate is always a good chance to really reinforce how you do feel and what you do believe.  In fact, you bringing to attention my previous struggle with mental health has caused me to really take stock of how far my mental and physical health has progressed.  I was having such a good time living I hadn't really thought about it lately.  So thank you for that. 

None of my mental health issues EVER affected my relationships, in fact people I know(IN REAL LIFE) were and are always deeply shocked when I open up about what I have been through.  I live my life in an extremely benevolent manner, my responsibility has always been to others first.  What I have shared here is such a small part of who I am, what I do and what I have accomplished besides in the past few years.  Those arent really things I take time to translate to the internet because honestly, I just don't care to.  Not everyone is interested in being an internet persona. 

My success probably cant be measured in a way that makes sense to you because we dont share the same value systems.  Perhaps there no room for honest emotion among civilized folk like yourself.  Lord knows someone might find out that you are not perfectly stoic, have vulnerability and passion and might twist that through their perverted perception and actually use it against you.  I don't think its a fault to be emotionally invested in life. 

I have never claimed to be an expert on anything.   I know what I do because I have done it.  I am more interested in living life than studying death.  Why would anyone ever stop working on themselves?  I think you need to take a few lessons in humility yourself. 
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: cherimoya_kid on October 18, 2015, 08:11:14 am
Good luck with all that, I admit I don't have the energy to even begin to unpack all the logical mistakes and misunderstandings in your very limited perspective. Believe me when I say that, not only have I lived a life very similar to yours, I've also managed to pack in working in multiple careers of varying success, two marriages (I'm on my 2nd), raising a teenager, and now raising my 15-month-old daughter. Oh yes, and I've also carefully studied futurism, Taoism, astrology, ormus, martial arts, etc.. I've lived in a foreign country and married into an international family.

So all that to say, I've had the chance to see how narrow-minded people everywhere are, whether you mean subcultures, religions, or nationalities. Believe me that the electrical engineers making Moore's Law happen every day have just as intense a passion to make the world a better place as anyone here does. They are not bad people, by and large. Many of them, in fact, are good Hindu boys who follow their religions strictly. You're looking down on them, but they are also looking down on us for being dirty carnivores. LOL

Everyone has a part to play. Science will eagerly sell the first cheap vat-grown burgers, but, because people like us are so fanatical about food quality,  (and are successfully spreading the word about it), people will avoid eating the vat-grown meat until people like us are assured of its safety and quality. Together, they and  we will make a better food supply than Nature even has. I guarantee it.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: TylerDurden on October 18, 2015, 10:37:36 am
Moore's law is not God's Law. Even Moore himself has predicted in 2005 that it cannot last more than 1 more generation at the most before hitting the proverbial wall. He himself has pointed out how much vaster the expenses are nowadays in building modern computer chips by comparison to the 1980s. In the end, either  the laws of physics or the vastly-increasing cost of manufacturing computer chips  will kill Moore's law, according to Gordon Moore himself:-

http://www.techworld.com/news/operating-systems/moores-law-is-dead-says-gordon-moore-3576581/ (http://www.techworld.com/news/operating-systems/moores-law-is-dead-says-gordon-moore-3576581/)
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: cherimoya_kid on October 18, 2015, 11:08:30 am
Moore's law is not God's Law. Even Moore himself has predicted in 2005 that it cannot last more than 1 more generation at the most before hitting the proverbial wall. He himself has pointed out how much vaster the expenses are nowadays in building modern computer chips by comparison to the 1980s. In the end, either  the laws of physics or the vastly-increasing cost of manufacturing computer chips  will kill Moore's law, according to Gordon Moore himself:-

http://www.techworld.com/news/operating-systems/moores-law-is-dead-says-gordon-moore-3576581/ (http://www.techworld.com/news/operating-systems/moores-law-is-dead-says-gordon-moore-3576581/)

What both of you are missing is the fact that people will start to realize just how much more useful technology can be with each iteration of Moore's Law, and larger amounts of resources will be diverted to keeping it going. I think it's possible that half of all human effort and resources could end up going to the effort before it's done. Maybe more. Smartphones are just the beginning. You ain't seen nothin yet.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: goodsamaritan on October 18, 2015, 11:28:52 am
Yes there will be progress (in how many decades and in how many centuries?), yes there is "progress".... and there are retrogresses.

