Critical Reflections on When Science Meets Religion - Part 4 of 5

With a mere month left of classes things are about to start heating up. Two ten page term papers due within a month (one in Political Science, one in Interpersonal Communications), a final big multimedia convergence project, not to mention final exams and the mountains of reading assignments and studying in between.

We're heading into the final chapter today, and it's pretty exciting to be close to the finish line on this one. Only one more book left to read for this particular class (Next on the docket is True To Life: Why Truth Matters by Michael P. Lynch) and it's kind of unfortunate. This class is pretty much the highlight of the week.

Next week the final entry for this book will be posted. So far nobody has had any negative comments on any of them, so one can only assume that the handful of people who have been reading this series of reflection papers agrees with everything. Implicit agreement by silence. 

Maybe we just want an argument.

This chapter got a little hairy, since it involved multiple scientific disciplines, but it was no less fun to play around with.

Here ya go.

Critical Reflection on ‘When Science Meets Religion’ by Ian G. Barbour

Chapter 5: Genetics, Neuroscience, and Human Nature

Overall, this chapter presented more vague and varied concepts that previous chapters. This made it difficult to hold onto a common thread in the theme of scientific versus religious views on human nature and the evolution of morality. This can probably be explained by the general infancy of the fields of genetics and neuroscience when compared to the much older history of study in the fields of astronomy, quantum physics, and evolution.

In the study of consciousness, understanding becomes influenced by the observer, or as Crick says, interpretation of what is observed depends on “symbolism by each conscious organism” (122), so meaning of the observer is applied to the outcome. Past that, further theories of reductive materialism in relation to consciousness appear ridiculous. The way in which Dennett describes self and consciousness, disembodied from each other, leaves an image of a floating brain that is simply generating environments, events, images, and “multiple draft scenarios” in which we are entirely unaware. This almost makes it appear as if the brain has intention, which Dennett then goes on to reject in his theory of the intentional stance of human action. Once again, the brain becomes the master, and we are merely a blindfolded puppet - or, worse, as Dennett proposes, “robots made of robots”. (123)

Curiously, in the summary of a Times story by Wright, supporting the sociobiology and human morality stance, Wright claims that there are genetic basis for both infidelity and criminality, and that they are part of all human genetics. Barbour posits that according to Wright, the belief in free will leads to “deterrents to criminal behavior”, deterrents such as an understanding of “responsibility and punishment”, but conveniently leaves out how that same belief in free will can deter infidelity. (125) It seems completely overlooked in that brief section that much of what maintains order in society, in overcoming (or expressing) genetic base-animal instincts and behavior, is done through reward/punishment systems, not just infidelity and criminal behavior, but also violence, compassion and altruism, and love. Even further, similar systems exist in “low-level” organisms of nature, both in the wild and in domesticated animals and house pets. So then, the responsibility felt through free will does not necessarily account for the suppression of the genetic drive, but rather becomes determined by the perceivable reward systems of nature1 and/or culture.

In arguments for behavioral genetics, Barbour recognizes that studies such as reports that “the percent of Afro-Americans in prison is nine times that of the white population” (127) which conclude that it’s due to genetic differences, are erroneous. Interpretation of these reports are subject to cultural bias and views, and the ignoring of other aspects involved (such as various social factors) are perpetuated by media preference for publicizing incomplete reports, in lieu of publicizing later reports that contradict the social bias paradigm. This is a good illustration of how concepts of human behavior, perceived as genetically determined, can be historically influenced by persistent culturally constructed archetypes.

Humans are not machines, or “passive stimulus-response mechanisms”, but beings capable of creativity, deliberation, choice (even if choice is limited by laws of nature) and responsibility. The influence of environment and experience on human freedom creates symbiotic environments, which influences human behavior; but within that influence lies freedom over determinism. The sum of experiences influence behavior, it is true that “we cannot choose the cards we have been dealt, but we can to some extent choose what we do with them”. Freedom is the “result of our motives, intentions, and choices and are not externally coerced” and therefore “freedom is self-determination at the level of the person.” (127) Science says that we are animals with genetically wired behaviors, many of which work in congruence with maintaining balance; culturally constructed religion says that we are sinful and must be controlled through religious ideology. There is much conflict between the concept of freedom within the dichotomy of natural science and religion, in which one acts as a clear cohort in behavioral choices, and the other allows for natural expressions.

