When Eric Kirk introduced his most recent talk show on KMUD, he said his goal was to take listeners “outside of their comfort zone”. I have to say that he succeeded in that. Listening to his show made me uncomfortable in the same way that watching a dull-witted kid beat a dog with a stick would make you uncomfortable.
Even if you don’t like dogs or kids, a scene like that makes you squirm. You wish you had never seen it. The whole pathetic situation makes you sick to your stomach, but you know that you have to say something.
In this little metaphor, The show’s host, Eric Kirk, is the kid, our local liberals are the dog, and appearing as the stick, we had Eric’s guest, Saul of Hearts, a young Portland hipster, self-described liberal, and cultivator of a ponytail. I don’t know why these count as credentials in Eric’s book, but apparently they do.
The crux of this guy’s biscuit, was that genetic engineering really doesn’t seem that scary to him, at least compared to some of the diabolical things that scientists have been doing to plants for decades, such as using ionizing radiation and chemicals to induce genetic mutations.
The show’s engineer, and local liberal, Michael McKaskil immediately snatched that stick and broke it to pieces, pointing out that genetic engineering was, in fact, qualitatively different than induced mutation. Michael pointed out that because genetic engineering involves adding DNA from completely different organisms, it alters the genetics of plants in ways that mutation never would or could, and of course Michael was right about that.
Eric’s guest then turned the argument into one of “where do you draw the line?”, pointing out that between mono-cropping, pesticide use, aquifer depletion, chemical fertilizers, habitat loss, global climate change etc, etc, we have bigger problems with agribusiness than genetic engineering. Of course, Eric’s guest is not an agriculture reform activist. In fact, he only mentioned about half of the above, no where near exhaustive, list of ag related crises. Eric’s guest didn’t call for us to get up off of our sofas to do anything about any of these issues. Instead, he simply suggested that liberals are making too big of a fuss about GMOs.
No, he’s not an activist. He’s a liberal blogger, much more concerned with his own career as a writer, than anything else. In other words, he’s a conservative, with a ponytail. Not that I have any great love of liberals, or political activists for that matter, quite the opposite.
I feel the same way about our political system as I do about professional wrestling. It’s obviously fake. It’s embarrassingly stupid to watch, and you know that as long as it remains popular, humanity’s future looks bleak. Still, unless you’ve worked on a citizen’s campaign, you have no idea how much time, money and effort it takes to bring an issue like GMOs to the attention of the general public, not to mention the difficulty of explaining a high-tech problem to a poorly educated populace. That’s part of the reason that democracy has failed.
One caller to the show accused him of being an industry shill. I don’t think so. I just think him an opportunist. Right now, a lot of unpaid, volunteer activists are putting in a lot of time and energy to raise the issue of genetic engineering in the eye of the general public. By taking advantage of the fact that most people don’t know very much about big agribusiness, Saul of Hearts found an angle that allowed him to capitalize on the hard work of real activists.
So much for the stick, but I must agree with him on one point, and that is: Agriculture is fucked! Agriculture is destroying the world. Even without GMOs, the single biggest reason that this planet is going down the shitter is agriculture. Agriculture is the leading cause of habitat destruction, both world wide, and locally. Agricultural runoff has created “dead zones” in parts of the ocean that once teemed with life, and agriculture fuels the human population explosion. Agriculture doesn’t make life better; agriculture merely insures that there will be more of us to share the misery of an increasingly impoverished world.
Agriculture is bad news! It now covers a third of the Earth’s total land mass, and it continues to grow! Agriculture was undoubtedly the biggest mistake in the history of humanity, and people have known this since the beginning. If you were wondering where to “draw the line”, I think the authors of The Old Testament got it right.
Agriculture is the “original sin” in the biblical story of Adam and Eve. If you recall the story, God provided everything for Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, until they ate the “forbidden fruit”. After that, Adam had to spend the rest of his days toiling in the fields, while Eve had to repeatedly endure the pain of childbirth. In other words, whatever that “forbidden fruit” was, Adam and Eve’s punishment was to live like farmers.
The writers of the Old Testament make it abundantly clear that God does not like farmers. In the story of Cain and Abel, God shows favoritism towards Abel, the herder, over his brother, Cain, the farmer. This so enraged Cain, that he killed Abel, and watered his fields with his brother’s blood.
Now, I’m not a Christian, or a Jew, and I don’t “believe in” the Bible, but this is what the witnesses of “the agricultural revolution” thought of the world’s first farmers. Thousands of years before the first written language, those ancient people would have known nothing about DNA, germ theory or the scientific method, but they weren’t stupid. Thousands of years ago they recognized farmers as vicious murderous people who were damned by God.
They watched those vicious, murderous, damned farmers turn the “Fertile Crescent” into a desert. They watched those damned farmers spread all over the world, systematically wiping out or assimilating every other culture they encountered, claiming new territories, replacing natural habitat with farmland and watering their crops with the blood of their brothers.
Those damned farmers gave us overpopulation, genocide, slavery, and the environmental crisis. They replaced our natural love of nature, and all living things, with “the work ethic”, and lives of endless toil. Farmers have transformed the “Garden of Eden” into hell on Earth, and the destruction continues to this day. Farming destroys the natural environment, and replaces it with an abundance of dull-witted, mean-spirited people who don’t know any other way to live.
Farming is also addictive. The more habitat you destroy, the fewer game animals you leave. The more crops you grow, the faster your population grows. The more we do it, the harder it is to stop. Unless we stop, farming will kill us all. On the other hand if we stopped all agriculture right now, that would kill almost all of us. These are not biblical prophesies. That’s what science tells us, should we ever decide to listen.
