What are genetically modified foods?

I recently had a stimulating conversation with fellow Mad Mike's America writer Erin Nanasi in the comments section of her piece "Obama and Monsanto".  The conversation revolved around whether genetically modified organisms (GMOs) should be allowed to be used in things such as agriculture.

There were a couple times during the conversation when I wanted to write an article based on the conversation.  The first being a more in depth explanation of what GMOs actually are (which this piece shall be).  The second being a realization that I, and many others, have come to.  That the future of our species may very well depend upon GMOs.  For breviaries sake, I shall leave the second part for a follow up article to be written soon.

I would first like to point out that this article is in no way supportive of Monsanto or any of its business practices.  I am rather critical of them myself for a few reasons, including their desire to patent certain lines of genetic code.  A concept that is both absurd and detrimental to scientific inquiry.

So what are genetically modified organisms?  GMOs are any organism that has had some of its genetic material artificially and purposely altered.  The words 'artificially' and 'purposely' are key in this definition as if they were not present, GMOs would define all life on this planet.

The process of evolution can be seen, essentially, as nature's way of creating GMOs.  The process of mutation creates novel genetic codes that affect the organism in question in varying ways.  Those mutations that are beneficial may allow the organism to propagate its genes just a bit better and out compete other, less successful genetic codes.  Life is, essentially, a never ending struggle between collections of genes trying to replicate themselves the most.

Humans have been harnasing these mutations for millenia through the process of domestication and selective breeding.  We have breed plants and animals in ways that allow for the dominant expression of key traits that we find desirable.  Until recently, we had no idea that what we were doing was fiddling around with their genetic codes.  Once we discovered this, we have started moving towards stream lining this process.  The latest incarnation of this is genetic engineering.

We look at the very genes that create the traits that we desire and place them in the organisms we are interested in affecting.  This has allowed us to quickly and effectively modify organisms in ways that would have taken decades at the very least, if we could do it at all.

Previously, if a trait was observed in one species of domestic plant or animal, it would be limited to that species.  If we wanted that trait to be in another species, tough luck.  We would just have to hope it would evolve all over again in the species in question.  But now, with genetic engineering, we can simply take the desired gene and move it to the species we would prefer it to be in.  All life is made from the same genetic code, we all evolved from the same stock billions of years ago, so we can copy and paste where we see fit.

This is actually a trick that nature stumbled upon first, not us.  A prime example can be found in bacteria.  Bacteria trade bits of genetic material back and forth all the time.  The individuals doing the trading don't even have to be of the same species.  Genetic material is genetic material, it is the universal currency.  If a novel gene allows for better survival, you can guarantee that it will spread.

It was after observing such bacterial genetic promiscuity that we humans got the idea.  It seems that without nature to guide us, we would, quite often, be more then a bit lost.  We adapted this and techniques borrowed from certain retroviruses -- viruses that can embed themselves into the genetic codes of their hosts -- and have used them to insert the desired genes into the place in the genetic code of organisms that we want them.

Most of the time, scientists take genes that have arisen in other organisms in the first place.  We might modify it a bit for simplicities sake or to improve upon things a bit, but it is rather difficult to do much more.  We are getting better at building genes from scratch, but why go through the trouble when there is the giant genetic laboratory that is the natural world?  Just like how we look to nature for new chemicles and medicines, we are now looking to it for new genetic information.

These new genes, if used right, can increase the fitness of the modified organism.  Such increases in fitness may include things such as natural resistances to diseases or parasites.  It may allow the organism to survive in climates and environments it otherwise would not thrive in.  It may increase the amount of nutrients found in a particular part of the organism.  It can affect how quickly an organism grows or reaches sexual maturity.  

These changes can have dramatic affects when they are done to plants and animals that we as a species depend upon.  Crops may suddenly need less fertilizer to grow or even be capable of growing in soil that was previously deemed unusuable.  The part of the crop that we use may grow larger while the 'extraneous' parts may be reduced.  They may no longer be as susceptible to the ravages of disease and insects or the various weeds that we would otherwise be dousing with pesticides and herbicides to eliminate.  They may produce food products of larger size or even with greater nutrient and mineral levels.