In the move to the independence of religion and science in human nature, Barbour looks to the various body/soul dualisms in religion. This section wasn’t as clear about the independence between the concepts, and I was left with the opinion that there is no more a disconnect between the body and soul that there is a disconnect from body and mind. They become the same thing. Consciousness, then, is your soul – your mind is your soul. Consciousness is what is gone when you die, the “light” that some may call a soul.

It was interesting to learn that many Catholics’ recognize primate and proto-human hominid evolution as legitimate, but what was more interesting was their theory of evolution of the human soul - that at some point between proto-human hominids and homo sapiens souls began to develop (131). If you consider the soul as a religious concept of human consciousness, this actually works - but in this there is integration, not independence, of science and religion.

Complimentary perspectives in body and soul dualism assert that humans are biological organisms with the obligation to treat other people with dignity and respect. In this perspective, there is no original sin, rather “we are born into a sinful social structure […] that perpetuates racism, oppression, and violence” (134). Ideally then, in this view, matters of the soul requires that there be an element of God. This supports biblical (human created) concepts of sin and redemption. Watts claims, in this dualism “we need to see science and religion as potentially complementary perspectives on the world.” (133). To which I disagree, as demonstrated thus far, perspectives of the world, particularly in the case of human nature, can easily be attained through understanding natural science.

In dialogue, Barbour turns to neuroscience, anthropology and computer science to seek the harmony between religion and science in aspects of human behavior. He speaks of emotions in cognition, which brings to mind a marriage of genetics and environment, nature and nurture, in human nature and behavior. In the embodied self, Arbib says, “actions are guided by perceptions, expectations, and goals” (136) – these expectations and goals are simply a refined understanding of punishments and rewards. If you act in this way, you can expect this outcome, which is the goal. This concept can be demonstrated in simple behavioral studies with lab animals.

The evolutionary role of emotions, such as adoration and fear, are important survival traits, such as when a mother animal protects its young, a lion protects its pride, or any animal senses danger and acts upon it to maintain survival. When created through a cultural (religious) social construction, human created emotions, such as guilt and shame, become an important role in social control (138) and control of behaviors which are perceived outside of normal bounds of cultural manufactured expectations – those emotions are not significant in survival, outside of social constructs.

To touch briefly on Barbour’s assessment of computer science and human nature, there is much development in Artificial Intelligence, in the last fourteen plus years, in which robots with “developmentally acquired capacities” programmed to learn have been created. I respect that there are vast differences between computers (robot brains) and (human) brains, but focusing on the similarities seems far more constructive. The main point I want to address, not having a vast understanding of robotic computer science, is related Barbour’s query as to whether or not it is possible to create a robot with the capacity to love, or to feel other emotions. If you look to the brain as a process computer, and acknowledge that love in humans is a chemical reaction, a response in the circuits, it is not beyond possibility to create a robot, already able to learn, that is capable of love. Even if their feelings of love were fundamentally different from ours, which Barbour supposes, I would argue that it would not make those feeling any less real. (142) For instance, emotions are subjective, you can only know how emotions feel in yourself, and cannot judge the legitimacy of that same emotion, felt differently by another person, based on your personal experience.

Finally, the way in which religion and science is presented to integrate in human nature/behavior is at odds with the general understanding of the role of God of creation. Phillip Hefner purposes that humans are evolutionary co-creators with God in forming “a new level of creation”. This is at odds with almost all biblical teachings, in which God created everything and it was “good”. The only part entirely agreeable is the claims of this section was that “we have a responsibility not only for our own future but also for the rest of the creatures on our planet” (143). There is an underlying responsibility in being a conscious human being. That responsibility comes from an understanding and awareness of the effects of our behaviors, whether genetically or culturally driven, on people and the environment, and that makes humans accountable for the health and well-being of the planet and all things on it.

Source:
Ian, Barbour G. When Science Meets Religion: Enemies, Strangers, or Partners. N.p.: HarperCollins, 2000. N. pag. Print.

Citation:
1. Barron, Andrew B., Eirik Søvik, and Jennifer L. Cornish. "The Roles of Dopamine and Related Compounds in Reward-Seeking Behavior Across Animal Phyla." National Center for Biotechnology Information. U.S. National Library of Medicine, 12 Oct. 2010. Web. 01 Apr. 2014.

