It is not difficult to understand that genes from a desert animal or plant can be exploited to develop corn with drought resistance.

But it is more difficult to understand that animals and plants are not really drought resistant, even if they live in a desert. They have only adapted to exploit the small amount of moisture that condenses due to higher temperature differences between night and day.

If this is true, does drought resistant GMO corn really exist?

Deductive reasoning gives us indications about a low probability for the existance of drought resistant corn, based on the abovementioned statements. Even producers of the GMO corn are admitting this.

Reasoning is something most people are born with, because they are adaptable organisms, like desert animals and plants. If this adaptability is something that is evident in our genes, it is highly unlikely that GMO researchers are able to copy this trait. This is probably the main reason for an initial skepticism concerning GMO.

In the context of finding the truth about GMO, it is important to understand that it will be difficult to find the real truth through research provided on the internet. Internet brought us fantastic tools, giving us access to science and communication and thereby increasing our knowledge and freedom. But this tool can also be exploited by corporations who have monetary reasons to alter the truth and create “alternative” logical understandings. But this discussion is not what we are pursuing in this article. We are looking for the truth about GMO’s.

We will try to establish some facts about GMO, and try to connect these facts so that people can understand that simple deductive reasoning and logic, will tell us some of the hidden truths about GMO.

The adaptive organism

Everyone who study nature and evolution through surveys, field-tests, cameras, microscopes and genetics have one thing in common. They love to study its greatness.

It is almost incomprehensible that we exist in the form and shape that we exist in today, and that this is a result of evolution and adaptability. It is important that we understand that this adaptability was responsible in creating the perfect organism, and it took insanely long time.

Let’s establish a fact about this adaptability. We can assume that the genes are providing us with this adaptability, and that each adaptability-cycle differs from species. For humans and large animals, this cycle is slow, and for plants this is faster. But the main function of our genes is adaptability, because it provides a system of selection where the adaptability favors the organism who are able to sustain life in changing environments. So we can conclude the following:

Adaptability is the main trait of the organic genome

Based on this fact, we have developed knowledge about this trait in organisms. In the past, we used our reasoning to understand that this adaptability in plants was possible to exploit. So we took plants favored for our own survival and tried to grow them in our gardens. This was eventually successful, because the plants who survived was adapted to our garden, and thereby re-selected and replanted for bigger harvests. Those who died did not have the genes needed for survival.

The complexity of our selections in modern agriculture is probably more advanced today, but the same old simple principle is used.

Based on the fact about death and survival of our plants we can conclude with a simple fact:

Death is connected to adaptibility

This means that it is a directional logic behind this fact and the following can be concluded:

Death is connected to adaptability, but adaptability is not connected to death. To many people this seems strange, but is in fact simple to understand, because if you die, you did not adapt. And if you adapted, you did not die.

We can also say that survival is not connected to adaptability, but adaptability is connected to survival. It means that if you survived you adapted, but if you adapted you did not neccesarily experience survival.

The logical expressions  actually implies death and survival as a combined requirement. If either one of them is missing, there are no adaptability.

Some might argue with this, due to a dynamic environment where genes are altered during life. This might be true, but is not vital information in a dicussion about GMO’s, where adaptibility is the requirement for the technology development.

Roadside kills – adaptations’ requirement

The research about roadside-nesting cliff swallows where the swallows have evolved shorter, more maneuverable wings due to traffic, shows us that genes do not adapt due to survival, but due to death. This is confirming the above conclusions.

The vital thing is to understand that if all swallows survived, no adaptability would exist, and the length of the swallow’s wings would be unchanged. It is also vital to understand that with higher number of deaths given a certain timeframe, the adaptation is more rapid. This is a known fact, and idicates that death is the strongest cause of adaptibility .

What about the killer? In this case it is the environment, and a human invention called the car. This leads us to a well-recognized fact; it is the complexity of our environment that creates the means for death and survival. The biggest problem with our current environment is that it is solely dominated by humans.

This means that nature have a very interesting way of working, and in a setting where organisms are without enemies, the do not adapt or evolve.

Most people would disagree with such a statement, but it is not far from the truth.

But why do humans advance?

