Volatility

April 13, 2018

Look Only at What The System Does (Pesticides and Bees)

>

 
 
The goal of technocracy in general and its agricultural manifestation in particular is to replace all natural processes with technospheric ones. Soil ecosystems and the ecological cycles of carbon and nitrogen are wiped out and replaced by synthetic fertilizer. The balancing of “pest” insects and “weeds” within a biodiverse ecology is wiped out and replaced by pesticides. Diverse and resilient landrace and heirloom genetics are wiped out and replaced by the hyper-narrowed genetics of hybrids and genetic engineering, eventually by synthetic genomes. Whole foods themselves are wiped out and replaced by manufactured calorie packs. Tang is indeed the quintessential “food” of this ideology.
 
It follows that insect pollinators are to be wiped out and replaced by synthetic modes of pollination. When we understand technocracy’s goals this way, we understand why the system continues its drive to maximize pesticides in spite of the proof going back to the 1940s that pesticides kill and impair bees. Technocracy wants to wipe out bees, and no amount of rational argument about how suicidal this is for humanity will change this imperative, any more than rational argument works in the cases of soil health, pest control, genetic diversity.
 
 
You want to understand reality? You want to know the truth? Never listen to what anyone who represents power says about what power wants to do. This is always a lie. Look only at what power consistently does. Look at the consistent results of this pattern of action, and then assume those results to be the real goals of the campaign. This is the Strict Intent of the actions of power. It’s the one and only objective measure of truth.
 
Therefore if the consistent result of an action is destruction and death, then destruction and death is the real goal of the action. QED.
 
 
 
 
 
 

March 18, 2016

GMO News Summary March 18th, 2016

>

*Imagine if every American who claimed to believe in property rights, and who claimed to believe that trespassers, vandals, and assailants should be punished, would be serious and actually apply that to real cases like poison drift. Imagine if America really believed in this kind of property right and really thought there was no right to trespass and destroy. Just one of many reasons pesticides could never have gotten started in the first place if this was a rational, moral society.
.
*Demand for non-GM conventional maize, soy, and other crops has been growing in recent years. Farmers who can deliver non-contaminated shipments are offered premiums by an increasing number of processors and manufacturers. This demand has been driven almost completely by grassroots political and consumer demand as embodied in the labeling movement and the rising abolition movement. Meanwhile farmers are also being driven away from GMOs by the overall poor and deteriorating performance of increasingly expensive GM crops. The political and consumer trend has been bolstered recently by low commodity prices, which are giving farmers an added incentive to make the switch from GM to non-GM cultivation. They look to the non-GM premium to make up for lost revenues. As a result in 2015 GM plantings in the US were stagnant for soybeans and declined for maize. But figures for both have been above 90% for years, and it’s likely that GMO cultivation has reached market saturation in the US as it has almost everywhere else on Earth. The cultural, scientific, and political movement to abolish GMOs therefore can contemplate the prospect that our main action can be to start driving back the monster, if natural and economic structural limits are already imposing a cordon on the GMO advance.
.
*The Central Institute for Cotton Research (CICR) is dedicated to industrialized commodity cotton production. By no stretch of the imagination is it anti-GMO. Nevertheless it seems free of the religious cultism which is standard among Western regulators and researchers. It looks soberly at GMO technology, assessing it from a “rational” capitalist point of view. (That is, as rational as one can be within the insane framework of commodity agriculture.) Today the CICR is of the opinion that India will lose nothing and be better off if Monsanto were to become the first ever Galtian crybaby to actually follow through on its threat to quit and go home. In this case the tantrum and threat are because the Indian government has once again cut the tax it will allow Monsanto to exact on its seed sales. It’s quite true that India will lose nothing and be better off. But Monsanto probably won’t do us the favor of following through on its hissyfit.
.
*A new industry report confirms what Charles Benbrook has been reporting for years, what Brazil’s National Cancer Institute said a year ago, and what we all know is the case, that GMOs greatly increase pesticide use. The report focuses on how GMOs have driven the great leap in glyphosate use in recent decades. The report is unrealistically optimistic about the future prospects for GMOs and glyphosate, however.
.
*Thanks to pressure from labeling advocates, the Senate voted very narrowly to reject cloture on the DARK Act. It’ll be back immediately, indeed this was a procedural vote rather than a “final” vote until a new bill comes along. While I agree that the DARK Act must be opposed, this is obviously not sufficient. I note the changed concepts of what’s the basic trend and what’s a positive development: A few years ago the trend was the gradual but progressive growth of the state level labeling movement, and what was good was any progress on this front. Today the trend is an ever more obsessive focus on the pro-Monsanto central government, and what’s good is endlessly fighting off iterations of the hard version of the DARK Act while increasingly swooning over soft-DARK proposals. Axiom: Any version of FDA preemption is philosophically abhorrent and fraudulent as a practical matter, if the goal is really supposed to be a strong labeling policy as a step toward abolition. But where it comes to many labeling advocates, I increasingly doubt either of those is a real goal. Is this war of attrition, this rut, really now the measure of progress? Am I the only one who’s already extremely sick of it?
.
.
.
.
.