...More From This Class:
- Critical Reflections on When Science Meets Religion
     Part 1 of 5 (http://just-call-me-frank.blogspot.com/2014/03/critical-reflections-on-when-science.html)

     Part 2 of 5 (http://just-call-me-frank.blogspot.com/2014/03/critical-reflections-on-when-science_25.html)
     Part 3 of 5 (http://just-call-me-frank.blogspot.com/2014/04/critical-reflections-on-when-science.html)
- On Being Certain: A Critical Reflection in Four Parts (http://just-call-me-frank.blogspot.com/2014/02/on-being-certain-critical-reflection-in.html)
- A Critical Reflection on 'Free Will' by Sam Harris (http://just-call-me-frank.blogspot.com/2014/02/a-critical-reflection-on-free-will-by.html)

A Critical Reflection on 'Free Will' by Sam Harris

We like to encourage people to think, consider, and reflect...because many of us like to do those things, and think they have greatly improved our life. That's pretty much why we'll be posting essays for the rest of the semester from the following class...to give you something to think about.

So, this class we're taking (that meets for two hours every Wednesday night) is all about the concepts of reality, truth and knowledge. It's basically a class on thinking about thinking (reflective thinking), and thinking about feelings of knowing and where they come from (so far), it's sort of a humanities-meets-philosophy course where a group of young adults (and this aged visage) sit around at tables arranged in a circle and discuss concepts from selected texts (currently the class is waist-deep into 'On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not' by Robert A. Burton. Burton on Being Certain) mediated by an ex-scientist, an oddball throwback freethinker from the Vietnam-era that fits every part of that description. Sometimes the discussion is focused, and then sometimes it spirals near the edge of a topical abyss. That's what the mediator is for, because 16-18 people sitting around having a discussion, feeding off of each others comments, thoughts and ideas, and interjecting their own...that's a cart that can lose its wheels fast.

Anyway, Free Will by Sam Harris is short, like 66 pages or so, and therefore only warranted one critical reflection paper (the book by Burton will result in 4 reflection papers of varying lengths).

This is that reflection paper.
(For whatever it's worth we got a "+" which is the highest mark in the professors "+, +✓,✓,-✓"..."grading" scheme)

A Critical Reflection on Free Will by Sam Harris

Initially the premise set forth by Free Will by Sam Harris struck me as a dangerous idea. To completely deny free will, as he seems to be doing, appears to be a denial of personal responsibility and creates a situation where people become a victim of themselves and their unconscious. Certainly at the base of free will there is no way to act completely unconstrained, without repercussions, and there are certainly factors in life that can restrict desires and ability – mental, physical, and economic considerations. However, day-to-day actions being dictated by the unconscious is a little extreme; for example, deciding to eat at one fast food restaurant over another, or not at all, is completely controllable, and to over-analyze where the motive came from to make the decision to eat or not seems more based in a biological motivation to eat, and the way one acts upon it is free will. 

Free will, in my opinion, is the conscious decisions made based on prior information, actions, events, drives, and outcomes, not controlled by some mysterious unconscious drive, rather logical motives. For example, people repeat actions, good or bad, depending on their desires at those given moments. It’s not difficult to understand where the desires come from, they are basic animal drives– the need for food, water, shelter, reproduction, and basic human drives – a desire for happiness, to be loved, accepted, and/or impress people. People act on these desires on an unconscious level, but they are not completely unconscious of them, the drives are not part of fate, the drives are biological. The decisions and actions based on the basic drives are free will. Even cases where brain chemicals influence action, people can still choose to make a decision based on social norms. They may not choose how they think or feel, but they can choose how they act upon those feelings. 

It doesn’t matter, however, where the desires or the drives come from. Once a person realizes where these drives come from, and owns them, they can change the way they react because of them; or, as Harris says “allow for greater creative control over one’s life” (47). Sloughing off the idea of “free will” prevents taking personal responsibility, and if you let your unconscious control you, you become the unconscious. If anything understanding there is not complete free will, but moderate free will, allows one to explore root causes and understand that “different ways of thinking have different consequences” (40). Just as our organs operate unconsciously, we can still control them, for instance, controlling heartbeat with breathing exercises or brain chemicals with medications. 

For a move towards a more complete free will it takes inner-reflection and personal strength to consciously consider what is dictating and motivating substantial actions. To deny free will almost entirely, not just moderate levels of free will, means becoming a victim of the unconscious, nothing but a pawn mindlessly obeying biological drives. Denying the existence of free will is a choice granted by the existence of free will, and it just doesn’t seem like an ideal that supports much in the way of personal responsibility.