This is probably connected to other factors than genes, and is merely a question of knowledge. Humans’ unique ability to communicate knowledge through generations because of typewriters and other technologies, is the main cause. But the question of whether intelligence is connected to adaptability and genetics, is a totally different discussion.

Induced survival in GMO’s

Let’s try to establish a logical connection between the GMO, adaptability, survival, and death by using the example about the drought resistant plants.

We are not going to elaborate on differences in the questions concerning Gene-centered view of evolution (the selfish gene), or other evolutionary principles not connected to the genomes, but rather connect the established facts in a reasonable and simple way.

In our example of drought resistant corn, it is evident that researchers have found plants (organism) that lives in the desert and used plants (corn) in our gardens or agricultural fields, important to our survival. Without explaining the details around genetic manipulation, we can understand that they try to find the differences in genes between drought resistant organisms and those who are not, and thereby insert the drought resistant traits into a plant vital for our survival. Strangely enough, this seems very much like the way nature would do this, or how we would do this in our agricultural business.

It is intuitive that in the process of finding the drought gene, they have to test the organisms and the new genes for survival in drought conditions. The more survival, the more likely it is that the gene inserted codes for drought conditions.

This is the vital question: Is the process of creating GMO’s a good new way of developing new food.

Remember that the main effect and only effect the GMO engineers are looking for when designing new species, are strong and surviving species. If they are not tested for death, how can they be strong and survive?

We can ask the researchers if the drought resistant corn will be rendered useless if there are much water present? We can ask them how they found the drought resistance? How certain are they, that the gene found is the drought gene? Was it only a probability evaluation, based on the number of plants who survived? If the drought resistance is found by testing for “dry conditions” in a laboratory, the induced trait is tested for survival, not for death.

Tested for survival?

This does not seem to be logically correct, since we know that death is a requirement for adaptation. It would be neccecary to ask researchers about the other plants who died. Because some must have died, if someone survived in the laboratory.

Survived in the laboratory?

Poised for survival

If a genome is inserted to give the plant a possibility to produce a toxin to organisms that eat it, this seems natural, because it happens in nature as a measure of adaptability and survival.

But again, remember that the new gene has only been tested for its “new trait”, and those who are supposed to eat it loose the battle, not the plant.

If the plant survives, did it gain a positive evolutionary property? Not really! Basically it has been given a new property, designed to kill, but not tested for death, the requirement for it to be a sustainable and adaptable organism.

Survival due to a specific trait in specified environmental conditions such as predatory attacks, might seem to be in accordance with nature’s own selection. The problem is that the genes have not been tested in other natural settings. What about predators who are not initially known, and suddenly becomes a dangerous pest?

The fact can be expressed as a relatively simple logical conclusion:

If death is the main cause of adaptability, and survival is the main cause of a new GMO. Then the effect is the creation of organisms poised for survival.

Poised for survival? What does this really mean?

Well. Basically it means that if the GMO was a total disaster for our nature and as human food, it would still be poised for survival!

Strangely enough, some people think they can argue with logical conclusions. This is not possible.

Killing other organisms

If you search the internet for knowledge about GMO, you will be able to find several articles about Monarch butterflies. We do not have to discuss such matters in depth to understand that this is not something good. Even if the Monarch butterfly survives, it is still a ba idea.

In the past history, people used trout in their water supply as an indicator to a healty drinking water. The story about the Monarch butterfly tell us more about humans than about butterflies and trouts.

It is fairly intuitive that the researchers are testing for survival when looking for a new trait by replacing genes. This means that other organisms who might want to eat some of our corn, must adapt fast. Death is a requirement for adaptation, but as mentioned the reverse logic does not apply; and adaptation is not connected to extinction (death).

This basically means that humans are directly impacting other organisms and their death, by creating organisms poised for survival.

The book called The sixth extinction, is describing a troubling future for all natural organisms, connected to how humans apply science and advancements, by effectively neglecting important long term effects or normal deductive reasoning. Some people think that intelligence is connected to adaptivity, but is this true when we are heading towards the abyss?

Starlink maize – Cry9c

Other unbelievable information you can find when investigating GMO, is a version of corn called Starlink, engineered with resistance for pests and herbicides.

This corn is supposedly causing allergenic reactions in humans, and was recalled from the marked.

