The concern over genetic crossing has new ground, as more information is being found and processed by scientist. The view is not good, but with few scientists looking at the evidence it will take time to know for sure, and that may be far too late. Economists believing they can solve food shortages by excessive production are pushing to move the global population out of self-sufficiency and into mass production. But recent events are showing this is not so good, both environmentally and for local economics. Instead it is only good for the mass production ideology, and the only way it got so big was with the political corruption it developed. The world goes on, no matter what the big brains think, we will have to live with the results and they take forever to let us find facts to our own decisions with.
Did anyone know cows were part reptile; this seems to have happened about 2 million years ago, thus says The News. Nature has been moving genes around for millions of years, Darwin stated as much talking about adaptive developments, but there was more to this story as Lamarck's theory indicated. Stress, nutrient, environment and events in life are showing some epigenetics are not cancelled out as scientist thought. Instead what has affected say grandparents may go as far as to affect the grandchildren when born later. Evidence shows events are related, even many generations away from when they occurred, but scientist get funding from those who do not want this known.
Take a look at the newly proclaimed rice and wheat records, those who state scientist are not involved forget the self-sufficient farmer is looking for the best science to use. So although they do not have fancy degrees or specialized training, they have shown to be among the best to produce a better result. This is backed up by the fact that 60% of the major developments we have, started out as research in a private garage, not a corporation’s scientific lab. Yet with the specialized training and massive amounts of funds, one would expect better results for the mainstream scientific community. Economists are scientists, who believe in numbers showing how to solve problems, yet they are only following the same mainstream ideology and not the evidence.
Mass production as suppose to make things cheaper, thereby more individuals given means to afford buying items they need. But if what you are offered is going to endanger your entire genetic structure for many generations to come, what is the value of buying it? Until scientist can prove beyond doubt there is no bad side effects, the mass production of GMO foods and seeds to grow them must continue to be rejected. Already the biosphere is reacting to these plants by increase mutations in direct and indirect contacts, and with little regulating to inform the public. Local farmers know what they put in the crops grown, they can trust it and the work offers them something to do other than continue to spend money.
Reducing the amount of crops they grow and buying instead would offer more time for…well just about anything, and with it more need to spend money. Think about what you do with your time, and if you had more wouldn’t you spend more money doing it? Economists know the more free time people have, the more likely they are to want more things to fill up this time. The mainstream calls this an economic growth rate increase, as the benefits of consumption bring about a change in lifestyle and along with it the need for more money to afford it. But if economics theories are meant to support our supplying needs, do we need to fall into the dependence trap as well?
Mass production constantly needs mass consumption to offer it products to, but self-sufficiency already has a market by those willing to create the product already. The need is met before the product is created; therefore no further infrastructure is need and little indirect economic transactions as well. If the majority of the world’s population was self-sufficient, mass production would not have anyone to consume their products. The heavy infrastructures would result in growing expenses, which the ownerships must pay and quickly. These same ownerships fund research to keep the operations alive, survival of the fittest to them is to pass increasing cost to consumers.
The big brains believe this is all good, unless the entire structure can no longer operate, then the competitive nature meant to bring out better results is forgotten as they hurry to save their political friendships. That is why the major corporations are bailed out, they failed many times over but political friendships offered a new survival, and in time built infrastructure around political corruption. Mainstream theory forms as ideology by the amount of careers which are made in support of offering the theories used, thus little competition exist in the mainstream by credited professionals. But theory is in time found to be wrong, and corrections are made unless the political ideology refuses to accept the reality presented. The political will wants to force reality to accept theory, which it will not; mankind can not force reality to bend.
The farmers in Bihar do not need mass produced crops, especially when the genetic reality suggest these crops are not safe. But the global corporations need consumption, with every increasing consumption rates to keep the heavy infrastructure paid for. The global public should take a realistic view, understanding how small businesses are working more efficiently and providing better. Global corporations are only alive because they control global governmental operations. Yet individuals live by the local means available, and it is by supporting the local economy they survival. Mass production ideology only builds heavy infrastructure which cost more every year, it does not secure individuals needs. And the long term effects can be seen by the ever increasing health care cost, the same being past on to the public today.
Baby on board
Beyonce will be giving Blue Ivy a sibling in the near future.Get the details