References:
Harris, Sam. Free Will. New York: Free Press. 2012. Print.

Gun Violence In The Movies, For Dad

Source

Violence in movies, just like that of video games, has been beaten to death as being the catalyst of violence in society, particularly gun violence; but who doesn't know that.

Like mental illness, film is just another scapegoat for people who don't dare take personal or collective responsibility, just another name to throw under the bus; while statistically people with mental illness are four times more likely to be the victim of violence, than the perpetrator (1).

Rather than blame bad parenting (sometimes by bad people), lack of supervision, love, and attention, which fosters poor self-worth, poor self-esteem and leads to school yard bullying, and even being a victim of bullying; a general decrease in compassion and caring in society; and the increase of greed, poverty, hate, intolerance and anxieties in the nation, which trickles down to the youth; increasingly easy access to guns with very little real regulation from state to state and across the country; not to mention the glorification of war and violence in the world...but no, you're right, it's easier to blame Hollywood, and video games. It's the coward's way out.

So, why are we even addressing it then?

After a "light gun debate" with The Father the past Friday, we awoke today to the following message (we made a second Facebook account for extended family to keep in contact with us after Christmas, and don't check it often because it tends to cause anxiety):

We started to reply to the message, and thought: You know what. THIS is our blog entry. This is all we really have to say about it.

So, here you go, Dad. We're putting it here. This entry is your requested blog entry, what follows was our response. We'll just leave it here for you to read.

We could talk about gun violence in the movies...

Or maybe how we were watching a Looney Tunes cartoon from the 60's (that been syndicated over and over) staring Foghorn Leghorn on TV last Friday. He kept shooting the bill off of two ducks, and it would twist it around in a funny fashion. He tried to trick them into shooting each other in the face. Then tried to lock them in a TNT shed and "kill them", yet they never bled or died. Sure is funny, violence that doesn't produce blood, hey? Never too early to start them on the humour of guns and violence, is it.



Oh, don't be silly. (we can hear you, Dad)

It's just as logical; or are you saying a child is smart enough to tell the difference between cartoon violence and real violence, but an adult is not smart enough to respect the difference between graphic movie/video violence and real violence - and that now all of sudden that's the problem.

...Or we could write about the violence in the Bible, and how killing people who simply didn't believe in the same God were glorified by being considered righteous for doing so. Violence as "old as time itself". And even after that, in the Crusades.

...Or mass genocide and violence in ALL of History, including and not limited to the "settlement" of the United States.

...Or compare the exposure to violent video games and violent movies in every other developed country, and juxtapose their violent gun crimes to the USA; where, according to FBI statics on violent deaths in the USA, guns are responsible for more homicides than all other means of killing people combined. And in some states, up to 75%. (FBI Uniform Crime Reports - 2011: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20)

You know who else glorifies guns and violence? America, government and the media.

(...as an afterthought...)

Or we could just say: I'm (we're) part of the problem, you're part of the problem, the population of the world is part of the problem - and it's not sin (as you are fond of saying, Dad), the concept of sin isn't new. There is just as much sin now, there are just more people. The problem is people only caring about themselves, it's the lack of compassion for other people and their lives, it's people only watching out for themselves the "screw everyone else, I'm getting mine" attitude - being so self-absorbed, so wrapped up in ones own needs, that they put the needs (and safety) of others, below their own.

</end FB message>

Source

That's our opinion, of course, and our decision to take a little responsibility, being a member of this society, being part of the problem; just like some people choose to blame movies, and video games (and "they" used to blame music too) is the opinion and decision of people who shirk responsibility.

Our stance on guns isn't secret.
We're pro-gun.
We also tend to be pro-responsibility; and for us, responsibility triumphs.

There needs to be regulation, the Constitution says so; and not just regulation, but regulation done well. Of course the Supreme Court ruled to change the meanings/interpretations of the words 'regulated' and 'militia' (2)(3)(4), to better the agenda of the NRA. And we could fight all day, every day to the grave, arguing about what it really means.
So we digress.

There is no question in a rational persons mind that there should be regulation. Why shouldn't there be? Cars are regulated by speed limit and traffic laws; Knives and blades are regulated by type and length of blade, and some of the laws are absurd. For Example, the crime of simply carrying a box cutter, in the State of Virginia, is punishable by a year in jail and a $2,500 fine(5) (see notation in resources). The laws vary from state-to-state; Drugs are regulated, prescription vs. non-prescription, alcohol, tobacco - and in growing variation from state-to-state. All most people want is a little rationality.