On the internet, it is difficult to find good resources to validate the story about this Starlink Maize. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention has performed an investigation surrounding this corn and its effects, and have concluded that the Cry9c protein in the corn is not causing reactions or allergic responses.

Other reports from Greenpeace and other organizations argues the opposite about Starlink corn, but does not provide plausible conclusions and understandable information. But despite these facts, it seems strange that when a health organization are supposed to report results to the public, they provide results stating: “Various samples was analyzed using Cry9c IgE specific ELISA test”. If this sound comforting to the public who ate the taco shells and nearly fainted, are only speculations. But the questions surrounding the Starlink corn are much more severe than opinions about whether the Bt-endotoxins and Cry9c proteins are dangerous to humans.

The real danger is that the food supply is determined by a single point of distribution. A company who engineers food, with potential danger to human health.

The question “Is GMO Dangerous or not?”, sounds like a rather stupefying discussion to embark on, compared to the fact that privately owned limited liability companies controls the food supply. If we include the fact that there has been a recall of a recently planted and toxic biological organism, it sounds even more absurd and makes the discussion a resemblance to a conversiation concerning a sci-fi movie. Will they be able to recall and kill all the infected grass (corn)? This sounds even more absurd than trying to exterminate the malaria mosquito.

Lets us ask the following questions:

• Did we recall a poisonous edible plant, with exact resemblance to edible food?
• Did the food contain a secret recipe, containing a toxic protein called Cry9c?
• Is this plant designed to survive?
• Is it privately owned companies who are controlling an engineered food supply to the population?
• Is this privately owned company a Limited company? Limited in its liability, and by jurisdiction?

These questions sounds like extractions from dialogues in a horror movie, where biological warfare is the main theme.

This is not a statement against GMO or genetic engineering as a field of employment, but a merely a reasonable understanding of the above listed questions, and the consequences if something goes wrong. Humans are unpredictable beings, and some might have different views on what a sustainable future means. Sustainable for who?

Privately owned, single point of origin

When some studies indicate that fertility-rates are dropping due to GMO, the distribution-system of GMO is hundred times more alarming than if the studies are correct. If there are no proven results that males become sterile due to GMO, this is not changing the current and very disturbing fact:

Private owned limited liability corporations are the single point of origin of an engineered food supply

Compared to a distributed farmer system, even the math behind such a system is wrong. If 2 million farmers collectively develops new corn just by planting them and communicating new traits found,  it is probably 1000 times more efficient than developing one trait in a GMO. This is also done in a resonable and logical way, where the environment and death of species are the main driver of adaptibility.

It is hard to think about such facts, without any feelings. But will these facts generate a non-technological and non-scientific bias against the GMO business based on feelings?

When we try to settle on a conclusion about a single point or origin and privately owned food distribution system, we have to ask questions. If there are concerns about toxic levels, allergenicity, contamination and fertility-deprivation, it is not necessary to be a rational thinker to conclude that this must be stopped.

No scientist can argue rationally about promoting a single point of origin and engineered food distribution system, owned by a privately owned limited liability corporation. We can argue that such systems already exist, through beer production and other food production. But do such systems resemble genetically modified food?

It is hard to find a serious and rationally comprehensive expression to describe such a situation, and the people exposed to it. The worst thing imaginable is that governments are actively promoting this system, to implement it worldwide.

If the food is killing you – kill the food

Would you allow poisonous (edible) food in your garden, if you have children?

Would you have toxic plants in your garden, if you understand that there is a remote probability that they might kill the butterflies?

Would you expose your family to food, if any rumors exist about contamination who can endanger or sterilize your family’s children?

Would you let only one man handle your food, if your food tastes bad or you have doubt about its content?

Would you let only one man handle your food, if it tastes bad and he do not want to tell you what’s in your food, but that it contains a secret recipe and toxic protein called Cry9c?

The normal reaction to a toxic food is to throw it in the garbage. If the food is growing in the garden, you kill it. If the food is delivered by your neighbor, you make sure he is arrested. If those who deliver this food try to hide behind arguments about climate crisis, government regulations or technology babble, find them and remove them from their positions.

The fact that people accept that it is possible to answer yes to any of the above questions, is more worrying than the questions mere existence.