All of these factors allow for the GMO in question to be cheaper, more efficient and even healthier for consumption.  Unfortunately, this is an area that few truly understand and is seen as a frightening new technology to many.  Some see it as 'playing god' where as others see it as distorting natural processes.  But these are things that we have been doing since early humans first realized that by breeding different strains together, they could create even more useful organisms.  

Because of such fears, human consumption of GMOs in the states and other countries has been limited.  Despite there not being any reliable evidence to suggest that GMOs pose a health risk for humans, they are still limited to being used as animal feed only.  By doing so, opponents can further state that GMOs are just taking up space that could be used to grow crops to feed people.  Besides being an underhanded tactic, this ignores the fact that we need animal food crops if we hope to continue raising animals for various uses.

The time will soon be upon us when we will need GMOs for our own survival.  That without them, we could face mass starvation, or worse.  But that is a story for my next article.

It’s the end of the world as we know it…

Well now that I have gotten the tune to a song that no one can properly hope to sing stuck in your head, it is time to celebrate the end of the world!

But what should you expect on the rapture?  Well one thing to keep in mind is if you go out, be sure to wear a rain coat.  Why you might ask?  Just think of how much mess a flock of birds flying overhead can make and imagine how much worse it would be with a group of humans scared shitless (quite literally) by their sudden loss of gravity. 

You should also expect to have massive cancellations of flights.  After the first two or three planes experience in flight emergencies after their engines get clogged up with bits of Christian chunks, flights everywhere will be grounded until the sky-lanes finally clear of the flocks of believers.

The believers that make it past the airplanes will have a few other things to contend with.  The first is the fact that oxygen levels and temperatures quickly begin to drop the higher up in the atmosphere you get.  Soon the excited believers will begin to become panic stricken once they realize that the writers of the bible had a very poor grasp of the fundamentals of our planet.  I imagine god will be pretty embarrassed when he goes out to greet the first of his chosen only to find them as lifeless meat-sicles. 

The various space agencies are likely also to be rather pissed by god’s oversight.  Our planets orbit is already littered with bits of space junk that perpetually threaten the many artificial satellites that help maintain our modern life.  All they need is a few thousand more things to track, not to mention the disruption of the amazing view those on the International Space Station has after it becomes obscured with the morbid vista of countless bodies drifting past.

Of course it is also possible that this entire thing is the creation of a series of deluded minds attempting to interpret the ramblings of ignorant ancient desert dwellers as absolute truth and nothing more than a lot of embarrassed back-tracking from the die-hard believers will come of this.  Perhaps there will even be an explosion of people coming to their senses about all this rapture business with former believers realizing that their invisible sky daddy is nothing more than a silly myth that should have been set aside with the likes of the tooth fairy.  People might learn from the error of their petty divisive beliefs and attempt to more forward as a more unified society.  On second thought, we should all probably just be on the lookout for someone claiming to have uncovered the ‘real’ date of the rapture for the believers to cling on to.

The twelve virtues of rationality

I came across a great article by Eliezer S. Yudkowsky entitled Twelve Virtues of Rationality. Upon reading it I found that someone else wrote perfectly what I have found to be part of my own personal philosophy.

It describes twelve ideas that are critical for anyone to have a thoroughly rational mind. Things such as curiosity, argument and simplicity amongst others. While I had never read this article in the past, I find that the items chosen line up quite well with my own views. They are the things that both drive me and temper me. The ideas that help me find new lines of inquiry as well as weed out unnecessary concepts. And just like any set of views learned by someone over time, each new concept builds upon the previous just like new scientific ideas build upon old ones.