Back to the point.

It's not Hollywood, it's not video games...it's not Foghorn Leghorn, it's not Bugs Bunny (maybe Yosemite Sam a little though *winks*).

Source

It's society, it's you, it's me, it's your neighbour. It's life.

(P.S. Love you Daddy)

------------------------------------------

More Entries We've Written on Guns....
An Afternoon Ditty on Gun Control
http://just-call-me-frank.blogspot.com/2013/01/an-afternoon-ditty-on-gun-control.html
A Mental Illness Rant
http://just-call-me-frank.blogspot.com/2012/12/a-mental-illness-rant.html
Guns, Guns, and Freedomhttp://just-call-me-frank.blogspot.com/2012/07/guns-guns-gunsand-freedom_20.html
------------------------------------------
Sources and Citation for this entry:
(1) Mentally ill 'at high risk of being victim of violence, BBC Health, February 27, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17182626(2) Supreme Court to Define ‘Well Regulated Militia’?, factcheck.org, December 20, 2007, http://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/supreme-court-to-define-well-regulated-militia/
(3) United States: Gun Ownership and the Supreme Court - Library of Congress, August 8, 2012, http://loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php

(4) So You Think You Know The Second Amendment, Jeffrey Toobin, The New Yorker, December 18, 2012, http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html

(5) End knife control: Virginia’s vague concealed-weapon statute needs reform, Editorial, The Washington Times, May 22, 2012 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/22/end-knife-control/ ( '08 Senate Bill 379 that purposed an amendment to VA State code §18.2-308(A) and ultimaltey failed at specifically adding box cutters to the list of unlawful blade)

From Lab To Field, And On Your Knees

We don't write about food safety, security, policy, or the environment too often, the last time we wrote seriously about it was a piece on High Fructose Corn Syrup (Fundamentally Unsafe: High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) http://just-call-me-frank.blogspot.com/2010/05/fundamentally-unsafe-high-fructose-corn.html) that I had imported from an older blog two years ago, way back before...well, a load of life changing stuff...

Despite food safety and security being the major factor in our most recent purchase (still need to put the ink on the paper though!) of a 40 acre homestead-farm where we plan to grow as much of our own food as we can, both plant and animal; there's just usually so much other stuff to write about, other stuff that inspires us on days when it's not our pain, or mental health, to be able to write about just one topic.

It's stories like Plowing Away The Prairie, At A Price that make us sad, upset, fearful for the future of the America, and the people who live in it; but it's not just those feelings, it's stories like Plowing Away The Praire that raise questions, draw intersecting lines, create a furrowed brow, and inspire today's blog entry. Questions like how do we feel about the federal government subsidizing crop insurance to farmers so they can be encouraged to grow GMO corn and/or soybeans in an environment that is not suited for in the first place, and making big payouts, like they will have to this year in the face of the horrible drought, and who is behind it; and with so much talk about government hand-ups and hand-outs, who gets to decide between the people who "deserve it" and the people who don't.

If you're not familiar with GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) [Seed] you probably should be. Genetically modified organisms are laboratory engineered seeds and plants (so far the FDA has not approved animal GMOs) created by splicing genes from other organism to "improve" things like shelf-life and pest-resistance. In the United States over 85% of the corn and 91% of the soybeans (1) grown are from GMO seed, with ownership of the seed by one giant corporation called Monsanto, who owns the patents to it, and that so far in 2012 has contributed 71% of it's companies election funding to the Republicans (29% to Democrats).(1)

"These days Faulstich is telling his story in Washington, D.C. This year or next, Congress is expected to take up a new farm bill that could determine the fate of his way of life and, perhaps, the Midwestern prairie." 

"If we need more corn and it's a level playing field, that's the way it is," he said. "But if there are incentives to make this happen - that's a disaster in the making [says Faulstich]" Plowing Away The Prairie, At A Price

It's hard to say what Washington would do with a farm bill, it's hard to say if the average American even cares, or understands the under-working of the government in the first place. It all depends on who dominates the House and Senate, but you can bet that big campaign funding by the likes of Monsanto can grease some very greedy palms (2).

Reading Plowing Away The Prairie paints with words an accurate and unfortunate picture of the environmental effects of tearing up the prairie for profit; and makes it obvious there are those less concerned about the future of the earth, and the devastating toll already visible and measurable, that are created by ripping it up and plowing it all under, in lei of profit.

