Philosophy In Defence ofNature

Breaking the Intellectual Silence on Eugenics

In 2021, several scientific organizations boldly declared the GMO debate over, citing the apparent fading of anti-GMO activism. But is silence truly acceptance? Or does it mask a deeper, more complex issue?

The American Council on Science and Health, Alliance for Science, and Genetic Literacy Project, among others, proclaimed:

The GMO debate is over

While the GMO debate has been percolating for nearly three decades, our scientific data indicate it's now over. The anti-GMO movement used to be a cultural juggernaut. But as time goes on, the activist groups that once held so much sway seem increasingly irrelevant.

Though we still hear some moaning and groaning it primarily comes from a small group. Most people simply aren't concerned about GMOs.

[Show sources]

• (2021) The Anti-GMO Movement Is On Its Way Out The anti-GMO movement used to be a cultural juggernaut. But as time goes on, the activist groups that once held so much sway seem increasingly irrelevant. Source: American Council on Science and Health
• (2021) The GMO debate is over Though we still hear some moaning and groaning it primarily comes from a small group. Most people simply aren't concerned about GMOs. Source: Alliance for Science
• (2021) 5 reasons why the GMO debate is over While the GMO debate has been percolating for nearly three decades, data indicate it's now over. Source: Genetic Literacy Project

Welcome to 🦋 GMODebate.org, where we challenge the notion that the GMO debate has concluded. Founded in 2022, our mission is to reignite the intellectual defense of nature in the face of genetic modification.

We've uncovered a startling trend: many animal protectors and conservationists remain silent on the subject of GMOs and animal eugenics. This silence, we argue, stems not from indifference, but from a fundamental intellectual impossibility we call the Wittgensteinian Silence Problem (chapter …^{^}).

Philosophical Inquiry: A Global Survey

On June 27, 2024, the founder of 🦋 GMODebate.org, Mr Jan Jaap Hakvoort, launched an ambitious multi-year project: a global philosophical inquiry into the vision on eugenics or anthropocentric GMO among those working in nature conservation and animal protection organizations worldwide. This groundbreaking initiative reaches out to tens of thousands of organizations across over 250 countries, conducting philosophical conversations in as many languages.

Our approach leverages cutting-edge AI technology, transforming the philosophical inquiry process much as the keyboard revolutionized writing. This innovative system facilitates complex philosophical discussions in hundreds of languages with a level of nuance that has impressed even native writers from Paris, France.

Au fait, votre français est excellent. Vous vivez en France ?

Our focus is twofold:

1. To gain deep insights into the moral considerations surrounding eugenics.
2. To unlock these insights publicly, facilitating an international GMO debate.

Project Funding

We stand at a critical juncture in the history of genetic modification and its impact on nature. The next phase of our project, for which we urgently seek funding, will enable public participation in this global debate through an innovative AI-managed platform.

This is not merely an academic exercise. Your involvement could fundamentally reshape our approach to genetic modification in nature, influencing policies that will affect generations to come. By supporting this project, you become part of a vanguard effort to defend nature's rights in an age of rapid technological advancement.

Help us prove that the GMO debate is far from over. Your support advances our understanding and defense of nature's intrinsic value in the face of genetic engineering. Join us in this critical mission to ensure that the voices of nature and its defenders are heard.

Animal Protection Fails

The eugenics article has demonstrated that eugenics can be considered a corruption of nature from nature's own perspective. By attempting to direct evolution through an external, anthropocentric lens, eugenics moves counter to the intrinsic processes that foster resilience and strength in time.

The fundamental intellectual flaws of eugenics are difficult to overcome , especially when it concerns a practical defense. This difficulty in articulating a defense against eugenics illuminates why many advocates for nature and animals may retreat to an intellectual back seat and are silent when it concerns eugenics.

• Chapter Science and the Attempt to Break Free from Morality demonstrated science's centuries ongoing attempt to emancipate itself from philosophy.
• Chapter Uniformitarianism: The Dogma Behind Eugenics exposed the dogmatic fallacy underlying the notion that scientific facts are valid without philosophy.
• Chapter Science as a Guiding Principle for Life? revealed why science cannot serve as a guiding principle for life.

The Wittgensteinian Silence Problem

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. ~ Ludwig Wittgenstein

This profound statement by Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein encapsulates a fundamental challenge in the debate surrounding animal protection and eugenics. When it comes to defending animals against genetic modification, we encounter a paradox: the moral imperative that many feel intuitively cannot always be easily articulated or translated into language.

French philosopher Jean-Luc Marion asked What is there, then, that is there, that overflows?, echoing Wittgenstein's call for silence. German philosopher Martin Heidegger referred to this ineffable realm as the Nothing. French philosopher Henri Bergson attempted to give voice to this silence by imagining Nature saying the following when asked about its fundamental raison d'etre (reason for being):

If a man were to inquire of Nature the reason of her creative activity, and if she were willing to give ear and answer, she would say—Ask me not, but understand in silence, even as I am silent and am not wont to speak.

Chinese philosopher Laozi (Lao Tzu) similarly acknowledged language's limitations in the ☯ Tao Te Ching:

The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal Name.

The Wittgensteinian Silence problem leads to an intellectual retreat that is widely misunderstood, resulting in the apparent decline of anti-GMO activism.

Scare Mongering Propaganda

In our philosophical investigation of the 2021 declaration that the GMO debate is over, we've identified a critical factor alongside the Wittgensteinian Silence problem: the pervasive influence of scare mongering propaganda, primarily driven by the $250 billion USD organic food industry. This widespread use of fear-based messaging has significantly shaped public discourse on GMOs, but in ways that are fundamentally misaligned with the protection of animals and nature.

The scare mongering propaganda, focused on human health and food security, is not only purely anthropocentric but also inadvertently reinforces the fundamental arguments of the GMO industry. While these tactics may boost sales for organic products, they play directly into the hands of GMO proponents, who can leverage their vastly superior financial resources—estimated in the trillions—to more effectively address these same human-centric concerns. This dynamic creates a public debate centered entirely on anthropocentric interests, marginalizing genuine environmental and ecological considerations.

Support 🦋 GMODebate.org

GMODebate.org seeks to advance pioneering philosophy, with particular emphasis on developing theories of morality and nature protection. Our aim is to transcend the current anthropocentric GMO debate through groundbreaking philosophical inquiry.

By contributing to this project, you play a crucial role in establishing a stronger intellectual foundation for safeguarding our natural world. Help us delve into the core philosophical issues that underpin the GMO debate and nature conservation efforts. Please consider funding this critical endeavor with a donation. Your contribution will support new philosophical research, foster academic discourse, and promote a more comprehensive understanding of our moral obligations to nature.