The Bible tells us that God punished those damned farmers by sending plagues. Today, we call them pests, and we understand why they continue to plague us. In nature, there is no such thing as a pest species, but when you disturb the natural environment, plow it under, and plant crops, you disrupt the natural balance of life. As a result, populations of some species, like locusts, frogs, vermin and disease causing microbes, explode, while others, like wild game animals, become extinct. What those ancient people saw as “God’s punishment”, we now see as the natural consequences of converting habitat to farmland.
These “plagues” continue to vex farmers to this day, but we still don’t get the message. We still think we can outsmart “God”. We believe the world belongs to us, to remake in our own image. We think we rule the world, and we’re hellbent to prove it. That’s why scientists created GMOs in the first place, but even they know that today’s GMOs won’t be able to suppress God’s wrath for more than a few years, because organisms adapt. Bugs learn to tolerate BT, and weeds learn to drink Round-Up.
We don’t trust science when it tells us that sacrificing the natural environment for farmland causes insoluble problems. Instead, science has become the false religion of the damned, and genetic engineering, its latest assault on nature. Genetic engineering, like the high-tech organochlorine pesticides of the plastic age that proceeded it, is bound to fail spectacularly, and profitably. So, yes, agriculture is a goddamned sin, and no, genetic engineering is not going to fix it, or make the world a better place to live.
If you’re going to draw a line, you might as well draw it at the place where we made the wrong turn in the first place. It can be very helpful to know where we first went wrong. There’s an old Turkish saying: “If you realize that you’ve made a wrong turn, no matter how far you’ve traveled down the wrong road, turn back.” I realize that this whole discussion is a long way from the current political debate, but unless you look at the big picture, you’ll never make sense of the puzzle.
To be frank with you, John, I did a absolutely terrible job presenting my case on the show. I’m not a radio guy, and aside from a few podcasts on less controversial subjects, I’ve have never done an on-air debate of this sort we had here. This was, simply, not my home turf.
You say that the show’s engineer “snatched that stick and broke it to pieces”. In reality, he used his advanced on-air experience to throw out a few words of scientific terminology that sounded convincing but completely missed the point. I would tear his argument to pieces were he to engage me on the subject in print. Radio is a different ballpark, and I know now that being able to write the facts on paper does not mean knowing how to debate them on air. I should not have accepted the challenge.
If I were actually “more concerned about my career as a writer,” I would be writing what people wanted to hear, not confronting people on a subject which they’ve already made up their minds about. I’m convinced that the anti-GMO cause continues to press an absolutely preposterous case, and I’ll continue to call out their propaganda when I see it.
Hi, Frank (if that’s who you prefer to be with me), thanks for reading the blog. I don’t agree that Michael is so much better at radio than you are, and since you chose not to address the points he raised, here, where you could have done it in print, Michael’s point stands.
I don’t think that either you or Eric Kirk have enough of a background in science, especially ecosystem ecology, to talk intelligently about the risks of genetic engineering. Eric is an attorney, and I think he could do a better job of talking about the legal ramifications of a food supply dominated by, and an ecosystem contaminated with, patented organisms, and who will be on the hook for the unforeseen consequences of this technology. My guess is that the companies that own patents will make money up front, and future generations will be stuck with the consequences, with no legal recourse.
As ridiculous as some of the rhetoric against GMOs has become, I think you advocate an untenable position when you claim that genetic engineering is no worse than other technologies used in modern agriculture. The technologies used in modern agriculture have an awful track record for destroying ecosystems, wiping out sustainable human cultures, and making humanity more dependent on powerful corporate interests.
Both the agricultural revolution that gave rise to civilization, and the green revolution that doubled food production after the second world war, have had devastating effects on the global ecosystem, and compounded the problems of human overpopulation. They have not solved anything. Quite the contrary, science has compounded and magnified the ecological problems we face globally.
It’s not a matter of “good” science vs “bad” science; it’s a matter of corporate technology vs the natural ecosystem, and the record shows that corporate technology does not ever improve on the natural ecosystem. In fact, the biggest threat to the natural ecosystem comes from unbridled corporate technology.
Good luck with your writing career.
Thanks for the reply. We’re in agreement on the majority of what you’ve said here, and if GMO skeptics could stick to that subject (ag reform in general) I think you’d have a stronger case. Fighting corporate interests in agriculture is something most of us are on board with. But opposing all forms of GM research (such as this attempt to fight dengue fever by modifying mosquito genes: http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-04-25/brazilians-welcome-genetically-modified-mosquito-help-fight-dengue-fever) is as immoral as opposite stem cell research or climate change regulations.
I wish it were possible to have a serious discussion about the differences between polyploidy and GM technology. But whenever GMOs come up in discussion among my friends, it’s usually along the lines of, “Look at this weird looking nectarine I bought, must be GMO.” In raising the alarm that 90% or so of processed foods contain GMOs, we’ve obscured the fact that most individual fruits and vegetables have not been modified.
There’s a vast information gap on the subject, and I agree with you that Eric Kirk and I are not the best people to take on that responsibility. But until Neil de Grasse Tyson jumps in, someone’s got to.
The rise in dengue fever can be traced to development and agriculture, and I don’t agree that modifying mosquitoes is moral or even a good idea.
It sounds like you have some stupid friends. You have my sympathy. You should hang out with brighter people. Good luck with that.
Neil de Grasse Tyson huh. Why him? Did you see him on TV? I don’t think he’s an ecosystem ecology guy, but apparently he knows how to work an audience. I recommend Paul Ehrlich, John Terborgh and others in the field.
One of the big problems with our technological society, is that so few people really know how anything works anymore, outside of their own narrow field, so we continue to adopt inherently dangerous technology based on an irrational, unfounded faith in technology.