"The 10,000-year-old native prairie that once stretched from Saskatchewan to the Gulf of Mexico has become one of the most threatened ecosystems on Earth -- more so even than the world's tropical rain forests, ecologists say. In Minnesota and elsewhere, only about 1 percent of the original prairie now lies untouched, and every year across the Great Plains millions more acres of grasslands are turned into corn, soybeans and other crops." Plowing Away The Prairie, At A Price

But it's not just about the environment, or the greasing of the wheel to make the rats run on it until we all die of cancer (3), it's also about another big company owning our government and livelihoods. We're not even mentioning the health issues surrounding GMO foods, foods which have been on the market since 1994, when the "The Fish Tomato" FLAVR SAVR [CGN-89564-2](4) tomato made it's debut, whose plant genetics were "modified by incorporating a synthetic antifreeze gene modeled from one isolated from the winter flounder, Pseudopluronectus americanus".(5)

No, the first issue is the danger of a single company owning the rights to massive amounts of seed, and the potential for them to own it all one day by pushing natural "heirloom", or heritage, varieties out of the market with force, which they have already started doing; you need only look at how much GMO seed is used in agricultural crops. If a single company owns all the corn and soybeans they can literally have the people at their knees, which is what they have already done in poor countries around the world. Take India, for example, where a GMO-related suicide epidemic has been perpetuated over the last 16 years.(6)

The claims that Monsanto makes about the yield of their seed, which is one of the more desirable reasons for signing on with their product, is likely debatable, and depends on environmental factors, like the right kind of weather, just for a start. It's also debatable how good the Roundup Ready® weed and insect-resistant seed actually works in relation to pests, specifically when it has created an evolution of newer stronger pests that are resistant...to the resistance. Roundup®, an herbicide used on crops dates back as far as 1974, and hasn't done enough to keep the insects and other pests from evolving. They just keep mutating and getting stronger.

Used over years herbicides and pesticide create, and have created, bigger and stronger pests as insects and bugs adapt themselves through natural modification, the way nature intended - but at a rate much higher because "nature" now demands it(7). Survival of the fittest insect. Take the development of the Superworm in the corn belt of the Midwest of The United States(8) for example, which means Monsanto will now have to create, and sell to the Roundup Ready® seed buyer (because they are not allowed to use anything else), newer stronger chemicals for defence of your crops. It hardly seems worth it.

To break it down and illustrate the problem/issue even further; using a GMO patented seed is like buying a modified seedless watermelon. You can eat the watermelon, like you harvest a crop. But without seeds you can't reproduce the watermelon.
Or lets put it a different way.
You want a baby (A Corn Plant). A cute cuddly squirmy thing to raise and make your minion, but you are infertile (No Seeds). So every time you want to make a baby, you have to outsource to an adoption company (Monsanto); and each baby you adopt is also sterile (No Seeds) - so they will also have to adopt (from Monsanto) to have babies of their own (More Corn Plants). And the cycle continues.
It might be a rudimentary example. Either way, you are the slave to provider, and you have no freedom of your own, and it's not how nature intended it.

Image Source

When it comes to corn and soybean seed, not to mention all the other countless crops they are now owning, like alfalfa, canola, cotton, sorgum, soybeans, sugar beets and wheat(9), with the future crops of rice, papaya, eggplant, squash, peppers, potatoes and wheat set to be commercialized in the next few years(10); and oh, yeah, they bought Seminis this year, the world's largest developer, grower and marketer of vegetable seeds, which has been met with outrage...and very little media coverage.(11)

Back to the crime scene then.

When buy from Monsanto you sign away your rights to reproduce your food and the food for everybody else, forcing you to buy seeds from them every year; if your plants get sick, you can only buy medicine from them; If they inspect your field and find you are in breech of the agreement they can file a lawsuit against you, and they can even file expensive lawsuits(12), like in the case of Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser(13) if even the seed is blown on your property from neighbouring fields, because they want their cut.

Plowing Away The Prairie, At A Price, was really good a read overall, simple, yet absolutely inspiring some might say...if you're an American who cares about food prices, food security, health, safety, freedom. If you are concerned about a beautiful country whose fruited plains are going to be government subsidized GMO corn and soy beans, and pavement...do something. Even if means writing about it and helping people find out about it.

