Always thinking inside the box.

So, somewhere in that vast, wide internet, I came across a strange discussion on GM foods. Things about animal genes in plants (and how the animals suffered from the gene extraction that was probably a swab), not wanting to be a guinea pig, and the most jaw dropping statement: "I can't even think of a reason why we would even need to genetically engineer food."

It's all rather absurd, to be honest. From everything I have seen, it does go through testing, and to be honest, the probability of food becoming poisonous from the additions is rather slim (though likely a bit higher in insect resistant foods, but it can't be as bad as the pesticides that are sterilizing our fish).

But to not understand why science would start doing this is, well, the kind of self-centered stupidity that makes me want to hit things. It's the kind of America-centric world view that gets us into trouble, and makes me very, very angry.

Sure, in America, we have the luxury of being able to buy food from everywhere. We can have summer fruits in the middle of winter, and we can have delicacies from other regions. We have the choice to buy local organic veggies, and to scoff at GM corn because it might make us grow an extra arm.

But, the rest of world is not necessarily so lucky. To have food that produces higher yields, that can grow in more severe climates, that has extra nutrients, that is insect and drought resistant, all of these things could be life changing to the millions of underprivileged people on this planet. I'm sure there are people out there that would risk a small chance of poisoning in order to better feed themselves and their children. This stuff doesn't exist in an America-only vacuum.

Sure, GM food is used mostly for profits in the States, but that doesn't mean that's the only way it could be used. In addition, with the world population increasing, and the number of high-population nations industrializing (meaning more food demands), we need a way to produce more from what little farmland we have left. We can't all live in hippy communes and farm to our heart's content and expect to feed everyone.

Yeah, there are risks, and a lot of them are scary and difficult to test. But that doesn't mean to just discard an innovation that could improve the lives of millions, if not billions, because it sounds a bit off to a lay person and makes you feel less crunchy. To undermine that science could kill people in the same way that opposing stem cell research does, but even more brutally.

Oh, and the argument that it is stupid to have any children at all because the earth is overpopulated is another I particularly hate. The issue isn't so black and white as that. Yes, the world population is growing out of our control, so to speak. We're going to have a lot of people, and not a lot of places to put them or even a good ability to feed them. It is a major problem.

But, to just stop having more citizens isn't the best answer. If it was cool to have your population massively shrink, Japan wouldn't be freaking the hell out about their low birthrate. There aren't enough people to work the jobs necessary to keep the nation running, or at least there won't be as soon as their last, strong generation solidly retires. So, rather than ten people supporting one retiree, there is going to be 1.5 people supporting one retiree. It's a huge potential burden, not to mention the horror of labor shortages.

Immigration isn't the best solution either. Most immigrants are going to come from developing nations, and will lack education. Without this education, their first generation or two, at best, will be a nice underclass for the government and businesses to exploit. This is a good thing? Even if we do attract the best and most educated from an overpopulated nation, we have a chance of brain-draining a nation that could use its well-educated citizens to help it develop.

It's not as simple as "stop popping out kids." I'm not saying we all need to have six children, but two isn't as earth-killing as people like to scream. Complex problems require complex solutions. We need to look at efficient ways to feed and house people, to increase standards of living, to spread resources around, and to stop killing the planet (well, killing us. Earth will survive and start over if we all go down). To do all this takes coordination and foresight that we cannot guarantee. I don't know what to do, but the "grow organic only and never have kids" is about the dumbest solution I've ever heard.

It's a rough fight.

Long time, no blog.

I peruse all my sites close to daily, and spend a lot of time passively reading FSTDT (I'm on break and out of reading materials :P)

Now, fundamentalists often point to evolution as a religion, same as atheism. It's somewhat mind-boggling. Of course, it has a rather simple answer in their heads: to a fundamentalist, the origins of the Earth are solidly founded in religion. It's in the Bible. God did it. Devil put down fossils, what have you.

So, of course, since it is a religious answer to a fundamentalist, it MUST BE a religious answer to someone who "believes" in evolution. It also must be religious because we use the verb "believe" when discussing it. I can't think of a more natural verb for the position, and, of course, belief = religion in their minds. Yes, we can say "understands," "knows," "supports," but nonetheless, the most natural turn of phrase is "believe in." (Mostly because there are people who don't believe in evolution, hence it cannot take the language of a definite fact except in specific company).

Atheism as religion is an easy one to dismantle as well. Many people still don't understand what atheism actually is (it's devil worship, in case you weren't clear), and to have a lack of belief is mind-boggling to some, I'm sure. To them, you need as much faith to not believe in the wonderment of God as you do to believe in it. To them, it may as well be a religion, as it keeps you from being a part of their religion, as you take this cosmic chance.

The more quotes I read, the more I understand their thought process.

And the more I don't know how to argue with them. Close-mindedness is one of the most heart-breaking things in the world to see. While this is pompous to say, as it comes with the assumption that I'm correct, I will say that I gave religion its fair chance. It just never added up, as the hedges I had to make to keep myself from feeling ill (all religions REALLY worship the same God, we're judged on what we know, etc) were too complicated in the end. Being kind to one another for the sake of doing so doesn't need a carrot on a stick of eternal salvation. It's simply, in many cases, the best path for long-term survival and benefit to ourselves.

A very small case in point. As a freshman in college I still had a fair bit of disposable income. I'd often treat friends to movies or dinner. It wasn't exactly because I'm the nicest thing to ever nice, but because I wanted to eat out or see a movie, and I wanted their company when I did it. We're social creatures, and being nice to people makes them spend more time with us than being a cruel person does. Kindness is its own reward.

It's a cynical and nasty way to view things, but I don't think that really makes it any less true. Yes, there are people infused with goodness and altruism, but that's a rather advanced state of things that not everyone makes it to. And not only are those who make it there all the more loved, but they also come from all faiths and walks of life.

Charities have their roots in empathy, as well as impacting the greater whole but assisting those less fortunate to better themselves, and better society as a whole. And, well, we're also just capable of being good to other people for less tangible benefits to ourselves.

Nothing enrages me more than a religious charity that heavily tries to force conversion or will think twice about helping someone not in their religion. P-Momma has a ... commenter that has been heavy-handed and rude about her faith, as well as pointedly saying (paraphrased) "if you'd only ask, I'd pick up the phone and fix everything. This paltry sum your measly atheist friends has put together to help you is nothing in comparison to what my Church would have done for you, even if you are a horrible atheist. God would fix you anyway, but you're stubborn. I'm trying to help you, but you won't let me."

That's cruel beyond words. If she honestly cared about this woman, she would have called her Church the minute she thought she could help, not even mentioning that she was responsible for it. That is goodness and love, not tormenting someone suffering with a carrot on a stick if they only do what you want them to do. Heather's offers are disgusting, and horribly immoral, even while she lives with the idea that she is only doing her best to help and these atheists are just making it SO HARD. I don't understand how to crack that stubborn, self-righteous evil and get through to her. I'm not sure if it is actually possible.

How do these people sleep at night?