While I advise you to read the article in its entirety, I would also like to put forth my take. As I have come to similar conclusions on my own, it only makes sense to display my own views on them. Because we have taken different paths, yet reached the same conclusion, I believe it is a testament to how these concepts are intrinsic to the 'spirit' of rationality.

1. Curiosity.
I have always had a curious mind. Whenever I have come across something I have to understand it as well as how it integrates into what I already know. For many curiosity is, itself, a curiosity. Something that comes up now and then to be pondered over momentarily only to be put away again. But for me, and many others, it is a driving force. It is almost an insatiable need to know, to understand. If something that is unknown is uncovered, all the better as then one is able to indulge their curiosity further with a bit of speculation. This leads only to more questions with which one may pursue, creating an ever expanding playground with which to enjoy.

2. Relinquishment.
Whenever one commits themselves to a rational existence, there will come a time when previously believed or even cherished views will be contested or even destroyed. For many this is terrifying, leaving them with a sense of falling and nothing to grab a hold of. For me, it is exhilarating. To think, the world could be, no, will be, different than I had previously envisioned! This ties in with curiosity for often it is only an inquisitive mind that is willing to put long held views to the test.

3. Lightness.
As relinquishment requires us to let go of our tight grasp upon the old, lightness would have us embrace the new. Know that evidence will come about to upset old ideas and only through letting that evidence take us where it will can we ever hope to know the facts. The data might not always tell us what we want to hear, but as the adage goes "the universe doesn't care what you believe". It has been through such lightness that I have come to be able to call myself an atheist. Had I not embraced it, I would be stuck denying the evidence as so many still do.

4. Evenness.
With the previous three in mind, we must all be cautious about our demands. Far too often a person will only show these traits when questioning the ideas of others. Yet if we do not equally question our own and ourselves then we are bound to lose our intellectual honesty. If the ideas you hold are truly more accurate than those of whom you question, you have nothing to fear, for they shall be supported by the evidence. If they are not, then you have freed yourself from the shackles of inaccuracy that would otherwise weigh you down.

5. Argument.
While some claim that argument only causes dissension, I often find this is because they either fear for their long held beliefs or because they only know purely emotional arguments. If it is the former, then they must go back a few steps before continuing on. If the later, then it is because of lack of general rationality in our culture. Personally, I would prefer to label this one as 'debate', if only because it does not have the emotional connotations that argument has for far to many. But whatever you decide to call it, it is essential. Only through the tossing back and forth of ideas, through pointing out flaws and attempting to refine our own views can we hope to ever understand anything. Far to many shy away from this one when it is vitally important if we are ever to understand anything.

6. Empiricism.
Once one is willing to employ the previous five virtues, one can properly begin their search for understanding of the universe. While some may claim there are many ways to 'know', it is only through empirical evidence that we can hope to truly understand anything. If we do not use this technique, we will forever be lost within a maelstrom of conflicting views with no way of knowing which one actually reflects reality.

7. Simplicity.
A good hypothesis is one that describes the data in the shortest possible way. The more extraneous explanations that are added, the more likely it is that there is still yet more to uncover. This view has, unfortunately, been hijacked by some stating that the supernatural is the simplest view. That 'god did it' is a more elegant way of explaining the universe than what the evidence would lead us to believe. This ignores the fact that such an explanation ignores and/or dismisses the data. As such, it is not the simplest answer, but a false one. The simplest answer may appear complex, but this is only because no shorter answer would be able to describe the available data. As Einstein said "Things should be as simple as possible, but no simpler." This is the heart of Occam's Razor.

8. Humility.
This can be described simply as 'admit when you are wrong and then do something about it'. Just admitting your failure is not enough, for it does not change anything. Only after one changes their views to match the evidence may they call themselves humble. If you cannot do this, then you are only slightly better than those who actively lie for their position. You may not be forcefully spreading disinformation, but by not changing your own views, you are lending your support to them.