"History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people."
~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

The point is, people aren't given the freedom of choice with their food; money and greed are destorying this country, and the 47% aren't the victims, we are all the victims. And it's killing us, it's killing the planet, it's another thing killing the hope. But by speaking up, you can help make changes, you can take responsibility for your life and environment...because, like one the authors from one of our favourite books says...

“That is the paradox of the epidemic: that in order to create one contagious movement, you often have to create many small movements first.”
~ Malcolm Gladwell, The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference

------

Sources and Citation:

Plowing Away The Prairie, At A Price, Josephine Marcotty, Star Tribune, September 23, 2012 http://www.startribune.com/local/170850241.html?page=1&c=y&refer=y

Genetically Engineered Crops, The Center For Food Safety, 2012 http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/campaign/genetically-engineered-food/crops/

(1) Influence of Lobbying PAC data for Monsanto Company Summary, OpenSecrets.org Center for Responsive Politics, September 2012, http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00042069

(2) Congress OKs GMOs, Monsanto Makes Sure You Can Grow Them at Home, Krista Simmons, liast.com, June 22, 2012 http://laist.com/2012/06/22/congress_says_gmos_are_ok_allows_fo.php

(3)  Is Monsanto Evil? TYT Networks, September 22, 2012, Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7DqaJ3QgHU&feature=share



(4) The Case of the FLAVR SAVR Tomato, G. Bruening, J.M. Lyons, California Agriculture 54(4):6-7. DOI: 10.3733/ca.v054n04p6. July-August 2000 http://ucanr.org/repository/CAO/landingpage.cfm?article=ca.v054n04p6&fulltext=yes

(5) Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, James W Glosse, Information Systems For Biotechnology, 1991, PDF http://www.isb.vt.edu/documents/ea/9107901r.ea.pdf

(6) 'Bitter Seeds' Documentary Reveals Tragic Toll of GMOs in India, Claire Thompson, International Union of Conservation of Nature, August 16, 2012 http://www.iucn.org/about/union/commissions/ceesp/?10708/Bitter-Seeds-documentary-reveals-tragic-toll-of-GMOs-in-India

(7) Approval of New Chemical-Resistant GMOs Likely to Prompt Pesticide Escalation, Jill Richardson, Center for Media and Democracy, August 28, 2012 http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/08/11727/approval-new-chemical-resistant-gmos-likely-prompt-pesticide-escalation

(8) How Genetically Modified Corn Is Creating Super Worms, Aviva Shen, September 5, 2012 http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/09/05/796781/genetically-modified-corn-gives-rise-to-superworms-as-agribusiness-lobbies-against-gmo-labeling/

(9) Agricultural Seed Products, Monsanto, 2012 http://www.monsanto.com/products/Pages/monsanto-agricultural-seeds.aspx

(10) GM Food Production Increasing, Rich Keller, AG Professional, September 12, 2012 http://www.agprofessional.com/agprofessional-magazine/GM-food-production-increasing-169514076.html?ref=076

(11) Occupy Monsanto Stops GMO Seed Distribution, Occupy Monsanto, The Sacramento Bee, September 12, 2012 http://www.sacbee.com/2012/09/12/4814249/occupy-monsanto-stops-gmo-seed.html

(12) Small Farmers Fight Becomes Anti-Biotech Crusade, Paul Elias, Associated Press/USAToday, January 19, 2004 http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2004-01-19-schmeiser_x.htm

(13) Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser and Canadian Federal Court http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2001/2001fct256/2001fct256.html

Blame Everybody. Blame Nobody. Blame Yourself.

You have to “blame” something, right? Or someone?

Yes. and No.

We wanted to take this moment to discuss a pet peeve…because we can, because this is our blog, and that's all the reason we need.

If you follow enough people on Twitter you get a real cross-section of people, and their varying views about personal responsibility. What we want to talk about it something we've seen being said for months now, in different ways, which all boil down to the same concept.

One view we’ve seen, on more than one occasion, are opinions like in a tweet we read today that reference people’s bad actions, stating they can always claim they are a result of their environment, and then they referenced Twitter as being a hotbed for such behaviour (when in fact, it’s people everywhere, all the time, always).

Now, we are a fan of the person who wrote the tweet (and we are obviously not going to name names), and we’re sure she was doing what The Boyfriend refers to as “taking the piss out of someone” or in this case, someones; which means, making a joke, obviously; we hope she was anyway.

