This website aims to facilitate a debate with a focus on the question whether GMO is good for animals and plants (animal and plant morality).
Science cannot explain consciousness (meaningful experience) and therefor there are many profound concerns about GMO. Currently, morality is completely ignored and animals and plants are considered 'meaningless' bundles of matter for human exploitation.
Should an animal or plant receive respect before it ends up on a human's food plate? Or can humans safely assume determinism and ignore morality when it concerns GMO?
- GMO for utilitarian value (e.g. a financial profit motive) can be seen as a form of corruption or rape of nature (harmful).
- GMO as practiced by empirical science (without morality) is a form of eugenics and that concept gives rise to several philosophical concerns. Cows and eugenicsWhile there are 9 million cows in the USA, from a genetic perspective there are just 50 cows alive due to the nature of eugenics that resides on the essence of inbreeding: Read more in the article #against
Do animals and plants receive protection?Answer: NO
The GMO industry and the establishment of science considers the GMO debate to be over, which means that it considers itself to have carte blanche to do whatever it wants with animals and plants.
With the idea that anti-GMO activism has lost the GMO industry is growing uninhibitedly fast with a direct effect on billions of animals and plants on earth.
In the same time anti-GMO activism does appear to have faded.
The $250 billion USD revenue organic food industry profited financially by scare mongering for GMO from an utilitarian value perspective (human health and food-safety) while the GMO industry competes and wins easily on the basis of utilitarian value arguments. It would have been a losing battle. While the organic food industry may have acquired new customers, many more people may have been pushed to consider purely utilitarian value arguments when it concerns GMO, which tends to exclude morality!
Science in 2021:
“The GMO debate is over”
Science organizations officially reported in 2021 that the GMO debate is over.
The American Council on Science and Health reported that anti-GMO groups are disappearing.(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
Alliance for Science reported that the GMO debate is over.(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
The same is also reported by Genetic Literacy Project.(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
In February 2022 the website GMODebate.org was founded. The website is intended to indicate that there may be arguments by which it can be considered that the GMO debate is not over and it may provide people with a platform to express and discuss their concerns.
GMO industry in 2021
The GMO industry (synthetic biology) has been growing fast. In 2017, money made from genetically engineered creatures accounted for about 2% of American GDP ($400 billion USD revenue) and in 2019 the pharmaceutical industry was already investing more than $1 trillion USD per year in synthetic biology.(2019) Pharmaceutical industry raises bet on biotech as frontier for growth Biotechnology is already a bigger business than many people realize. Rob Carlson of Bioeconomy Capital, an investment company, calculates that money made from creatures which have been genetically engineered accounted for about 2% of American GDP in 2017. Source: Financial Times (FT.com)
Anti-GMO activism in 2021
GMO-Awareness.com – Last update: 2016
The website gmo-awareness.com provides an online overview with resources and initiatives.
Last update: 2016. (6 years ago as of 2022)
The last article from 2016 is about a Cornell University student and his Squarespace website gmowtf.com. That website is cancelled and offline.
A search for 'anti GMO' in Google provides a 2018 article on the website of Cornell University. It starts with the statement that Russian trolls, aided by anti-GMO groups, have been successful in sowing doubt about science.
(2018) Anti-GMO activism sows doubt about science Russian trolls, aided by anti-GMO groups such as the Center for Food Safety and Organic Consumers Association, have been strikingly successful in sowing doubt about science in the general population. Source: Alliance for Science
After clicking around on gmo-awareness.com to visit the websites of Anti-GMO groups it was discovered that many of the websites are offline or show a last update time of more than 10 years ago.
Strategic framing of the GMO debate:
The 'anti-science' narrative
The synthetic biology industry has been successful in framing the GMO debate around empirical value with a focus on denouncing a lack of belief in science by which opponents of GMO are declared 'anti-science' (heretics of science).
(2018) “Anti-science zealotry”? Values, Epistemic Risk, and the GMO Debate The “anti-science” or “war on science” narrative has become popular among science journalists. While there is no question that some opponents of GMOs are biased or ignorant of the relevant facts, the blanket tendency to characterize critics as anti-science or engaged in a war on science is both misguided and dangerous. Source: PhilPapers (PDF) | Philosopher Justin B. Biddle (Georgia Institute of Technology)
The inability to capture meaningful experience (conscious experience) within the scope of empirical value (the foundation of scientific evidence) causes incompatibility with what science deems valid.
The problem is addressed in the philosophical zombie theory.(2022) The philosopher's zombie: What can the zombie argument say about human consciousness? The infamous thought experiment, flawed as it is, does demonstrate one thing: science can't explain consciousness. Source: aeon.co
When it concerns morality, it concerns aspects related to meaningful experience.
In science the inability to define the meaning of life has resulted in an ideal to abolish morality.(2018) Immoral advances: Is science out of control? To many scientists, moral objections to their work are not valid: science, by definition, is morally neutral, so any moral judgement on it simply reflects scientific illiteracy. Source: New Scientist (2019) Science and Morals: Can morality be deduced from the facts of science? The issue should have been settled by philosopher David Hume in 1740: the facts of science provide no basis for values. Yet, like some kind of recurrent meme, the idea that science is omnipotent and will sooner or later solve the problem of values seems to resurrect with every generation. Source: Duke University: New Behaviorism
Morality is based on 'values' and that logically means that science also wants to get rid of philosophy.
Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) in Beyond Good and Evil (Chapter 6 – We Scholars) shared the following perspective on the evolution of science in relation to philosophy.
The declaration of independence of the scientific man, his emancipation from philosophy, is one of the subtler after-effects of democratic organization and disorganization: the self- glorification and self-conceitedness of the learned man is now everywhere in full bloom, and in its best springtime – which does not mean to imply that in this case self-praise smells sweet. Here also the instinct of the populace cries, “Freedom from all masters!” and after science has, with the happiest results, resisted theology, whose “hand-maid” it had been too long, it now proposes in its wantonness and indiscretion to lay down laws for philosophy, and in its turn to play the “master” – what am I saying! to play the PHILOSOPHER on its own account.
It shows the path that science has pursued since as early as 1850. Science has intended to rid itself of philosophy.
Philosophy is bunk.Show more quotes…
You may describe philosophy as a search for knowledge and truth. That is indeed vanity. Science is about the acquisition of knowledge, and most scientists avoid the use of “truth”, preferring “repeatability” as more in line with our requisite humility in the face of observation.…
Philosophers always pretend that their work is important and fundamental. It isn't even consistent. You can't build science on a rickety, shifting, arbitrary foundation. It is arguable that Judaeo-Christianity catalysed the development of science by insisting that there is a rational plan to the universe, but we left that idea behind a long time ago because there is no evidence for it.…
Philosophy never provided a solution. But it has obstructed the march of science and the growth of understanding.…
Philosophy is a retrospective discipline, trying to extract something that philosophers consider important from what scientists have done (not what scientists think – scientific writing is usually intellectually dishonest!). Science is a process, not a philosophy. Even the simplest linguistics confirms this: we “do” science, nobody “does” philosophy.…
Science is no more or less than the application of the process of observe, hypothesise, test, repeat. There's no suggestion of belief, philosophy or validity, any more than there is in the rules of cricket or the instructions on a bottle of shampoo: it's what distinguishes cricket from football, and how we wash hair. The value of science is in its utility. Philosophy is something else.…
Philosophers have indeed determined the best path forward for humanity. Every religion, communism, free market capitalism, Nazism, indeed every ism under the sun, all had their roots in philosophy, and have led to everlasting conflict and suffering. A philosopher can only make a living by disagreeing with everyone else, so what do you expect?
As can be seen, from the perspective of science, philosophy, which includes morality, should be abolished for science to flourish.
When science is practiced autonomously and intends to get rid of any influence of philosophy, the 'knowing' of a scientific fact necessarily entails certainty. Without certainty, philosophy would be essential, and that would be obvious to any scientist, which it is not.
It means that there is a dogmatic belief involved (a belief in uniformitarianism) that legitimizes autonomous application of science without thinking about whether it is actually 'good' what is being done (i.e. without morality).
Attacking critics of GMO as heretics of science
The atheism religion (anti-religion religion) is a way out for people who would potentially (be prone to) seek the guidance that religions promise to provide. By revolting against religions, they (hope to) find stability in life.
The emotional urge to attack people that do not share a dogmatic belief in the facts of science could originate from a feeling of vulnerability for religious exploitation of the weakness that results from the inability to answer the question “What is the meaning of life?” or “Why does life exist?”.
Besides the ideal of science to abolish morality, and the potential emotional motive of atheists, the GMO industry (including the pharmaceutical industry) has a multi-trillion USD interest.
By atheism fueled neglect as foundation for GMO
👽 Where are the aliens?
Most people in the modern world view life as something that is owned on an individual level, as something that can be taken with one during space travel. Popular films such as Star Trek and Star Wars have displayed a future in which humans travel through space.
Some scientists are wondering however: why is the Solar system and Earth not crowded with alien visitors? Why, after decades of space science, has no hint been found for the existence of extraterrestrial life?
The post–World War II era is considered to be an 'anti-philosophy' era in which philosophy was increasingly placed on a level comparable with that of religions. In a sense, while science originates from philosophy, science has attempted to overcome philosophy and intended to rid itself of any influence of philosophy, which includes morality.
In 2021 the founder of GMODebate.org discovered that the farthest distance that an animal, insect or bacteria had travelled in space was the Moon and meanwhile trillions of USD were already invested for a manned mission to Mars in 2030.
Science it's dogmatic influence on behalf of determinism, the ground upon which science envisions itself to become master of the Universe, has resulted in a such a repression that it was never considered that Earth life may be bound to a region around the 🌞 Sun.
Philosophy naturally would have posed the following questions:
- Is there at least one clue that Earth life is independent from the Solar system?
- On what basis is it valid to consider that life is like a biochemical fire that can be taken with one during space travel?
Based on these questions, the first thing to test would be whether Earth life can remain alive further away from Earth. Yet, as of 2021 it was never tested because mainstream science intends to steer to a perspective in which life is a deterministic biochemical process and consciousness an illusion.
When life would be bound to a region around a star, it could explain why the Universe is not crowded with alien activity.
Because the origin of life is unknown, it is evident that science intends to use atheism fueled neglect – the stubbornly ignoring of the question 'why' life exists – as ground for a synthetic biology revolution in which animal and plant life is rendered meaningless beyond the scope of empirical value.
Who will speak for animals and plants?Should a human?
Read more in the article 🐿️ Animals