9. Perfectionism.
A perfectionist seeks out errors. They check and double check to weed out inconsistencies and contradictions. This must be done both inside and out. While we can never hope to eliminate them all, the more we try the better the verisimilitude we can construct. Both our theories and our minds are built upon a web of connections, each strand giving credence to all those it connects with. If one strand is misplaced, all those that connect with it will inherit this error and spread it on to all those they are connected with. Only be seeking out these misalignments can we hope to ever properly understand anything.

10. Precision.
While some may say this one is the same as perfectionism, it is again a case of one building off the previous. In perfectionism, one must search to better their data and themselves, where as precision is how one samples the data that must later be scrutinized. It also augments perfectionism in two ways. First, with greater precision, one will have less need of an all encompassing perfectionism. Second, it may be applied to perfectionism itself. With greater precision comes a higher degree of refinement and thus a more accurate understanding.

11. Scholarship.
While often seen as only formal education, scholarship is much more, it is a very mindset. It is curiosity refined through all the intermediate virtues. It is the raw thirst for data tempered by a proper understanding of how one should go about things to garner the best results. Scholarship should also not be limited. While it is impossible to learn everything about everything, the more one tries, the more one realizes the inter-connectivity of all things.

12. The Nameless Virtue.
This is the most esoteric of all the virtues and the most difficult to attain. It is the driving purpose and the understanding made one. It is the sense of unity with that which has been revealed. It is the awe and wonder at the functioning of the universe while attempting to make that information your own. It is about being able to no longer differentiate the data from yourself while distancing enough so as not to become attached should it ever be overturned. It is the ability to see the whole as well as the uniquely functioning parts at the same moment. It is a state of ever changing zen. It is a scientific nirvana.

That is so gay...

I cannot count the times I have heard this phrase uttered and each times it grates on my nerves. It is yet another sign of the blatant homophobia our society seems to relish. Yes, things have been slowly getting better for the LGBT community, but the use of the word 'gay' to mean something that is bad is still horrendously pervasive.

Whenever I hear 'gay' uttered in a negative connotation I immediately lose some respect for that person. I associate it with mindless homophobia and pathetically juvenile behavior. I find it even more tragic when people who do not seem outwardly homophobic still use it. As it either means they realize their homophobia is wrong and are trying to hide it or they truly believe there is nothing wrong with those with other sexual orientations but have never actually thought through the implications of using the phrase.

Many people have recently attempted to claim that the term no longer means what it used to or that it is a duel use word. These arguments are both ill thought out and idiotic attempts to keep their precious insult. The Youtuber Zinnia Jones (ZJemptv) has an excellent refutation of these arguments. She not only points out why such views are wrong but also uses the arguments of such apologists against them, something I do love to hear.



In the comments many people brought up the fact that words such as 'lame', 'dumb' and 'idiot' used to refer only to people with various disabilities, but are now only archaically connected to them. It seems many people are swayed by this argument, but it too has its major flaws. I pointed this out in a comment but I would like to elaborate on it here.

One thing these people are not taking into consideration is the fact that when such words began to be co-opted for their now common use, the people that they original were used to describe were seen as sub-human at best. There was no voice for the disabled and it was not uncommon for them to be abandoned to wards where they were experimented upon, left to die and treated like curiosities to be used. Eventually the terms did lose their original meanings, but only after the derogatory meaning became the more common and after disabled people were recognized as individuals deserving of equal treatment. Had this shift in ethics not occurred, then such terms would still be duel use words. If we take this lesson and apply it to the word 'gay' as a derogative, then anyone who uses the a fore mentioned argument must also think that actual gay people are also sub-human and do not deserve the respect others are shown.

If this is in fact the case than users of this term should be granted the same 'respect' by society at large. Amongst thoughtful and intelligent people the negative is already thought of something used only by drunk frat members and 13 year olds who want to try and act tough. Neither of these groups are renowned for their innate intelligence. It is my hope that the negative use of the word 'gay' will fad away, something to be seen by future generations as a stupidity left over from a more bigoted era. And the more people who openly oppose its use and call out those who do so, the more likely that this future will occur.