We have also seen some tweets (on several occasions) saying demeaning things about people, their actions, and making reference to a history of child of abuse not being a valid reason for behavior…which really appalled us, if only because in the snarky bitchy way they worded it. Not because we ARE a victim of such a thing as child abuse (though we are) but the audacity of the people writing such things which are clearly ignorant and insensitive.

This way of thinking is not in which we prescribe, the opinion that bad behavior can simply be blamed on (or not blamed on) environmental and sociological factors, because while the formation of a person, their behaviours and beliefs, starts young in life (and continue all through life) and people are absolutely influenced by life factors…people can overcome it, if they choose to shift their paradigm of thinking, and responding, yet some choose to be a victim of it, using it as a crutch in life for their poor behavior and problems in life.

"My life is this way, or I think this way because of A, B and C...and that's just the way I am." (usually stated by a miserable person, who makes other people miserable, because of A, B and C)

People need only study/read (basic) developmental psychology and sociology texts, or you know, think about things logically, to understand…being a product of ones environment, a product of their upbringing, a product of their experiences with the world is how people develop as a human being.

Now, this isn't meant to sound preachy, we just get tired of willful ignorance, and want to share this way of thinking...so we don't find people, and stab them instead. See writing saves lives. *wink*

Seriously though, this understanding is how we have survived and been able to manage people, their actions, their emotions and attitudes; and how we, over time, have worked to accept people, cull patience; and also understand when we can't continue to be in the presence of people who do not understand and accept that people just do not spontaneously and blindly become who they are; which is the point we are trying to make.

There is scientific data and research in psychological sociology up the ying-yang to support the concept of human development - you can find some of it by using Google, and books, but please…Wikipedia is not a solid source of information all on its own…while it DOES reference good sources of information, it’s not even an adequate Cliff’s Notes (do they still make those? Are we old now?).

Back at it then.

One thing to always keep in mind, is that while you are a product of your environment and experiences, its how you choose to respond to it that is your choice, that's the part you have control over.

Here’s an example, and this is a basic one to understand, mostly because lots of people (most) have relationship where things like this happen:

One person in a relationship gets angry at their significant other about something likely insignificant and so they yell at them, or does something to make them realize they have done something wrong, and even though the significant other understands their partner “may be overreacting”, the significant other apologizes for whatever they did. What happens from there may vary, of course...grudges may be help on either side, deterioration of the relationship...whatever, it could go in endless directions.

If the person who is angry would take a moment to think about whether or not their anger is founded in something concrete or important, before they yell and get upset, they may find that perhaps their significant other is entitled to an apology too. It’s not THEIR fault that the other person got angry...simply stated...

It's not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters.~ Epictetus

That’s just one example, obviously sometimes people deserve an angry outburst, but they also deserve to have a partner, friend, co-worker, stranger etc, who acts towards them accordingly, because, don't you? People shouldn't let the negative aspects of their upbringing and experiences destroy them as a person, or let them destroy another person, because it's never-ending madness.

Of course WE don't always prescribe to this (the part where we analyze ourselves before we react...the blame we usually accept), it's not always easy, but we try. This past weekend was a failure in which we had an outburst of words in a Facebook message to The Father...we said some mean things to him, and they should have been directed at someone else (or nobody else), but we said them out of pain and humiliation...we know that...and we felt bad the next day. We have yet to apologize, but...we're just trying to be honest. It's not easy. (and we will apologize...)

We've just gotten tired of people thinking outside influences shouldn't be a reason for behavior and actions, and experiences with others like friends, parents, relatives, strangers, for the way they act, they are a valid reason for people's actions, and they are environment (experience, upbringing and human interaction/relations) which are what develop a person’s perception, beliefs, evaluation ability and actions; however, that doesn't mean that the person cannot control, change or overcome the characteristics they develop from those experiences. All it takes is the will and desire to take personal responsibility.

Your attitude, as a human being, is expected to develop and continue to grow over time based on continued experience.

Need someone to blame? You, like us, should probably look in a mirror first.

------------------------------------------------------------------

We'd love to hear opinion on this, because after all, it's based on ours only, which has been influenced by our current experiences to date (which are those with people, texts, University classes, and shared communication). We love debate, and we don't get a lot of it.

Anyway, thanks for reading...sorry if you didn't find it interesting enough, there is a whole crap load of other stuff to read here, about sex and food, and all that...just take a look around.

Is anyone else exhausted?

~Frank et al