Yes there are mistakes, and it is up to people like us to identify when those mistakes are made.

GMO crops today are modified specifically for a PROFIT to the company model.  It is not shit altruistic... at all.  So the way the crops are modified... is so CORRUPT convoluted profit driven only... and has no freaking care for the nutritional benefits, sustainability, or biosphere compatibility, etc.

I have this big thing about ALTRUISM which is absolutely absent in the current GMO crops for profit model.

Maybe when humanity figures out a model for living without MONEY... like Star Trek, then we will see better GM results.

-------

In these discussions, you guys and gals need to state where you are coming from or your objective, like some of you "like" the current GM stuff because it "feeds the world"...

... but is this GM stuff something you would want for your self or your children if you were RICH or could afford anything, or if you were the food producer / hunter / gatherer?

... So let us reveal the REALITY of our Personal Desires... If I could afford and identify the BEST... I would not feed the current GM crops / creatures to myself and my kids.

-------

The ultra rich grow their own and acquire their own special clean, nutritious / "organic stuff"... right now... around the world... and peasants get the GM crap and everything else.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: ys on October 22, 2015, 03:09:13 am
Quote
Since these animals are butchered by 2 years of age most of the long term debilitating effects of GMO fed lotting are not given time to manifest, but I can vouch that many of these animals brought in to slaughter are sick and shouldn't be fed to people.

What about milking cows?  I assume they are fed the same GMO feed.  What's the health record of those if anyone knows?
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: sabertooth on October 22, 2015, 04:42:30 am
Good question. I haven't gotten to personally butcher spent commercially raised dairy cows to know for sure. One way farmers have manage to avoid the fertility issues with GMO is to have separate breeding stock raised on pasture which produces the animals which go on to the feed lots.

This way the trans-generational effects of GMO are not as noticeable.  I assume these milking animals are fed GMOs and milked until they are spent then ground up into burger meat. The lower cost hamburger in american supermarkets is often made with spent dairy cows.

I think there is deliberately an absence of evidence, and proper record keeping. The commercial operations who use GMOs simply cull out sick animals without making close record regarding the possible causes of the sickness. Like Ive stated often times the sickness doesn't show up until the time the animlal is sent to be butchered, so the commercial meat markets in America is rife with sick animals. There doesn't seem to be any FDA Backed double blind long-term feeding studies that would prove this to be right or wrong.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: ys on October 22, 2015, 08:26:13 am
You would think there would be plenty of studies considering how controversial this subject is.  I can't believe there is no one who does not have a relationship with GMO producers that could fund these kind of studies.  Have a few cows and feed them GMO for 5-8 years or whatever the age of milking cows and then compare it with non-GMO.
Title: Re: The opposition.
Post by: sabertooth on October 22, 2015, 08:55:18 am
The frustration is difficult to contain, in that, in order to prove one way or another the true long term effects GMOs, all that would be needed is some real unbiased scientific research. Yet such projects are not being conducted by the organizations in charge of overseeing food safety, at a time when it would be of paramount importance to ascertain the long term effects GMOs may be having.

It seems like there is an agenda by to push forward the use of GMOs without the application of due diligence within the scientific method, that would make more clear if the benefits would indeed outweigh the risk. Right now there is only corrupt science half baked pretzel logic being spewed out by imbeciles who do not have the authority nor the indisputable evidence to claim total safety of all GMOs currently in use.

Note to Monsanto-Do the studies, repeat the results, publish the data, with complete transparency then you just might be able to claim scientific legitimacy....Until then quit pushing your poisons and bullshit upon the world.